Thursday, December 05, 2013

Dear LTC Bateman: Eat a hot bowl of dicks.

Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation.
Yeah! You should have to stab them instead!

I especially like the way he trots out his historical ignorance and parades it as knowledge. That such creatures seem to thrive in the field grade ranks of our nation's officer corps is an indictment of the politicization of our military.

(H/T to WRSA.)


Anonymous said...

Thanks for linky.

It's also looking like this turd is an ersatz LTC to boot.

NY State Guard not equal .mil


Bob said...

I don't know that it's so much politicization as much as it is distrust of subordinates dating back at least as far as Vietnam, i.e., fragging. Some men need killing; some officers need fragging. Those sort of men know that they are despised, and write laws and regulations designed to lessen the possibility.

JD(not the one with the picture) said...

Dear LTC Bateman: Molon Labe Oedipus

Woodman said...

Wait, if that picture is him how the bell can he possibly not be on the fat boy program? I think that alone would disqualify him from being good at his job.

As far as the 7/11 not being robbed with a muzzle loader, a year after this law they will be. Or with a crossbow. Fuckstick.

The Raving Prophet said...

This "it should be impossible" is at the root of much of these well intended but poorly thought through laws.

They want it to be physically impossible to harm another person. They haven't realized that even if you managed to keep all firearms and knives away from some unbalanced nutjob who will kill innocent people at the slightest provocation, you still haven't rendered that person safe to be around. You've only changed the kind of harm that will be done.

There's a reason they focus on the term "gun crime." It's because they don't want you seeing what other kinds of mayhem people get into.

Anonymous said...

I don't see the CIB on his uniform.

Anonymous said...

I've previously read some of LTC ("......salute the rank, not the man") Bateman's historical articles and have found them informative and interesting. Then, lo and behold, yesterday he pops up with this garbage and further alignes with his "brother" Charles Pierce. I have the option to stop reading his articles and will exercise same. I can only guess that he is trying to leapfrog several ranks and get his flag in the present day PC army. I say "stay in England, Colonel, and call for Pierce to stay with you." regards, Alemaster, CW5, (U.S. Army, retired)

Scott J said...

I've not followed the shooting closely since as an alum of the school that won the game I might make an indelicate comment or three about non-alum fans of our bitter rival.

However, I get the feeling the shooting was more about disrespect (still not a valid reason) than the game itself. I figure it probably would have happened over some other subject were it not game weekend.

Rumor mill is that the shooter is a known trouble maker with a history of altercations in that apartment complex.

JohninMd.(too late?!??) said...

I think Bob has the right of it, although fragging's too good for the bum. Seriously, have these folks never heard of human nature, or milling machines? Guns are easy to build, compared to many things.....

Mike_C said...

@Woodman: The fat dude in the Esquire photograph is Antonin Scalia. From photos on the web Bateman is a bit overweight himself, but not quite that impressive.

From the op-ed piece: In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25.

And in 2013 the ratio of UK versus US active service members hacked to death in broad daylight by soi dissant Muslim religious fanatics on the streets of the capital was infinite (1/0). Gosh, let's all play the spurious statistic game!

Incidentally, the men who murdered Fusilier Rigby also had a revolver. How well is that draconian gun control LTC Bateman so admires working? (Clearly the use of blades to murder was for dramatic impact. Well, actually the car initially used to run over Rigby was for impact....) No worries though, the police will keep you safe. The first emergency call was around 1420. Unarmed police arrived at 1429 and set up a cordon and remained behind it. At 1434 "Authorized Firearm Officers" finally arrived. Again, how's that "no guns" thing working out, Colonel?

It's not hard to take a one-off terrible incident perpetrated by bad or crazy people and spin your own narrative, but it's at best intellectually lazy and (purposefully, I expect) glosses over the real problem of bad or crazy people.

KellKabrinski said...

