"Help me, Help you."
Photo from TomCruiseFan.com

Dear "The Editors,"

I noticed with some bemusement earlier this week Jonathan Chait's attempt to rally the TNR faithful by attacking William Kristol, and note that Jonathan Cohn returned to that theme once again yesterday afternoon, with the slight exception of focusing on Ramesh Ponnuru's criticism of Chait's rant. I find it fascinating that you have the time to dedicate to critiques of critiques, but I'd really rather prefer that you just did your jobs as editors.

It has been precisely two weeks since your last attempt to whistle past those "legitimate questions that have been raised" about Scott Thomas Beauchamp's articles. It has been even more troubling that you have stone-walled those who have asked legitimate questions about your own investigation, which is far from transparent.

As Scott Johnson notes at Powerline this morning, Fridays seem to be a big day for TNR editors when it comes to releasing Beauchamp investigation-related news.

Towards that end, and knowing it is a little late, I'd still like to offer up my services to help you with your investigation.

You see, it doesn't often take very long to conduct a legitimate investigation into matters such as these.

For example, once I was finally able to reach Doug Coffey at BAE Systems, the company that manufacturers the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles that you refused to identify, it took only one email to determine that you didn't provide him with Beauchamp's dog-killing story to review for plausibility. I did, and his same-day response... well, we know how that ended up, don't we? It seems your researcher "re-reporting" the story just didn't know quite which questions to ask.

I seem to have a knack for knowing what to ask, so if you would be so kind, please provide the names of the civilian experts you claim to have interviewed during the course of your re-reporting, and I'll be happy to take a few minutes out of my day to make sure that you asked them the right questions, or for that matter, determine if you even asked the right experts the right questions.

Doing a thorough, transparent, and competent investigation doesn't take weeks.

Of course, that assumes that you want a thorough, transparent, and competent investigation.

Like you, dear readers, I find it rather doubtful that The New Republic will provide me or anyone else with the names of their civilian experts.

As details leak out, it seems Franklin Foer and his collaborators have become the cliché, and their continuing attempts to cover-up their editorial failures with even more questionable ethical violations and purposeful deceptions is worst than Beauchamp's fabulism. At this point, Franklin Foer and TNR's senior editors aren't so much editors as they are post turtles.

What's a post turtle? I recall an email where a doctor asked that same question when an old farmer whose hand he had been suturing used the term.

The farmer replied:

"When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

"You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb thing get down."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't normally read Jonathan Chait and know little about him. I don't know what role he normally plays at The New Republic, or what role he may or may not have played in the magazine's latest fabulism scandal.

What I do know of Chait is that his attack on William Kristol this morning is written with the obvious intent of distracting TNR readers from the editors' compromised ethics by attacking an ideological opposite.

It is perhaps not the oldest trick in psychology or politics, but it is close: attack a common enemy to shore up your own faltering base. Chait's none-too-subtle-variation on this is to get readers riled up at Kristol for a comment where he states that liberals are turning against the troops. I would imagine that the quote is probably accurate, even though Chait provides neither a link to the original editorial, or the context in which this passage appeared.

But what is far more interesting—both to myself, and based upon their comments, some of the magazine's readers—is what Chait doesn't say in his attempt to distract us away from the magazine's editorial deceptions with his assault on Kristol.

The topic was The New Republic's decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised about this essay's veracity. (We've been publishing updates on our continuing efforts to get answers to them at tnr.com.) But Kristol rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a "fiction."

Legitimate questions were raised about Beauchamp's articles: all three of them, in fact. And we know now based upon an internal investigation by the United States Army, interviews with military personnel, contractors, vehicle experts, and even simple Google searches, is that the major allegations made in "Shock Troops" and in at least one of Beauchamp's other stories ("Dark of Night") are indeed, fiction. They are fabrications. Untruths. Lies.

The questions that remain surrounding this fabulist's train-wreck are concerned with the editorial decisions of Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and perhaps even Chait and other editorial staffers.

Those questions—what did the editors know, when did they know it, and why do they continue to cover it up—those are the questions that remain unresolved and of interest to those following this on-going example of gross editorial misconduct.

To recap:

