Quote:
Originally Posted by Highwayman  What do you mean “…without someone to attribute it to?” Did you miss it? |
I read the alledged quote, too bad an unreliable source posted it. Where as the following statement in the orignal post in this thread is readily verifiable.
"Army spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said its inquiry is ongoing at the unit level. Beauchamp can't be punished for his views, but he faces the possibility of an administrative, or noncriminal, charge if the Army determines he lied in his writings"
hmm, if the Army determines he lied in his writings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highwayman You should be getting the idea. Beauchamp was making statements that didn’t wash with too many folks. The New Republic was swearing it was all true. They even referred to serious breeches of conduct as “pranks”. And yes, I do get upset when someone is making up crap that makes our military look bad. |
You and others don't like what was written. So the writer has to be attacked ? I don't read that website nor rarely ge the parent magazine so I guess I will remain blissfully unaware of what was actually printed in total.
But until the accounts are proven to be false, and they have not been proven to be false, despite whatever fantasy the Weekly Standard came up with. The author at the moment, and this is not in dispute, is a member of the active duty military and not an Onion nor Fox newswriter wanna be-yet. But thank you for helping to prove the point that soldiers not writing the "official line" are to attacked as liars, malcontents, traiters, etc.