One of the strange things I've long noticed about the left and the anti-war left in particular, is how factually challenged it is. I don't mean minor details, or sincere points of disagreement, I'm talking about instances of whole-cloth fabrication.
Jesse Macbeth is a fairly well-known example. People may still recall Ian Micah Wright. Of course both of these individuals actually exist - unlike "Kodee Kennings" and her imaginary dead dad.
So now they are trying for a new "Winter Soldier" presentation, one that will no doubt be just as accurate as the original.
At first, one could make the Machiavellian case that this dishonesty was about advancing the movement. At this point, it simply isn't credible. The anti-war movement has failed. Yet they keep doubling down on tactics that just don't work.
Setting aside the moral bankruptcy of this, why do they even bother? They know that every milblogger on the planet is going to fact check the crap out of whatever comes up. Any active or reserve personnel that describe atrocities (that they failed to report in a timely manner) are going to get hauled in front of JAG faster than Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
The ones that have gotten out, and are thus free of JAG "intimidation," will still be pressed for names, dates and units - and then let the lawsuits for defamation fly. In short, saying "one time, in Iraq, we shot some kids," isn't going to do the trick, any more than "Ranger Jesse" or "Scott Thomas'" creative writing exercies did.
I think that is a key difference. The military establishment in 1972 were in a daze, unable to comprehend what was happening to them. Also, the internet makes fact checking almost instant. Some scumbag fake veteran who smears an actual person is going to get sued - and then some.
It will be interesting to watch.
Comments