• TNR editor Franklin Foer claimed on July 20 that, "I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation." Foer has never provided any corroborating details to support these claims, despite his promise.
• The editors claimed that "the article [Shock Troops] was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published." The fact of the matter is that TNR subsequently had to change the "burned woman" assault story from happening at FOB Falcon and as the result of the psychological trauma experienced by the author as the result of combat, to another location in another country before Beauchamp ever went to war, precisely because they did not rigorously edit or fact check the article before publication. This is a not only evidence of a lie by the editors when they said they "rigorously edited and fact-checked" the article before publication, it fatally undermines the entire premise of the article.
• TNR has not released, and appears to have purposefully hidden, unfavorable testimony of those it interviewed in the course of their investigation. We know that TNR editor Jason Zengerle admitted to John Podhoretz of The Corner that a Kuwait-based PAO regarded the "burned woman" story as a myth or urban legend, yet TNR editors have never revealed these findings as part of their investigation. So much for the promise to "release the full results of our search when it is completed." We have no way of knowing if they have hidden other unfavorable information.
• TNR's editors have led a purposefully vague investigation that does not disclose the names, qualifications, or expertise of anyone they claimed to have interviewed during the course of their investigation, hindering anyone who would like to follow behind them and verify the veracity of their claimed research. They have not disclosed the questions they asked their experts, and have thus far refused to provide their answers directly.
• One of the experts has been located and re-interviewed, and discloses the fact that he was never specifically interviewed about the claims made by Beauchamp at all. Further, once provided with Beauchamp's direct claims, he cited the physical properties and characteristics that would make Beauchamp's claims highly unlikely if not impossible. TNR staffers are well aware of his new, more fully-informed response, and have yet to respond.

In short, TNR's editors, led by Franklin Foer, have misled their readers, hidden testimony, and perhaps even rigged an investigation in order to claim some sort of vindication for their editorial and ethical failings.

These are the matters of importance that Johathan Chait, Franklin Foer, and other staffers at The New Republic would rather we didn't focus on.

They would much rather gin up "us versus them" conflicts between liberals and conservatives, between The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, and supporters of the war versus those who would bring the troops home now, than focus on the all-too-apparent fact that the editorial leadership of The New Republic has lied to its readers, compromised their integrity, and dissembled to fellow journalists and critics alike. They've done all of this to cover-up just how poor of a job they did in allowing a staffer's husband to publish inflammatory articles without any apparent editorial controls in place.

The editors of The New Republic have rather obviously lied to us all. They continue to do so today, and no amount of blame-shifting or "look over there!" sleight-of-hand will hide that brutal fact.

In the comments to Chait's article, TNR subscriber "PJmolloy" states:

This is a vile piece. It almost makes Beauchamp look tolerable if this is the alternative.

I've subscribed to TNR off and on for forty years. But it looks like it'll be more off than on in the future. Isn't there someone who can help this magazine?

There is, of course.

Why CanWest MediaWorks refuses to do so is yet another mystery.

Update: Captain Ed pulls no punches:

Chait should save his shocked, shocked! hypocrisy for the people in his own office who violated journalistic standards to publish Beauchamp, apparently based on the word of his wife and sweetened by the themes of his inartful fabulism. Attacking Kristol for essentially nailing the strangely-silent editors and publisher of TNR may conform to the strategy of going on offense as the best defense, but it's rather transparent, like the glass house TNR has chosen to occupy.

Nor does Bryan at Hot Air:

ChaitÂ’s article is another example of TNRÂ’s defense by offense, and itÂ’s the work of a smear artist and a scoundrel.

Powerline's Scott Johnson rips the TNR editor's "Chaitred" as well.

It seems at this late stage that even an offensive by The New Republic is quite transparent and doomed to fail.

I also seem to have someone's undivided attention at the home office.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 1226 words, total size 9 kb.

At Pajamas Media this morning, Richard Miniter has posted a devastating article called How The New Republic Got Suckered. It is the most incisive look into the heart of The New Republic during the early days of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp scandal thus far.

Miniter draws heavily from former TNR assistant to the editor Robert McGee, who recounts his experiences inside The New Republic before being terminated and then slapped with a cease and desist order by the magazine's lawyers for revealing that Beauchamp was married to a TNR fact-checker and writer, Elspeth Reeve.

It is because of this relationship that I suspect Franklin Foer and other TNR editors failed to adequately fact-check Beauchamp's three articles. What still remains unanswered is if Reeve was the fact-checker on her husband's stories, as such a conflict of interest would be yet another violation of journalistic ethics.

Also telling, if accurate, is McGee's observation that Foer may have approached, and may still be approaching, the scandal with ideological blinders firmly in place.

Later that night, Robert McGee, a then-assistant to The New Republic's publisher, went looking for the host. He is curious what Foer thinks about the building scandal. He wants the inside dope.

He finds Foer on the front porch and asks as casually as he can: "So, what's up with this?"

As McGee recalls the conversation, Foer immediately volunteered the standard answer: conservatives have an ideological grudge to settle because they perceive the magazine to be anti-war, anti-military and so on.

"He sounded almost rehearsed," McGee said.

What bothered McGee about the conversation was that Foer saw the questions from the bloggers as a completely ideological attack. "Foer wasn't acknowledging that at least some of the attacks on the [Beauchamp's] 'Shock Troops' piece came from active-duty military members whose skepticism was factually grounded, and not just from stateside political pundits."

Discounting criticism merely as a result of the ideological position of the critics was a serious mistake by Foer, though hardly the first, and certainly not the last.

Just because political pundits made these observations does not make them invalid. It matters little who tells you that Glocks do not fire "square-backed" bullets; this fact does not change if it comes from a liberal or a conservative, a Republican or a Democrat.

