I was going to post some the last few days, but then I saw this:
Happy Thanksgiving
Now get of off the computer and spend some time with your family, will you?
I always follow Bob Owens instructions.
Of course he is rather disgusted with The New Republic, which continues to dither, as well as the Washington Post, which is busy framing the Bilal Hussein story in rather misleading ways.
Whatever the outcome of the Beauchamp affair, it is important to remember that the narrative the various stories were trying to establish, the reason the stories had any import at all, is already disproven:
How does the magazine justify standing behind the central theme of “Shock Troops”—that war made the author into a horrible person—when the magazine itself now claims that the alleged verbal attack took place before the author ever entered combat?
So, either Beauchamp was already a hideously disturbed person (which means the story lied about why he did what he did) or the story was a work of dishonest fiction. All the other stuff about what happened is all pretty much beside the point, if as a matter of journalistic ethics important, at this juncture.
[tags] Bilal Hussein, The New Republic, Scott Beauchamp, Iraq, war, military [/tags]
About Lance
I want to thank everybody who has encouraged me over the past few years to do this. I doubt it will hold but a few people's interest, but that is okay with me. Special thanks go to Peter over at http://www.liberalcapitalist.com.
I value my privacy a great deal, so I will guess you will have to get to know me over time to find out much. I am in the financial services, wealth management, investing or whatever you want to call it business. I have children, my oldest is entering college.
I have no great or imposing academic background, my grades varied from high enough to get invited to an honors program at my university to frustrating enough to cause my father great grief. My major was history, with a minor in ethics. My main interest towards the end was in the history of economic ideas before life took a turn and I ended up never going on to graduate school. However, I have a fair knowledge of history, economics, investing and would probably be considered well read. My tastes are eclectic and I pretty much find the entire world interesting.
I have an enduring interest in how people learn about and analyze the world; my posts here will examine this topic in detail over time. I make no claims to be above the very biases and errors I see in others, in fact it is my belief that we are incapable of escaping them, only moderating their control over us.
I am a member of no political party, but I would broadly consider myself a man of the right. I am inclined to free market economics, limited government and a fairly narrow view of the role of the state. A small L libertarian if you will. However, if you are looking for broad based "the left believes..." or "wingers are so...." types of attacks on liberals, conservatives, neo-cons or whatever enemy you want to slam, look elsewhere.
Lance
I always follow Bob Owens instructions
From the mouths of babes, springs forth truth.
How does the magazine justify standing behind the central theme of “Shock Troops”—that war made the author into a horrible person
That’s some high-quality straw there, that you’ve stuffed into that straw man. Swept from the finest barns and all. Central theme, says whom? A bunch of right-wing self-appointed diviners of meaning have Annointed it As Objective Fact, Despite its subjective essence, that’s whom, you say?
Washington Post, which is busy framing the Bilal Hussein story in rather misleading ways.
Yes. Terribly misleading not to include a point of hearsay trivia that Bob Owens thinks somehow justifies the eighteen month incarceration without trial of an Iraqi journalist and his subsequent dump onto an Iraqi court under kangaroo-court evidentiary rules. That changes everything.
I am clueless about how that is a straw man. That was the central point of the stories. It was in the actual text, the stories were used as evidence by others to demonstrate what kind of brutality we were breeding amongst our troops.
In fact, of what interest were the stories to The New Republic, or anyone else, if they were just isolated stories about what a creep Beauchamp is? Because, if it wasn’t the war that did it to him, that is all the story shows. Of course, Beauchamp explicitly wasn’t claiming he was merely a maladjusted personality (why would he do that?) but that his story was a commentary on the war. In fact you have defended him and his claims on the same grounds. So, I find this entire complaint a bit odd.
However, if that wasn’t the point, please enlighten us as to what it was?