Email This to a Friend
Army Checkmates The New Republic
Last month Pajamas Media published an in-depth report on the scandal surrounding the "Baghdad Diarist" articles by Scott Thomas Beauchamp in The New Republic. Now PJM's Bob Owens interviews Major John Cross, who led the U.S. Army's investigation into Private Beauchamp's shocking claims. Even more shocking is what Cross reveals below: Among other findings, there is no credible evidence that TNR made any attempt at fact checking prior to publishing the articles. Furthermore, not one of the soldiers interviewed under oath in the investigation corroborated Beauchamp's story.
Introduction
The head of the U.S. Army investigation into Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is breaking his silence in an exclusive interview with Pajamas Media.
Stationed in Iraq, Beauchamp is an Army private who wrote three articles for The New Republic magazine — which quickly came under suspicion when active-duty military bloggers, journalists, and bloggers, like Confederate Yankee and Blackfive, found his claims to be impossible, excessive or unlikely.
Most controversial of Beauchamp’s stories was the third – “Shock Troops.” It included allegations of the author and another soldier verbally mocking a burn victim, claims of a “Saddam era dumping ground” containing children’s remains being desecrated by American soldiers and tales of another soldier using a Bradley armored vehicle to smash civilian stalls and run over dogs for sport.
Beauchamp seems to have slipped past the normal fact-checking process because his new wife, Elspeth Reeve, is a fact checker for the magazine, as we revealed here last month.
As the blogosphere probed the claims made by Beauchamp in the New Republic, the U.S. Army launched its own investigation.
The Army was forced to act. If Beauchamp’s claims were true, they would indicate a serious breach of military discipline.
Major John Cross – Executive Officer, 1-18 Infantry (Vanguards), Second (Dagger) Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division – was the lead investigating officer. After days of careful scrutiny and interviews with all involved personnel, he found all charges made by Beauchamp in The New Republic to be false.
Beauchamp himself signed a sworn statement not standing by the accounts in his three pseudonymous articles for The New Republic. Citing federal privacy concerns the Army has refused to release the statement.
While Scott Thomas Beauchamp has repeatedly turned down interview requests–including one as recently as last week– Pajamas Media’s Bob Owens, who runs the PJM network blog Confederate Yankee , was enterprising enough to arrange an email interview with Major Cross.
In a wide-ranging interview, Maj. Cross provides surprising new evidence about Beauchamp and the editorial process at the New Republic.
Interview
Owens: Major Cross, for our non-military readers, what is a Battalion Executive Officer, and how does your position relate organizationally to those on the squad level?
Cross: As the Executive Officer of the Vanguards, I’m the second in command of the Battalion, an organization of 700 Soldiers in five different companies. I’m responsible for the resourcing, maintaining, and control of the formation. I supervise the Battalion Staff to ensure that each section supports the commanders and Soldiers in the field, so they can execute their missions. I’m responsible for the planning, resourcing, and maintenance management of 30 M2A2 (ODS) Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 14 M1A2 Main Battle Tanks that are in the Battalion. I’m also responsible for the planning, synchronizing, targeting, and integration of both kinetic and non-kinetic means to deliver positive effects across the Battalion area of operations. What all of this means to the Soldier in the rifle squad is that the buck stops with me for food, fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and other administrative actions.
Owens: What was your role in the formal investigation into the article “Shock Troops,” published in The New Republic under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas?”
Cross: I was the investigating officer (IO) for the investigation that looked into the veracity of the allegations made by “Scott Thomas” in his article “Shock Troops.”
Owens: In this role, is it fair to say that you “know all there is to know” about the Army’s formal investigation?
Cross: As the IO, I can speak to the evidence collected during the investigation from the Soldiers that had served in the areas described by the author of “Shock Troops.”
Owens: That established, let’s backtrack a bit. When and why was it decided that a formal investigation was warranted into the claims made by “Scott Thomas,” in the New Republic, and what was your initial reaction upon reading “Shock Troops” for the very first time?
