In an astonishing blog entry by a retired Army soldier SFC Cheryl McElroy, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s first sargeant responded to her inquiry about his TNR stories. This from McElroy’s The Foxhole:
Below is a correspondence I had with PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s Co. 1SG. I e-mailed him via AKO and did not expect him to have the time to answer, but I’m proud to say he did. Looks like The New Republic’s representative lackey has alot of explaining to do. My original e-mail is at the bottom. Enjoy!
SFC McElroy,
I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. We’ve been fighting this fight for quite some time. Numerous soldiers within my unit have served on several deployments and this is my third year as a First Sergeant in this unit. My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.
No comments are required nor are worthy of this fine American soldier and those who serve alongside him.
H/T: Jules Cittendon
…comes from this post in The American Thinker by John B. Dwyer. Recall that yesterday in this space I spotted the same clear discrepancy in stories between the AP and the LA Times. Today Dwyer find the same thing in a story in the Telegraph.
Dwyer was able to get confirmation that the story was false by contacting the Cheif Public Affairs officer in Petraus’ command who says this:
“Gen Petraeus and the Prime Minister have never had a stand-up shouting match. This is a totally fabricated story.
Gen Petraeus has never stated or even hinted at a “stormy relationship.” Saying that they do not pull punches is very different from stormy. That means they have very frank, open, and perhaps direct conversations and continue to do so. Based on what is at stake here; that is what is needed and it should be expected that both are able to have very open and frank dialogue.
Gen Petraeus and other key staff have sat in on every video teleconference with PM Maliki and President Bush. Those statements have never been even hinted at. In addition, PM Maliki has never said what is quoted in the Telegraph to Gen Petraeus.”
The Telgraph story quotes an unnamed source as saying Maliki desires the change, while I concluded yesterday that the source is probably a member of the Moqtada al Sadr voting block which is the political arm of the Mahdi Army, and ally of Iran.
Its becoming obvious that it is the Sadr block who desires Petraus ouster and is advancing the story. Its not good that the Telagraph and the AP are dupes for this and serving as their mouthpiece. Is it that they crave access? CNN proved they would do this in Iraq before the war. Or is it that the writers are covering up their anti-war politics by using Sadr allies as sources?
This may indicate that Sadr and his Iranian masters fear Petraus and his offensive and are tooling up their propoganda proxies in the media knowing it will be read in the US.
Willie Randolph and Omar Minaya obviously realized how they’d hurt the ballclub last night be not having enough players. Two pitchers-Mike Pelfrey and Jon Adkins were sent down. Mike DeFilice and David Newhan were recalled.
In a wonderful story, the Iraqi National Scoccer team overcame tremendous odds and unprecedented personal hardships to win the Asian Cup. The beat a very good and seasoned Saudi Arabia side 1-0. Here’s some of the Reuters story:
Iraq were forced to train and play their qualifiers in neutral countries and their coach, Brazilian coach Jorvan Vieira, who said he planned to quit after the match, only had two months to mould a team that included Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish players.
None of the Iraqi players have been untouched by the war and although they have tried to mask their grief, there were constant reminders of the sectarian violence at home.
At least three players in the squad have lost relatives in the past two months and all the players wore black armbands during the final in memory of the 50 people killed by suicide bombers after Wednesday’s semi-final win over South Korea.
Someone make sure congressional Dems get a copy of this story.
When the Mets were forced to take out an injured Paul LoDuca in the 8th was an example in roster mismanagement. With the DFA of C Sandy Alomar Friday to make room for Moises Alou they left themselves open to what happened tonight. With Castro’s insertion into the game for LoDuca, it left Randolph with no position players. The reason: The unnecessary recall of Mike Pelfrey to make one start in a DH. Pelfrey’s addition to the 25 man roster gave the Mets a ridiculous number of 13 pitchers. The second start should have gone to Aaron Sele, who has not pitched since July 19-now 9 days.
UPDATE: Now with the Mets down a run, they will not have anyone to hit in the # 9 spot. Knight speculates it will be Tom Glavine, unless Beltran can hit.
UPDATE: Thats what happned. And as it’s LoDuca’s hammy, the Mets hopefully have already been on the phone making sure there’s a back-up catcher here for tomorrow afternoon’s game. I wonder if they can revoke the DFA of Alomar. Just nuts!
UPDATE: I found the WFAN feed and realize they still have the same little music jingles they used back in my NY Days. Cool. Tony Paige is beating up on Randolph for his seventh inning where he used both Anderson and Castro for the LoDuca injury. Randolph’s thinking was sound with Anderson’s numbers against Ray King being 3 hits in 5 trips with a 2B and an HR. Sometimes you make the right moves and they don’t work out. I maintain the problem was the Mets did not need to bring up Pelfrey to make the start in Beltran. Its silly to leave yourself with 13 pitchers 8 position players and only 4 bench players. And one of those you could use, making it 3. Tonight’s 25 man roster essentially left him with a two pinch hitters and an emergency back-up catcher. Orlando Hernandez had to PR and Tom Glavine had to PH.
