I already mentioned this, picking it up from Allah, but I think it needs to be pushed.

The MSM knows TNR fired a staffer for telling the truth about Beauchamp and the reasons for hiring this unqualified, inexperienced, Messiah-complexed frustrated fiction writer. They further know that what Gracie has reported is now confirmed by Franklin Foer.

And yet they are embargoing the fact that Gracie was fired.

This seems relevant, no?

If Kurtz and the MSM need confirmation for this, I suggest they call the New Republic's main line (202-508-4444, in case they don't know the number) and ask if a staffer was fired at 7:25AM or thereabouts yesterday morning with the simple statement "Your services are no longer required."

In fact, I'll ask Gracie to contact them directly to provide his name so they can ask specifically about him, if they contact me about it. I won't tell them Gracie's name myself, but I will ask Gracie if he would share his story with them.

At about 1:00 PM yesterday I got through to TNR on the first call with only two rings and had it confirmed, without any trouble, that "Gracie" had been fired.

This is not a difficult fact to confirm, guys. If I can do it, I'm pretty sure the Washington Goddamn Post has the resources to accomplish this feat.

Ask Franklin Foer why Gracie was fired. Was it because he was making unauthorized communications about unflattering internal matters to outsiders? Was it because he was, in TNR's opinion, undermining the organization? Adding to its difficulties during a crisis?

Really?

Well, if Scott Beauchamp is found to have invented slanders about his own company-mates, he might be facing several months at Leavenworth (though I doubt it; he'll be spared because it's a rule in this country that the left is permitted to violate the law if their conscience so dictates).

But if the investigation is inconclusive, he may still be dishonorably discharged.

Why?

Well, because he was making unauthorized communications about unflattering internal matters to outsiders. Because he was, in the military's opinion, undermining the organization. Adding to its difficulties during a crisis.

And I think should that happen MSM, the left, and Franklin Fuckin' Foer will scream mightily about the unfairness of firing a whisteblower -- even a whistleblower blowing false notes.

So let's have Franklin Foer's opinions on firing whistleblowers now, right up front, thank you very much.

It's relevant to the story. It reduces their ability to spin a story the way they want later. It hurts the cause of the left.

Which is why, of course, the MSM isn't interested.

Well, you're all on notice: You can confirm this easy-to-confirm fact with a five minute call. You have no excuse to not report this, apart from blatant partisan loyalty.

PS: The left is now claiming that Beauchamp's charges should be taken as true, because no one has yet authoritatively proven they're false. The standard seems to be "innocent until proven guilty."

Err... he's called the other hundred men in his company guilty of bad behavior, ranging from the disquieting to the disgusting to the flat-out dischargable.

Are his fellow soldiers not also afforded the presumption of innocence? Does this presumption now, explicitly, only apply to liberals?

Presuming Beauchamp is telling the truth implies, unavoidably, that the soldiers in his unit are guilty of the conduct he alleges. Why is the latter a fair presumption whereas the former is not?

Just because Beauchamp is now named where the soldiers he's maligning are not?

But of course one incident -- the child's skull as a beanie incident -- was witnessed and permitted, even encouraged, by many of the soldiers in Beauchamp's company, according to Beauchamp. None of them reported this conduct to their superiors, or, according againt to Beauchamp, even gave the soldier wearing a child's skull on his head a talking to.

That makes many of them guilty. Everyone in his company is stained by this allegation.

So please tell me why it is that Beauchamp alone in his company is to be afforded this special liberals-only presumption of innocence and integrity, whereas his fellow soldiers are to be presumed monsters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 726 words, total size 4 kb.

Wow, I completely missed this in Kurtz' piece -- and it was right up top.

Does this make the marriage angle relevant? It sure does. What was merely reported by my source "Gracie" yesterday -- that Beauchamp he was chosen primarily because he was married to Elspeth Reeve, and not for his actual experience or reliability -- is confirmed by Foer himself today.

The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."

Allah has more at the link.

Incidentally, no, I'm not apologizing to Kurtz for claiming he lifted the part about the marriage from this site. That was linked by just about everyone yesterday, and he almost certainly got it from here, either directly or indirectly from antoher site linking me.