Cross: On 24 July 2007, COL Gibbs, the Commander of 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, (the Brigade that the Vanguards are attached to here in Southern Baghdad) directed the investigation to look into the allegations made by “Scott Thomas.” My biggest concern was the alleged “Saddam Era dumping ground” described in the “Shock Troops” piece and that the other events portrayed did not accurately reflect professionalism and dedication of our Soldiers.
Owens: When was it discovered that “Scott Thomas” was a pseudonym used by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp? Was that something you learned prior to Beauchamp “outing himself” in the New Republic on July 26, or was the New Republic article the first time the author’s identity was known?
Cross: Given several details revealed in “Shock Troops,” we determined that the story likely originated in a specific platoon, which is where we began the investigation. We questioned the members of that platoon about the alleged events in the story and began collecting sworn statements from each Soldier in the unit. On 26 July 2007, at 1540 hours in Iraq, PVT Beauchamp made his initial statement concerning the allegations made in “Shock Troops.” At this time, I did not know PVT Beauchamp was the author of the article. Later that day, at 1700 hours, PVT Beauchamp, in his second sworn statement, admitted to writing three articles for The New Republic (TNR) under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas.” Later that same day, 26 July 2007, TNR posted, “A Statement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp,” on their website. In this posting, PVT Beauchamp identified himself as “Scott Thomas” the author of “Shock Troops.”
Owens: In that same July 26 article in the New Republic, the magazine’s editor claimed that “the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published.” Based upon what you know of the article, and having led the formal military investigation that came about as a direct result of the claims made in “Shock Troops,” do you find this to be a credible claim?
Cross: I have not had any personal contact with the editors of TNR, nor am I aware of them conducting any sort of fact checking prior to the publication of “Shock Troops.”
Owens: On August 2, The New Republic’s editors claimed, “All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details.” In the same article, during the course of their “re-reporting” of the incident, the editors claimed “Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously.”
Have you, during the course of your investigation, uncovered any soldiers in Beauchamp’s company that could be regarded as a corroborating witness, or that corroborated the anecdotes, or even heard the stories contemporaneously? If so, what was the context of their corroboration? If not, why do you suppose that The New Republic tells a story so radically different than that the soldiers related during the course of the formal investigation?
Cross: In the course of my investigation, I did not interview anyone who corroborated PVT Beauchamp’s claims in “Shock Troops” that a Soldier was observed wearing skull parts recovered from a “Saddam-era dumping ground” on his head, dogs were being deliberately hit by Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and that a disfigured woman was openly mocked by Soldiers in the FOB Falcon dining facility.
Owens: What has been the reaction among the members of Beauchamp’s company to the claims he made in “Shock Troops?”
Cross: Many Soldiers were upset about how the Soldiers in the article were portrayed as callous and uncaring. These characteristics do not reflect the professionalism and integrity of the Vanguard battalion and the high standards of conduct demanded by the Dagger Brigade’s leadership.
Owens: Do you think it is likely that some soldiers may have told The New Republic one story, and then provided a different story to investigating officers?
Cross: I can’t speculate about anything involving The New Republic, but I can speak to our procedures. When conducting the investigation, I focused on the information and evidence collected from the Soldiers in PVT Beauchamp’s unit in the form of written and signed affidavits, which did not support the events portrayed in the story. As all of the Soldiers interviewed during the course of the investigation made sworn statements, they understand the consequences of making false official statements.
Owens: Various sources have related that Scott Thomas Beauchamp was a PFC prior to his unit’s deployment the Middle East, a PV-2 at the start of this investigation, and is presently holding the rank of PV-1. Is this accurate?
Cross: Yes, he currently holds the rank of PV-1.
Owens: Private Beauchamp was the subject of a second investigation not directly related to the “Shock Troops” article. Has this second investigation been concluded? If so, have any further actions been taken against Beauchamp as a result?
