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

 
TNR: "Our anonymous sources are better than your anonymous sources" (Update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Who is at the helm of The New Republic, for heaven sake and don't they understand the word "shipwreck" at all?
A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

—The Editors
They apparently are going to stick with the claim that their anonymous sources are right and Beauchamp's company and the miltiary are, well, just wrong. Of course they're a little worried about this military source out there, reported through the Weekly Standard, who is claiming Beauchamp has recanted his story (which would sure make those anonymous sources of theirs seem foolish, wouldn't it?).

So, who'd they call? Well "Army Spokesman" MAJ Steven Lamb.

In reality, MAJ Lamb is the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad, and would, most likely, have little if anything to do with the actual investigation which took place. But remember the name.

In fact, the investigation would have taken place at FOB Falcon and that is where anyone "close to the investigation" would be. Naturally they didn't contact anyone at FOB Falcon. So they ask Lamb, "hey, who is this anonymous source close to the investigation saying Beauchamp is recanting?" And Lamb says, "got me ... whoever it is, is on their own". However you're left to think by the careful wording of the piece, that Lamb is in essence saying nothing has really been determined officially. Which is why I asked you to remember Lamb's name, because previously Lamb has said, in an official statement:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
Fairly straight forward, wouldn't you say?

Obviously Lamb isn't denying anything about what has been determined concerning Beauchamp, he's instead saying he has no knowledge about the source of the anonymous quote the Weekly Standard has used.

That's it. That's all this statement says. Well, except TNR is standing by their anonymous sources in the face of the Lamb announcement and trying to begin a "the Army is secretive about their investigation" paint job which I'm sure will emerge as their new attempt to save themselves from charges of journalistic misconduct.

Amazing.

UPDATE: From the New York Times:
In an e-mail message, Mr. Foer said, “Thus far, we’ve been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have,” adding, “We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy.”
Well except the official announcement by Lamb saying the investigation proved the allegations false ... that would certainly be 'evidence' that contradict his "original statment", albeit not specific evidence.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Seriously, McQ, even if they truly had their doubts, if they had sources back up the claim and have only an anonymous source reported at the Weekly Standard to contradict it, they have to stick with their story for now. I mean, would you really expect any publication to say "well, an anonymous source for another publication claims we’re wrong so that’s good enough for us, we’ll simply throw our reporter over the side." They have to wait. Any publication would.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
McQ,

Did you see Mona’s comment over at Henley’s place? Predictably, she ignores the substance of the issue, and questions the motives:
Nothing like the right-o-sphere’s ability to keep its eyes on the critical issues. Or perhaps that is the point, ya think?
I pointed out that the blogs who have been chasing this story, including Q and O and the Milblogs probably devote more time discussing Iraq on a daily basis than the various Lefty bloggers who are defending TNR.

I should have added that this would be a strange time to be trying to distract attention from Iraq, since most of the news coming out of the surge lately has been positive.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Aldo - unlike Mona, we actually can multi-task.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
most of the news coming out of the surge lately has been positive.
And I’m sure that’s why TNR ran Beaufiction’s article at this time.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hm. I wonder if John Cole will decry TNR’s calling up the PAO and "bothering" them, as he did when Bob Owens called:
Bob Owens and the other nitwits will leave these guys at the Public Affairs office alone and let them get on to more important things. Like, for example, fighting a war- one that really isn’t going very swimmingly. I am betting their 100% attention to that would probably be a good thing.
 
Written By: Joe Tobacco
URL: http://cadillactight.wordpress.com
let them get on to more important things. Like, for example, fighting a war-
And how is correcting the record about our troops in conflict with the job of a Public Affairs Officer?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
As I read this story, I keep heard the recent comment by Joe Biden that "this Administration has never admitted to a mistake" and realize that the media, TNR included, seems equally, if not more so, unable to admit to a mistake.

Take for instance the story about the March 23, 2003, capture in Iraq of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee recently investigated this story (along with the Pat Tilman episode) concentrating on Ms. Lynch and the Pentagon and White House PR surrounding the "legend" status of Ms. Lynch.

The basis of the story by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post, came from an unknown "official". “Several” other “officials” cautioned that the facts weren’t yet known, and “Pentagon officials” said reports of Lynch’s gun-firing heroics were only “rumors.”

