Article

2007-08-02 Iraq

The Scott Thomas Affair: New Statement from TNR

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2007-08-02 16:30|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Well, that's convienient...

Posted by tu3031 2007-08-02 17:00|| 2007-08-02 17:00|| Front Page Top

#2 Right...and that's going to matter when they haul him in for court martial as well. I get the feeling that these other soldiers won't be testifying on the Scott's behalf.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2007-08-02 17:05|| 2007-08-02 17:05|| Front Page Top

#3 When this first emerged on the web, it seemed like self-serving liberal BS and I tended to dismiss it as bull$hit. I still view it as tripe.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-08-02 17:11|| 2007-08-02 17:11|| Front Page Top

#4 Here's a fun fact; if Scott had completed college and then came into the army, he would come in as an E-4 (Specialist). If he had over 60 credits he would come in as an E-3 (Private First Class). Now he is just plain old private. Seems like he got some UCMJ loving and got demoted before he deployed.

Posted by Army Life 2007-08-02 17:25|| 2007-08-02 17:25|| Front Page Top

#5 "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott." So PV2 beauchamp (Super Liberal) and buddy were in fact the ones making fun of a disfigured woman and that would make him the "Shock Troops". Oh I bet his NCOs are going to love him after they read that (I know I would).

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:47|| 2007-08-02 17:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Good catch Army Life that one blew right past me.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:48|| 2007-08-02 17:48|| Front Page Top

#7 I guess he is a "Shock Troop" that collect Art. 15 paperwork.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:49|| 2007-08-02 17:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Let the Whitewash Begin, wuddnt us, he fibbed, we checked, but somehow this little fib got through (Etc, Etc)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-08-02 17:54|| 2007-08-02 17:54|| Front Page Top

#9 The way he described driving a Bradley was totally bogus. The guy is a Piker. A lying sonufabitch.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-08-02 18:58|| 2007-08-02 18:58|| Front Page Top

#10 Figgured as much. Looks like they are going to try for the Military Coverup(tm). The fall back if that dosen't work is some variation of "fake but accurate". They are never going to admit any culpability, for they are the Pure and Just. They are never wrong in their minds.

Posted by N Guard 2007-08-02 19:01|| 2007-08-02 19:01|| Front Page Top

#11 If crimes indeed were committed by him, it should be pointed out that Pvt Beauchamp was a liberal who supported left wing causes before he entered the military.

Crimes were also asserted as having been committed by himself by John Kerry.

So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives?

This is not as ridiculous as it sounds, in that the vast majority of serial killers and multiple killers who "go postal", with a few exceptions, are not, in fact, conservatives as portrayed by the media, but are liberals and supporters of left wing causes.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-08-02 19:05|| 2007-08-02 19:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Not that it's likely, but if this matter progresses to formal charges against Beauchamp et al., does the UCMJ allow a military court to subpoena the editors of TNR?

Posted by mrp 2007-08-02 19:44|| 2007-08-02 19:44|| Front Page Top

#13

So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives?

Nah. Just more likely to brag about it and try to blame everyone else afterwards.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-08-02 20:34|| 2007-08-02 20:34|| Front Page Top

#14 I have never before made a comment about this "human interset story", but I will step in now to address a point that I have never before seen anyone address.

Under what sort of scenario would a grossly disfigured woman in uniform, with half her face and scalp 'missing', still be on active duty in a combat theater?

For the disfiguring wounds described, I am assuming that the injured woman would have initilly been medevacced to an out-of-theater hospital or burn center - most likly stateside. After healing, such an individual would presumably be medically retired.

Under what sort of circumstances would such a grossly deformed burn victim be redeployed BACK into an operational theater?

Whether military, or State, or CIA, or private contractor - even upon volunteering - I have difficulty imagining an 'employer' sending such an individual back into theater.

This was the very first thought that came to me when I first read the "Shock Troops" article - and that thought still remains with me.

Someone with a bad scar - OK. Someone with some scalp hair shaved off where medial attenion was given to their cranium - OK. Someone with "half her face and one side of her scalp sort of melted off" - 'give me a break. I visualize Jim Carrey as "Fire Marshall Bill" - smoldering - and then try to imagine a hideously burned soldier - male or female - being deployed to a forward combat base - even as a volunteer.

'Can't happen - didn't happen. At least not in the manner described.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2007-08-02 20:53|| 2007-08-02 20:53|| Front Page Top

#15 Under what sort of scenario would a grossly disfigured woman in uniform, with half her face and scalp 'missing', still be on active duty in a combat theater?

IIRC, TNR/Beauchamp referred to the scarred woman as a 'contractor' - the only non-military character in the Scott T. Beauchamp chronicles.

Posted by mrp 2007-08-02 20:57|| 2007-08-02 20:57|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm sorry, but most of the soldiers I know would listen to about 2 seconds of somebody laughing at a burn victim, then go over and slap him in his goddamned head.

Posted by Lionel Ulaiter7581 2007-08-02 21:27|| 2007-08-02 21:27|| Front Page Top

#17 So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives?

'moose is onto something here. I've often thought that liberals are so worried about appearance (not substance), that when truly confronted with real-life stuff/evil, they will take it and take it, until they lash out like a cornered cat. A sort of passive-agressive type mentality writ large.

For example, look at Obama's recent statements. If'n he had been in office 3-4 years and facing Hillary in a few months and (God forbid) something happened in the homeland, would he really invade Pakistan (we know he wouldn't). BUT, if pushed into a corner, by both the media and the public, would he go out and do something stupid like nuking Islamabad (OK, maybe not such a bad thing /sarcasm)? They are all so worried about appearance that one has to wonder (if pushed hard enough) whether they'd do something completely stupid if they were in Bush's shoes. Bush is so calm, cool and collected (and self-assured/confident) that he doesn't react based upon emotion, whereas libs generally do. That can be an even worse situation, in my mind, if we're ever hit again and the public is calling for blood.

Posted by BA 2007-08-02 21:32|| 2007-08-02 21:32|| Front Page Top

23:53 Thrusosing and Tenille7861
23:51 Free Radical
23:27 Icerigger
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:22 Icerigger
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:10 Blinky Spomoger9809
23:08 Dar
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:58 Old Patriot
22:57 twobyfour
22:48 Phinater Thraviger
22:47 N Guard
22:46 Old Patriot
22:34 Old Grouch
22:20 GK
22:17 Army Life
22:01 Barbara Skolaut
21:57 Barbara Skolaut
21:54 Zenster
21:32 BA
21:32 Zenster
21:29 Justrand