As an alumnus/current student of the other side of the rivalry I would have even more comments about non-alumni fans, but I have to note that the version of the story LTC Bateman used came from the victim's sister, not the police report based on the witness statements.

Anonymous said...

If people can not control their emotions concerning sports, outlaw sports.

It's the only safe thing to do old chap.

BTW the military kills way too many non-combatants with modern arms. They should go back to swords and pikes. Only fair.


Tam said...


Sadly, it appears the NY Guard Bateman and the LTC Bateman who wrote the article are not the same person. The author apparently is a serving officer in this nation's armed forces.

Anonymous said...

"The author apparently is a serving officer in this nation's armed forces."

Bummer. I don't suppose any of our NRA A-rated Senators would want to make sure LTC Bateman never becomes full bird Colonel Bateman?

Be a shame if he were to suffer some sex/gambling/embezzlement scandal that would threaten his pension.


John Richardson said...

Bateman is an arrogant asshole who, in his other writings, is full of himself as much as anything else. Who else would called Robert E. Lee a "traitor" and a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden?

Bateman likes to officially portray himself as "an infantryman, a historian, and a prolific writer." I will stipulate to the last part.

He has had a long going war of words with Prof. Victor Davis Hanson over one of Hanson's books on ancient wars. His diatribes against Hanson were first carried by that paragon of academic research, Media Matters for America.

All of his supporters such as Tom Ricks of the Washington Post say he has "terrific credentials" in military history. If he has such "terrific credentials", then what are they? He never publishes his academic credentials that I can find. The only reference to them that I can find is in a criticism of West Point where he mentions that he went through ROTC at the University of Delaware. This is not to say a PhD from the Ivy League can't be dumber than dirt and a graduate of Matchbook U can't be world class. Still, it is strange.

What is even stranger is that a serving Army officer gets away with spouting off on political issues without a higher up telling him to STFU. Officers who speak out on politics usually do it once they've retired and not while in uniform.

Marc Pisco said...

Some people only puff their little chests out and call this nation "great" when they're telling us how much they want us to trade it for a different one.

Anyhow, I agree, a bowl of dicks is a dish best served hot.

CP said...

I'm having an email dialog with him. Suffice it to say, I'm not all that impressed with his debating skills, nor his historical data. Fergodsakes, he's arguing gun control and the militia, didn't even know about the unorganized militia clause, and had no clue about the Miller decision.

That being said... language, boys and girls, language. You may dislike him, you may even revile him, but watch the language.

Anonymous said...

They won't be satisfied until we're all lying in our own individual vats of fluid with cables plugged into our necks. It's the only way to keep us safe, you know.


Peter O said...

any chance you can post those emails at some point?

Divemedic said...

Here is a great picture of him at the 2009 change of command ceremony of the 88th NY Guard Brigade (he is all the way to the right- you can clearly read his nametag):

He was not in the Army or in the National Guard. He is in the NY State Guard. The only violence he orchestrated was to attack the buffet at the Country Kitchen.

Chris said...

I also was in ROTC at the University of Delaware, although considerably prior to LTC Bateman. The ROTC program there had been, and from what I had heard, continued to be, one of the best in the nation. That being said, Every Cadet Commander (which he said he was as a senior) I experienced there was a bit of a prig, IMO. Just as in the real Army, a certain amount of sucking up is necessary to advance beyond the pay grades earned by merit.

I also find it odd that his articles have not drawn some kind of directive to tone them down.

GunRacer said...

Well, those Europeans and Britons Bateman holds up still manage to find plenty of ways other than guns to off each other over sports events, so I'm not sure exactly what his little story proves.

I also love that he goes on about about how the Supreme Court's 2A Constitutional interpretation is totally bogus, without bothering to quote anything or anyone to back up his own view.

Tam said...


"He was not in the Army or in the National Guard. He is in the NY State Guard."

Wrong LTC Bateman, I believe.

Tam said...

(See thread here.)

Divemedic said...