Nor does it matter that it was this conservative blogger blew away TNR's insistence that they fact-checked Beauchamp's claims before publication by pointing out that if TNR has run so much as a Google search before publishing Beauchamp's libelous murder claim in “Dark of Night," then he would have likely been exposed as a fabulist well in advanced of "Shock Troops."

Time and again, it seems, Franklin Foer and perhaps other senior TNR editors allowed personal loyalties to subvert their editorial responsibilities.

In the beginning, these were small sins.

One wants to be able to trust the spouse of a staffer. I can understand why the fact-checking that should have occurred may have been minimized in Beauchamp's first post.

But in "Dead of Night," Beauchamp makes significant fact errors in leveling an accusation of murder. Personal relationships should matter little when an author makes such an inflammatory charge, and the editor's have a significant duty to verify that the facts support such a potentially divisive claim.

It is painfully obvious that even a passing attempt to verify the claims was never made. No handgun on the planet fires a "square-backed" pistol bullet, and if the editors had so much as bothered to click on the Glock web site, they would have readily discovered that Glocks use the same ammunition as every other 9x19mm caliber pistol, and that this claim was absurd.

Further, the editors of The New Republic made absolutely no attempt to verify the demonstrably false Beauchamp claim that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

This fabrication is easily discredited within seconds with a simple Google search.

Glocks are a common and favored handgun on the Iraqi black market:

Glock pistols were also easy to find. One young Iraqi man, Rebwar Mustafa, showed a Glock 19 he had bought at the bazaar in Kirkuk last year for $900. Five of his friends have bought identical models, he said.

There are literally dozens of stories of Glock pistols being recovered from insurgents, terrorists, and militiamen. They have been captured in cordon-and-search operations, in targeted raids, recovered in weapons caches, and taken from dead and wounded insurgents, militiamen, and criminals.

American soldiers also have them, as do civilian contractors. Ordinary Iraqi civilians (men and women) buy them to protect their families. Glock are quite likely the most ubiquitous handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all.

But Franklin Foer's editors did not fact check any part of the murder claim made in "Dead of Night." That is clear, and in doing so, the editors' of The New Republic slipped from being loyal friends making an innocent mistake, into what can only be described as an overt case of editorial malpractice.

Had the editors of The New Republic actually edited this article and fact-checked it before publication, there is every reason to believe that these significant fact errors in "Dark of Night" would have eventually led to the quiet termination of Scott Thomas Beauchamp's writing career at The New Republic after one article.

But Franklin Foer and the other editors at The New Republic utterly failed in their editorial responsibilities.

Instead, the willful disregard of editorial standards allowed Beauchamp not only to libelously assign a murder based upon false claims, it also allowed him to later publish his most infamous post, "Shock Troops," in which he wrote three vignettes that effectively slandered every soldier in his entire company and within the other companies with which his unit served.

But this editorial dereliction of duty was by no means the greatest sin of the editors of The New Republic.

Once caught, they escalated their editorial incompetence with a series of readily apparent purposeful deceptions, dissembling to readers and critics alike.

Franklin Foer stated that The New Republic fact-checked "Shock Troops" before publication. That statement is an obvious falsehood. Foer's magazine utterly failed to fact-check the article prior to publication, and therefore had to move the time, location and underlying premise of Beauchamp's primary charge to another time and country when they did finally attempt to fact-check it well after publication.

Foer's editors attempted to further deceive readers and critics on at least two other known occasions.

The New Republic claimed to publish the findings of an internal investigation that they said vindicated the magazine, but was in actuality nothing more than an apparent attempt to save their jobs via a whitewash.

The magazine offered no named witnesses or experts, no evidence or testimony, and when one of the experts TNR claimed to have supported their story was located, it became abundantly obvious that TNR avoided a real investigation, did not provide him with any context, and was attempted to only provide itself with rhetorical cover. The attempt failed, miserably.

The magazine has also apparently made it a practice to bury dissenting viewpoints, such as when a military PAO based in Kuwait told TNR editor Jason Zengerle that the story was regarded as an urban legend or myth. Zengerle acknowledges he was told this, but the account was never published in The New Republic.

Foer's magazine then attempted to avoid responsibility for their editorial malpractice, purposeful deception, and account burying by blaming the Army, claiming that the Army was obstructing their investigation.

But the Army never obstructed any investigation by The New Republic. This is presumably fine, as The New Republic had no intention of really conducting one.

But now we are left with a magazine where the editors have moved beyond merely partisanship and incompetence to obvious willful deception of their readers and critics alike, and perhaps actionable fraud.

It remains to be seen how CanWest Mediaworks, owner of The New Republic and other media properties, will respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 1342 words, total size 10 kb.

Tomorrow marks precisely one month since Michael Goldfarb published Fact or Fiction? at The Weekly Standard, calling into doubt the veracity of claims made by a soldier later revealed as Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Since that time, key "facts" in two of three Beauchamp-authored stories have been discredited.

