Iraqi Parliament takes a break

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth since the Iraqi lawmakers have decided to chill for the month of August. This is not particularly helpful given the political situation back here, but we shouldn't expect them to live by our schedule. Our own Parliament of Whores does pretty much the same thing for the same reason, when it's stupid hot nobody makes good decisions or deals. Would it have been better if they had made an oil deal or some reconciliation work? Of course, but they weren't going to make any huge progress in this one month, and now we can pressure them to deal with things in their home districts.

Spare me the reminder that our troops are handling the same conditions outside in full battle rattle. I know, and I also know that I am sitting in an air-conditioned room wearing shorts and a t-shirt as I write this. But that is not relevant, if the troops want to take August off they can join the Iraqi Parliament or our Congress. I believe that falls under embracing the suck.

What they can do is continue to show the Iraqis that we can secure areas and they can live in relative peace. We can also meet with those same Iraq lawmakers as we have been doing with tribal leaders all over the country. We can drink tea and plan reconstruction projects and restore or implement the elements of a civil society. We can also make sure they know what our expectations are once they reconvene.

In the meantime there are some folks doing yeoman's work back here in the fight against those who would rather hang a victory on W than allow our troops the chance to win. Pete Hegseth and the Vets for Freedom have been hard at it in a ten week plan to keep the pressure on Congress. Now they are in week 4, which calls for folks to sign up to be in DC on 17 & 18 Sept. to tell Congress that pulling the plug as we are seeing progress would be shameful.

The Resurgence of The Surge

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

The anti-war left has gone pretty much all out in their surge against the surge and thus far all Harry Reid and company have managed is to fail to do anything at all. Sadly, given our Congress, that is the best that could be hoped for. Reid went so far as to call the surge doomed prior to the last troops even leaving the US. I try to give opponents of the war the benefit of the doubt , but the problem is their lack of concern over the effects of a sudden withdrawal make that difficult. Jonah Goldberg has a recent quote that points out one aspect of this.

  "Liberals used to be the ones who argued that
    sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price
    to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that
    genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S.
    troops home."

A genocide, or several, in Iraq is the first of many bad things that our running away will cause. Next comes an Al Qaeda in Iraq resurgence and likely naming of Baghdad as capital of a resurgent Caliphate. Throw in Iran's certain dominance of most of Shia Iraq and it's own expansionist plans and you have the Sunni-Shia perfect storm, I mean it would be everything Ahmadinejad and the 12th Imam-ers could hope for. Add in a turbocharged Iranian nuke program and FFS I'm ready to check on my go to hell plans.

I can understand frustration with the lack of success in Iraq and have said I hold Rumsfeld responsible for holding on to his Iraqification policy long after it was obvious we were fighting against an insurgency. Now that we have implemented actual Counter-Insurgency doctrine (COIN) we are seeing the difference that the proper strategy supplies. The problem is that our political system has already intruded on this and will continue to do so. Add to that the media's negative noise machine and too many Americans just want it to stop. That is what we have to overcome to win our troops a chance to win this war.

Unfortunately for the would be losers  the tide is against them and they are increasingly faced with voices they should not deny telling everyone things are improving demonstrably. One is the NY Times Baghdad Chief John Burns, who should hear no questioning of his credibility from any side, and he gave Hugh Hewitt an interview in which he says that things have definitely changed for the better and the prospects for peace are higher than they have ever been. The nwe have the piece by the Brookings scholars who just returned from Iraq saying that for the first time we appear to have things on track and we should continue to support efforts at actual victory.

Attempts to discredit any voice with positive news about Iraq have already begun with particularly over-rated Matthew Yglesias weighing in on Petraeus and already finding he and his prospective report wanting. While reminiscent of a bed louse lecturing Leonidas it is emblematic of the tone on the left currently. They are mad as hell and they are not gonna take any of this good news BS.

Somehow I don't think calling heroic US leaders reporting on our path toward victory liars is a great plan, but hey Dems good luck with that.

Audio of my bit this morning on 97.1 St. Louis with Jamie Allman

Marine Sergeant DJ Emery - Update 7 - DJ's Riders

Posted By Blackfive

Many of you have asked for an update of Marine Sergeant DJ Emery.  You ask, we provide.  If you are not familiar with DJ, at least read the first and last links:

RE:  Spiritual Warfare - Marine Corporal David Emery Jr. (February 2007)
RE:  Spiritual Warfare - DJ Emery (March 2007)
RE:  Marine Corporal DJ Emery Update 2 (April 13, 2007)
RE:  Marine Corporal DJ Emery Update 3 (April 21, 2007)
RE:  MOABS in DC (April 27, 2007)
RE:  DJ Emery - Update 5 (May 10th, 2007)
RE:  Marine Sergeant DJ Emery - Update 6

So, there was a recent announcement that a charity motorcycle run is being held in DJ's honor in central Pennsylvania:

Motorcycle run benefiting Sergeant DJ Emery
Sunday, September 2, 1:00 p.m., rain or shine

Taking DJ’s favorite 120 mile run
Have your tank filled, ready to leave at 12:50
Leaving from Milesburg Community Park, taking DJ’s
favorite 120 mile run through Centre and Clinton Counties

Registration starts at 11 a.m.
    Have your tank filled, ready to roll at 12:50
Raffle, 50/50 drawing and picnic at end of the run

If you can't participate in the run, donations can be mailed - Checks or money orders can be made out to the "Nittany Leathernecks Detachment" and sent to:

Nittany Leathernecks
Attn: Cpl. Emery Fund
P.O. Box 956, Lemont PA  16851-0956

Donations can also be made at any Nittany Bank branch.

You can send DJ a card at:         

Sgt. David Emery
Mologne House
6900 Georgia Ave.
NW Building 20
RM 246
Washington, D.C.  2030-5001

CJR/McLeary Responds

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

Via both Baldilocks and CDR. Salamander, comes what appears to be a sincere -- if profoundly troubling -- mea culpa in regards this.

