UPDATED: Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist"
UPDATE: At 3:43 p.m. ET on August 2, The New Republic posted on its website "A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp," attributed to "the Editors," which reported that as a result of questions raised about the veracity of Beauchamp's posts for TNR, the magazine had "extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account." Regarding the anecdote Beauchamp told about mocking a disfigured woman in a dining hall in Iraq -- the anecdote that the Weekly Standard quoted Sanchez disputing -- the editors wrote the following:
Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."
The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
The editors reported that they were able to corroborate the rest of Beauchamp's reporting, although they said their review was "short-circuit[ed]" by the Army, which undertook its own investigation.
According to the Weekly Standard, Sanchez wrote an email to the Standard's Michael Goldfarb, in which he disputed Beauchamp's assertion that the incident occurred at Camp Falcon. Sanchez reportedly wrote: "Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story. I've eaten in the Falcon chow hall and never saw anyone like the woman described."
While TNR editors found further evidence that the incident did in fact occur, the editors' statement corroborates Sanchez's suggestion that the incident did not occur where Beauchamp originally said it did.
------------------------------------------------
In an effort to undermine a New Republic article by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp about alleged inappropriate conduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, an article by Weekly Standard reporter Matthew Goldfarb relied on Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez as the only military source identified by name but did not reveal facts that weigh on the credibility of Sanchez's attacks on The New Republic article: that Sanchez, whose website describes him as a "Marine Reservist" who is "[p]resently in Iraq interviewing the troops," has reportedly been under investigation by the Marines over allegations that he bilked private donors out of $12,000 for a deployment to Iraq he never made and that he apparently once worked as a male escort. He has also admitted to having been in gay porn films, a fact he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae."
On July 13, The New Republic published an article by a "Baghdad Diarist" by the name of "Scott Thomas," which TNR identified as "a pseudonym for a freelance writer and soldier currently serving in Baghdad." Thomas alleged that while eating in the mess hall at Camp Falcon, he and several other members of his platoon mocked a woman disfigured by "IEDs." Thomas also told the tales of a fellow soldier who ran over dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle for entertainment and another who played with the skull of a dead Iraqi child. The veracity of TNR's story was subsequently challenged in a Weekly Standard blog post by Goldfarb as well as by several other right-wing bloggers, attacks that were noted by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz in a July 21 article for the Post. On July 26, "Thomas" revealed his true identity as Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is reportedly married to New Republic reporter-researcher Elspeth Reeve.
On July 20, before Beauchamp revealed his identity, Goldfarb published an article for the Standard alleging that the account by TNR's "Thomas" was "looking more and more like fiction." Goldfarb's story relied on quotes from several people identified in the story as active-duty members of the U.S. armed forces. These sources were all quoted anonymously except for Sanchez, who was described by Goldfarb as a man who "stands behind his work." According to the article, Sanchez wrote Goldfarb an email in which he stated:
I was actually in Camp Falcon earlier this month and I'm heading back from Afghanistan. I've contacted Captain Carson, the Public Affairs Officer for Falcon and I'll work on proving this Fact or Fiction.
Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story. I've eaten in the Falcon chow hall and never saw anyone like the woman described.
However, Goldfarb did not disclose several facts that might undermine Sanchez's credibility. Sanchez is reportedly under investigation by the military for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request." According to the article, the email added: "'Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul." The article stated, "In an interview Thursday with Marine Corps Times, Sanchez said the fund-raising allegations are 'demonstrably false' and that he never collected money from either organization." The article stated that "[t]he Corps on Friday [March 29] was slated to wrap up" the Sanchez investigation, but Media Matters has been unable to locate any articles reporting whether the investigation did indeed wrap up, and if so, what the results of the investigation were.
In a March 8 article for Salon.com, Sanchez wrote: "Others [bloggers] were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."
After leaving his work as a male escort and in the adult film industry behind, Sanchez enlisted as a Marine Corps reservist and enrolled at Columbia University. In October 2005, Sanchez filed a harassment complaint against three Columbia students, members of the International Socialist Organization, who he claims verbally attacked him during a student fair. Three months later, Columbia decided to take no disciplinary action against the students named in Sanchez's complaint. He subsequently took his case to the conservative media, penning an op-ed for the New York Post and appearing on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor.