Cross: During the initial investigation that I conducted, I found that there was quite a bit of information posted by PVT Beauchamp on his personal blog site that was of a sensitive nature. Specifically, in March 2006, PVT Beauchamp posted the dates of the unit’s deployment to Iraq. I recommended that a second investigation be conducted to look into possible violations of Operational Security by PVT Beauchamp either on his Blog or in his articles posted by TNR. The outcome of this investigation was that PVT Beauchamp did violate operational security by posting the dates of the unit deployment on his blog, but the Army Regulation governing operational security, at that time, was not punitive in nature.
The Battalion Commander, having spoken with PVT Beauchamp on a couple of different occasions, determined that, while he could discharge PVT Beauchamp from the Army for his actions in the past, it would be better for PVT Beauchamp if he had another opportunity to complete his tour of service in an honorable fashion. He was counseled by the commander about his actions, but given the chance to conduct his duties as an infantryman with the Vanguard team.
Owens: What other issues surrounding “Shock Troops” and the investigation into the claims made by Scott Beauchamp and the editorial staff of The New Republic should Pajamas Media/Confederate Yankee readers be made aware of?
Cross: The Soldiers of the unit he describes, the Vanguards, have served the United States with pride and have brought more security to a very violent area of Baghdad in the last twelve months. While the publicity of these unproven allegations has been a distraction, it has also caused us to refocus our Soldiers on what has made our Battalion great. We continue to conduct ourselves as American Ambassadors and treat the people of Iraq with dignity and respect. PVT Beauchamp volunteered to serve his country at a time of war. He has served at the tip of the spear in the Global War on Terror and is continuing to do so. While his article has brought much attention to him and our unit, we are committed to serving our country and the people of Iraq until our mission here is complete.
Conclusion
And there you have it.
- Private Scott Beauchamp did not reveal that he was “Scott Thomas,” author of “Shock Troops,” until he was asked to sign a second sworn statement. It was after he signed this statement that his identity was revealed in The New Republic.
- Major Cross has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking by The New Republic’s editors prior to publication, a sentiment shared by Army Public Affairs Officers in both Iraq and Kuwait. It is also worth noting that TNR editors have refused to publish PAO statements that contradict their claims.
- Major Cross was unable to find anyone in Beauchamp’s squad, platoon, or company that would corroborate the stories he told in “Shock Troops.”
- Beauchamp was the subject of a second investigation, which found him guilty of violating his unit’s operational security for which he could have been thrown out of the Army.
The U.S. Army and the soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit seem to have been very forgiving of his fraudulent stories and potentially dangerous operational security violations.
This is the third time in recent memory that a New Republic writer has been persuasively charged with fabrication. Stephen Glass, who was found to have made up 27 of the 41 articles he wrote for the magazine, is perhaps the most famous case. Glass’ exploits were chronicled in the movie “Shattered Glass.” The Glass incident severely damaged the credibility of the magazine, and should have led to far more stringent editorial standards…it obviously did not.
It is doubtful that editor Franklin Foer and The New Republic deserve yet another chance, and that readers will be as loyal to the magazine as the military has been to Beauchamp.
Bob Owens covers American politics, media bias, and foreign military affairs from Raleigh, North Carolina in his personal blog, Confederate Yankee.
Correction: The article originally said Beauchamp had signed a sworn statement that recanted the accounts in his three pseudonymous articles for The New Republic. He did not recant, but did not stand by his claims.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
43 Comments
1. K. N.:Certainly this adds another dimension. If the timeline is correct, Beauchamp was already broken once before he went to Iraq – giving him somewhat of a motivation to smear the Army.
Kudos for finding this out. It makes a lot more sense now.
Sep 10, 2007 - 8:26 am 2. Peter:It is too bad that few people understand the importance of integrity and honor to a soldier. The staff of TNR cannot fathom that from PFC to four star General they depend on each other for their very lives.
Sadly this lack of understanding extends to some of the people in the military.
