TNR
 

No, a bunch of right-wing bloggers (which include many milbloggers) proved that the left wing media, yet again, will stop at nothing - nothing - to push their anti-military and anti-American agenda.

TNR
 

So clever are they that they figured out that TNR, notwithstanding years of support for the war and Sen. Lieberman, is actually a hotbed of anti-military and anti-American leftists. I, for one, am glad that someone has finally seen through the long-running charade that is Marty Peretz's career.

TNR
 

Try Ernie Pyle. If you point is "wars fucks up young men who fight them" Mr. Pyle proved that conclusively in the 40s. still, back then we realized we had to be at war you know, because people were trying to kill us and all.

Maybe if the DNC can advance the CAIR agenda more sucessfully, we'll see that we don't need to fear the Jihadis?

TNR
 

Hank, thank you for being the rare right-wing crackpot who doesn't feel a need to tear down Beauchamp for voicing what Ernie Pyle proved conclusively sixty years ago. A breath of fresh air is what you are.

TNR
 

Oh stop. The bloggers weren't saying combat doesn't cause moral decay. They were saying if you hadn't even been in combat yet, how could you blame a bad act on being in combat. It's really straightforward, dear.

TNR
 

I will pay $3 for you to watch the first half of Full Metal Jacket. If you want to watch the rest, it'll be no additional cost.

TNR
 

Probably before Pyle. Heck, Homer mentioned how the Greeks dragged the body of Ajax around Troy after they killed him.

What is your point? That the Diarist was an asshole before he got to Iraq? Were the blogs that Diane and Slave cite, all concerned with truth and accuracy over the statements of an anonymous grunt in a pro-war magazine, also troubled by the lies told by McCain about being able to stroll in the main market of Baghdad? Or about what happened to the market the days after the photo op?

War warps people -- good wars and bad wars. That's a pretty good reason, IMO, for avoiding unnecessary wars. I had a history professor at the square state land grant college I attended tell our 20th Century World History class about his experiences as a tank commander in WWII, and how clean-cut corn fed 19 year olds from Nebraska under his command would shoot their flamethrowers at Waffen SS troops who attempted to surrender in France. And my father's photo album from his Navy days has pictures of Marines on Iwo Jima after the island fell posing with comically-arranged dead Japanese soldiers (it also has a postcard received from some chick who is Not Mom with a joke about Kipling, but that's a different story). I happen to think that this is a sacrifice that was worth it in WWII and Korea (easy for me to say), and in Afghanistan, too. I don't think that it is worth it in Iraq, although now that we're there, we can't simply leave the place willy-nilly. But that, like "I'm sorry, dear boy. I've never Kippled." is a different story.

Bottom line -- this guy (unlike any of the apologists from the Weekly Standard) is a real 11 Bravo who appears to have been telling the truth (have any of the LGF types refuted the playing with the skulls of kids or killing dogs stories?) about what he has seen. Does it have anything to do with whether being in Iraq is a good or bad thing? Maybe not, but it illustrates a cost of war that we don't always think about -- what happens to our soldiers when they are doing their jobs.

TNR
 

Saw it already, many times. I don't remember the part where it showed that being in combat causes moral decay even when you haven't been in combat yet. If the example in the TNR article was about boot/training camp (or Kubrick movies) causing moral decay, great. It wasn't.

Do I still get the $3?

Give it to me now.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...PDVD_00901.jpg

TNR
 

You think boot camp has nothing at all to do with combat. The two halves of that movie didn't really have anything to do with each other. Got it. You can have the $3, but only if you use it to watch the movie again.

TNR
 

I expect that if you tell me how combat in Iraq is making people do bad things that you actually have been in combat or at least in Iraq. Otherwise, write an article about how mean people get after boot camp.

BTW-I asked my neighbor, a Vietnam vet what he thought about boot camp grads suffering enough "hardening" effect from camp that it was tantamount to actually being in combat (the writer explained the incident as occurring after being in Iraq). He just laughed in an eerie way. I think that means he disagrees with you. You don't want to pull your little $3 offer with him, for sure. Something tells me he doesn't find Kubrick a persuasive source on this issue. I'm just saying.