House Oversightskipped over the fact that there was no hyping press from either the White House or Pentagon, as Rep. Waxman left the "urban legend" of their hype remain intact, as Schmidt and Loeb were never called to talk about the sloppy story that got all the other inaccurate reports going.

It takes no more than an hour of research to find out that the colorful “fighting to the death” account did not come from an official White House or Pentagon announcement. It came from sloppy reporting by The Washington Post.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
It’s also worth noting that TNR chose not to report to its readers Maj. Lamb’s public statement of the results of the investigation.
 
Written By: Karl
URL: http://www.claudepate.com
"TNR is standing by their anonymous sources ...and trying to begin a ... paint job which I’m sure will emerge as their new attempt to save themselves from charges of journalistic misconduct."
Just like CBS. In tough times like this one goes to the greybeards (heads) in the shop for advice on how to handle this. The fogeys have faith in what has always worked and that is their advice. In the past, the MSM has helped smooth over any such problems and "if you just hang tough, this too shall pass".

Skeptical young people are afraid, but if they follow the greyheads, they have an great in-house excuse if the advice doesn’t work; maybe enough of an excuse to save their job. And...they don’t know what else to do except admit their error.

What we know is that this time-tested remedy left the building when the internet came to town. Of course the left will seize this straw and fully support TNR in their paper-over attempt and decry the rightosphere for crazily calling attention to their perfidy. They are playing for a tie.

It didn’t work for CBS and I’m betting that it won’t work for TNR, but the lefties had to have learned something out of Rathergate and they will be more difficult to rout this time.


 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
See, TNR has always been more or less a centrist magazine. The problem is that folks like you have moved so far to the right that from your hyperextended view the middle looks like it’s to the far left. The only problem is that the middle didn’t move – YOU did. For those of us that actually do dwell on the left side of the political spectrum, TNR is the same old centrist publication that it always has been. For the most part it is full of sxxt and engages in concern trolling of the highest order. I’ll give you a visual analogy:

X———————-X———————-X

X———————-X—————————————————————X

The top diagram is how the political spectrum used to be. The bottom diagram is what it has turned into. Now granted, from the right side everything on the left looks like it has shifted quite a bit. But who actually moved?
This is what the left really thinks; The National Review is a “Centrist” magazine. I guess “The Communist Manifesto has now become conservative
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
As I read this story, I keep heard the recent comment by Joe Biden that "this Administration has never admitted to a mistake" and realize that the media, TNR included, seems equally, if not more so, unable to admit to a mistake.
Once a newspaper chooses to publish a piece, they pretty much have to stand behind the reporter until the reporter is proven to have fabricated material. Clearly in this case there is a lot to question about TNR’s judgment in publishing this material. But once published and, apparently, collaborated by someone, they have the responsibility to stand by their reporter until either the reporter admits he did wrong, or an investigation provides evidence there was fabrication. The public evidence does seem strongly against Beauchamps and TNR, but they cannot abandon their writer based on an anonymous source to the Weekly Standard. Assuming Beauchamps has recanted, they are honor bound to stick with the story until they find that out for certain, or they get evidence of wrong doing. In that case, they must admit error and give an apology to America’s armed forces and explain how their judgement could have been so bad.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Great site!

Would you consider a link exchange to The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 26 of America’s top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!

http://netradionetwork.com
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://netradionetwork.com
the reporter until the reporter is proven to have fabricated material.