Sep 10, 2007 - 8:54 am 3. M5p04:Sadly though, I doubt there will be any reprecussions from any of this. Beauchamp’s stories fit the narrative; they play into what too many TNR readers want to believe. Criticism is automatically viewed as ‘right wing’ propaganda. Too often, the truth really doesn’t matter because, in their minds, the ends justify the means.
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:02 am 4. Lem:TNR – decry, deny and delay.
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:36 am 5. Rich:Perhaps the interviews should have been labeled “pseudomonas interviews”
))
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:45 am 6. Lurcher:For what it’s worth, there are (were?) at least two clips on YouTube showing different dogs being shot at.
Regardless of the veracity of these TNR stories, there have been comparable tales floating around, from the soldiers themseves. War tends to bring out the worst in all of us.
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:46 am 7. Patti O'Riley:Communist strategy, erh, “progressive” strategy is to infiltrate and destroy from within. I’m so happy that true patriots are tirelessly investigating and discrediting leftist lies whenever and wherever they arise.
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:52 am 8. Nathan G:The New Republic is garbage. Old media is dead. They censor and fabricate. All the MSM censors. All MSM fabricates. After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already arrest demonmstrators (like Sheehan at the General’s hearings), ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. The internet will always expose your crimes (censorship and fabrication) my mainstream media friends, especially you New Republic, TWICE.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Sep 10, 2007 - 11:34 am 9. Curtis:After the “investigations” into Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were found to be nothing but cover ups and lies, why should we believe this investigation?
Sep 10, 2007 - 11:49 am 10. Bmoon:If only American leftist media would have the same integrity and high-standards as the US military they hate so much, they would avoid the shameful, unprofessional, meteoric distintigration of their work and reputations.
Perhaps Priv. Beauchamp, in his remaining service with the military in Iraq, will have an epiphany and true remorse for a shoddy character as well as his shoddy, contrived journalistic efforts, as serves amongst men of true charcter and honesty.
Sep 10, 2007 - 11:50 am 11. A. N. Feldzamen:I suspect that the author of this article was never an enlisted man in US military or naval service. Had he been that, I doubt whether he would have given much credence to Major Cross’ assertions. And also, to the disavowal of Private Beachamp’s assertions of his fellow enlisted men and women. One learns quickly enough in the military to lie and deceive, so as not to contradict those in the ruling officer class.
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:26 pm 12. LL in La:Once again, I post on these blogs: At which point does freedom of speech mutate into treasonous blather? I think serious Americans should start pressing for resolutions to such questions because we have a Congress intent on lying for political gain and now a blogosphere that can make “truth” appear from the slightest rumor. Opinion and lies are two different things.
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:44 pm 13. Former Airman:I find it commendable that he was not booted from service for his expose. He was given a chance to complete his tour honorably, but busted back down to PV-1.
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:48 pm 14. Kevin T. Keith:Beauchamp has not done much, or anything, to corroborate his original claims. However, nothing about the Army’s “investigation” demonstrates that they are false. The above interview adds nothing to the case, and proves nothing, even taking it at face value.
What the Army has done is produce statements from a number of people who could have been charged with war crimes for the actions described in the article, and who then swore that they did not engage in those actions. Hardly surprising.
The interview above notes only that fact. It does not demonstrate that no troops in the unit engaged in the described behavior, or even, as you claim, that the investigator “was unable to find anyone” who did. It claims only that he did not find anyone who admitted it, among those he questioned. That’s far from the same thing. The fact that he “has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking” means nothing. As he notes, he has no information about TNR’s internal procedures, and at any rate their fact checking would hardly have included the brigade administrative officer. By their own description, it included a number of line troops who either participated in the events or heard the admissions of those who did – a claim the investigator never addresses.
In short, this interview consists only of the Army investigator’s assertion that he is satisfied by the denials of the few troops he spoke to. It does not demonstrate that the investigation was exhaustive or that those denials were true, and it has nothing to do with TNR’s fact-checking or lack thereof.