Foer "disclosed" this because it had already been disclosed, and Kurtz knows that.

Note to Franklin Foer:

Once again I offer my services as Baghdad Diarist, and, to prove my trustworthiness, not only am I willing to engage in light petting with Michelle Cottle (as promised yesterday), I will sweeten the deal with one (1) hot-oil erotic ass-massage for Jonathan Chait.

I'm your guy, Frank. I am willing to do what who it takes.

Are you mad at me, Frank? Frank, are you mad at me? Why won't you talk to me, Frank?

By the way: As Allah asks-- why is no one in the media reporting on TNR's firing of a whistle-blower? Since Kurtz is lifting from me, he knows about that.

Gracie's reporting is proving 100% true. Beauchamp was hired almost entirely because of his marriage to a staffer. That's accurate -- and relevant to the story.

And yet he was fired.

Is "whistleblower" status only afforded by the MSM to liberals advancing liberal causes?

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Probably obvious, I admit.

(Click through) But damn, it kicks more ass than a mentally-challenged giant robot summoning up the full fury of his "retard strength."

Check out the aircraft bays!

Number of ejaculations: I'm not sure, but somehow a dog just got cut in half and I'm pretty sure I melted my neighbor's face

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Note: I misread this guy's column as suggesting that hater-interlopers had joined the PETA rally, shouting hate at Vick.

I was wrong, and I apologize. Re-reading, I see now that I merely imagined the article they way I figured it would unfold. In fact, this writer does say that those shouting for Vick's head were animal rights protestors. (Why he doesn't ID them as PETA, you'll have to ask him-- the damn emblem is on every single placard.)

Part of this post stands: He's an idiot for reading race into this. PETA doesn't care about race; they only care about species. If they're overwehlmingly white, well, that's because only pampered upper-middle-class hausfraus with nothing better to do with their time join this jackass organization.

However, I was quite wrong to say the writer had implied it was outside interlopers causing the problem. He didn't say that. He said all of the people shouting "Burn in hell" were white, but not that they weren't part of the animal-rights rally.

Whether it was only the white protesters shouting "Burn in hell," rather than the few nonwhites there, I can't tell from a photo. So I have no basis upon which to challenge that.

I apologize to him and to you for the error.

Post left intact below.

...

Really? Impossible? I wasn't having too difficult a time about it, douchenozzle.

The crowded, chaotic sidewalk on Main Street, across from the federal courthouse, was an unlikely location for a lesson on the virtues of the fifth amendment.

But standing behind a throng that wanted a pound of Michael Vick's flesh – people that had just screamed for the Atlanta Falcons quarterback to "burn in hell" and held signs advocating his murder, torture and neutering – was Thomas Smith in work boots and a white t-shirt.

High above his head he held a simple sign with just a single word: "Constitution."

"These folks have convicted a man who hasn't even had a chance to defend himself," said Smith. "They just forget everything about America."

But here was America in full force, full vision, mixing it up while Vick pled not guilty to federal charges pertaining to an alleged dog-fighting ring on property he owned in rural Surry County. And front and center, impossible to ignore, was race.

Like Smith, almost all of the people supporting Vick or holding signs pleading for "due process" and "innocence until proven guilty" were African American.

On the other side was an emotional, angry, passionate anti-Vick group that was overwhelmingly white.

Certainly not every animal rights supporter was screaming for Vick to die. Many were just there to support the cause of caring for animals, ending the barbaric practice of dog fighting and using the massive media presence to benefit good.

But a significant number were focused on Vick.

Um, who the fuck should they have been focused on? Harvey Keitel? For what? Showing his ass too frequently in movies?

It's interesting how racial animus is suggested as a reason for whites hatin' on Vick -- whereas it's just apparently accepted for blacks to rally to support a thug out of a misplaced sense of racial solidarity and racist animus against the White Devil's Justice.

Vick is presumed innocent... in a court of law. Outside that court, people are allowed to draw conclusions, which of course everyone does. Certainly Vick's supporters aren't merely abstractly urging for the legal presumption of innocence; they're saying he's innocent. Full stop.

