Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Shakesville and the forgotten post
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Today, Melissa McEwan, over at Shakesville says she has nothing to recant about the Scott Beauchamp story.

She links to her own words where she was "critical of TNR's due dilligence", cynical of "Beauchamp's self-defense" and "concerned" that the first revelation of Beauchamp's dishonesty wasn't insignificant. She even "detailed" where she felt "rightwing critics had gone over the line".

Fair enough. But that doesn't cover everyone at the particular blog in question.

For instance this post, entitled "Beauchamp Account Confirmed by TNR; Right-Wing Bloggers Refuse To Accept It" written by Kathy.

In it - speaking of my rebuttal of the TNR statement here - she said the following:
They go on and on this way — especially McQ, who repeats and then rejects each one of the three major incidents Beauchamp described. The "arguments" he uses to reject the truth of these stories is childish and so stubbornly absurd that it would be funny if it were not so depressing.
Yes, indeed, so stubbornly absurd that in the end, they seem to have much more veracity than did Beauchamp and, it appears, Kathy's rant that day.

But she did properly and dutifully set up "the victimTM" meme well for later use.
Well, sorry McQ; you are not going to get answers to those thoroughly meaningful and germane questions anytime soon, because Scott Beauchamp is currently a prisoner of conscience, being held incommunicado by the U.S. military and forbidden to talk to anyone other than authorized military personnel — even his family.
Today, right on cue, McEwan deployed it in an attempt to change the subject.
He's reportedly "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family," and I wouldn't argue with a straight face that I couldn't imagine him saying what needs to be said to get those privileges reinstated.
And, of course, now added to "the victimTM" meme we find a "hint of coercion" ... how unexpected.

A note to those who don't know, like, I'm sure, Kathy - all Scott Thomas Beauchamp had to do when being interviewed by his Company Commander - and after having been read his rights - was to say "I want a lawyer" and that would have ended the interview immediately.

I mean, right then. Not another question.

In the military, and every officer and NCO knows this, anything ... and I mean anything ... he might say after asking for a lawyer, is inadmissible as evidence. Having been involved in numerous investigations in my 28 year career, I can probably tell you exactly what the CO would have said at that point, "Fine. We're done here. 1SG, get Beauchamp hooked up with JAG asap." End of story.

The fact that he didn't go that route says he wasn't coerced at all and probably just wanted what had become a nightmare for him to be over. The best way out of that situation is to own up, get it over with and take any lumps coming to you, understanding that attempting to dissemble at that point would be much worse if found out.

Back to the subject at hand - I'm sure Kathy will want to address the impression she left with the particular cited post and I'm glad to help remind her. I'm sure it was purely an unintentional oversight on her part. And I'm sure, now that I've reminded her, she'll want to properly address her inaccuracies.

UPDATE: Edited - As Scott Jacobs points out, I inadvertently lumped two different bloggers at Shakesville together. That's a no-no. Sorry about that ... corrected.

Well apparently I'm just not up to date on the goings on at Shakespere's Sister, now Shakesville and I admit to blowing the byline when I attributed to Melissa McEwan, formerly Shakespeare's Sister, the post written by Kathy. She (McEwan) has informed me of the error and hopefully I've corrected it to reflect everything properly.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What the new, "it could still be true!" meme ignores is that journalism should not be about publishing what could be true and presenting it as non-fiction.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Expect that particular post to go into the void....be sure to grab the google cache lest she accuse of making something up
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What the new, "it could still be true!" meme ignores is that journalism should not be about publishing what could be true and presenting it as non-fiction
What we see today in most quarters isn’t really journalism...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
BTW, has there been an official announcement or anything, or is this still based on what the Weekly Standard heard from someone close to the investigation?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
BTW, has there been an official announcement or anything, or is this still based on what the Weekly Standard heard from someone close to the investigation?
Hey, if it’s good enough for Murtha...

And where are my god damn links, Erbie?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Also...

McQ, the two posts you linked are by different authors.

Same sight, but it would be like demanding you make amends for something Dale said.

*cowers from Dale*

Don’t hurt me!

;)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I’m not sure I understand all the furfurrall...isn’t this just another example of "Fake...but accurate" by the lame-stream?

Rather was cashiered by See-B.S., I have little doubt that this Beauchamp fellow might be facing the same kind of music, albeit with consequences perhaps a little stronger than simply the loss of a 7-figure income.
 
Written By: blackwing1
URL: http://
(if it took place at all), then basic logic suggests he could be lying again.
If you want to talk about basic logic: The person making claims has a burden of proof. The discourse will get a little wild if every uncorroborated tale has to be accepted as fact until it is scientifically disproven, or everyone chooses which reality to accept as factual based on their own politics, rather than the evidence.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
BTW, has there been an official announcement or anything,
Still holding out hope, are you?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
BTW, has there been an official announcement or anything,

Still holding out hope, are you?
Hardly — but if this is true, then I made an error in assuming TNR’s claims that the stories had been verified was based on solid evidence. But if TNR can make an error, so can any paper, including the Weekly Standard. I’ll feel better commenting once I see what the military investigation says, or at least an official statement.