There seems to be little support for Beauchamp’s article, and that is suspicious. But accepting the Army’s own statement that it did nothing wrong, and, ludicrously, touting that as “proof” resulting from an “investigation”, is more gullible than believing Beauchamp’s assertions – which, as A.N. Feldzamen points out, report events similar to those that have been unquestionably documented in the past and are at least plausible for that reason.
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:49 pm 15. SteveA:Just playing devil’s advocate here.
You claim “no credible evidence that TNR made any attempt at fact checking prior to publishing the articles.”
In the relevant part of the interview, Maj. Cross says, “In the course of my investigation, I did not interview anyone who corroborated PVT Beauchamp’s claims …” about certain specific incidents. He didn’t say that TNR had never talked to anyone, only that no one had corroborated those specific claims.
Based on this interview alone, I can’t say whether TNR did or did not contact (or attempt to contact) other members of his unit, only that (if TNR did) they did not corroborate certain stories. Whether or not TNR attempted to do fact-checking at all cannot be determined from this interview.
Hey, I’m on your side, guys. But don’t overstate the case.
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:55 pm 16. Jed Marlin:This sorry saga has been immortalized in a slideshow and poem.
http://cruxy.com/stores/pubstoreDetailVideo.jsp?id=10978
With apologies to Geoffery Chaucer.
El Reeve’s Tale or The Ballad of Scoop Beauchamp
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:01 pm 17. James Newman:I suppose Major Cross has also discovered those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:14 pm 18. Toby928:I’m a bit astonished at those who are nitpicking this plain statement of the IO, that no one would corroborate STB’s accounts. I am presuming that, once STB was identified as the author, that every member of his unit was interviewed, under oath, as to whether the accounts were accurate. (I guess that exact question should have been put the Major.)
Its often said that you can’t prove a negative. While that may be true, its only common sense that, absent any positive evidence for the accuracy and an unbroken string of denials, the negative proposition would be proven to most peoples satisfaction.
Tob
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:15 pm 19. Allston:The comment that Beauchamp is now a PV-1, reduced from a PV-2 is telling: it’s almost unheard of in the Army. A PV-1 is a trainee, a title reserved for those new troops in Basic Training.
Generally, once out of Basic Training, if you mess up badly enough, rather than being busted all the way down to PV-1, the Army will provide you with a bad-conduct discharge (Other Than Honorable).
It rather indicates just how good and stable a Troop Beauchamp wasn’t, and that he has an serious agenda and an axe to grind against the Army.
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:48 pm 20. VeternCitizen:Believe it; it happens and is happening. It was ears in Viet Nam, now its skulls; nothing new. When you become that de-sensatized to killing it starts to become a joke. Trouble is, these PTSD kids will come home someday and do a number with an assault rifle from a clock tower in anytown USA.
Remember My Lai you compassionate conservative, blinder wearing wimps.
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:52 pm 21. petzrexx:It seemes to me that too many people already believe that our soldiers do these things. With or without some sort of “expose”. As if, when someone puts on a uniform they transform into a monster. Give me a break! I thought this kind of B.S. was a relic from the Vietnam era peaceniks. Did anything ask or think to ask whether the Major looked for the dumping ground and didn’t find it? Do you think that would have been a good idea? Of course! So does everyone think the Major is stupid? Come on people. Life is hard enough without being stupid and for some of you I don’t see how you function on a daily basis.
Sep 10, 2007 - 1:59 pm 22. BLOC:Do you think that a reporter from the New Republic could just go around asking questions without the the knowledge of the executive officer? People, USE YOUR BRAINS. That’s why he found no evidence of them conducting an investigation about the truth. They’re not interested in the truth. They already believe our soldiers do that stuff so why check! No one think about this stuff. They just read it and believe it. If this stuff was a daily thing then why didn’t that stupid Private take a picture! Why didn’t he just tell a reporter in the area? There are reporters all over the place out there. This is the most brodcasted war in history. That Private, his magazine and anyone that blindly believes that crap makes me sick!