On March 2, Sanchez was rewarded for his campaign against campus anti-war activists with the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Sanchez was photographed posing at the conference with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter moments after she called former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) a "faggot" during an address to the conference.
On March 6, several gay bloggers, including Joe.My.God, publicly identified Sanchez as a former porn actor and male escort. Sanchez's prior activities were also the subject of a segment on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann. The segment featured Media Matters research fellow Max Blumenthal, the author of this item, discussing his Huffington Post article, "CPAC's Gay Porn Star Honoree, Ann Coulter, and the Politics of Personal Crisis."
In spite of the widespread availability of these facts about Sanchez, the Weekly Standard's Goldfarb identified Sanchez as merely an active duty soldier who "stands by his work."
What would they call that position?
With so much in common, do you think there's a direct connection between Sanchez and Jeff Gannon?
Or, considering the Weekly Standard's (pronounced Bill Kristol's) coziness with Duhhbya, perhaps there's an intermediary in the White House.
I'd love to know what that person's title is.
Any suggestions?
With so much in common, do you think there's a direct connection between Sanchez and Jeff Gannon?
Chances are they've both spend more than one night in the company of Rush Limbaugh.....
If Matt Sanchez is suspect because he was once a gay "escort," then what credibility does Rep. Barney Frank have? The man was allowing his lover to run a gay prostitution ring out of his own home. Don't recall seeing MMFA criticizing Barney Frank for his lack of morals, even though Frank's actions were much more serious and disgusting than Sanchez's alleged crimes.
Off topic...
Crude attempt to redirect the comments...
Please, you can do better than this. Take some lessons from Tommy.
"The man was allowing his lover to run a gay prostitution ring out of his own home."
He didn't allow any of this.
Loonz,Why do you misrepresent the truth? OTH, if you don't know about Rep. Frank's activities, I'll be happy to provide you with some reading material that'll help you catch up with Rep. Frank's shenanigans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/frank.htmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479064/site/newsweek/
There is nothing other than Gobies say so that says Frank knew about this, and since HE threw him out and THAT is what broke the story and since Gobie was trying to make money off the story when he said this there is no reason to believe him other than you want to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm
The other posters are right you are a troll trying to drag this thread off topic. Go back to your bridge and let the grownups talk about the TOPIC
Barney Frank and the Male Prostitute – 1989: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
First of all YOU are a liar. Barney Frank says he didnt know about what the guy was doing and when he found out he tossed him out of his apartment and took it HIMSELF to the ethics committee. Unless you have some evidence to contradict this, and what the discarded former boyfriend has to say is NOT evidence, other than you WISH it were true stop LYING.Second Barney isnt part of the media so MMFA doesnt cover him. When he is hired by CNN get back to us.
Touched a nerve, did't I, as some of you were merrily participating in gay bashing Matt Sanchez? Solon - Between Rep. Frank and Stephen Gobie, I'll believe Gobie's word any day (over Frank's).
Of course you will but only because he is saying what you want to hear and you didnt see ANY gay bashing from me. No you didnt touch a nerve, your trolling is just annoying. Go back to your bridge and let the grownups talk about the TOPIC
Stop trying to turn this into a gay issue.
Solon didn't gay bash anyone, it's obvious to anyone that can read. Can you?
Shouldn't be a problem with your side since you guys are the ones embracing the "alternative lifestyle" schtick. I almost wish he was gay, you guys would be forced to admit him to your happy Lib club.
Most likely he would be happier there than YOUR happy moron club.
Just move to a state that has marijuana laws for medical purposes on the books. You will feel better. And feel free to have sex with which every furry animal animal you wish to molest. And take as much mind altering dope as you can find...Haldol? If I left out any of your normal jabs, I apologize.
I never talk about pot but then again considering how stupid you are why would I expect you to get it right. YES you forgot at least one. You total inability to accomplish higher brain function, witness the completely inane and pointless post YOU made and I responded to. Please aquire a few functioning brain cells before you bore us further with your stupidity
You're right. The higher brain function. I left that out. All the JD I drink must have completely blurred my mind. Sir, you continue to sound like a stereotypical lefty, with your rants against the "Man", but to me you are nothing more than a left over hippie who's just mad they never made LSD legal. You folks will win this election, but the Cons will come back. W was a dismall failure on most C issues. Spending being his worst. My apologies again, that was my first personal attack.