I have to admit, I had wondered how this came to be. As Blackfive noted in an e-mail yesterday, this is the same Paul McLeary who had interviewed him for Blog of War. At the same time, however, not much surprises me in terms of old media bias, arrogance, or ignorance about the military, intelligence, or other "esoteric" beats.

Mr. McLeary, you have indeed stepped in it. We all have done so, and probably all have (as noted by others) put out something that did not mean what we said. At the same time, I find myself in agreement with others on continuing problems.

First up, the use of the term "chickenhawk." Baldilocks has written about the idiocy of using the term before, as have others. It's use is intended to stiffle debate and discussion, and it serves no good purpose whatsoever outside of that. It's use is usually a mark of moral and intellectual cowardice (and general lack in those areas), in my opinion. PLEASE SEE UPDATE BELOW.

Second, the good commander has it right when noting that you still appear to remain focused on the messenger, rather than the message. The messenger has nothing to do with the fact that in this case the private was lying and TNR did a bad job of journalism and journalistic integrity. Your rant doesn't help the latter at all, either.

Third, he is also on the mark when you appear to somehow equate Hugh Hewitt and others as springing from the same source as milblogs. As someone who has covered them as extensively as you note, you should know a lot better.

Fourth, while I can't speak for Hewitt, Baldilocks notes that some of your blog targets have left the comfort of their air conditioned offices and made a trip to gather facts. I would add in Confederate Yankee and others to that list.

While your mea culpa is a step in the right direction, the profound problems that underly your original piece remain. I would still fail both missives in a JM 101 course, and I say that as someone who believes in real journalism (not the media) and who is proud to have the words Kappa Tau Alpha associated with his name.

Since there are some profound and troubling issues that remain, let me make an offer. This fat ol' crip is willing to take a leave of absence, or quit my day job if necessary, to take a trip to embed with the troops. As part of that journey, let's you and I go visit the unit in question, and let the people there tell you the problem with the message. Let's visit a few other milbloggers while we are at it, maybe a few other bloggers period, and see if they can help. I'm willing to put it all on the line right now, especially if the money could be raised to cover the process via PMI, and to ensure I still had a lair to which to return. How about it, are you and CJR willing to put your money where your mouth is? I'm willing to put my body and what meager funds I have on the line for this. How about you?

LW

UPDATE AND CORRECTION: I have just had a cordial and positive e-mail exchange with Paul McLeary. There is discussion and dialog underway. That said, I do need to note an error on my part. It is important to note that he did not use the word "chickenhawk" in his original article. I read it in by inference, but he did not use it. The error is mine, and I apologize for it. LW

Army Col. Stephen Twitty at the Blogger's Roundtable

Posted By Grim

We talked to the commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cav, Multinational Division-North.  The transcript is here.  There are several important exchanges on IO, measures of effectiveness for the counterinsurgency strategy and how it is tracking (short version:  according to current MoE, very well), and more in the extended entry.

By the way, if you're reading along, there's an exchange at the start where the Colonel is correcting how his name is pronounced.  It's Colonel 'ste-FAHN' Twitty, which the transcript doesn't make clear.  Since it was important enough to him to correct it, I figured you'd like to know.

Continue reading "Army Col. Stephen Twitty at the Blogger's Roundtable"

What happens to the Democrats if they bet on the wrong horse?

Posted By Blackfive

Last night, I was working on a Corporate Finance final exam and watched the Democrat YouTube debate on CNN.  I wondered why the question, "What if we have progress in Iraq, would you still advocate a withdrawal?" was never asked.

To be fair, all of them advocate the withdrawal idea;  HOWEVER, only Hilary Clinton was a realist about how long it would take to do so safely and orderly.  She mentioned that there wasn't a plan for withdrawal.  BS.  I'll bet there's about ten different plans for withdrawal sitting on the shelves of the Pentagon right now.  There is no plan in effect for withdrawal because, well, right now we are not withdrawing.  Actually, Senator, we are surging which, may I point out, is quite the opposite of withdrawing.

Anyway, most of the videos about the war were "model citizens" asking about when would you withdraw from Iraq.  Pretty lame.  There were some awful attempts at humor too (the Tennessee guys were terrible).

I guess the Democrats cannot or will not even try to devise their own plan to succeed...which means that they think that we cannot succeed.

If I could talk to them, I'd look them in the eye and ask them what they would do if we were actually succeeding when they took office.  I believe that some would do the right thing (Richardson, Clinton), and some would do the politically expedient thing (Biden).  The others owe too much (financially) to the whack jobs trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Some interesting questions would be:

What will happen to the Democrat candidates if success continues?

And what will Harry Reid and other Democrat leaders do to mitigate that success in order to win the Presidential election?

Personally, I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would throw the Iraqis and our soldiers under the bus for a Presidential victory.

Will they even attend the September assessment presented by General David H. Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker?

The New York Times today has this piece from two men who were for the invasion of Iraq, then against the continuation of our presence in Iraq, and now...:

A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

The New York Times

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work...

For more, including the soccer victory of Iraq over Saudi Arabia, see Jimbo's post below.

And I'll put the recent Congressional testimony of former Assistant Secretary of Defense (and Marine and Vietnam Vet) Bing West after the Jump. His last four points should be posted across the blogosphere and you would do well to read them:

Continue reading "What happens to the Democrats if they bet on the wrong horse?"

Good News from Iraq in the NYT?

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

LT Fishman delivers the SurgeWrap and while he leads with a great story, the soccer victory, I have to add in the piece in today's NY Times. It is written by two Brookings Institute scholars who just returned from Iraq. They have been critics of administration policies and strategy in Iraq and noted poor conditions on previous visits. Keep in mind that Brookings is a traditional liberal think tank when you read "A war we just might win"

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Now the victory of the Iraqi soccer team is a tasty dessert after that nice piece of red meat. It is hard for most Americans to understand just how important soccer is to almost every other country in the world. It is the simplest game and anywhere you go, regardless how poor they are, the kids will be kicking some kind of ball around. We always brought soccer balls with us on deployments; it is a tremendous way to make some friends quickly. For a country that hasn't had much to cheer about in a while beating the Saudis is a huge prize. It takes national pride to overcome sectarian differences and if it's soccer that bridges the gap, so be it.