Uh Dude, did you not note that the US Army is QUOTED as saying the results were false? So, TNR has PROOF their guy lied...by your logic they ought to throw him under the bus. Of course, neither you nor they want to go there yet. It’s pretty much gonna take Beauchamp appearing on TV saying, "I lied and I recanted" before you guys own up to it it appears.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, is there a source I don’t know about. All I’ve seen is an anonymous source from the Weekly Standard. TNR did apologize for an error in one event that took place in Kuwait that the author attributed to Baghdad. And, as I said, I’ll accept a military investigation or official statement. Forgive me if an error on location or an anonymous source to the Weekly Standard isn’t enough to be sure. I have a strong suspicion you guys are right and Beauchamps did make most of it up, but right now we still don’t have much information.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh wait Joe, I see what you mean, the quote by Lamb in McQ’s post. I’ll look for a link for that, but for now I think that’s good enough for me. I still think TNR is probably required to wait for more if they have collaborating evidence and are blocked from talking to their reporter. TNR said this: When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations." I understand they need more than just an assertion from the military, they want to see evidence and know how the investigation was done. But the Lamb statement is enough for me, regardless of whether or not the Weekly Standard is right. Do you have a link to the quote from Lamb posted which said that the allegations were false? Sorry I was dense and forgot about a quote right in the post!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Dude, they quoted an ARMY MAJOR...Maj Lamb, IIRC. Now neither DoD, Dept. Army, nor CentCom have denied his statement. So, Yes Dr. Erb he has been PROVEN to have made false statements to TNR. Time for you and Foer to throw him under the bus. Be men just own up that you guys liked what Beauchamp wrote, both you and TNR liked his statements, "This is what I REALLY think the troops are like, so I buy into ’The Baghdad Diarist.’" It’s NOT an anonymous source saying he lied in his articles, it’s an anonymous source claiming he recanted. His honesty in reportage HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
He is quoted as saying that Beauchamp’s claims were UNSUBSTANTIATED. He lied.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Aldo - unlike Mona, we actually can multi-task.
Ok, but can you do it in different puppet voices?

Has your multi-tasking ever been read on the floor of the US Senate?

Have you ever written a best-selling book?

I didn’t think so.

Good day sir!


[Mona/off]
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Once a newspaper chooses to publish a piece, they pretty much have to stand behind the reporter until the reporter is proven to have fabricated material.
They don’t HAVE to, they choose to. Stupidly, I might add.

The reason TNR has been standing behind Beauchamp is because they were caught in a lie (i.e. that they performed the necessary and appropriate fact-checking) and have been digging a deeper hole ever since. TNR’s obstinance is not based on loyalty, but on the age-old maxim that if you lie once, you’ll just have to keep telling more and bigger lies to cover it up.

IOW, they are less interested in people discovering that Beauchamp is a fraud than in people discovering TNR is a fraud.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy."
Nononono.

That isn’t how it works.

See, the ARMY is the official organization. It’s legitimacy beats YOUR legitimacy.

TNR should share their sources first, so we can all laugh.

In case TNR is reading though, one major source would be Maj. Lamb himself.

"Alligations are false" kinda means you got pwned, morons...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"they have the responsibility to stand by their reporter until either the reporter admits he did wrong, or an investigation provides evidence there was fabrication... they cannot abandon their writer based on an anonymous source ...they are honor bound to stick with the story until they find that out for certain, or they get evidence of wrong doing."

Like Murtha and the Marines? You mention honor? Consistently inconsistent, as usual.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You know, a source from the University of Maine informed me that Scott Erb has faced several disciplinatry committees for molesting young boys...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Ok, but can you do it in different puppet voices?

1. Has your multi-tasking ever been read on the floor of the US Senate?

2. Have you ever written a best-selling book?

I didn’t think so."

Last time I checked they have read phone books on the floor of the US Senate.

And I do believe Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and it has sold more copies than yours. Mao had the little red book published and I am sure that also has had more copies published than your drivel.

So in response to your "I am smarter than you becuase of statements 1 and 2", they doent prove anything and have nothing to do with this discussion.

So like most liberals you throw dirt up in the air with false analogies to try to confuse issues, especially when caught with your pants down supporting a known falsehood.

In regards to statement number 1, congratulations you have equaled the literary accomplishments of the phone company. In regards to statement number 2 you have shown that just because something you have written was published it doesnt mean that it was either correct or even worthy of consideration. Sort of like PVT Beauchamp’s pieces of crap in the TNR.

Nowadays the younger generation would say you have just been pwned.

Have a nice day.



 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Like Murtha and the Marines? You mention honor? Consistently inconsistent, as usual. — timactual
Oh ho ho! If Erb had any shame — or even a half-way decent intellect — that would leave a mark. Splendid catch. Hope you can salvage your irony meter.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda dear, if he had any shame, he’d shut up till he provided those links...