Of course because you are a moron with preconcieved notions and so you cant see or even THINK anything else. Once one of your hero bloviating screechmonkeys has put an image in your head its the only thing you can concieve of. Never mind that I have been a teatotaller my whole life and never liked any hard drugs LSD was probably the worst drug I ever tried. But hey since when would you let reality intrude upon your moronic delusional fantasies. You dont know me, you just think what you are told to think. Here is a clue. Ignorant, brainwashed and delusional is no way to go through life beg, borrow or steal a couple of functional brain cells you need them desperatly
People who have sex with animals [and also their own family members] are on your side of the aisle.
"Monica" (is it he or is it she?) Gannon. Currently undergoing remodeling.
So THAT's what happened to Jeff when he disappeared from the Press Corps!
Did anyone else pick up on MMFA's subtle distinction? Who says MMFA doesn't have a sense of humor.
Before Cpl. Matt "Dirty" Sanchez was ever identified as an alleged former male prostitute and an admitted gay pornstar, Goldfarb described Sanchez as a man who "stands behind his work."
After the whole controversy erupted, Goldfarb later described Sanchez as a man who "stands by his work".
Some jokes just write themselves. Good catch MMFA! Lol.
I'm pissed that someone beat me to a Dirty Sanchez joke.
"Open_Mind" notes where:
How much longer before the several branches of the military start screening intending recruits for past involvement with elements weird and/or unwholesome (including gay porn) as Possible Security and/or Morals Risks?
And I do concur that we may have another "Jeff Gannon" in the making. Conservative propagandists must have a jones for the Jeff Gannon brand of "journalism" which, on closer reading, is actually closer to prolefeed.
Let me see, Sanchez and Gannon together....WWORT, What Would O'Reilly Think....maybe some type of CLUSTER...maybe one of Bill O's minions reading this would know.
Is MMfA baselessly asserting that there's something about being a pornstar and escort that takes away from one's credibility?
=>
Only if you are a liar and a fraud and a plant...hence, Mr. Gannon and Mr. Sanchez. But I agree with Dex because this is SOP in the Con movement. It is too bad that good Republans are being used by this bunch. But that is OKAY because come November '08, the Dems will control everything, things will get done for ALL Americans and the Rushs' and Hannitys' will make even more money...
The Marines are not to happy about the fact that he had been in a porn film. The Marines have an image to protect.
The Marines are not happy about the money incident involving an organization and U-haul.
The Marine is currently deciding on what to do about Sanchez.
I don't thing MMFA is saying Sanchez is a liar because of his past. I think MMFA is just pointing out that Sanchez is in a lot of hot water.
Don't forget about "Don't ask -- Don't tell", which Sanchez has violated.
Not that I approve of such a stupid policy, but the only reason that policy is still there is because many of Sanchez' good buddies want it there and raised bloody hell when Clinton tried to rescind it.
I don't think Sanchez even sees the irony in that.
The question I have about that though, is he, or I should say, was he in the Marine Corps when he made those movies, and or worked as a male escort? Because if he was doing those things before he was in the Marine Corps, it makes no difference. And, is he gay? He might not be. There are plenty of gay porn stars, who are not indeed gay. They do it for the money, and for the chance to break into mainstream porn. I saw a documentary on this (no, seriously), and most of the male porn stars in "normal" porn started out in gay porn and worked their way into the other stuff.
I agree with your post. Apparently the only gay-sex activity anyone has really alluded to happened 15 or so years ago.
I think the "Don't ask -- don't tell" policy would not be applicable if Sanchez was only having sex as his occupation long-ago and not for recreation now.
Personally, I can't imagine even the possibility of having sex with another man, but perhaps there are some straight men who can do it to pay the bills. To say it is impossible might be to project my own opinions and bias regarding the subject onto others.
As it doesn't really matter to me what his orientation is and I am really finding it difficult to care about it either way. Maybe we should ask some conservatives how they feel about it. Should Sanchez be allowed to stay in the military under the policy?
I think he is gay. When the news first surfaced that he was a gay hooker/porn star, I went over to his blog. I clicked on his profile and there were several videos listed under Favorite Porn. I googled each of them and all were gay porn videos. I went back to his blog a few days later when he was claiming to be straight and his profile had mysteriously vanished.