The burden of proof lies squarly on Private Beauchamp to prove his allegations.
It most certainly does not lie on us skeptics to falsify his unsupported assertions.
Until he or TNR provides proper evidence, I remain far more skeptical of the Private’s charges and TNR’s “fact checking” than I do of Major Cross and his findings.
Sep 10, 2007 - 2:01 pm 23. Tom W.:We’re in an age of total mediocrity. Even frauds like Beauchamp are cheap bozos with no substance at all.
Our conspiracy theories are retarded, too, promulgated by bellowing hogs like Alex Jones or those mush-mouthed Loose Change kids.
A good conspiracy theory shouldn’t be so boring it puts you to sleep.
Sep 10, 2007 - 2:02 pm 24. Chester White:Thanks for your work on this story. Keep hammering those pasty clowns at TNR, who seem still to be on vacation.
But could you do me a favor? Please stop writing “that” when you mean “who.” It’s incredibly annoying.
Sep 10, 2007 - 2:09 pm 25. BLOC:With inspiration from Tom W’s reference to mediocrity, and with apologies to Joseph Heller:
Some people are born screw-ups.
Some folks have screw-up-ness thrust upon them.
But Private Beauchamp became a screw-up the old fashioned way: he earned it through hard work and perseverance.
The same could be said for TNR’s Franklin Foer.
Sep 10, 2007 - 2:33 pm 26. InRussetShadows:This interview is a mirror. Those who hang desperately to the whole “uniform makes you a monster” philosophy will not be disabused by the facts. For them, truth does not matter — only the story. They are kin to the pressman.
For those who are interested in truth, this article says much in what it doesn’t say. The Army couldn’t find supporting evidence. No investigation has infinite resources to be infinitely thorough, but it’s hard to hide things when you have as many eyes on you as you do at war.
For instance, if Beauchamp was right, tales like this would be easily sourced. That they can’t be independently verified, and that a magazine with a history of outright lying should be evidence enough of fraud.
But that’s the perspective from a guy who is interested in the truth, and not someone who hates America first, facts or no facts.
Sep 10, 2007 - 2:59 pm 27. LTCCareer:Its amazing what happens to a story when it is exposed to testifying under oath. PVT Beachamp was a young kid telling tales inflating himself for his young bride. He was foolish enough to publish these tales as fact, and when confronted to swear under oath withered like a flower in the sun.
I have conducted several Article 32 investigations and found that soldiers for the most part dont lie under oath. If MAJ Cross found information that cooberated PVT Bechamps story he would have to report it. Why would he throw himself under the bus for good PR for the Army.
The major problem here is a media source tailoring stories to fit thier agenda vs telling the whole story. Objective journalism in the United States died when Richard Nixon was pushed from office after Watergate. Young reporters want to be the next Woodward and Bernstien regardless of where the truth takes them. PVT Beachamp is guilty mostly of being a kid and telling tall tales out of class. Anyone who does not hate the military can see through adolescent bravado and see PVT Beachamp for what he is. A scolded child.
Sep 10, 2007 - 3:29 pm 28. Herr Morgenholz:They busted him to snake-sh*t and put him on patrol duty. For violating op-sec, for seeking to destroy morale and thereby prop up the enemy with his drivel, he got off light.
The XO’s candor and professionalism in the interview were a telling counterpoint to Beauchamp’s mendacity and juvenile insidiousness.
Sep 10, 2007 - 3:42 pm 29. Timtan:This is a perfect example of how pathetic some people really are…… This person has totally insulted our entire millitary who are our friends and neighbors, with far greater integrity than he could ever achieve…. YUCK!
Sep 10, 2007 - 4:15 pm 30. David C:Bob Owens wrote:
“It is doubtful that editor Franklin Foer and The New Republic deserve yet another chance, and that readers will be as loyal to the magazine as the military has been to Beauchamp.”