TNR
 

Beauchamp actually has been in combat in Iraq, unlike most of the right-wing nutjobs who are all over his case. The one Iraq veteran who I've seen quoted as criticizing him is Marine Reservist Matt Sanchez, the former gay porn star who gets photographed with Ann Coulter.

No one in their right mind would say that boot camp is "tantamount" to being in combat. So I'm with your neighbor.

TNR
 

I don't understand the big deal with this whole thing. I haven't been parsing all that much, but at a glance, it appeared the article sort of suggested that people are assholes. Don't have to join the military and go to war to find that out. The assholes in the military, though, have different targets and ammo than civilian assholes. Had Michael Vick Bradley Fighting Vehicles, I'm sure he would have used them in a similar manner.

These guys joined the military, not the priesthood. I don't understand why everyone expects all of them to be saints.

TNR
 

this was sort of my point too. I don't get what the argument is. or have we gotten to the point where we need to fight about everything? let's see if we can find something we all agree with:

Resolved- when Hank first equated GGG to Gilligan a fundamental truth was uncovered.

TNR
 

True, but don't read too much into this. When Slave calls Beauchamp a "fucking lying scumbag," he's not actually pissed at Beauchamp for writing things that make soldiers look bad.

Instead, he's substantively concerned about readers who might review these anecdotes of war, no matter how banal, and fail to appreciate the importance of accurate time and place.

Gattigap

TNR
 

Like all of the milbloggers that were, or are currently, over there?

Or even like Like Malkin, who although not in combat, actually went over there to report things accurately?

Pretending to be a ostrich doesn't suit you.

While Hank drags a lawyer through the mud because of his client (are we sure Hank is a lawyer?) and Slave attacks the Republican's favorite pseudo-Democratic rag, I offer you a reminder of what your Republican elected officials are up to.

TNR
 

Talk about good sources and accurate reporting!

Feh.

Lawyers are them what's good at readin stuff, huh?

I never criticized the man's choice in clients. Much like Vito Corleone, I don't judge how a man earns his living. I merely noted that the client choice may prove problematic come the election when the dems ability to deal, in real world terms, with the Jihadis comes up.

oh, and what is weird, and highlighted by 2 of you just today, for all your liberal holy than thou attitudes, you still see homosexual behavior as something to mock and deride. The guy offered to engage in consensual gay sex. what do you feel is wrong with that? earlier Ty made fun of someone by noting he was a gay porn star.

could you clarify whether you support basic rights for homosexuals, oppose them, or whether the thought of gay men having sex makes your tummy feel funny.

I agree, poor choice by the DNC to continue to use, as GC, a lawyer who also reps CAIR. It's a softball for swift-boating the Dems.

Would you agree that Fred has a similar, but closer to home, problem that will arise w/r/t the (many) hardcore pro-life/anti-choicers who usually vote in Republican primaries (and may stay home in the general, if they feel neither candidate supports their position)?

Obama/Pakistan
 

Serious, non-rhetorical, question: Can someone (preferably Repub) explain what the problem with saying "If we find him/them, we'll go get/kill OBL/Zawahiri if Musharaff won't help us" is?

Don't say that it's a proposal to "invade" an ally--it's not. Don't say it's hypocritical--that's a cop out answer (and untrue).

Obama/Pakistan
 

Nevermind.

TNR
 

"most" means "most," not "all"

And I'm surprised that you would equate Malkin's brief reporting escapade to actually serving there in combat.

I don't recall making fun of him, although there is some latent humour in the fact that Ann Coulter was photographed with him shortly after calling John Edwards a "faggot."

Obama/Pakistan
 

Why answer a hypothetical that may never come up, when the result is to cause potential unrest? Pakistan has nuclear bombs and is quite unstable as it is. In the past few years we have had some strikes at suspected high level gatherings. If what he means is he will start pregular patrols into Pakistan, I think he risks toppling a friendly government. OTOH, maybe it is becoming time to run the risk of at least turning up the heat.

but you included the word, which implies you thought it conveyed more than just "porn star." the purpose of mentioning his is a porn star was to degrade the value of his opinion, correct? why the additional adjective?