• Glock pistols do not fire a unique "square-backed" 9-millimeter pistol cartridge.
• Glocks, far from only being used by the Iraqi Police as the author claimed as he libeled the Iraqi Police for murder, are instead one of the more common handguns in Iraq.
• Thee was never a "burned woman" in the dining facility at Camp Falcon as the author alleged. Nor was there a burned woman at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, a fact attested to by both named military personnel and named civilian contractors.
• There is no evidence there was ever a garbage-stratified grave as the author alleged (though there was a cemetery that was relocated), and no support than anyone could or would wear a section of rotting human skull under the close-fitting helmets currently used by the U.S. Army.
• There is no evidence of a dog-murdering Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle driver, and literally dozens of Bradley crewmen, commanders, drivers, infantrymen, and even the spokesman for the company that builds the Bradley all consistently stating it is all but impossible for a Bradley to be used as the author described.

In addition to the factual problems published in the articles, there have been significant issues revealed about the editorial management of The New Republic, the magazine that published the claims of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, issues that should call into question their ethics and credibility.

• TNR editor Franklin Foer claimed on July 20 that, "I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation." Foer has never provided any corroborating details to support these claims, despite his promise.
• The editors claimed that "the article [Shock Troops] was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published." The fact of the matter is that TNR subsequently had to change the "burned woman" assault story from happening at FOB Falcon and as the result of the psychological trauma experienced by the author as the result of combat, to another location in another country before Beauchamp ever went to war, precisely because they did not rigorously edit or fact check the article before publication. This is a not only evidence of a lie by the editors when they said they "rigorously edited and fact-checked" the article before publication, it fatally undermines the entire premise of the article.
• TNR has not released, and appears to have purposefully hidden, unfavorable testimony of those it interviewed in the course of their investigation. We know that TNR editor Jason Zengerle admitted to John Podhoretz of The Corner that a Kuwait-based PAO regarded the "burned woman" story as a myth or urban legend, yet TNR editors have never revealed these findings as part of their investigation. So much for the promise to "release the full results of our search when it is completed." We have no way of knowing if they have hidden other unfavorable information.
• TNR's editors have led a purposefully vague investigation that does not disclose the names, qualifications, or expertise of anyone they claimed to have interviewed during the course of their investigation, hindering anyone who would like to follow behind them and verify the veracity of their claimed research. They have not disclosed the questions they asked their experts, and have thus far refused to provide their answers directly.
• One of the experts has been located and re-interviewed, and discloses the fact that he was never specifically interviewed about the claims made by Beauchamp at all. Further, once provided with Beauchamp's direct claims, he cited the physical properties and characteristics that would make Beauchamp's claims highly unlikely if not impossible. TNR staffers are well aware of his new, more fully-informed response, and have yet to respond.

In short, TNR's editors, led by Franklin Foer, have misled their readers, hidden testimony, and perhaps even rigged an investigation in order to claim some sort of vindication for their editorial and ethical failings.

A month into this story, it seems apparent that the Editors at TNR and their owners at CanWest MediaWorks have no intention at all of dealing honestly with the continuing editorial and ethical failures of this magazine.

Few people read The New Republic before they self-immolated their credibility. If there is any consolation to their deplorable behavior, it is the knowledge that their audience will grow smaller still as a result.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Milblogger and two-tour Iraq veteran John Rohan, who writes at The Shield of Achilles, absolutely eviscerates some of the more vocal defenders of Franklin Foer's whitewash of an investigation, and the poorly-written combat fiction of Scott Beauchamp that appears in The New Republic.

Rohans delivers Sullivan, Yglesias, Drum, Marshall and others take a well-deserved thrashing, administered by their own words in this retrospective, but I'd advise you not to hold your breath for any of them to apologize.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:24 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Why do the Scott Thomas Beauchamp stories published in The New Republic matter?

Beauchamp's stories—"War Bonds," "Dead of Night", and "Shock Troops"—contained material either suspect, exaggerated, or in several proven instances, completely fabricated.

It is suspect that the soldiers in "War Bonds" would stop their vehicles in a "dark brown river of sewage" to change a tire; both Humvees and Strykers feature run-flat tires and automatic tire inflation systems that allow the vehicles to continue on for miles after experiencing a puncture.

Beauchamp's libel of the Iraqi Police as murderers in "Dark of Night" is based upon not one, but two completely false claims. The first is that Glock pistols can be identified by a unique "square-backed" 9mm pistol cartridge. This is utterly preposterous. There are no "square-backed" pistol cartridges chambered by commercial weapons manufacturers. The 9mm NATO (AKA, 9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum) cartridge chambered and fired by Glock pistols is common in military, police and civilian handguns, carbines, and submachine guns worldwide, they do not use unique identifying ammunition.

The second claim is that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols. A simple Google search easily disproves that claim. Glocks are common among all military, police, militia, insurgent, and civilian populations. In "Dark of Night," Beauchamp based his libel upon two easily demonstrated falsehoods.