Calls for Unity in Iraq After Soccer Win

Jul 30, 5:33 AM (ET) By STEVEN R. HURST  BAGHDAD (AP) - Hundreds of pages have been ripped from the calendar since Iraqis last showed the unity and happiness that flowed across the land on Sunday. And it would have been foolhardy to predict a soccer team - the determined Lions of the Two Rivers - would unleash a flood of joy held back for decades by the dam of Saddam Hussein's tyranny and four-plus years of war since America toppled him. But after the team's victory in the prestigious 2007 Asian Cup, the Iraqi people seemed far ahead of their leaders in letting sectarian bygones be bygones and allowing ethnic atrocities to fade. Despite a security crackdown, curfews banning vehicles, and decrees forbidding the penchant in this part of the world to grab an AK-47 and rip off celebratory rounds, people rejoiced in the streets - and gunfire roared.
It roared across Baghdad at the second-half goal against Saudi Arabia. It was deafening when the underdog Lions sealed the 1-0 victory in Jakarta, Indonesia. The Iraq team's win dripped with symbolism, not least in the makeup of its front-line strikers: one Kurd, one Shiite, one Sunni.

My bold to point out that reconciliation means exactly this.

Continue reading "Good News from Iraq in the NYT?"

Just Wanted to Say Hi to My Buddies in the AWRAC

Posted By Blackfive

Good friend and Blackfive reader, Uncle Ben, was recently traveling across the country and spotted a soldier sitting alone at an airport restaurant.  Ben walks over, introduces himself, and buys the soldier lunch.

Ben asks soldier, "What do you do for the Army?"

Soldier, "I'm in the Army's Web Risk Assessment Cell."

Ben, "What's that?"

Soldier, "We evaluate military blogs, web sites, My Space pages and the like for information that shouldn't be made public."

Ben, "You ever hear of Blackfive?"

Soldier laughs, "Yeah, we know him.  You?"

Ben, seeing an opportunity to gather intel kept him talking.  The rest of the conversation was interesting, but I don't want to embarrass or inadvertently get the MI soldier in trouble.  After all, I got the lobotomy and entered the MI Corps in the mid 90s.

Just wanted to send out "Hiyah, MI guys!"

Disclaimer:  While I find it somewhat funny to be monitored, I support the fact that the Army needs to evaluate soldier communications for OPSEC violations.  What I disagree with (from the beginning) is the manner in which the evaluation is conducted and communicated...I think the AWRAC is a good idea, no matter how much the Army blew the chance to get blogs done right via the regs.

More later...

Mike Yon in Baqubah

Posted By Blackfive

Mike Yon's latest dispatch, Bird's Eye View, discusses some of the changes in Iraq and the US Army since 2005.  But one thing doesn't seem to change - the commanders are still war-fighters that don diplomatic demeanors:

...While the battle goes on just nearby, battalion commanders like LTC Mo Goins (who had lost a soldier days earlier) keep popping out of combat to attend civil meetings to keep nudging and whipping forward the momentum for getting things working again. There’s something odd about the way these commanders come in sweating and dirty, and grindlessly switch gears to talk diplomatically — and sometimes not-so diplomatically – about water distribution....

Reuters Gets on Marine Sergeant's Bad Side

Posted By Grim

Our old friend, a Marine Sergeant, emailed to mention a recent Reuters article from his AO.  It begins:

Three U.S. soldiers were killed during combat operations on Thursday in western Anbar province, an al Qaeda stronghold in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Monday.

Now, that suggests that "the U.S. military said" that Anbar was "an al Qaeda stronghold in Iraq." the Marine Sergeant notes:

Anbar is an AQ stronghold in Iraq? *Really*? That's funny because Reuters, AP, NYT, WSJ and WaPo have all done reporting that Al Qaeda is shattered in Anbar via the "tribal awakening." They certainly haven't made their "stronghold" in the entire fricking province.

This is just bad reporting all around. It's an al Qaeda stronghold? Who says? Certainly not the duty expert: the military. And since there's no attribution we don't know if anyone whose opinion or assessment of such things actually said this. No, it's one reporter and his editorial chain not giving a [deleted] and preferring to advance an OpEd lede.

This isn't the first example of a news service writing its lede to suggest that the United States endorsed a proposition that really belongs to the writer.  My favorite example was this one:

A US navy carrier battlegroup is to launch a 'show of force' in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea off west Africa as part of an unprecedented global operation to demonstrate America's command of the high seas, a US diplomatic source told AFP on Friday.

I'm sure that's just what our diplomat said:  "A US navy carrier battlegroup will be holding an exercise in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea."

Apparently the news wires need to revise their stylebooks a little bit.  It matters whether the US military or the State Department was the source for these claims.  By constructing their ledes in this way, they're conveying a false impression of the facts to their readers.

Michael J. Totten on Patrol

Posted By Blackfive

Michael J. Totten is on patrol in Baghdad with the 82nd:

...“I suppose I shouldn’t smoke,” I said to Eddy.

“You got that right,” Eddy said. “Snipers wearing night vision can see the tip of your cigarette from a mile away. They’ll watch as you lift the cigarette to your mouth and figure out where your head is. Then BLAMMO. They’re really good shots.”

I kept the cigarettes in my pocket. 

“We’re being followed,” said Sergeant Fisher.

Eddy, the rest of the soldiers, and I turned around.

“Four of ‘em,” Eddy said.

I couldn’t see anyone but the soldiers standing right next to me without night vision goggles.

“Where are they?” I said.

“In the shadows two blocks behind us,” Eddy said. “There weren’t there a minute ago.”...

 

Free Speech, Free Press, And Thoughts

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

Whenever comments are deleted, or the person posting them banned, there is an immediate outcry that somehow the individuals who write for this blog, or Blackfive who founded and hosts it, are somehow infringing on free speech and/or the right to a free press. The intellectual contortions that go into such accusations are amazing, astounding, and amusing.