And I have also confirmed through a source at University of Maine at Farmington that Erb kills kittens at the start of each class. To challenge his students.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You know, a source from the University of Maine informed me that Scott Erb has faced several disciplinatry committees for molesting young boys...
You shouldn’t post when you’re drunk, Scott, you can get yourself in trouble.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, I’m quite sober...

And I stand behind my source. I’ve even confirmed their information by talking to three other faculty members...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Well, Scott, you are demonstrating a complete lack of honor by making such charges on a public forum. This may have real world implications for you. Goodbye.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Really?

But... But I have a source! And sources that back up that source!

If... If I’m wrong...

Then what about TNR, your god damn fraudulant, intellectual hack???
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs, you have done more to insult yourself than I or anyone else ever could.

You are on the public record here lying, Scott. Everybody who reads this knows you’re making vicious untrue statements against me. You are a public liar. You’ve made numerous insults, but can’t back anything up. You show here that you have absolutely no moral qualms about lying when you’re mad at someone, that any honor you might have had goes out the window when you get a grudge. You show what you are. Thank you for that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
LMAO

You calling ME a liar for obvious satire (intended to point out to you a basic flaw in your logic - I should have known better) when you lie day in and day out here (I won’t even speculate as to the intellectual fraud you inflict upon your poor students).

You think anyone here has a reduced sense of my personal honor, my integrity?

Seriously, you are the funniest guy on the internet today Erb. Congrats.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Erb can settle this by A) Providing the links that Scott is requesting or B) Admitting these links don’t exist and he lied about having these sources.

Choice A or B.

Which is it, Erb?
 
Written By: Choice A or B
URL: http://

You calling ME a liar for obvious satire (intended to point out to you a basic flaw in your logic
No, you lied — and in a manner that could be considered slander. You should watch it, these are public forums.

Second, you have never given any evidence that I’ve lied. You call names, but don’t back up your insults. That shows a lack of integrity and honor, and that should bother you inside. One reason I don’t insult much (I try not to at all) is that I usually regret it because my sense of ethics tells me that unless I really know a person and am certain, it simply is wrong to smear or insult. To me that’s a matter of integrity and indeed honor. You probably won’t be able to change how you respond to me, but in the future I’d urge you to think before you insult, and recognize that an attack on someone else is something you should only engage in if you: a) have real evidence that it is correct; and b) it’s necessary.

Third, what do you mean by "flaw in my logic." The National Review has had real reports that they believed were true and were corroborated. You made up a vicious smear and claimed you talked to others who corroborated it. That’s an entirely different situation, and you should be smart enough to know it.

Finally, I’ve been patient and responded to you when in most cases I’d just have shook my head and thought "this guy is a bit over the top," especially when you come up with a demand for "links." The reason is I think you’re basically well intended and not malicious, that your insults are due to an emotional reaction to my posts, and not a vengeful or hateful spirit. I’ve only encountered two or three people on the usenet I determined were truly bad people — dishonest, hateful, and utterly without honor. In those cases I simply stopped responding to them or reading what they write — they are simply not the kind of people deserving of a second of my time. Most of the time I see those who insult as simply responding to an image of me they have in their mind which is untrue and warped. None of your insults would at all occur to the people I work with daily because I’ve proven myself professionally and personally. I’m sure you probably believe they are true — again, I don’t see you as fundamentally dishonorable or malicious. But you need to step back and actually talk to someone rather than react to what you think they mean or say.

I’m not expecting you to do that to me — that would probably seem like giving in to me, which of course you won’t do — but maybe in the future you shouldn’t be so quick to judge and insult without evidence.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The National Review has had real reports that they believed were true and were corroborated.
But are now obviously lies.

The difference between what I said (which was obviously false, unless there’s something you’d like to get off yoru chest) and what TNR has done is a matter of mere degrees.

There’s a reason I chose the "allagation" I did. I suppose I should have used "A former stdent" to make the paralelle closer.

Raping young boys is about the same level of horror as the Military places on playing with the bones of the bones of a dead child, or mocking a "melted face" IED victim.

That you can’t see the relationship between what I said and your defense of TNR is rather sad.

And for that, at least, I’m sorry.

And for it to be slander, sir, I would have to be able to lower people’s opinion of you.