In Beauchamp's final article, "Shock Troops," he provides us with three distinct tall tales that a U.S. military investigation has concluded were categorically false.

It was this third account, "Shock Troops," that matters most to active duty soldiers, veterans, and their families. In three separate accounts, Beauchamp tells stories of large groups of soldiers that allowed, encouraged, or participated in barbaric behavior, and in so doing, Beauchamp assaulted the honor and integrity of not just a rogue soldier or even a small unit, but his entire company and every soldier in every other company Forward Operating Base Falcon.

This mass libel offends or should offend everyone who supports our soldiers, even those who are against the war. Several weeks ago when Beauchamp was still nominally shielded by his pseudonym, I suggested that a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War who was based at FOB Falcon from Nov. 2005 to Nov. 2006 named Richard Peters might be in a position to tell us if he has heard or of witnessed these or similar stories while at the base.

After reading Beauchamp's "Shock Troops," and hearing of the various debunkings of Beauchamp's claims, IVAW member Peters responded via email:

Ok, yes it does seem to be "case closed" on this Scott Thomas fellow. People like him really get under my skin. The trouble with the antiwar movement is one of image, when losers like him spread elaborate lies it only weakens that image and the message is lost.

Whether you support the continuation of the conflict in Iraq, or if you favor a withdrawal as do Mr. Peters and the IVAW and other critics of the war, is frankly irrelevant to the discussion. Beauchamp's stories matter because they were fabrications created in the hopes of furthering the career of an arrogant, untalented writer, at the expense of the reputations of his fellow soldiers.

As a result of a military investigation into the allegations made in "Shock Troops," all of Beauchamp's claims were determined to be false, and Beauchamp himself faces administrative punishment for his serial fiction.

But Beauchamp's attempted collective character assassination is only part of the story, and at this point, isn't even the most offensive part of the tale.

Since this series of stories was first brought to the attention of milbloggers by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, the editors of The New Republic have continued to defend Beauchamp's stories, and have gone to disconcerting lengths to do so.

Perhaps most disturbing is that on July 26, TNR editors flatly lied to its readers, when they stated:

Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we've found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.

Let me make this very clear: none of Beauchamp's three stories bears any evidence of fact-checking or rigorous editing.

The editors did not ask why vehicles with automatic tire inflation systems and run-flat tires designed to run for miles even after being punctured had to stop in waist-deep rivers of raw sewage in "War Bonds."

The editors did not catch the blatant "square-backed" cartridge claim, nor did they show enough diligence to even run a rudimentary Google search to check Beauchamp's claim that would have sent up immediate red flags when their correspondent alleged murder based upon a flagrant untruth that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police" in "Dead of Night."

In "Shock Troops," an act of depravity—verbally assaulting a female contractor for severe facial burns—at a combat base that the author blamed on the psychological trauma of combat was quickly exposed as not having occurred at the base in question at all. This bit of undone fact-checking exposed, TNR's editors shifted the story to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, never admitting the fact that that the shift in time and place means that the story was utterly false: one cannot be traumatized, hardened, or emotionally deadened by the horrors of combat in the Iraq War before having actually gone there.

TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle admitted that he received information from the U.S. Army PAO in Kuwait that "a couple of soldiers did say that [they] heard rumors about the incident, but nothing based on fact. More like an urban legand [sic]."

The editors of TNR has decided not to share this or similar conflicting information with their readers.

Nor have they shared the fact that named contractors at Camp Arifjan, named U.S. Army officers, and literally dozens of soldiers have disputed ever seeing a contractor at Camp Arifjan or anywhere else who has matched this description. The New Republic's anonymous soldiers and fact-checking apparatus have not produced the name of a contractor, the specific date or even a likely date range for the incident, and fall back on insisting that that anonymous soldiers that they claim corroborate the burned contractor assault, and that we must take their word for it, despite all the documented claims from named military and civilian sources to the contrary.

Another claim made by Beauchamp and "fact checked" by TNR's legion of diligent staffers was the discovery of children's bodies under layers of garbage, and the subsequent wearing of part of a child's rotting skull by one soldier for an extended period of time.

The editors of The New Republic would deceive their readers, and pretend that the acknowledgement that a children's cemetery was uncovered and relocated during the creation of a combat outpost proved Beauchamp's claim that a soldier wore rotting human body parts during the day and into the night to the amusement of fellow soldiers, and without a single dissenting voice or reprimand from an NCO. It does nothing of the sort, and merely shows that Beauchamp likely took a rather mundane event—the discovery and relocation of a cemetery—and wove fiction around it to create an atrocity tacitly supported and even laughed at by his fellow soldiers.

Beauchamp's third claim, of a murderous rogue Bradley IFV driver, has been refuted by the U.S. military, Bradley drivers, commanders, crewmen, and soldiers, the crewmen of similar tracked vehicles such as the M113, virtually without contradiction, with the one notable exception coming, once again, from anonymous TNR sources.