I would hope that is true. But judging from some of the comments made here, it seems it won’t be. There are plenty of people willing to believe the worst about the US military even when published by as shoddy a source as The New Republic.
Sep 10, 2007 - 6:00 pm 31. Geoff in Austin, Texas:Thanks for the great reporting on this!
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:46 pm 32. GS in Eastern Europe:Thanks PJM for continuing to bring this story to the forefront of the public mind. TNR would like to see it disappear for the sake of their insulated readership and their contrived agenda.
Thanks also to our troops, 99% of whom do a tough, sometimes heartbreakingly tough job virtually without complaint. Someone I love is over there right now and he and his comrades continue to carry out their mission in spite of carrying the grief of having lost close friends in recent weeks to IEDs. There is no open, widespread ridicule of anyone wounded by an IED over there, as TNR has tried to assert.
BTW, to those who have seen YouTube videos of soldiers shooting dogs: feral dogs cause a variety of problems for soldiers in combat, including possible loss of soldiers lives at times. There are times they have to get rid of the dogs. I live in a foreign country, parts of which have a severe animal control problems. I have been attacked by wild dogs and wish I could have shot them ahead of time. They spread diseases, like rabies, are aggressive in packs and live miserable lives no matter what their personalities are like. Some of them are heartwarmingly sweet, cute and charming. Like the “community dogs” at my son’s FOB, who are recipients of affection, food, dog treats, flea treatments and medical attention. Americans may shoot dogs in Iraq, but they don’t cruise around in Bradley FVs, running them down and cutting them in half, for fun, while crashing through Iraqi market stalls for even more fun, as TNR tried to assert. It doesn’t happen.
Foer and Elspeth watched too many bad lefty war movies and integrated them into their willing brains as fact. As a result, Beauchamp’s fabrications found ready-made molds in their minds, accompanied by triumphal “Aha!” moments that they experienced as truth. They couldn’t wait to publish these lurid tales to their similar-minded core readership as “evidence” of their core belief that war brings out the worst in people, and eventually turns them into craven monsters like Beauchamp. “Fact checking” wasn’t part of the process, regardless of the Army’s investigation. All you have to do is read the articles to see through them, unless you are hoping to find something that will confirm your lurid fantasies.
Sure there are some bad guys who become soldiers…just like there are unprofessional, deluded people on magazine staffs who like to cause harm, and don’t have the grace or character to admit their errors. Their god is saving their face.
Sep 11, 2007 - 4:26 am 33. TroofersRDorks:On Sept 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM, Curtis writes:
After the “investigations” into Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were found to be nothing but cover ups and lies, why should we believe this investigation?
That would be alleged cover ups and lies, there Curtis. In any case, you’d think TNR would rebutt the findings of the investigation if they could– instead we’ve nothing but deafening silence from them.
Sep 11, 2007 - 1:03 pm 34. joanne carew:Does anyone else notice a similarity between Foer and George Castanza from ‘Seinfeld’?
Sep 11, 2007 - 2:17 pm 35. Dan:“Trouble is, these PTSD kids will come home someday and do a number with an assault rifle from a clock tower in anytown USA.”
That strikes me as something a non-military person would say. Maybe someone who’s pissed about the “assault rifle” ban lapsing. Maybe someone who’s sympathetic to post-traumatic stress disorder (or even treats or teaches about such things). Like maybe someone in academia that’s never seen a fistfight, much less combat.
Gimme a break. I’m in anytown USA right now, and if someone tries to smoke me I doubt very much it will be an Iraq or Afghanistan vet. Given that I’m in a blue-leaning-purple state, I’m MUCH more nervous about the angry anti-war moonbats that won’t get out of my way sometimes when I’m trying to get to or from work.
But then, I don’t worry too much about them, either. They’re (usually) too goofy to be scary.
Sep 11, 2007 - 2:28 pm 36. Allston:Dan:
I work with Homeless Veterans with a variety of issues (PTSD being one of them), and I can tell you factually that I have only on very rare occasion seen or know of a Veteran suffering from PTSD “melting down” such that they would do such a thing.