They are two separate issues, but are indelibly intertwined here in the Great Experiment that is our Republic. At least in the minds of some.

Given the length, the rest willl be in extended entry.

Continue reading "Free Speech, Free Press, And Thoughts"

Atlas gestures

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I can only say Bravo, and sadly I assume she's married. Pamela delivers the goods.

Radio & Tillman update

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I added this to my previous post about Kev's theory on how Pat Tillman could have been shot.

I spent most of the afternoon reading several hundred pages of testimony about Tillman's death and I will first apologize to O'Neal for the post because the fact that it is possible that he could have done what Kev detailed was not a good enough reason to put it up in the way I did. Grim had it right in the comments, Occam's razor may say the simplest solution must be true, but it doesn't mean it is. As bizarre as the possibility seems, the rounds that hit Tillman in the head likely came from a SAW and M4 carbine in the convoy behind his.

The left was running with the idea that this unlikely 3 rounds in 2" group meant something sinister. As in most cases where the left tries to gen up some slander I assumed I could easily debunk it. Well I racked my little brain and couldn't, and when Kev mentioned his theory it was the first thing I had heard that actually made sense and would explain the situation without involving Noam Chomsky. As I said that wasn't a good enough reason to make the implications I did and I again apologize to O'Neal.

Tonight, Sunday night with Kevin & Greg of Pundit Review radio which you can stream here at WRKO Sunday night at 7:25 pm Central.

Then Monday morning St. Louis must pay the price as my usual gig with Jamie Allman of 97.1 TALK  (to listen) kicks off at 830 am Central. Do check out Allman's blog Bull Moose America.

Yet One More Reason "Journalists" Continue To Circle The Bottom Of The Trustworthiness Scale

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

Via Baldilocks, comes this monumental piece of dreck. The money quote is:

How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)

While this is CJR, it is still by journalists and about journalism. You would think that they might could scare up at least some basics of journalism 101 and do some research, or spare a layer or two of that much vaunted fact checking that guarantees the accuracy, honesty, and neutrality of the true bastions of journalism that are the Old Media.

Hint for the cognitively impaired: Read author notes to the right -- I am the only civilian here. All the others are former or current serving military, and several have indeed seen the elephant. Read the author sketches at other places, and you might just find that they too have served or are serving; that some of the people who smelled something happend to have served at or spent considerable time at the base in question; and, that contrary to the overwrought lie they don't hate the troops.

They are the troops.

LW

Kev figures out who shot Pat Tillman (Maybe)

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I spent most of the afternoon reading several hundred pages of testimony about Tillman's death and I will first apologize to O'Neal for the post because the fact that it is possible that he could have done what Kev detailed was not a good enough reason to put it up in the way I did. Grim had it right in the comments, Occam's razor may say the simplest solution must be true, but it doesn't mean it is. As bizarre as the possibility seems the rounds that hit Tillman in the head came from a SAW and M4 carbine in the convoy behind his.

UPDATE: I have taken some, in my opinion, deserved criticism for posting this. Kev and I discussed whether it was proper and the concern was that we were naming someone personally. The problem was that he was already on record as speaking to the media. I have read all the info I can find and if it was the SAW gunner who killed him it is the most improbable set of bullet impacts I can imagine. Even mounted on a pintle the muzzle jump would make it impossible for three rounds from the same burst to impact in a 2" circle at this distance. I am reading the entire 15-6 report to see if there are any other points that have been missed. I posted this because I don't think the issue will be treated fairly and honestly, I understand Grim's thoughts that it is better to suffer the fools in silence and stay above the fray. I just don't do that. I think we learn plenty from the fray as long as it is an open discourse. I often change my mind after flaws in my reasoning are pointed out and I will have no problem doing so in this case. I understand the feelings of those who think, better left alone. But this case has been so completley goat screwed from jump street that conspiracies get more traction than they deserve.

I spent a goodly amount of time trying to come up with a way for Pat Tillman to have taken 3 rounds to the forehead in a 2" group. I was unable to come up with any way that this was possible accidentally. I had eliminated the kid right next to him as a possible shooter. I think because he had been quoted by name. Kev and I sat and discussed this and he had assumed that this was exactly who had shot him.

Recall that the last thing Tillman is thought to have done is yelling at the troop next to him who was frozen.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

As Kev pointed out, Tillman was likely leaning over O'Neal telling him to get off his ass, and it is possible that he braced himself on his elbows to get up, which would have pointed his weapon up perpendicular to the ground. He could have accidentally triggered a 3 round burst at 2 or 3 feet range. This would explain the tight grouping, the number of rounds and is physically possible. We were unable to come up with any other way this could have happened accidentally. In addition O'Neal has made a statement that contradicts the chaplain and does not make sense for Tillman in the context.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

This is simply a SWAG, a Scientific Wild Ass Guess, and if O'Neal did not do this he has my and Kev's sincere apologies. We both operate with the belief that it was an accident caused when he attempted to react to Tillman's orders.

The military knows what happened and I understand that they don't want to victimize whoever did shoot him. We thought a while whether we should post this and in the end it was a strange enough situation that absent explanation it could remain an issue. Bottom line, war is dangerous as hell.

Book Review: Lone Survivor

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

This is one of those books that poses problems for a reader and reviewer. It challenges concepts, perceptions, and pre-conceived notions. It is engaging, well written, well paced. The style is easy, a delight to read for one can in effect hear it -- a sign of a natural story teller -- even as you read. It pushes the range of emotions, with the reader laughing one page, and literally having tears stream down your face before two more pages are turned. That said, I would give much that this book need never have been written, or written for very different reasons.

Lone Survivor is a book that is hard to read, knowing the reason for it being written; yet, it is an easy read, a delight to read in most other respects. Marcus Luttrell had a mission, and I would deem it an unqualified success.