One of their anonymous sources was actually discovered and re-questioned openly about the Bradley's capability to be used as described in "Shock Troops."

Despite TNR's claim that he supported the Bradley's ability to operate as described, Doug Coffey, Bradley manufacturer BAE Systems spokesman, actually tore TNR's claims apart when presented with all of Beauchamp's claims, in context.

It makes one wonder just how much "in the dark" The New Republic kept their other experts in order to create the illusion of an investigation that supported their initial claims.

The New Republic posted the results of an "investigation" that hides the names, positions, companies, and qualifications of their experts, and when one of their experts was tracked down, he told a quite different story. It becomes readily apparent that TNR, never "rigorously edited and fact-checked" Beauchamp's articles before publication. They still haven't.

Nor have they responded to valid criticisms...

...even though we know they have following such criticisms closely, and have been, daily.

What Franklin Foer and other editors of The New Republic have done is establish a pattern of deception, obfuscation, and blame-shifting. They continue to attempt to deceive their journalistic peers, their readers, and as their critics. TNR even purposefully hid the fact that one of their staff members is married to Beauchamp, and fired the temporary employee that disclosed this fact.

The New Republic seems convinced that despite the ever-growing collection of evidence that shows a clear breach of journalistic ethics, that if they simply find a way to "fool all of the people, all of the time," that they just might be able to save their credibility and their readership. Editor-in-Chief Marty Peretz does not seem willing to comment or act upon Franklin Foer's "rather" blatantly dishonest whitewash of an investigation, and Foer's obviously deceptive comments that the stories were fact-checked before publication.

As of yet, CanWest MediaWorks, the company that bought full interest in The New Republic in early 2007, has refused to act to salvage the credibility of their newest magazine.

One must wonder if they will wait to act until the magazine's already tarnished reputation is irreversibly damaged, or if that time is already passed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:23 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 1655 words, total size 12 kb.

Had it not been hidden behind the subscriber firewall, I would have found this example of The New Republic's unwillingness to fact check Scott Beauchamp long ago.

It is already widely know that in Beauchamp's second dispatch, "Dead of Night," TNR editors did not take the common-sense step of fact-checking the article submitted, allowing Beauchamp to claim he saw "square-backed" pistol cartridges when such a cartridge does not exist. They also allowed him to claim that Iraqi policemen must have committed a murder, because they did not bother to do so much as the basic Google search that would have revealed that Glock pistols are very common throughout Iraq.

Yesterday evening I finally read of all "Dark of Night," and discovered this gem of a claim at the end.

As we slowly started moving back toward the Humvee, we could hear the dogs filling in the space behind us. I turned around and saw their green eyes flashing in the deep shadow where we'd left the body. Part of me thought we should have shot the dogs or done something to keep them from eating the body, but what good would it have done? We only would have been exposing ourselves to danger longer than we needed to.

Back in the Humvee, Hernandez started talking to me without looking in my direction. "Man, I've never seen anything like that before," he said.

"What? A guy killed by a cop?" I asked.

"No, man, zombie dogs. That shit was wild," he said, laughing.

Something inside of me fought for expression and then died. He was right. What else was there to do now but laugh?

"I took his driver's license," I said.

"You did?" questioned Hernandez.

"Yeah. It said he was an organ donor."

We chuckled in the dark for a moment, and then looked out the window into the night. We didn't talk again until we were back at our base.

Was anyone else the least bit surprised by Beauchamp's assertion that he stole the dead man's license, that he could read the Arabic on it, and that the deceased in an Islamic country was an organ donor?

It didn't seem to raise suspicions among TNR's editors, but it is obvious that nothing did with this post or his following fiction in "Shock Troops."

I contacted Bill Costlow, a former member of CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Teams) now working in the D.C. Metro area, and he confirmed that Iraqi driver licenses are written in Arabic. He also confirmed that:

Muslims have some pretty strict requirements on the treatment of bodies — mostly geared towards respect for the dead and privacy for the families — autopsies are very difficult to get permission for because it's viewed as desecration and this has been an issue in a number of investigations.

From Baghdad, Hassan Elsaadaoui, a CPATT liaison with the Iraqi Interior Ministry concurs:

I think in the Iraqi or Muslim tradition they don't accept this practice of donating organs. Maybe in the future, it will be possible. There is no indication now on the back side of Iraqi driver's license. Also our medical system and doctors are not ready for this type procedure, because of the situation. They do not have the equipment and many of the very good doctors are now outside the country.

So I agree with Bill's notes that he sent to you.

Organ donation is not unheard of in Iraq, and indeed, there is a small black market where the destitute will sell a kidney for several thousand dollars, but this practice seems confined to living donors.

There is apparently no such thing as an official Iraqi organ donor program, much less one run through the government and noted on drivers licenses, when such donations of organs of the deceased are viewed as desecrating the dead.