Sep 11, 2007 - 2:57 pm 37. Harry Schell:Mr. Beauchamp has had his time in the sun. Now it is time perhaps to get another soldier with less than stellar integrity and honor his due.
Colin Powell lied to his boss twice, as SecState and a general officer in the US Army (they never retire, actually, just go inactive) about the Valerie Plame affair and who the leaker was. Richard Armitage worked for Powell and told him he was the source of the leak early on. Powell refused a direct question from Bush as to anything he knew about the problem.
And so we the citizens were treated to Pat Fitzgerald racing hither and yon, finally getting a scalp after millions of tax dollars were spent and great wasted effort.
Powell deserves to be recalled to duty and busted to private. If you don’t like bush that is fine with me, it is Plamegate’s affectand waste that Powell could have, and by any sense of honor should have, spared us from. For that conduct unbecoming and a reduction in rank are reasonable.
Sep 11, 2007 - 3:51 pm 38. Kurt:I wonder why he was busted down in rank. I didn’t know there was anything lower than private. What’s the back story on that? I imagine he’s on permanent latrine duty until his discharged.
Sep 12, 2007 - 6:35 am 39. blackflag:Kurt:
“I wonder why he was busted down in rank.”
He’s probably just a “general screw up”, there’s one in every unit as they say. If he was busted for his behavior with TNR he was probably given a “Don’t say anything more or else” warning. We had some general screw ups, they would typically ride out their enlistment in the low ranks or get a “General” (General Screw-Up) Discharge and go home early.
“I didn’t know there was anything lower than private. What’s the back story on that?”
More than likely E-1 to E-2 is generalized as “Private” as E-3 and below in the USN is refered to as “Airman, Seaman or Fireman” respectively. Not until you make E-4 do you get a “title” per se.
“I imagine he’s on permanent latrine duty until his discharged.”
Probably, but that’s the kind of duty that “General Screw-Up’s” get. If you want to to do something exciting and rewarding you have to prove yourself capable of the task.
Whatever the case Scott is a scumbag and his command appears to have handled the case appropriately.
Sep 12, 2007 - 10:01 am 40. Michael Fumento:I used to write for The New Republic, beginning in its heyday under Mike Kinsley. I even had the cover once. But the last time my name appeared in the magazine it was by another writer who was libeling me. I tried to post a comment and it was pulled down. I e-mailed the editor. No response. I’ll bet that article was just as carefully “fact-checked.”
Sep 12, 2007 - 3:40 pm 41. Bugs:Unfortunately, the people who choose to believe Beauchamp’s nonsense will also believe that the IO and the rest of his command are just trying to silence a brave “progressive” soldier for speaking truth to power. After all, if the Army lied about progress in Vietnam, they must be lying about this, right? That the investigation revealed no factual basis for the stories simply means the Army is trying to avoid airing its dirty laundry. That Beauchamp was further investigated for the contents of his blog means the Army is trying to punish him for bucking the system. Totally obvious to anyone who hasn’t been duped by Government lies. It’s all there in Black & White.
Sep 13, 2007 - 8:48 am 42. schnargley:History repeats itself all over again. I’m talking about Dreyfus. I’m talking repression and persecution. Not only has this brilliant young writer-soldier put his professional journalistic career on the line, not only has he put his magaizine in the center of a maelstrom, not only has he sacrificed his military career, but…please consider this with deep feeling…he has put his body on the line to tell us the truth…by giving himself to two women in order to secure the truth for us.
Beauchamp is a true hero for our times.
Sep 14, 2007 - 1:30 pm 43. Pajamas Media » Infamous “Shock Troops” Author Back in the News:[...] Reeve in late January, after I posted copies of the sworn statements gathered during the “Shock Troops” investigation on Confederate Yankee. The documents included Beauchamp’s own sworn [...]
Aug 22, 2008 - 11:34 am