Scott J: You seem to think you’re entitled to anything you demand. If you want links, you go find them.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
However, they are a bunch of jask-asses over there... So much for civil debate.

I was behaving, too.

Erbie: Sorry Slappy, but you made the claim. It’s not my job to defend you. Put up, or shut up.

Or are you finally admitting to being an absolute fraud?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Though you say you’ve edited your post, you are still attributing to me throughout a post I did not write. Shakespeare’s Sister is my former handle and the name of the blog. If you actually click through to the post to which you link in your paragraph "For instance one this post, entitled ’Beauchamp Account Confirmed by TNR; Right-Wing Bloggers Refuse To Accept It’ written by Shakespeare’s Sister," you will see the byline directly under that title is Kathy.

Not Shakespeare’s Sister. Not Melissa McEwan.

As to my feeling I have nothing for which to apologize not "cover[ing] everyone at the particular blog in question," I don’t recant posts on behalf of my contributors.
 
Written By: Melissa McEwan
URL: http://www.shakesville.com
Looks like he misted that. I suspect it should have read "written by a poster at Shakespeare’s Sister,"...

And no, you shouldn’t recant based on posts by your other contributors.

However, it might do to suggest to them that they do so? I don’t mean require it, but suggesting it would be nice.

And Populist... My my my. Such anger in that guy. You will be deleting his posts, correct?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
you will see the byline directly under that title is Kathy.
Good enough, I’ll edit again. Sorry for the confusion.
As to my feeling I have nothing for which to apologize not "cover[ing] everyone at the particular blog in question," I don’t recant posts on behalf of my contributors.
I don’t recall asking you to do so. In fact, I even remarked that your defense was ’fair enough’. My issue is with Kathy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Scott, if you don’t believe that I’m critical of strident personal attacks on the President and Vice President, that’s fine. It’s certainly nothing I have to prove to anyone (though if you find evidence that I’m lying, please point it out). I find personal attacks on the President by the left as distasteful as personal attacks on Jimmy Carter by the right. Note that I talk respectfully of the President, even as I disagree with him. I also treat you with respect, even as you insult me. After all, who am I to call for civil discourse if I don’t practice it myself?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Thanks.

This is still wrong, or possibly just nonsensical: "Today, right on cue, McEwan deployed it in an attempt to change the subject." Though that excerpt from today’s post is correctly attributed to me, I didn’t write the old post, so it doesn’t follow to accuse me of "deploying" a tactic "set up" by someone else.

Also, if you read what you excerpted of my post in context, clearly I’m saying I fully expect he’d lie to get his privileges reinstated.

I don’t recall asking you to do so. In fact, I even remarked that your defense was ’fair enough’. My issue is with Kathy.

Then your headline, which takes to task "Shakesville," is rather disingenuous. As it is my blog, and I wrote a post elucidating my disagreement with Kathy that was posted directly after hers, if you’re not "asking me" to recant on behalf of one of my contributors, then it seems rather odd to condemn the whole blog in the headline—unless your belief is that I don’t have the right to allow contributors to publish viewpoints opposing my own without de facto sanctioning them.

In which case, I’m in a no-win situation. If I only allow views that align perfectly with my own, then I’d be guilty of liberal groupthink. If I allow views that diverge from my own, then the entire blog is held to account. Either way, I lose, eh?
 
Written By: Melissa McEwan
URL: http://www.shakesville.com
Scott, if you don’t believe that I’m critical of strident personal attacks on the President and Vice President, that’s fine. It’s certainly nothing I have to prove to anyone (though if you find evidence that I’m lying, please point it out). I find personal attacks on the President by the left as distasteful as personal attacks on Jimmy Carter by the right. Note that I talk respectfully of the President, even as I disagree with him. I also treat you with respect, even as you insult me. After all, who am I to call for civil discourse if I don’t practice it myself?
I just need to set up a program or something to do this...

Scott Erb: PROVE YOUR WORDS

And I treat an intellectual fraud such as yourself with every ounce of respect you deserve.

At least McEwan edited a pretty damn vulgar "I don’t wanna debate you" which was based solely on my being conservative.

Granted, she didn’t delete it like she said she would, and the guy’s "f*ck you" towards another commenter still stands, but it’s something, I guess...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
This is still wrong, or possibly just nonsensical: "Today, right on cue, McEwan deployed it in an attempt to change the subject." Though that excerpt from today’s post is correctly attributed to me, I didn’t write the old post, so it doesn’t follow to accuse me of "deploying" a tactic "set up" by someone else.
I believe I pointed out it was set up by Kathy and deployed by you. It’s a matter of interpretation and opinion. That’s mine. It was also a pretty predictable response to Beauchamp’s recanting of his stories as we mentioned in other posts.
Then your headline, which takes to task "Shakesville," is rather disingenuous. As it is my blog, and I wrote a post elucidating my disagreement with Kathy ...
Kathy blogs there and that’s the name of the blog. It’s no more disingenuous than someone saying
"QandO says" whatever and then taking me to task specifically. Happens all the time.
In which case, I’m in a no-win situation. If I only allow views that align perfectly with my own, then I’d be guilty of liberal groupthink. If I allow views that diverge from my own, then the entire blog is held to account. Either way, I lose, eh?
Melissa, the bloggers on this particular blog disagree all the time ... but it still known as QandO. I can’t tell you the times I’ve seen "Over at QandO, McQ says ...."

