Peter Beinart, The New Republic, whores as his own PR flack vs poor trash stuck in Iraq combat...

This excellent article by David Sirota captures the American media doing what it does best: LYING their cowardly asses off ABOUT EVERYTHING.

In this case, The New Republic editor Peter Beinart writes an editorial PRETENDING to be concerned for the divide between the media elite who CHEER for WAR, and the grunts and dogfaces and poor-trash who get stuck serving for MONTHS at a time in the 120º F heat of Iraq, breathing Depleted Uranium dust from exploded US shells and of course dodging the ever present insurgent roadside bombs.

In reality, Mr. Benart is ONLY concerned with bloviating his opinion in the pages of the TNR, getting paid for it, and securing his position as an 'elite' in the American media myopia.

Our only concern with Mr. Sirota's column, and the term is not of his creation, is that the derisive term "101st keyboarders" takes its numerals from the famous 101st US Army Airborne division, parachute infantry who are among the best fighters in the US armed forces, and hence the world. While some men from the 101st have been caught up in the inevitable trigger-happy gunfire of the Iraq conflict (i.e. civilian casualties, i.e. potential war crimes), at least this unit with its great history is on the line in Iraq, risking their lives every day.

So to connect the real 101st Airborne, even tangenitally, with the "101st keyboarders," is an unfortunate smear of a real fighting unit.

Perhaps "CHICKEN*** keyboarders" or "Chickenhawk keyboarders" would be a better descriptive?

But other than that, a "Well Done" to Mr. Dave Sirota, who is undertaking the mighty task of exposing Washington (and the nation's) legions of PRESS CORPSE WHORES and TOADIES as the lying, war-promoting flunkies that they are.




SOLDIER: 101st Keyboard Brigade Refuses to Answer Hypocrisy
by David Sirota
08.02.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/soldier-101st-keyboard-b_b_26305.html

The New Republic was one of the strongest and most aggressive voices pushing for the invasion of Iraq. Their editor, Peter Beinart, led the charge, attacking Democrats who dared to question the move. He and the magazine have yet to seriously consider how easy it is to advocate for a massive military operation based on lies when the advocates themselves never have to face the blood-and-guts consequences of their advocacy.


Now, of course, the New Republic and Beinart would like everyone to forget their record, as Beinart pushes a new book trying to position himself as a "liberal" foreign policy guru and a chest-thumping "hawk." But at least one Army lieutenant catches Beinart and his magazine in some dishonest and grossly self-serving editing.
Here's an excerpt from a piece by Second Lt. John Renehan in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education:

"In 2004, shortly before I left for basic training, The New Republic ran a piece in which Peter Beinart, then the magazine's editor, bemoaned the increasingly narrow demographics of those who serve and the consequent emergence of 'two countries' -- one that serves, and a second, more-affluent one that thinks of service as a thing done by other Americans. Notably, Beinart admitted his own mixed feelings on being a member of the nonserving elite, wondering aloud what he might say when a child of his someday asks, 'What did you do in the terror war, Daddy?' Impressed, I wrote a letter to Beinart praising his frankness and noting my own decision to join the military -- one prompted by similar callings of conscience. Then I offered him what I called a 'public-spirited challenge': One of The New Republic's own should serve, and the magazine should write about it...It was a naïve sort of thing to write. My girlfriend took a look at the letter and said, 'You know they're never going to print this, don't you?' I did. But they did print it -- with a notable omission. My 'public-spirited challenge' had been excised, leaving only praise for Beinart."
The netroots have labeled people like Beinart and his "hawkish" friends in the punditocracy as members of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade - authors/insiders/operatives who are "very enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it." The fact that members of the 101st would resort to selectively editing an Army lieutenant's sincere letter to the editor in order to dishonestly heap praise on themselves and avoid facing the tough questions about their behavior tells you all you need to know about how unprincipled these people really are. In their comfortable bubble, war is all just a fun little political game based on Washington's false definition of "strength" as a politician willing to sit in their guarded, air conditioned Beltway office and call in airstrikes and ground assaults - regardless of the consequences for the targets or America's national security.