I assure you, that isn’t possible.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott, the people at TNR have evidence for their belief. That evidence may be wrong or fabricated, but they have evidence. Until they have proof that the evidence was fabricated, they stick by their story with the proviso they are investigating it. I doubt they are yet convinced that the story was "obvious lies," and certainly they haven’t gotten the evidence yet. When they do (and since I think the stories are fabricated, I suspect the evidence will come out), they will need to not only apologize and set the record straight, but investigate their own policies and procedures.

You are right about one thing: nothing you write can lower peoples’ opinion of me. The people who know me would easily realize you’re just flinging politically motivated insults at me and you obviously do not know me at all. You’d be easily ignored. As for some of the flamesters on the internet, well, I’ve learned to ignore insults and look for chances for communication — sometimes some of my best internet conversations have come with people who at first reacted to my ideas with insults because that’s a mode of operation on the usenet. I’ve chosen to abandon that mode (I tried tit for tat back in the 90s, but it ended up devolving to just insult exchanges) in a selfish desire to understand different perspectives and ideas. I’m learning a lot here, especially about the military perspective. Insults, well, they’re meaningless except that they inhibit the possibility of mutual learning through dialogue. I know you don’t want though, so carry on.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"The aligations were proven false" must mean something different in your world.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott, TNR cannot simply take that assertion as true without getting more information. That’s why they pressed Lamb for more information. All they have is an assertion by the military that they investigated and disproved the stories. That is good enough for me; barring new developments, I accept the military assertion. But for TNR they have their own corroboraters, they aren’t able to talk to their "reporter" and they don’t know the details. So they really can’t do much else but wait for more information at this time, and hope the military provides them with enough information to allow them to trust the assertion. Reporters must have a healthy skepticism for what government spokespeople simply assert, including the military.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
you have never given any evidence that I’ve lied
I did.

I provided three quotes in three separate threads in which you defend BDS.

You claim you have repeatedly made comments in many threads AGAINST those types of attacks within the QandO comments.

That is a lie.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Reporters must have a healthy skepticism for what government spokespeople simply assert, including the military. "

Actually dummie, good and honest reporters are supposed to have healthy skepticism for what ANYBODY says, hence the situation that TNR is in...
 
Written By: Erb Fan
URL: http://
"Scott Jacobs, you have done more to insult yourself than I or anyone else ever could."

It is really embarrassing itself here. What a definitive demonstration of shallowness and lack of intellect.

"·ro·ny n. , pl. -nies . The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning."

This one I particularly like;

" The saying ’Irony is wasted on the stupid’ works well as long as the person addressed believes themself to be a sage despite making an absolute ass of themself, and nods wisely in assent."

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:hctj_gtcFVkJ:www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A700958+%22irony+is+wasted+on+the+stupid%22%3B&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


"You should watch it, these are public forums."

Evidently a newcomer to the internet.

"an attack on someone else is something you should only engage in if you: a) have real evidence that it is correct; and b) it’s necessary"

a) It has supplied a plethora of evidence
b) It is occasionally necessary, if only to inform newcomers of what they are dealing with

c) Amusement and/or the challenge of formulating an amusing, creative, insult are also sufficient reasons in its case. It has forfeited any claim to respectful or courteous treatment.


"simply responding to an image of me they have in their mind which is untrue and warped"

Oh, I agree, but not quite in the way you intended.

" But you need to step back and actually talk to someone rather than react to what you think they mean or say."

Because, Mr. Jacobs, we do not have the intellectual acumen to actually understand the written word, particularly when used to express profound and complex ideas.

Enough.
I weary of this sport.;)
(heh)

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Actually dummie, good and honest reporters are supposed to have healthy skepticism for what ANYBODY says, hence the situation that TNR is in...
Quite true, I’m not defending their choice to hire him.

JWG: Those threads were certainly not defending personal smears on Bush.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You show here that you have absolutely no moral qualms about lying when you’re mad at someone, that any honor you might have had goes out the window when you get a grudge. You show what you are. Thank you for that.
Wait a sec - I thought honor was something Scott Erb did not understand or run into on a daily basis...

Interesting
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Wait a sec - I thought honor was something Scott Erb did not understand or run into on a daily basis...
Only when it benifits him does he think he can spot it...