Did you think for a moment that this isn't about him being gay?
Last time I checked being an escort of any type is illegal.
This is in regards to the "don't ask - don't tell" policy and whether Sanchez violated it or not. I don't think anybody here really cares that he is gay.
TheDailyPhosdex above mentioned something interesting. Perhaps even if Sanchez isn't gay, maybe he was blackmailable. I think that is one of the reasons used in the past to fire people and kick them out of the military.
Anyway, I guess that point is moot now as Sanchez has already been outed.
"Is MMfA baselessly asserting that there's something about being a pornstar and escort that takes away from one's credibility?"--dexteritas
No. It appears MMFA is providing that previously omitted information so you can decide for yourself. Some people may find that information helpful in judging the credibility of Sanchez' remarks and some may not.
The more troubling aspect appears to be the alleged fraud. Also if you read this guy's article in Salon, you can clearly see he is at first glance sympathetic and articulate, but as you read on he appears disappointingly increasingly vapid and utterly clueless.
I put a smile on my post because I was being sarcastic. Off your pedestal.
That's a smile? A sarcastic one? My mistake. Disregard.
It appears you violated protocol. You are supposed to use a winky smile for sarcasm. I thought it was an arrow or something.
; )
Dually noted. That's my phone-texting smile and it's not as apparent on here I don't think.
No.
MMFA is asserting that Sanchez's credibility is in question because he worked as a male escort (i.e. prostitute), and is under investigation for bilking private donors out of $12,000 for a deployment to Iraq he never made.
I do think the post would still have teeth without mention of his gay porn past.
LOL!
"Many of my friends are lumberjacks and only a FEW of them are transvestites!"
I love the warbloggers going batsh*t crazy over the veracity of Beauchamp's articles, after denying he existed, of course. Have they learned nothing from Jamil Hessein Gate or just nothing at all about anything?
The latter.
Here's a great little flashback from Countdown, courtesy of Crooks and Liars.
I wonder if Matt remains in the loop for conservative cocktail parties anymore.
Dear Matt "Dirty" Sanchez:
Welcome to the club! You're a good soldier.
I read the article in National Review and saw two things that really stood out to me. First, the author of the article included his full name. And second, Matt Sanchez included his full name. In the above article by Media Matters, I notice two initials and a hidden agenda to destroy somebody based on their past. I wonder how revealing MB's past would be if it were exposed? High five to Sanchez for moving on with his life and leaving the garbage to rot for itself. Looks like MM has just contributed another load to the rotting pile.
It appears you violated protocol. You are supposed to use a winky smile for sarcasm.
Sarcastic or just plain stupid? I can't tell for sure.
"In the above article by Media Matters, I notice two initials and a hidden agenda to destroy somebody based on their past."--scott
Perhaps you are a bit of a newbie. MMFA signs all of their articles with initials. If they are trying to hide the authors name, they are doing a pretty bad job of it as they provide a full listing of their staff member names in their about section.
The author of this article appears to be Max Blumenthal. Go dig up all the dirt you want to on him. Here is the link in question in case you can't figure out how to navigate to the about section.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors
Dude, the writer's name is right in the article!
"If Matt Sanchez is suspect because he was once a gay "escort," then what credibility does Rep. Barney Frank have? The man was allowing his lover to run a gay prostitution ring out of his own home."
The FACTS:
Back in 1985, Barney Frank had engaged the services of a male escort named Stephen Gobie. Over the next two years, he and Gobie carried on an affair, during which time Frank hired Gobie as a driver. Frank used his House privileges to fix Gobie’s parking tickets. Gobie repaid Frank by running a prostitution service out of Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment. When Frank discovered this, he fired him and ended their relationship. Then, in 1989, two years after Frank’s announcement that he was gay, Gobie told his story to the Moonie owned Washington Times
Frank admitted what he’d done and took his case to the House ethics committee, which recommended a reprimand by the full House. The punishment was handed down in 1990.
-------------------------
Matt Sanchez aka Matt Excellent Top (escort NYC) and Rod Majors (gay porn name) is a LIAR! He may have done his 1st gay porn video over 15 years ago (for Kristian Bjorn), but he did several after that (Ryan Idol's "Idol Country" is one I own). He was also working as a hooker in NYC advertising on various male escort sites up until just a couple of years ago. I worked as an escort for 17 years here in Columbus and my best friend moved to NYC to work as an escort 10 years ago and worked with Sanchez/EX-TOP/Majors as recently as 2003.