Ty was just looking out for me. Without that qualifier, I might've spent time trying to use it to discern the differences among the 8 different Jenna Jameson offerings on LodgeNet.

thank god you're okay. were you on the 405 today?

Obama/Pakistan
 

Then why not similar reax to suggestions that we invade Iran?

Agreed, but that isn't what he said. Actionable intelligence need not come from US troops on the ground. The action taken need not involve troops on the ground.

Agreed, maybe, maybe not. It's a legitmate question and I think that taking out OBL/Zawahiri is a key part of the WoT/GSVE/whatever-you-call-it. Much more important than Saddam.

Besides Obama hardly suggested bombing Mecca (as Tancredo suggested) a non-military site in a well-controlled (for lack of a better word) part of another (titular) ally. He suggested taking out public enemy #1, located in a virtual breakaway region, controlled by Qaeda and its sympathizers, IF Musharref first refused to act. The problem with that formulation is tipping off OBL's friendlies in the ISI by asking Mushareff first.

I believed he had been discussed here before.

and FWIW I can't see any anti-gay bias in anything you post here, but the word choice did seem odd. GGG on the other hand clearly has issues, but we all knew that.

Obama/Pakistan
 

In two days, he declared (i) that he would invade a nuclear-bomb possessing ally and (ii) in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table.

It reveals that Obama is a bit of tone-deaf clod, and that Hillary is has virtually secured the Dem nomination.

Are you really linking to Wonkette, and then immediately criticizing someone for doing porn?

Isn't it ironic, doncha think?

Yep. Never go with the Jesse Jackson defense. Not a winner.

aV

Obama/Pakistan
 

You are quite likely right on the 2d point, and his positions do seem somewhat contradictory. Nevermind that he's beholden to a corrupt democratic establishment in Illinois.

That said, on your first point, you're intentionally distorting what was said: On (i) he didn't say he would invade Pakistan--killing OBL does not constitute an invasion (unless you use a very broad definition of "invasion"); on (ii) Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets Afghanistan and Pakistan, not "all future combat". If you think that "invading" Pakistan is a bad idea, you should agree that nuking Pakistan is a very bad idea.

If Obama had suggested an Iraq-War-sized invasion of Pakistan, his campaign would be over; if Obama had said that nuclear weapons were not going to be used anywhere, against any enemy, under any circumstances, I would wholeheartedly agree that he cannot be President or even Vice President--that he would have limited himself in a fashion that made it impossible for him to confront any hostile power (honestly, even France has maintained the implicit threat that it might use its nukes). Obama did neither of these things and I just don't get why there are people defending OBL because he "happened" to domicile himself in Pakistan.

If you said "Matt Sanchez" to me, I probably wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you said "the Marine, former gay porn star who had his picture taken with Ann Coulter," I would remember.

Obama/Pakistan
 

Your analysis would be more plausible if Obama really said that "in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table." However:

• Turns out that the AP story failed to add a very important bit of context. Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets [in] Afghanistan and Pakistan; the Bush Administration has never ruled out using tactical nukes to root out underground terrorist safe havens. In this much more limited context, Obama was setting some policy: no, he would not ever consider using nuclear weapons on terrorist targets in those two countries.

link

Using nukes on terrorists makes little sense.

Since you are all about accuracy in reporting lately, I'll wait here for your outrage that the MSM erred in a way that made Obama look bad.

Obama/Pakistan
 

You mean the AP misquoted someone? Golly!!!!

Obama/Pakistan
 

Do you think if we knew his precise location and could tactically bomb him we wouldn't? One might need boots on the ground to root him out.

Obama/Pakistan
 

Of course we would. And, if we believed that we could drop in a spec ops team and take him out, we'd do that, too. That's why I don't get the reaction to Obama saying that. It seems unhinged to support the Iraq war and act like Waziristan is untouchable.

Obama/Pakistan
 

I took his comments to suggest something more than dropping in some rangers for a few hours.

I don't think it's unhinged, given what musharraf seems to be holding back politically in pakistan.