How is this different from Duke? Well, for one thing, the media sudddenly seems to find fault with pot-bangers demanding a conviction. In the Duke case they were rather fond of such concerned citizens.

In another way, it's not different, of course. People really shouldn't be staging pro-conviction rallies, and sure, those screaming for Vick's head ought not to do so. But liberal-loved PETA's calling for his head, too, of course, so the liberal cocksucker writing this has to differentiate their good liberal "concern" for animal rights from nasty conservative playah-hatin'.

So: Who were the trouble-makers here? This jerkoff claims, by implication, it was White Haters who had infiltrated the nice PETA protest in order to scream kill the nigger.

Is that true?

Well, hey, as it turns out, I happen to have some evidence about that. Yesterday official Ace of Spades HQ Baghdad Diarist Dri happened to be at the courthouse where Vick appeared, and he snapped pictures of the crowd.

As far as I can tell, they all seem to be part of the PETA protest, with narry a Klansman infiltrator in site.

Does Yahoo want me to post more pictures? I've got them. And as far as I can tell just about every protester has an animal-rights placard.

So maybe Yahoo should tell the truth: Those calling for Vick to burn in hell were not Angry White Racist Haters who had opportunistically hijacked a nice pleasant PETA rally to shout mean things about a black defendant.

They were PETA types, too.

If you're going to find fault, lay it were truly is. Don't just flat-out make shit up to absolve your liberal buddies while impugning imaginary conservative malefactors.

Note that every poster has the PETA emblem at bottom. Is this "America" -- America the hateful, America the racist -- showing up "in full-force"?

Or is this a small group of zealots with the juvenile, stunted-development lack of capacity to differentiate between animals and human beings?

And what do I spy in the middle of that picture...? Are those two near the middle... brown people? Looks to me like a Hispanic woman and a man guilty of premeditated duskiness in the first degree.

Note To Howie Kurtz: If you feel like swiping this photo, well, I wouldn't fuck with Dri. He's not as pleasant and easygoing as I am.

Posted by: Ace at 11:28 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 989 words, total size 6 kb.

What the hell?

Thanks to CraigC.

Olbermann, Clark Solve Mystery of Pat Tillman's Murder: Well, that didn't take long.

It was Bush and Rove. (Video.)

Thanks to WickedPinto.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

But not relevant enough, it seems, to bother acknowledging where he got the information from.

Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns. He is married to a reporter-researcher at the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve.

If the MSM didn't break it, no one broke it. It just sort of broke itself.

A week ago Kurtz poached from the site, too, from a commenter. (Sorry, forget who... it was about the unlikelihood of the Bradley running down a dog.)

While every other blog mentioned was duly hyperlinked, this one was not.

Hey, Kurtz? If you get it from this fucking site I'd better see a goddamned acknowlegement of that. And a fucking link, buddy. You don't get to decide who you're allowed to steal from without attribution.

I am pissy? Yeah, I am. I let the first time go. This makes it twice. That's a pattern.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

I completely misread this. My fault. So I went for a humorous angle which was pretty funny... assuming the way I read it was accurate.

But it wasn't.

I'll put the post below the fold. My various attempts to rescue the post from that initial misreading have just gotten me further and further into the mud.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

The violent evolutions of the Jesus-complexed shill over an hour:

Jeri Trouble

27 Jul 2007 09:15 am

The Thompson campaign has had its first mini-implosion before it has even started. The wife is the problem, it appears.

Scott Thomas Update

27 Jul 2007 09:55 am

Well, I trawled through the various knuckle-dragging websites and there's still no actual, you know, evidence that he fabricated anything. Maybe he did. First-person war-stories are always hard to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt, no? But if Malkin can't dredge up something and fling it by now, no one can. Unhinged bigot Ace tries dredging through others' private lives again. When in doubt, aim for the girlfriend.

Was it Abraham Lincoln who said no man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar?

Those posts are back-to-back, by the way. Does even Sullivan himself bother reading his blog anymore?