How terrible would it be if it turns out that Sanchez's story stands up and Scott Thomas (Beauchamp's) story doesn't? Probably wouldn't matter to many here because there would be a VRWC behind any proof that Sanchez's story is closer to the truth than Beauchamp's.
I really don't know what all of the fuss is about.
It seems that many conservatives have this John Wayne - Sargent Striker view of war that apparently doesn't allow any room for strange behavior brought on by extreme stress. According to them, these events couldn't possibly have even happened apparently because conservatives merely cannot conceive of the idea or it doesn't fit their romantic worldview.
See Oscar you shouldnt be asking how much you WANT a story to be true. That isnt the way to find the TRUTH, and the truth is what you ought to be looking for. It just isnt a good tactic to believe things because you WISH they were true. In the fullness of time we may find out which is true or we may never know.
It certainly is understandable, under the stress, that some will do stuff that we consider abhorant. It is a little telling that STB apparently can't keep the facts (?) completely straight and apparently joined in the festivities (?) surrounding the alleged disfigured woman in Bagdad (or was in Kuwait? Or Germany? Or in his mind? We don't know, but to attack the attacker, in this case MS, is to suggest that you (collectively those standing completely behind STB) think that the behavior outlined is rampant in the Armed Forces. In that I disagree and is the reason I tried to point out that, as of this time, we do not know which account is closest to the truth.
This type of war, where you are trying to control a population is conducive to CREATING attrocities. The soldiers are TOLD they are there to help the Iraqis, who understandably dont appreciate being invaded and occupied so kill us. Those soldiers then feel betrayed. The only way to convince a people that they must accept YOUR boot on THEIR neck, is to terrify them. That has been the standard tactic since at least the Assyrians. So the upper echelon looks the other way and it gets worse. This is they dynamic that led to attrocities in Vietnam, for the British to commit them in India and in basically ALL occupations.We KNOW such attrocities are being committed, how widespread the practice is will be shrouded in doubt since the military itself has a vested interest in NOT knowing as long as occupation is a longterm goal.
"but to attack the attacker, in this case MS, is to suggest that you (collectively those standing completely behind STB) think that the behavior outlined is rampant in the Armed Forces."--Oscar
That is simply mindreading on your part. What part of anything implied such things were "rampant in the Armed Forces"? Heck, I don't know for sure if it happened or not, but it seems the conservatives involved in trying to debunk it are doing so merely because they cannot conceive such a thing could possibly happen at all - based on what appears to be nothing more than their own preconceptions about what the armed forces are like.
I think you are missing the point here.
One of the issues here (other than the credibility of Sanchez) is the reflexive idea that all the troops are uniformly heroic. That is NEVER the case in any human population throughout the entire history of the human race. It is believable that some soldiers would act in ways we find despicable, especially considering the enormous pressure they are living under in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do not know whether Pvt. Beauchamp's account is accurate. But the attempt to debunk it by the Weekly Standard is ridiculous and sickening all by itself.
Just when you think MMFA could sink no lower.
So this guy Beaucamp is a jerk and he makes fun of disfigured women. Funny I don't see any outrage here over that?
Some other guy, (who definitely has his own skeletons in the 'closet',) disputes where the account happened and Beaucamp acknowledges this error. That should be the end of his story.
But no. The hypocritical MMFA has to get down and dirty, discussing this guy's past for what? For what purpose? Just to tarnish him publicly is all I can see. So what if this guy is gay? So what if he's being investigated? So what? Does it have anything to do with the story? Did MMFA out the prostitute who made criminally liable false charges against those Duke boys? Not to my knowledge it didn't.
On top of all this, this jerk, Beaucamp is married to a researcher at New Republic? Can one see a potential bias in his reporting. Gee why isn't MMFA all over that? His whole cover has been blown and his writings are outrageous and only serve to fuel that anti-war, anti-military sentiments by the left. Take a look at Howard Kurtz's column. This Beaucamp has serious credibility issues. [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
by concentrating on this one guy, rather than the mounting evidence that Beaucamp is fraud, should tell you that MMFA is a radical left, agenda driven, morally bankrupt group that sinks to wallowing around in the sewer in order to attack anyone who dares speak out in any way contrary to its anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-war agenda.
I'm kind of curious. Do you know the identity of this person?
"So what if he's being investigated? So what? Does it have anything to do with the story?"--AA
Sanchez' credibility is part of the story. He is testifying as to his own observations. Is he not? That makes Sanchez' credibility part of the argument.
I can't believe that needs to be explained to you.
I don't see any credibility issues with Beauchamp in the article you cited. I see some questions that should be answered, but that is about it...Other than a bunch of warbloggers a little too hopped up on John Wayne movies to accept even the merest possibility that stressful situations can bring out abhorent behavior in some people as your own post gives evidence to.
Just when I thought there was no level of ignorance that you would not profess. Wait there is no level of ignorance and dishonesty to which you will not sink
I am a former journalist and the creator of a comprehensive website about Matt Sanchez. It brings together virtually everything that's been reported about his careers in gay porn, male prostitution, the Marine Corps, and right-wing media. It also details the ongoing effort (thus far successful) to censor any mention of his prostitution from Wikipedia's website.
I've included discussion board on the website, and comments are welcome. I did need to ban Scott Lanter, the assistant editor of a weekly newspaper in Ohio. I noticed has made comments here at Media Matters. He made threats on our discussion board, and that's not something I allow.
I will be updating the site this week to reflect Sanchez's activities in the Middle East and his involvement in the Beauchamp story. In particular, I am very interested in hearing from JEFFCOLSOH, who posted in this thread. Please come to our site and check it out, and then post in the discussion forum and/or contact me. Thanks much.
http://www.cplsanchez.info
ANOTHERAMERICAN:
Nice work with the evasions and redirections. I was only just a little disappointed that you didn't manage to squeeze the, "but Clinton did it" chestnut into your otherwise very learned posting.
You're right that it shouldn't matter that Sanchez is gay. However, and you may have noticed this, the rightwing in this country has decided that being gay, in fact, matters very much and is very, very bad. Rightwing politicians also feel that way about pornography and prostitution. (Except for when they themselves are engaged in it. At that point they realize they have a drinking problem.) If you still don't believe that this matters then try the following. Next time one of your rightwing congresscritters is doing a meet-and-greet, go up and introduce yourself saying, "Hi, I'm ANOTHERAMERICAN, I'm gay, an ex-prostitute, ex-pornographic film star and I'd like to be your campaign spokesman." Who knows, it's 'crazy enough it just might work!' -- or not.
Good luck with your new job!
p.s. Don't forget to mention being under investigation for fraud, that's sure to boost your credibility.
Thanks for the advice on job hunting, however I fail to see your point. I like your handle.
Your straw man, feigning disappointment over the absence of the "Clinton did it" argument is not germane. But got to give you credit for trying to interject a gratuitous slam.
While I am at it. I think you are mistaken in that you are over generalizing about those on the right.
There are conservative Christians who believe living a gay lifestyle is bad, I'll grant you that. All the Christians I know profess to love the sinner but hate the sin. Having said that, the Christian right is not the whole of the right. It is but a segment.
There are other social conservatives who do not think gays are bad, but simply oppose gay marriage.
Then there are some on the right who are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. They either support gays or do not oppose them. So next time please try to be a bit more concise in your characterization of those on the right. To not do so makes you look like you are out there on the fringe.
I will also venture to say there a lot of left-winger politicians who agree with right-wingers and are against prostitution and pornography. However I could be wrong. Perhaps you can point out any politician who is in favor of those two vices. It would be interesting to know eh?
Oh by the way, politicians (no matter what political orientation,) can feel that a vice, or orientation is bad and yet not be strong enough to fight off the temptation. Christians refer to this a sinning. As you probably know, sinning is not confined to either gay or straight sex. It can include illegal contributions, influence peddling, lying etc. We all know politicians on both sides of the aisle who have been found guilty of various "sins".
Let me state that I do believe we should hold our elected leaders to high standards. If they cannot walk the walk, they should not talk the talk.
Nice chatting.
"Your straw man, feigning disappointment over the absence of the "Clinton did it" argument is not germane. But got to give you credit for trying to interject a gratuitous slam."--aa
You are absolutely right, Barney. Yetanotheramerican appears to be a day or so late to make that kind of remark about a post of yours.