It is a group blog and that’s how a group blogs are normally identified in my experience. I acknowledge my original mistake of mixing you and Kathy up but see nothing wrong with using the blog’s name in the title since Kathy blogs there.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
(though if you find evidence that I’m lying, please point it out
You’re breathing, right? That’s enough proof really :)


j/k Scotty.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Melissa, the bloggers on this particular blog disagree all the time ... but it still known as QandO. I can’t tell you the times I’ve seen "Over at QandO, McQ says ...."

Which is fair enough and quite clearly doesn’t attempt to discredit the entirety of QandO. "Shakesville and the Forgotten Post" is evidently not the same as "Over at Shakesville, Kathy posted..." But we’re obviously just going to disagree on this one, so wev.
 
Written By: Melissa McEwan
URL: http://www.shakesville.com
Which is fair enough and quite clearly doesn’t attempt to discredit the entirety of QandO. "Shakesville and the Forgotten Post" is evidently not the same as "Over at Shakesville, Kathy posted..." But we’re obviously just going to disagree on this one, so wev.
I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that I’m trying to discredit the entirety of Shakesville by the title or the opening. It, in fact, shows a contrast between your coverage of the story at Shakesville and Kathy’s coverage. And I point out that I agree with your point that you don’t have any reason to recant your previous posts.

I then point out that isn’t true for another blogger there. Etc. I may not say "Over at Shakesville, Kathy posted..." in precisely those words, but it is certainly the message conveyed by excluding you and others blogging there by finally naming Kathy as the point of the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Scott, you’re asking me to prove I hold an opinion that I publically state? Do you know how silly that is on its face? I’ve stated clearly my view: I dislike personal smears and insults against politicians on the Right like the President as distasteful as smears and insults against politicians on the Left like Nancy Pelosi. If you find evidence that’s not accurate, you have he burden of proof to show I’m not telling the truth. If you simply choose not to believe me, that’s fine.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott, if you don’t believe that I’m critical of strident personal attacks on the President and Vice President, that’s fine
You’re damned right it is, Erb, because that’s what all the evidence you’ve presented shows. You’ve been given several chances to present evidence to the contrary and failed each time.

Don’t make out like HE is attacking YOU, bucko. THe fact was and remains that you won’t do as he asks because you CANNOT. Face it. You lied and you got called on it. And by more than Scott and myself.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Erb, I’m not going to let you just make a claim about something then not press you to back it up.

You made a claim, and I expect you to back it up. I wasn’t asking for a lot. Just 5 links.

If I wante dto be fair, I’d have asked for a good deal more, but I was in a good mood that day.

Five links Erb. Pony up, bubba.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
What did I lie about, Bithead? How can I prove I hold an opinion I publicly state? Now if I said I’ve posted retorts to people who have insulted the President, then that would be claim to which his request would make more sense. But I doubt I have posted retorts because I don’t read or comment on liberal blogs where such insults would likely be found. So there are probably no links there that can "prove" I hold the position I hold. Yet I state it publicly, and act in accord with it. Unless I act differently, you’re accusing me of lying with absolutely no evidence to support your accusation. And, frankly, when someone tells me "you’re lying, prove you’re not," and gives no evidence for his charge, then it really isn’t worth taking the time I’ve taken to respond.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Beuchamp’s credibility was suspect from the outset to anyone who has ever been in a combat zone or has been around troops who were in a war environment.

That was McQ’s first reaction, and many of us agreed with that.

I have seen nothing to cause me to change my original reaction to this story.

I am willing to bet that those trying to salvage Beauchamp’s credibility will be sorely disappointed in the end.

 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Like TNR will with it’s efforts to continue defending it’s piece?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Exactly, Scott.

A textbook violation of the First Rule of Holes, to which an earlier commenter referred.

 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Erb, you previously stated:
I have made those criticisms...many times in comments on Q & O
*ERB LOGIC ALERT*
No one is asking you to prove "an opinion". QUIT ALTERING OTHER PEOPLE’S ARGUMENTS!

Prove that you have made "those criticisms" in the various comments on QandO.

Simple.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
BTW, here are examples of Erb NOT criticizing BDS:

McQ: "The BDS addled among the left are still frothing over the Libby commutation."
Erb: "This is just politics as usual."

McQ criticizes Keith Ellison for comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire.
Erb: "But that doesn’t mean there aren’t points of comparison."

McQ criticizes the rantings of Ted Rall.
Erb: "I think he makes a valid point with satire."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Kathy is so invested in the particular belief that the very essence of military training is stripping recruits of their humanity that I’m not at all surprised by what she said.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
What did I lie about, Bithead? How can I prove I hold an opinion I publicly state?
Your point was that you’d stated it in the past.
Fine. Link them.
Barring such proof.... Well, you know....


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Sniff; you obviously do not understand the concept of being retroactively wise.










Sarcasm/humor alert
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider