But He Was In Kuwait

I'm forced to shove Howie Kurtz to one side, because he's got company in the venerable "Asshat of the Month" award. Yes, the judges had to make a last-minute call here - even though it's not quite yet the middle of the month. I don't think anyone could beat these pair. Congratulations, Charles Krauthammer - you're a co-Asshat of the month!

You see, Chuckles here decided to weigh in on the Scott Beauchamp issue - maybe because he fell left out as the only conservative columnist who hasn't. In his examination of the issue, he's decided that Pvt Beauchamp has no credibility because the story of the disfigured woman happened in Kuwait, and not in Iraq. Yeap. That's his case.

Amid these conflicting claims, one issue is not in dispute. When the New Republic did its initial investigation, it admitted that Beauchamp had erred on one "significant detail." The disfigured-woman incident happened not in Iraq, but in Kuwait.

That means it happened before Beauchamp arrived in Iraq. But the whole point of that story was to demonstrate how the war had turned an otherwise sensitive soul into a monster. Indeed, in the precious, highly self-conscious literary style of an aspiring writer trying out for a New Yorker gig, Beauchamp follows the terrible tale of his cruelty to the disfigured woman by asking, "Am I a monster?" And answering with satisfaction that the very fact that he could ask this question after (the reader has been led to believe) having been so hardened and brutalized by war shows that there is a kernel of humanity left in him.

But, oh, how much was lost. In the past, you see, he was a sensitive soul with "compassion for those with disabilities." In a particularly treacly passage, he tells us that he once worked in a summer camp with disabled children and in college helped a colleague with cerebral palsy. Then this delicate compassionate youth is transformed into an unfeeling animal by war.

Except that it is now revealed that the mess-hall incident happened before he even got to the war. On which point, the whole story -- and the whole morality tale it was meant to suggest -- collapses.

Examine this line of logic closely. The event happened in Kuwait, which somehow, in Krauthammer's universe, isn't connected to the war in Iraq. Beauchamp didn't meet this woman in Korea, or Europe, or some other U.S. military base outside of the United States. IT WAS IN KUWAIT - the main staging ground for personnel and equipment coming into Iraq. A Muslim country, neighboring Iraq, with much the same force protection issues as Iraq. Where did Krauthammer think the woman got her injuries? In Guam, in a horrible kitchen accident? I guess we don't have her testimony to satisfy Mr. Krauthammer.

It would be nice to disregard Pvt Beauchamp's issue of how he may have overembellished his stories about Iraq (and Kuwait), because you and I - the serious interested parties of the Iraq conflict - know that in war, shit happens, and it is an ugly environment. It's not going to change the course of the war. But the right just won't let this story drop, as if Beauchamp's guilt or innocence somehow negates anything the war critics have to say. It's amazing. Who are the bigger ghouls, Kurtz-Krauthammer and their cohorts, or the alleged soldiers in Beauchamp's stories?

Comments

[NVH]

Ok, kurtz is useless. But "chuckles" gets it right a lot of times, IMHO, and does it pretty simply cause I'm able to read and retain his column at ludicrous speeds. MAYBE here, he is piling on as you say. But seriously J, Kuwait is to Iraq, what Japan and Hawaii were in Vietnam; Hell maybe Saigon, since yes, it is a staging area. I don't really care if PVT Beauchamp is worse off for war, or not, I don't care if Chuckles is piling on here, b/c I would skip this article in the paper cause it doesn't matter. I DO care that you are really pushing this agenda that everyone on the right is some kind of over conservative harlot just waiting to pounce on every issue the left brings up, and that the right is always wrong, Maybe this is an isolated case, benefit of the doubt on that, but I haven't really seen you looking at the right wing candidates lately, which I think a progressive would be doing, you know, Fair and Balanced.

[J.]

See, NVH, I was just getting used to you saying nice things about me, and you send this ;^) You want to use parallelism, Kuwait is to Iraq as Thailand is to Vietnam. That's your frakking parallel. I've stayed away from critiquing the right wing candidates because 1) I haven't seen any of them promote a defense agenda other than "stay the course" and "nuke Mecca" - although I've heard something about Mitt having one; and 2) Fair and Balanced doesn't mean giving equal time to Repubs and Dems. It just means analyzing an issue and telling the truth.

[NVH]

Yeah, alright, I'll give you that on 1 and 2. I'm not asking for a comprehensive review of both sides, though that would help simplify my search immensely in my decisionmaking (hint). I am ASSUMING on 1) that you aren't going to get anything on it 'til after the nominee, b/c Repubs are the Nat Sec go to guys, strong defense, and all and they'll stand behind that. DEMs are the ones that need to come out on that issue to convert the middle guys, and even with Obama's educated rhetoric on the subject, I just don't trust DEMs to do any better, and I'd rather give it to Repubs to not do any worse in that case. Have a good weekend...