I'm not sure that I buy that. How can a military officer write over 300 op eds, and 7 books that touch on VERY political subjects for over 15 years, and not be concerned with backlash?

The only way I could believe this is if he is a reservist that pens the articles when he is not active, or that he is a complete poser.

The only other possibility that makes sense to me is that this is similar to the old trick the Soviets used: Stavka would occasionally write articles with a certain byline that was known to be a semi-official way for them to editorialize to the troops.

Tam said...

Very clever of Stavka to register a bogus member account at and build a credible legend and posting history, just in case one would need to defend a different operative's cover in the future.

Tam said...

(One could always email Bateman to clear this up, as others are doing.)

Mike said...

CP said...

"Fergodsakes, he's arguing gun control and the militia, didn't even know about the unorganized militia clause, and had no clue about the Miller decision."

After telling us all about the Militia Act of 1903, he doesn't even know what it says? I'm not buying it, his "this little thing called... but don't bother looking because I'll tell you what it says!" act came off as a used car salesman dishonestly sweeping contract terms under the rug.

Reading his article, I came to the conclusion that he's a very dishonest person with a very fragile ego. Given that he talks about being stationed in the UK, my money is that violence isn't actually his profession, but he's an intel POG (which would also help explain his over-the-top chest thumping).

Ragin' Dave said...

While people like LTC Bateman do exist in the military....

It's worse than you think.

Divemedic said...

I was referring to the LTC. What I am saying is that the LTC is posting what he is being told to post.

The person at P-F may well know him, but that doesn't mean that the LTC isn't following orders.

It is official military policy that posting political essays under cover of your position and rank is verboten.

The only possibilities are that:
1 The PTB know what he is saying, and don't care; or
2 The PTB know what he is saying, because they told him to say it; or
3 The PTB have no idea that he is saying it; or
4 He is a poser that is not in the military at all.

Given that he has written 30 op-eds, as well as writing 7 novels and being a rather prolific commenter on various forums, I do not think it is possible that they do not know.

It is possible that the poster on P-F knew him, but since the LTC was a Captain in 2000, when he wrote No Gun Ri, it is possible that he is no longer in the service.

I did email him, and I have as yet received no response.

Tam said...

"It is official military policy that posting political essays under cover of your position and rank is verboten."

But nowhere is that essay explicitly political. Gun control is a social issue. He does not say "Vote for the Democrat Party which will pass gun control laws."

jimbob86 said...

"I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation."

....umm ...... so oraganized, state sanctioned violence is OK, and .... even the capacity of individuals to do violence is not?

Sounds very "If you wan a gun, join the Army" National Socialist Party-ese to me.

As for "watch the Language, People" ....there are not words vile enough to describe my feelings toward holders of such ideas...... and "reasoned debate" is not conducted with a turd.


Geodkyt said...

Look him up on AKO. THIS LTC Bateman is an active duty, serving Army officer, stationed in the UK.

Not a NY state guard officer.

Windy Wilson said...

"It should not be possible to . . ."

Well, Gee, it shouldn't be possible to rape anyone in this great nation. I hesitate to say what would be done about it if the anti-liberty gun control group were in charge of that, too, but I think LTC Dickless would miss what Woody Allen referred to once as his favorite organ were the gun control measures applied to rape. And that fails to address the problem of FOD, to use an aviation industry term as an euphemism.

scott said...

There is no point in e-mail debating with this guy, nor in watching the language with him.

His first response my email (I admit I called him an idiot) accused me of believing the Earth was 6,600 years old because that is the other thing that 2A supporters believe. It went downhill from there.

This "man" is a professional "troll". He may have some knowledge of military history (but read about his criticism's of Victor Davis Hansons book to get an idea of his feelings of self-importance) but obviously none about the 2A (and he admitted he has done no footnoted articles about the 2A) preferring, in the case of the 2A, to go with his "feelings".

He is an arrogan, dangerous megolamaniac. Thank goodness he is only a LTC and not the President.

oh, yeah. sorry.