It is not just a tale of a mission gone bad, though that is a tame way of describing how horribly wrong things went and the losses suffered. It is not just a tale of how he came to be a part of that group and his part in the mission. Those are in some ways but a secondary part to the greater goal: bringing the people of Seal Team 10 to life for the reader, making them people with whom you can identify, empathize, and see as the individuals they were. Marcus Luttrell succeeds in humanizing them, in making them much more than numbers, or brief footnotes in a media story.

The tale he tells is a very human one, compelling in all the best ways of a man and a writer. Over the years, I've read accounts of Hell Week and training, some of them rather dry and technical, others somewhat self-aggrandizing. This is the first time I can honestly say that I felt it, that was presented in a way that made it realistic and understandable. In so doing, it made the rest of the story accessible.

From the writing, it is clear that Marcus Luttrell has a gift for telling the tale. I rather suspect that Patrick Robinson has helped sharpen that tale, given it the excellent pacing and structure of the journey from boy to man, recruit to SEAL, all encompassed within the framework of a journey to and on a mission from beginning to end. Yet, this is the story of a team and the individuals within, and it was Marcus' tale to tell. It is clear that he has been allowed to do so, and that the basic and fundamental humanity of all involved is there to see.

It is indeed a hard book to read, for the reader knows up front why it was written and what happens. Yet, it is a book that all should read, for there is much more to the story than death. There is much more than suffering. The reason it should be read is, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story. It should be read so that you meet the people, know them as well as you can, and see that the tragic circumstances are but the tip of the iceberg. You owe it to the participants to read and know them, to appreciate them for what they were. Most of all, you owe it to yourself to read that larger story, to understand as best you can the people within, how they came to be there, what they believed, and how they lived and died, and to empathize however you can with those they left behind.

This book does not simply tell their tale, it sings their song. Read it, and listen. Learn, appreciate, and strive.

LW

Greyhawk sums up Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Posted By Blackfive

Here.

...2. In the meantime, something to bear in mind as his story is bandied about: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole. He either did what he said he did to a disfigured woman in a DFAC (which makes him an asshole) or he fabricated the story for reasons unknown (which makes him an asshole). This same methodology can be applied to his other war stories, too...

Radio Radio

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Not just an EC reference but two radio gigs to pimp.

Sunday night with Kevin & Greg of Pundit Review radio which you can stream here at WRKO Sunday night at 7:25 pm Central. Somehow I imagine my horrendous treatment of dung beetle Scotty Beauchamp will come up. Did you hear the howls from the left and poor Balloon Juice man about how I incited the hordes to draw and quarter the little lying pissant. For the record I don't even think he deserves much punishment, because I don't believe he was telling the truth, and being a sorry writer is not a crime. Maybe a little Pat Tillman as well.

Then Monday morning St. Louis must pay the price as my usual gig with Jamie Allman of 97.1 TALK  (to listen) kicks off at 830 am Central. Do check out Allman's blog Bull Moose America.

Pat Tillman shot in the head

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I didn't want to add any fuel to this, but ignoring it would not be proper. I also question the description of the bullet holes. AP

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

I have been in close proximity to two friendly fire incidents in which luckily no one was killed. In this instance two things immediately come to mind. One is why the fact that three rounds hit him in the forehead has never been mentioned before. Given the number of leaks about other things and the amount of scrutiny given to this situation I find it astonishing that this was never mentioned. Especially by his family once they began fighting the military about the circumstances of his death. Did they not know that he took three rounds to the forehead? Did they not see his body or read an autopsy report, and if so why have they not used that fact to question the fact that his death was accidental friendly fire?

Which leads directly to my second point. It is highly unlikely that someone could take three rounds to the head accidentally. The head and in this case apparently just the forehead is an extremely small and moving target. If another member of his unit had accidentally fired in his direction on three round burst, one maybe but not likely two rounds could hit a head-sized target. But three is not going to happen just due to muzzle jump. If they fired semi-automatic it is not plausible that three rounds hit him in the forehead in one burst as the first would have caused his entire body to drop at least somewhat.

This assumes that the person firing was not directly in front of Tillman at close range. I am having difficulty imagining a scenario where he could take three accidental rounds to the forehead. Were the rounds all from the same weapon? Have they identified the shooter(s)? Where was he in relation to Tillman?

Since the Army did an investigation and I assume knows the answers to these questions, they were satisfied that this was an accident. Absent that understanding, I'm having a tough time reaching that same conclusion. I do not believe that this means his death was not an accident, but it raises serious questions about where the shooter was in relation to Tillman.

I talked Pat Tillman & Jessica Lynch on CNN a while back as well, the end of that segment is when I knocked the host out when he asked about enemy propaganda and I reminded him CNN ran jihadi sniper propaganda.

Beauchamp: Silence and the Severity of the Matter

Posted By Grim

There is one thing about which I agree with our friends from the Left, including John Cole.  It is time for a period of silence on the legal issues surrounding this case.  I realize this is an unpopular opinion here, but please allow me to explain my thinking.

First, the military's only authoritative response to the issue so far is this PAO release denying some of the charges raised in Beauchamp's writings, and calling the others into question.  It is reasonably clear at this point that there will be an investigation into the question of the charges.

Second, if the military finds that the charges are false -- as the PAO's initial inquiry suggests -- there are potentially serious legal ramifications.  I am not a lawyer, so what I am about to say is not a suggestion that these charges are the proper ones to bring, but merely an illustration of how serious the matter could be.  Raising false charges of war crimes, that result in the need for your unit to disrupt operations to investigate claims you knew to be false, can reasonably be read by a layperson as a violation of UCMJ 899 art. 99:

Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—

(1) runs away;

(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;

shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Again, the decision on proper charges (if any) is the rightful duty of JAG lawyers, not me, and I don't mean to pretend otherwise.  An authoritative reading would require looking at precedent to see how "before or in the presence of the enemy" has been interpreted in the past, which I am not equipped to perform.  It's entirely possible that the JAG will determine that no charges are due, or that this section should not apply; and although it seems highly unlikely on its face, it is vaguely possible that at least some of the charges he raised will prove out.  I just want you all to understand the limit case for how serious this matter could be, if the military's investigation shows that any of the charges he raised were not true, and constitute "false alarms" for a unit in the presence of the enemy. 