In any event, Fred Thompson enjoyed a colorful, far-ranging sex life, as I'm sure we'll all soon find out.

Brainwashed! In 24 Hours!:

One of my own errors before the war was a function of being steeped in Washington policy debates - and neo-conservative arguments - for years. I had been so conditioned to suspect Iraq after 9/11 that my skepticism deserted me. I mentioned Saddam on September 12. The result was that the prelude to the Iraq war was far too easily framed by the information and biases of the Beltway elite, the Pentagon establishment, and the neocon brain-trust.

Note it was all someone else's fault he was "conditioned" by the "neo-con brain-trust" to suspect Saddam.

Now, in fairness, he's saying he was conditioned "for years," not in the 24 hour period after 9/11.

However, part of this "conditioning" was during the Clinton Administration, which, as you may recall, bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan based on its public claim of verified intelligence of the plant being a joint Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein chem/bio terrorist weapons factory.

Clitnon was part of the "neo-con brain trust."

Who knew?

Posted by: Ace at 09:57 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

G-damn pointyheaded liberal judges.

But really, this is that case where agents in the Boston FBI office deliberately framed four men they knew to be innocent in order to spare a man they knew was the killer, because the killer was their confidential informant.

And so four guys got locked up for 20 or 30 years.

Two guys died in prison. Their heirs will get some money.

Good God.

This is the sort of injustice that cries out for the poetical vengeance of Scott Beauchamps.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

For those who favor the short form.

Here's a good jumping off point. What follows is genuine Scott Thomas Beauchamps, the "greatest emerging poet" in America, by self-declaration.

bavarian stories in some sort of rounded metaphysical order...personality death stories intersecting with poesy home memory reflections. You begin with a place and an action and let it carry in every direction till the words are vibrating on the page, dripping in thick robust delapidated (sic) barnhouses of adjectives and pronouns...no time for the subtle gray faced calculations of a PERFORMED intimacy...go...but remember what Kerouac forgot: revision is spontaneous also. a brief coming back to america introduction, stories about soldiers, prositutes (sic), innocent students rendered featherless by dark rivets of experience and the decadence of human pursuits in every vein...and then there's the veins...follow 'em. Cut your wrist let it bleed onto the paper in unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts.

Via Hit & Run, which thinks he should be court--martialed just for that passage alone.

Incidentally, his wife did win some sort of major prize in her youth for writing or editing... As the Godfather said to the undertaker, "I need all of your skills to make my son presentable to his mother."

So please, cut your wrist let it bleed onto the paper in unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts drifting into brainfarts of spiritqueefs.

More Inspiration From the Greatest Emerging Poet In America:

Just envision all the work we'd have to do Ben, to reach the formality that you so fear and crave. Isn't it more rewarding to throw loose collections of existential darts at each others pictures?

Plus your blog sucks a truckers cum out of a hookers fat snatch. Only because its not up and running correctly.

Lets not fall into despondency. Or depravity. Depravity is having other people define depravity for you.

Yeah, he really said it. And that middle part? Is by far the least objectionable, vomit-inducing part of the post.

Via Dan Riehl, who's been sending me far too many tips for my little moronbrain to read them all.

Mindthoughts? Soulpatterns is a meaningless portmanteau, but at least it is non-redundant in its meaninglessness. In other words, there's no such thing as a soulpattern, ergo you're making up a new word when you say "soulpattern." Not a good, necessary, or useful word, but a new (pretentious, stupid, juvenile, needless) word.

Now... mindthoughts, on the other hand.

As opposed to... Toethoughts? Eyebrowthoughts? Pyloricvalvethoughts? Those-hammer-and-anvil-thingees-in-your-earthoughts?

Greatest fucking emerging poet in America.

Mind-expanding intellect.

Are your minds expanded, y'all?

Or should I say -- are your mindthoughts expanded?

Elspeth, I need a pretentious, tasteless word-substitution for the word "eyes."

Do you think "skulltesticles" sounds pretty good?

Posted by: Ace at 11:17 PM | Comments (236)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.