It took me a grand total of two emails to get confirmation that this claim, like so many others written by Beuachamp, and published by The New Republic, was rooted firmly in fiction.

Beauchamp made up another one, and once more, Franklin Foer and the editors of The New Republic are proven to be dishonest when they claim that Beauchamp's stories were fact checked before publication.

Update: Is Beauchamp merely making a joke above? I admittedly didn't read it that way, but it very well could be the case.

The first experience most of us had with Beauchamp was with his last article first, and his allegation that he verbally assaulted a burn victim. It doesn't seem much of a stretch from abuser of the burned to robber of the dead, so I took his comments at face value as a real claim.

I suppose that it is just an indication of just how little credibility TNR and Beauchamp have that it isn't easy to tell his joking fake claims from his sincere fake claims.

Update: Ace seems quite unimpressed by Beauchamp's joke, and seems to think it should have been viewed as a red flag by TNR editors.

I think the angle here is not that he was outright fabricating, so much as he was employing literary devices in his stories-- playing a role in order to establish himself as a literary character for his coming novel, a hardass, seen-it-all veteran dripping with BAMFism...

Despite the fact that, you know, while his service in Iraq is no doubt dangerous, he's hardly seen much in the way of combat or actual danger. He's seen the possibility of danger, but, alas for his book proposal, not so much the real sort.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | Comments (98) | Add Comment
Post contains 949 words, total size 6 kb.

It appears that Bill Roggio and I were working parallel paths in running down--or perhaps over--the claims made in The New Republic's latest Scott Beauchamp defense, which consists of failing to take responsibility for their repeated editorial failings, and attempting to blame-shift all their ills on to the Army:

...we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."

But that isn't exactly the truth, is it? The Army has a legal obligation not to release the investigation's findings, with confidentiality being Beauchamp's right. Funny, how TNR decided not to publish that little detail.

As for who Beauchamp communicates with and why, Roggio reports:

I recently emailed Col. Steve Boylan asking for whatever information he could provide regarding the status of the investigation of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Here is his response:

His commands investigation is complete. At this time, there is no formal what we call Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions being taken. However, there are other Administrative actions or what we call Non-Judicial Punishment that can be taken if the command deems appropriate. These are again administrative in nature and as such are not releasable to the public by law.

We are not stonewalling anyone. There are official statements that are out there are on the record from several of us and nothing has changed.

We are not preventing him from speaking to TNR or anyone. He has full access to the Morale Welfare and Recreation phones that all the other members of the unit are free to use. It is my understanding that he has been informed of the requests to speak to various members of the media, both traditional and non-traditional and has declined. That is his right.

We will not nor can we force a Soldier to talk to the media or his family or anyone really for that matter in these types of issues.

We fully understand the issues on this. What everyone must understand is that we will not breach the rights of the Soldier and this is where this is at this point.

I contacted Major Steven Lamb this afternoon to once more ask about about Beauchamp's ability to communicate. You may remember that five days ago he had stated that:

...the PAO system is only responding to specific inquiries, and little more is expected to be released unless PV-2 Beauchamp decides to discuss the matter further, which he is free to do.

I wanted to check in, to see if that was still the case.

It is:

All Soldiers have access to make morale calls however Beauchamp is not
conducting interviews right now in order to protect his privacy and
rights.

It would appear that Beauchamp has the ability to make calls, but no desire to speak any further with the media at this time, including The New Republic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

Exactly one week ago today on August 2nd, the editors of the magazine The New Republic posted A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, in which they 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. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. 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. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

What is most interesting about the The New Republic's statement is that while they state they spoke to "dozens of people" in fact-checking their stories, they refused to cite the names of their experts, or explain their qualifications—those qualities that make them experts.

The reasoning behind that purposeful obfuscation is becoming ever more clear with each passing day.

In addition to avoiding the statements made by Army PAOs that Beauchamp's claims were "false" in their totality, and that one claim in particular was the stuff of "urban myth or legend," it appears that one of the experts cited by The New Republic's editors was not fully appraised of what TNR was trying to justify in one claim in particular.

The New Republic stated:

The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

Once again, no sources were named. That TNR would not reveal who these sources are who was a decision many interpreted as an attempt by TNR to keep others from interviewing these same experts. In the paragraph above, TNR mentions that they spoke to a spokesman of the company of manufacturers the Bradley.

Guess what? I did, too.

Doug Coffey is the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, the Bradley IFV's manufacturer that TNR wouldn't name.

He was indeed contacted by a TNR staffer, but that the questions asked by the researcher were couched in generalities.

Bob, I received your earlier email and wanted to talk to some others about the specific questions you asked. To answer your last question first, yes, I did talk to a young researcher with TNR who only asked general questions about "whether a Bradley could drive through a wall" and "if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks" and general questions about vehicle specifications.