We have entered the phase in which it is critical to let the DOD's legal machinery operate.  Of course you will want to continue to examine the questions involved that are not relevant to the question of whether a court martial is appropriate, etc; but this matter appears to be entering its formal stage, and we have a duty as citizens not to prejudice that process. 

Private Beauchamp and the bravest Chaplain in the World

Posted By Blackfive When left wing bloggers attack...

Greyhawk responds:

It's really sad to see someone claim they have ultimate moral authority to insult women and kill dogs without anyone questioning their character just because they've been to Iraq.

Greyhawk, in Iraq, is obviously insulted by the reaction that we're getting from the left wing.  Apparently, killing dogs, insulting women, etc. is standard operating procedure for a military man (did you get the memo?).  I would pay attention to Mudville on this topic if I were you.

And it's okay for Andrew Sullivan to get all worked up over this without any evidence...after all, Sully seems to insinuate that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are systemic of the military...at least he admits he doesn't know what he's talking about:

Look: I don't know the roots of everything Scott Thomas Beauchamp has written. If there are aspects to his first-person accounts that do not pan out, we need to know. But so far, there's no evidence of anything wrong. So far, the hysteria says far more about the hysterics than about TNR.

Sully might apologize, I'll give him that, when it comes to light that Beauchamp is an Appeal For Redress type of Asstroturfer and one who's connected to TNR and one who is either lying about or complicit in violations of the ROE.  I'll get into that shortly with Beauchamp's own words.

The rest of the leftwingosphere has been equally lacking in understanding what's happening.  Some reading Jimbo's post think he's calling Jihad on Beauchamp when in fact Jimbo is saying what you all are thinking...that the soldiers of Alpha Company are not too happy with Scott making up (liar) or embellishing (I am a writer, dammit!) or outright telling the truth (Blue Falcon) right now.  If that's surprising to you, you are lacking a distinct understanding of group dynamics.

Cole, who used to be reasonable, looks like he suffers from BDS (and looks for our take on Tilman and Lynch - which are available via something called "Google" - we haven't commented on the latest theory that he was intentionally murdered).  I'm disappointed.

Speaking of hate...maybe John and his readers might examine this piece by Beauchamp and see if it fits any kind of reality about the military.  Here is a post from May 8th, 2006, from Private Beauchamp:

"Shit, I don't know...put a 556 in his head"
On the street below the mans brown face dissolves into a thick red mist. The lights in the cities houses shut off in unison. Elecricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in hundred and twenty degree weather without water? In the streets the kids bodies start convulsing in semi-orgasmic rhythms. Their pants fill up with shit and piss and the smart ones sneak out to the fields to hidden caches of water jugs and trinkets of candy from the american soldiers.
"See that sarge, kids digging or something?"
"Well, better safe then sorry. Cap his ass Leclaire."
"You sure sarge?"
"Well, im either right or wrong. And if I'm wrong im still right because i could have been right even though i was wrong."
They watch the sliver of red sun fall slower and slower, silhouetting the little barbarians falling bodies. The Chaplain turns and walks back towards the FOB in contemplation. Gotta rack out early tonight. Handing out bibles in the marketplace tomorrow, early. Unintelligible rap blares out of the open doors of the HUMVEE.

The Chaplain was there?  Right! Handing out bibles in the market place in Iraq?  Right!  It's all meme (verbatim) bull$#!*. If the killing "the little barbarians" is true, then Beauchamp, Leclaire and the Chaplain should be investigated for a violation of the ROE in May 2006.

Is this exactly the same kind of writing that Beauchamp has written for TNR?  The above is either fiction or some serious allegations of crimes (let alone a chaplain handing out bibles in a muslim marketplace...).

When the military bloggers get blamed for outing this piece of garbage, the left decides to defend a self-described war criminal.

Almost unbelievable.

I'll leave the last word for commenter "arch" who left this gem:

If Scott Beauchamp wants to become a writer, he needs to buy a copy of E.B. White's Elements of Style. The 100+ word sentence he wrote is, in itself, a war crime. I'm sure the army is preparing him well for his likely civilian vocation - janitorial service.

Bleu Beau: Astroturfing? And Let The Pushback Begin

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

Right now, there really isn't much more to say about this POS than has been said. Two points to think about this morning are as follows:

1. Was this another astroturf effort? You know, a "grassroots" thing that is anything but grassroots? This story truly does make one wonder a bit about that possibility, as in the real reasons for volunteering?

2. The chickenhawk meme is in full force, and here at Chickenhawk Manor a rather weak additional meme has predictably made it's appearance. That creature is the "wish them harm" meme, which is usually quite small and insubstantial, perhaps similar to the reason and intellect of those making it. Trust me, the people here rarely make threats. Promises, yes; threats, no. When such is made, there is no doubt it has been made. As Jimbo has already pointed out, Bleu Beau has royally spat and shat not just on all American forces, but on those around him in particular. Do you think anyone really likes having such flung on them? Do you think they are going to think it a great joke or an honor to go through what they are now going through? All because of someone who may have, er, mislead them as to why he joined, what he was doing, and why he was doing it? Yeah, he needs to check six. Telling someone like Bleu Beau that they need to be careful is not a threat: it is in no way saying that others should go beat him up, give him a blanket party, or frag him. It is a simple statement of fact because he has royally screwed the people who would otherwise have his back. It takes a great deal of, er, mental flexibility (the ability to twist concepts into rather elaborate oragami that bears no structural, spatial, or even temporal relationship to the source material) and even -- dare I say -- mendacity to somehow equate this into a threat. The fact is, had I done to my team mates here what he has done to his, I would be checking six too.