And even then he’s wrong.

Classic, ain’t it.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Wait a sec - I thought honor was something Scott Erb did not understand or run into on a daily basis...
Communication skills - speak to the audience appropriately. The word "honor" is used in ways where I might have used "ethical" or some other formation. But the word "honor" is used by most people here, so I adjust my vocabularly accordingly. As I said, I learn a lot here.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Still stealing pizzas, you dirty thief?

 
Written By: Erb Steals Pizzas
URL: http://
JWG: Those threads were certainly not defending personal smears on Bush.
Riiiight.

A US congressman claiming that Bush is involved in a "conspiracy" is not a personal smear.
A US congressman claiming that Bush acted "treasonously" is not a personal smear.
A US congressman claiming that Bush told "using lies to defraud Congress" is not a personal smear.
A US congressman comparing Bush’s actions to those of Hitler is not a personal smear.
And we all know that Ted Rall never smears anyone, especially Bush.

I’m sure you’ve found a quote or two demonstrating your claim about defending Bush against smears, right?

We’re still waiting, liar.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, post precisely the comments of mine you’re talking about. You’ll see I’m not defending smears of Bush; in fact, in talking about the Reichstag I noted that there were points of comparison but the differences were more important. I certainly wouldn’t defend any claim that Bush was acting treasonously. No, JWG, you have nothing.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Fraud.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
JWG, post precisely the comments of mine you’re talking about.
I already did when your lies were first discussed.
in talking about the Reichstag I noted...
Ellison says 9/11 was "almost like the Reichstag fire" and you said criticizing the fact that he made that comparison was wrong and "irrational". According to you it’s wrong and irrational to claim 9/11 is *not* "ALMOST LIKE the Reichstag fire".

That’s a DEFENSE of Ellison from the critics who attacked his comparison.
I certainly wouldn’t defend any claim that Bush was acting treasonously
You claimed it was "politics as usual" when McQ criticized it. That’s a DEFENSE.
No, JWG, you have nothing
Where are your quotes demonstrating how you criticized BDS on this blog?

You are a lying joke who is once again trying to spin your own words.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: Quotes given in another thread (Comment 6620).

You are not telling the truth when you claim you gave my words defending "BDS" — you haven’t. You’ve given snippets that don’t at all prove what you say, and in fact it is evidence that you know you’re not telling the truth that you are opaque and unwilling to actually go in and show the words.

I said the Democratic reaction on Scooter Libby was politics as usual, and noted that the Republicans had a similar reaction to Clinton’s pardons. I still hold that position. That isn’t the same as agreeing with every statement.

I said that comparisons to the Reichstag fire are natural, and students even come up with that on their own when I lecture on Hitler’s rise to power (and some of the leftist ones make very direct comparisons). My response is then as in the thread that the reaction in Germany was was much different in that’s a sign of our stable Democratic political culture. I of course reject completely any comparison of Bush to Hitler, and have never defended such.

It’s too bad you spend so much time trying to play a ’gotcha game’ rather than actually discussing anything of substance. But that’s your choice. You’re not doing it very well though.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
That isn’t the same as agreeing with every statement.
*ERB LOGIC ALERT*

You’re changing the argument.

"Defending" doesn’t mean "agreeing".

1) Your reaction to a post criticizing accusations from Democrats that Bush is "treasonous" was NOT to add you own criticism against the claim of treason. INSTEAD, you argued that Republicans had done something similar to Clinton.

2) Your reaction to a post criticizing the claim from a congressman that 9/11 was "ALMOST LIKE" the Reichstag fire was to say that criticizing Ellison for making the "ALMOST LIKE" comparison was "irrational".

You could have just listed reasons why Ellison was wrong to use the "ALMOST LIKE" comparison. INSTEAD, you gave us reasons why we should not be criticizing Ellison.

3) In both instances, you provided a DEFENSE for the words made by these people. In both instances you provided reasons why the criticisms against these people were unwarranted.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Wait a sec - I thought honor was something Scott Erb did not understand or run into on a daily basis..."

He doesn’t. He just has a new toy. He has discovered that the concept of honor means something to the people here, so he now uses it, too. Just one of the guys, now.

 
Written By: timactual
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