The Mets just must be totally preoccupied with not having enough pitchers. Their recall of Pelfrey to make one start indicates they are obsessed with him. They probably promised he woud be brought on this date and they didn’t want to back off on that.
for the Washington Nationals had an interesting observation about Jose Reyes. When Reyes easily went behind second to field a groundball, kinight commented that reyes had, “soft feet.” He alos made the observation that there was not enough speed between difference between Mike Pelfrey’s slider and fastball to make ML hitters miss enough.
Knight was providing some fascinating nuances about the game tonight. It something I remember him doing as a player. Keith Hernandez was the often the same in that they were such thinking players they would manage along with Davey Johnson.
Its no surprise that Knight would one day manage and like Hernandez find themselves explaining the game for the rest of us on TV in a remarkable unassuming way.
Two stories are in the news right now that deal with the same topic-the nature of the relationship between US General David Petraus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. One is in the LA Times and other is an AP story. The theme and general focus of the story is the same in both yet the tone subtly, but effectively different. But articles indicate that there is indeed friction between the two, yet it is the AP article which asserts it is far worse to the point of being a problem. Lets take a look.
First, lets look at the lede of LA Times version, the one that downplays or doesn’t sex up the intensity of the row as does the AP story.
U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledged today that differences existed between Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and the top U.S. commander but denied that the Iraqi leader wanted Gen. David H. Petraeus removed.
Now the AP lede:
A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
So the AP says that Maliki may demand Patreus ouster, but the LA Times story says thats not the case. Why? One clue comes from the sourcing.
The LA Times uses Haider Aladi, a Maliki adviser, as primary source of quotes from the Iraqi government. The AP quotes Sami al Askari. And it is al Askari-the AP source-who says that Maliki may demand Petraus removal. By their own story, the AP outs al Askari as the one who made the demand:
Sami al-Askari, a key aide to al-Maliki and a member of the prime minister’s Dawa Party, said the policy of incorporating one-time Sunni insurgents into the security forces shows Petraeus has a “real bias and it bothers the Shiites,” whose communities have been targeted by Sunnis in Iraq’s sectarian conflict.
“It is possible that we may demand his removal,” al-Askari said.
A lawmaker from the al-Sadr bloc, who wouldn’t allow use of his name because of the political sensitivity of the matter, said al-Maliki once told Petraeus: “I can’t deal with you anymore. I will ask for someone else to replace you.”
The LA Times does quote Sami al Askari, but limits it to this:
“They are working together, even if there are differences,” said Sami Askari, one of the prime minister’s aides and a member of his Shiite Dawa Party.
Is easy to wonder if the similarities of spellings in Arabic names confuses english speaking journalists and readers. Its also common knowledge that Islamists commonly manipulate this to confuse us.
Moreover, AP also quotes who it describes as a Sadrist politician, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zibari:
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told Newsweek magazine the Petraeus-al-Maliki relationship is “difficult.” For one thing, the Americans retain control of the Iraqi military. “The prime minister cannot just pick up the phone and have Iraqi army units do what he says. Maliki needs more leverage,” Zebari said.
The prime minister has complained to President Bush about the policy of arming Sunnis, said the Sadrist lawmaker.
The LA Times story provides some evidence that the one who’s saying that Maliki may ask for Petraus too be removed is one the AP sources for its story, Sami al Asakari:
News reports Friday quoted a Shiite politician who is close to Maliki and affiliated with anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr as saying that Maliki had told Petraeus he couldn’t work with him and wanted him replaced.
Remember, its Sami al Askari telling the AP:
“It is possible that we may demand his removal,” al-Askari said.
Its easy to conclude that its Sami al Askari is the one who made the quote Friday, the one who’s trying to advance the friction angle and that he is also one of the Iraqi Sadr block in Parlaiment. The Sadr block wants the US out and is loyal to Iran. Its Mahdi Army is fighting US and Iraqi troops as we speak. Its quite understandable this Sadr block and any of its politicians would want the general out who is currently, well, kicking there ass.
So why is AP getting its background quotes from an Sadr source? The LA Times reporter didn’t use extensive quotes from Sami al Askari. Is it that the Sadr block politicians know to go to the AP already and know that they are a willing mouthpiece for their propoganda?
….W. Thomas Smith, Jr is about to begin an imbed assignment with a Marine unit. His blog will be a must.
….politically formidable. It may unify the secular population of Pakistan and provide the sort of political backbone needed to defeat terrorists intheir country. If Bhutto, one of the most popular political figures in the world, is able to form an alliance with Musharraf and return as Prime Minister as the AP article speculates it could prove to be a powerful one against radical Islamists.
The deal seems to be held up on Musharraf’s desire to stay on as Military cheif.