Hmmmm. Then again, everyone has a price. A good seven figure advance and I can come up with Tales from Chickenhawk Manor and spin some BS dish the dirt too. Make it a very good advance, as I may have to find the price of some others. Meantime, here is a tidbit for enticement: Matt really isn't what he seems. He doesn't drink, smoke, party, or do any of those other things. As for what he wears on his head as he capers around, well, cough up that advance and we'll see. Trust me, for the right advance it will be good.

Meantime, our posts on this subject can be found (in rough chronological order by author) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I am going to have to publically disagree with Uncle Jimbo, t-shirt-babe-at-large, on one point. The mess at TNR was not unavoidable. They could easily have avoided it by following some basic standards of journalism. Once they did not do so, however, the need to call it for what it was became truly unavoidable.

Meantime, want to support some real journalism? Then go make a donation to Michael Yon, J.D. Johannes, Michael J. Totten, and -- most especially -- PMI. The more informational boots-on-the-ground, the harder it is to pull this type of [deleted by editor, remember I have that bar of soap] and the harder it is for the enemy to continue to win the information war.

LW

Private Beauchamp- Requiem for a dung beetle

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

UPDATE: It appears that even dung beetles have fellow travelers, clown prince John Cole of Balloon Juice disparages me, poorly. But you know me, I will savage him manana.

Because some people enjoy projecting their weaknesses on me, I do not advocate that anyone hurt the pissant, let alone frag him. Give me a break people, he slimed his whole unit as scum and I pointed out that he might should watch his ass. Really, 'Ya think?

From our comments and the most excellent readers on the internets.

On a related thought, let's see if we can do something to build the morale of his unit; they're gonna need it. Maybe like what Grim did with the Marines?

Posted by: FbL | July 26, 2007 at 10:26 AM

FBL: you're right on target.

Uncle Jimbo: roger that

Posted by: warvet48 | July 26, 2007 at 10:30 AM

OK so now we need contact info for A Co. 1/18 for an email campaign to reboost their morale, I will look although y'all will probably scoop me. I emailed Kirk Luedeke the PAO who has been fielding questions thus far, I will advise

So he is unmasked, kudos to JD Johannes who had him pegged down to Company level. I just wonder how the other members of A Co. 1/18 feel about how their buddy Beauchamp described them. And just to note, I had this to say about this POS when this came up.

Scott Thomas is a lying sack of shit. Every unit has a Scott Thomas, the whiny pissant whose brilliance is never recognized and who is always being abused by the chain of command for stuff that's not his fault. It would be normal to hear folks  telling him to STFU and do his damn job.

Well just take a look at this little pissant's previous literary efforts, and I'll be honest I would pay good money to knock that freakin' smirk off his face.

Every morning I get up and say I'm Scott Beauchamp, in the army, living in Germany, and this is my life, and I'm going to be treated like shit today and do landscaping and janitorial work and practice killing people and there could be no other way to appreciate what I had or what I'm going to have once I get out other than enduring this now when all I really want to do is teach history and lay around and read and hustle around and repair the world (tikkun olam) and sift through knowledge and improve culture and learn how to sail and work in soup kitchens and start a family and really, I mean REALLY study the best the western civilization has to offer and facilitiate the mystery and power through everything I do, but I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc.

As I said every unit has a Private Beauchamp who is more or less universally disliked as a whiny loser. No one understands them and they are always getting screwed over. They always have aspirations to grandness coupled with an absolute uselessness and laziness that ensures they will never achieve it.

The incidents described by Private dung beetle did not happen in the way he described them, but some event containing morsels of truth did and then our fabulist enbellished it to match the narrative of the voices in his head. They tell him the war is evil and consequently he and the folks around him are compromised and now agents of evil. He was just doing his part to ensure that people get the truth as it should be, damn the facts.

That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

Your character, or more accurately, your complete lack of it has already been noted and your experiences, being mostly fiction matter little. If any of them happened, you will face punishment, but as we know telling BS stories is not a crime. As far as writing under your own name, as I noted above JD Johannes had already identified you down to Company (100+ troops) level and you used your first and middle names as your pseudonym you freakin' pinhead. You were already fronted out and I would assume it was some members of your unit that "politely" invited you to name yourself. You are a disgrace Beauchamp, a wannabe intellectual lacking the brainpower to do much more than embarrass yourself in public. Well Bravo, you have shown yourself to be  a back-stabbing petty BS artist. Congratulations on that. Now you need to get busy watching your back, 'cuz if you think you were disliked and unloved before......Heh. Now your time is up, we are done making fun of you, Uh buh bye.

More on the Blogger Roundtables & Mr. Silverstein

Posted By Grim

Mr. Silverstein has a rebuttal to the earlier piece I wrote on his attack on the Bloggers' Roundtables.  This one is somewhat more measured and careful, so I'll meet him halfway and attempt a measured discussion of the topic.  It is an important topic because, as I mentioned below, it is important for the country that the people understand that the military belongs to all Americans.  It is not opposed, even politically, to any group of Americans; it takes its oath to the Constitution, and our common liberty.

Mr. Silverstein wants you to consider this:

Hence, no matter how participants would like to describe the effort, it’s quite clear that the Pentagon views it as a propaganda program. Just look at the titles of the talks:

• Iraq Training Team Commander Expresses Confidence Iraqis Will Succeed
• Afghan Police Training Mirrors Army Success
• Iraq Rebuilding Progress Should Be Taken in Context, General Says
• Soldiers’ Armor Best in the World, General Says
• Iraq Situation ‘Winnable,’ Multi-National Force Official Says

That’s why it’s hard to agree when Grim at Black Five says that the bloggers aren’t briefed by administration officials, but by career military men who are not “political figures.” The briefers may not be elected, but they do seem to be spinning (unless, of course, Iraq is going great and every major news outlet, including many on the right, is lying to us)....

It all comes down to a simple question, one I’ll let the reader answer on his or her own: are you comfortable with the Pentagon, under any administration, picking its personal media intermediaries in an effort to get its message out?

Well, let's answer that question.  Are you comfortable with the existence of the American Forces Press Service?