Goober,
Redundant, gratuitous, and still not germane.
Have a good weekend!
"Redundant, gratuitous, and still not germane."-AA
You have a good weekend as well, Barn. And BTW, I like your new personal motto. Very apt.
; )
Having tired of the Matt Sanchez personal implosion and his lack of journalistic/political bona fides months ago, can we all at least remember that THE BIG DISCONNECT is that the Weekly Standard implied that Sanchez is some credible source of reliable info because of his connection to the military?
He IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY. Sanchez is currently a civilian traveling in Iraq as a dedicated right-wing shill, funded by right-wing shills to report how events in Iraq comport with right-wing propaganda. Problem is: his writing and logic are atrocious. So, the best you can get is, "I ate in the chow hall and I didn't see a disfigured woman."
His blog describes him as, "Presently in Iraq interviewing the troops." and his interests as, "My interest right now is seeing the real truth revealed about the war on terrorism taking place in Iraq." He has only been in Iraq for three months MAX ... as a civilian. His blog postings have only gotten 1-3 hits each, UNTIL he could posit himself as a subject matter expert in the Beauchamp affair. Now it's all he posts about and is therefore getting more hits. He goes to great pains to make sure that he is part of the story that he's writing about. Unfortunately, TWS apparently lost situational awareness and relied on him for their contrarian viewpoint.
Beyond calling shenanigans on TWS for implying that this guy is a credible representative of the military, we're all better off relegating Mr. Sanchez back into his self-absorbed, self-promoting little world. There truly is nothing to see here.
A proven pathological liar is hired by Weekly Standard to "refute" the claims of a story that has been proven to be true. A story that, incidentally, shows the dehumanizing stress that soldiers in Iraq are going through. They're not even trying to connect the neocon chickenhawk propaganda to reality anymore, are they?
It seems like soldiers aren't the only ones suffering psychological damage in their dealings with Iraq. Of course, the soldiers have concrete reasons for their psychological problems...
After having used the lesbian and gay community for toilet paper leading up into the last general election, now giving such wide exposure to a gay porn star and whore must be Bill Kristol and the neo-con media's way of sending signals to the Rich Homosexual's Log Cabin Club that it's OK to come back into the GOP Big Tent of Lies, Theft, Murder, and Torture.
Let's recap...because this is truly amazing...
Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard is skeptical and investigates Scott Thomas Beauchamp's claims in 'Shock Troops'. One of his debunking sources is Matt Sanchez, who is in Iraq and is familiar with the actual military base, FOB Falcon, where the mocking of the disfigured woman by STB was supposed to have occurred.
This leads Media Matters to seek to discredit Godfard and Sanchez because of Sanchez's past history and possible ethical shortcomings, as opposed to maybe, how correct was his claim! In other words, text book ad hominem.
Now, Media Matters has to admit, because TNR and Beauchamp have admitted, that Sanchez was right on the money, despite any personal shortcomings and the mocking event did not indeed happen at FOB Falcon - what Sanchez claimed to the Weekly Standard!
And as this thread shows, folks are still talking about the dehumanizing nature of war and combat, Beuachamp's theme in 'Shock Troops', without seeming to realize that STB has now admitted to mocking a disfigured woman well before he was in war or combat!
So, as Media Matters found Sanchez personal shortcomings to be valid when considering him as a source, will MM now do so with Beauchamp, and write about how much can we trust a man who mocks and makes lewd jokes about a disfigured woman, and then blames it on the effect the war had on him - when he now admits he had not been to war when he did that? Surely if one's personal character is a reasonable criteria for MM, you will do the same with Beauchamp. Or doesn't that 'matter'?
TNR claims to have found one soldier who saw another soldier desecrating the remains of a child, just as Beauchamp described in 'Shock Troops'. However, in that piece, Beauchamp described the soldier doing so as 'an infamous troublemaker and joker'. How about MM following up and seeking to find out if that soldier desecrating the remains of the child for laughs, the troublemaker and joker, might be a soldier who had been busted in rank from PFC down to Private, and can be considered infamous as a joker because, say, he would humiliate a disfigured woman for fun - or Beauchamp himself.
MM has established that one's personal character 'matters' when you are a source. Now apply that to the rest of the story.
I'll wait.
DK