I ask that because the titles to which Mr. Silverstein refers are the titles of the AFPS articles generated by what are in fact professional journalists, not by the bloggers or the civilian leadership.  If you look at the Blogger's Roundtable Homepage, you'll see the titles to which Mr. Silverstein refers.  They are followed by a blurb, and then a link that says "Story."  Follow that, and you're taken to the AFPS article, as the AFPS writes up every one of these talks as a news story for its news service.

Now, as far as I know, there's no controversy about the existence of the AFPS.  That is precisely "the Pentagon, under any administration, picking its personal media intermediaries."  They're the ones who generated the headlines and whatever "spin" is in the AFPS articles, not the military officers quoted.

What the Bloggers' Roundtables are most like is like a general visiting the VFW or some other citizen organization for a chat, or to give a talk and take questions.  The AFPS would probably write that up too, and give it a similarly glowing headline, without it generating controversy.  The general might take hard questions or relatively easy ones -- Navy Captain Gilbeau felt my last question to him was a softball, but that's only because he had a good answer to my question about microloans in Iraqi rebuilding.  I gave Col. Bouchard a similarly basic question about his operations, and he -- I think I can say this in fairness to the gentleman -- didn't have an answer. 

We're citizens here, as I said, engaged in citizenship.  If a military officer or NCO wants to talk to us, given that we have a wide readership among current and former military, it's like being able to get thousands of vets into a room for the American Legion.  And if the AFPS writes it up with a pretty headline, that's what the AFPS does.

Mr. Silverstein originally tried to write this up as some sort of sinister conspiracy at DOD to manipulate public opinion or something like that.  In fact, they're just participating in and informing the public debate, as they have always done with bricks-and-mortar citizen organizations.  The full transcripts and audio recordings of these meetings are published online for the world to see and consider, and respond to if they like.  The military is not engaged in politics here:  it's engaging interested citizens, which it has every right -- and indeed a certain duty -- to do.

UPDATE:  Danger Room notes that OSD approved their request to add two progressive milbloggers to the roundtables in under half an hour.  I'm not actually familiar with either of these writers -- although I look forward to talking to them -- but that would tend to undercut the idea that there is some sort of "conservatives only" approval process.  In fact, the quickness of the reply suggests there's not much of an approval process at all, beyond confirming that you're both a blogger and someone who writes about military affairs.

Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp -- still wondering about the MFA

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

As noted in an update to the post below, there is now a name. I think the money quote is:

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

Uh Huh. Discrete. Not intended to reflect on the entire military. Right. Looks like some of the milblog analysis as to possible unit was pretty close if not spot on. As I said below, let the Truth be out. Despite what is being said by TNR about the stories being checked to see if they passed a smell test, the fact is that numerous veterans, veterans of Iraq, and those current serving in Iraq (despite what one suddenly appearing commentor says) said the stories did not pass the smell test. When something creates that large a smell, it needs to be checked. Are they real? Is the author just one of the BS artists/serial complainers/etc.? Well, it was clear they were a BS artist, but... Now that the author has stepped forward, the stories can be checked, verified, and whatever actions are appropriate taken. Let the Truth be out, for we will all be better for it.

LW

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a good good roundup on this "dung beetle" (borrowing from Uncle J). Complainer? Check. BS artist? Check (Dusty, I've noted that one before and have a number of things I want to say about him, but Matt has a bar of soap for my mouth if I use that language here). Jimbo has a good smackdown above. Well, Bleu Beau has his wish. He is now living in interesting times, and come to the attention of important and powerful people. May it deliver all he deserves.

UPDATE II: You have got to be kidding me! Did Valerie Plame clone herself??? Also, TNR seems much more interested in plugging leaks than in doing all that rigorous fact checking they've been talking about. Think any credibility Bleu Beau and TNR may have had (tenuous at best) has just gone up in smoke. Expect even larger amounts of chickenhawk and consipracy chaff to be thrown out in a desperate attempt to break lock...

Okinawa Jack has another cunning plan

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Murtha has continued the Democrats headlong rush to get this war lost before Petraeus goes and does something crazy like winning it. His latest in the long-running but never popular cut and run series is here.

"This is big time," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said of the upcoming fall debate. "When you get to September, this is history.....Also come September, Murtha said it is possible Democrats may not want to continue funding the war, or fund it in installments.

"We may decide in September we're not satisfied with what Gen. Petraeus says and we may hold it up," he said.

So if they are not satisfied with what he says, not that it is not true, just that it doesn't fit their narrative, you know, W lied we lost. Then they will shut him down.  Murtha and his brain trust of Reid and Pelosi. God that even hurt to write as a joke. Anyhow these maroons have to deliver defeat or the hordes of fever swamp denizens will turn their torches and pitchforks on them.They are abandoning even the pretense that they will listen to Petraeus or anyone else. The die has been cast, we lost and we must bring our defeated forces home so they can all get therapy.

Murtha said he has his sights set on September and thinks that by then Republicans and the White House will jump on board.

Oh yeah I can see W jumping on the defeat train with a deranged old loser who called our Marines cold-blooded killers and has done his level best to hurt the efforts of anyone trying to win, Sure.

I think W needs to draw a line in the sand and tell the American people he believes the current COIN strategy is working and any changes could jeopardize that. Also that this success could lead to American troops returning next Summer in victory. But that he is keeping the troops on their current mission through the day he leaves office, unless the current success allows him to bring some home earlier. If Congress wants to declare defeat, make them do so openly and justify that to the American people in the face of an actual possible victory.

Scott Thomas, MFA???

Posted By Laughing_Wolf

Courtesy of Instapundit, I found this very interesting take on Scott Thomas, alleged soldier and pure BS artist, over at John Barnes' blog. Regulars may remember John Barnes from this post, and when it comes to communications you really should pay attention to him. His fiction isn't too shabby either... His conjecture is just that, but you have to admit, he makes a good case for it. I've already said my piece here; Jimbo has a good beat down here (and I hope that if the POS is at Falcon, that