In short, the TNR researcher did not provide the text of "Shock Troops" for Mr. Coffery to review, and only asked the vaguest possible questions. It seems rather obvious that this was not an attempt to actually verify Beauchamp's claims, but was instead designed to help The New Republic manufacturer a whitewash of an investigation.

Feeling that a little context was in order, I provided Mr. Coffey with Beauchamp's text from "Shock Troops" related to his company's Bradley IFV:

I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America—providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch.

One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all. I didn't see the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.
"So, you killed a few dogs today," I said skeptically.

"Hell yeah, I did. It's like hunting in Iraq!" he said, shaking with laughter.

"Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" I asked him.

"No," he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.

Along with the context the TNR researcher didn't provide, I'd asked a set of questions, including these:

Would a Bradley driver who "took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market," run a significant risk of damaging the vehicle's track systems? Would such actions also possibly damage the vehicle's armor? Could it have an adverse affect on other crucial vehicle components? Please elaborate as much as possible.

I'd also like to ask you about the claims made by the author as he describes the process of killing three dogs using the tracks of the Bradley IFV. I recognize this is more speculative in nature, but would ask that you comment about the possibility that a Bradley's driver could "jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road."

I don't pretend to be the most mechanically-minded person, but I think that a tracked vehicle such as a Bradley turning "hard to the right" would have a right tread that is either stationary, or nearly so. Is this a correct statement?

If this is a true statement, then it seems the possibility of any animal being run over by a stationary or near stationary track is quite slim. Would you agree with that assessment?

What is the likelihood that a Bradley's track system would "drag a dog for a little while?

Mr. Coffey's response:

I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a "driver" can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.

The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.

Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn't move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.

The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.

It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander's independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can't imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.

In other words, BAE System's Head of Communications over the division than manufactures the Bradley IFV was never specifically asked to comment on the claims made in "Shock Troops" by TNR's legion of fact-checkers.

When he saw the claims made in "Shock Troops," he stated, by citing the physical properties of his company's vehicle, that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Bradley story told in "Shock Troops" to have been correct.

Once more, we have to question the accuracy and the integrity of The New Republic's editors, who ran an investigation apparently designed to provide merely cover instead of facts.

Update: I'll be on Hugh Hewitt's radio show tonight with Dean Barnett after Mark Steyn around 6:20-ish to talk about this, unless I get bumped or something.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 AM | Comments (224) | Add Comment
Post contains 1802 words, total size 11 kb.

In the New York Times this morning:

In an e-mail message, Mr. Foer said, "Thus far, we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have," adding, "We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy."

And in the Washington Post:

But New Republic Editor Franklin Foer is standing his ground. "We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account," Foer said. The magazine granted anonymity to the other soldiers it cited.

And also at WaPo:

Foer said the New Republic had asked Maj. Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, about the allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, and that Lamb had replied: "I have no knowledge of that." Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp "told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic," Foer said.

"Thus far," he added, "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."

In both newspapers, Foer issued the statement that "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."

That, gentle readers, is a deception.

TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle has admitted to receiving an email from U.S. Army PAO Renee D. Russo that as far as the "burned woman" claim in "Shock Troops" goes, that:

"a couple of soldiers did say that [they] heard rumors about the incident, but nothing based on fact. More like an urban legand [sic]."

This was published at National Review Online's The Corner in an email from Zengerle to John Podhoretz.

I'd note further that Zengerle claims here that he got this information only after the editors at The New Republic posted their August 2 goal-post moving claim that Beauchamp changed both the date and location of the alleged verbal abuse (From FOB Falcon after Beauchamp had been scarred by the horrors of war, to Camp Beuhring, Kuwait, before he ever entered combat).

No one at TNR seems willing to address the obvious fact that for one to blame his callousness on being psychologically traumatized by the horrors of combat, it is necessary to first be in combat.

By shifting this critical goalpost, Beauchamp is admitting that not only had he not "seen the elephant," he hadn't even been to the zoo.

And probably much to Foer's chagrin, it isn't just the military that is disputing this claim.

Last night I posted an email from a contractor at Camp Arijan, Kuwait, where Beauchamp seems to have been suffering from "pre-traumatic stress disorder."

William "Big Country" Coughlin has been at Camp Arijan since February, and flatly denies that such a woman exists:

I've been in the Middle East since March of 2004. I started contracting with CACI and have worked for KBR as well. I have had one six month break 'in service' from October of 2006 to February of 2007. (I had to let the kids remember who Dad was and who was paying the bills!) I was in Baghdad at Camp Victory for 22 months, and I have been here on Arifjan since February of this year, and NEVER have I seen ANY female contractor with ANY sort of wounds described by PV2 Beauchamp. I work EXTENSIVELY with ALL aspects of personnel here on Arifjan and can say without a doubt that he's full of it.
Also, for the record, in my experience, ANY and ALL contractors who are wounded in any way, shape or form are usually evacuated posthaste due to the liability issues involved with the companies that hired them. KBR and CACI both had in place strict rules regarding hostile action and evacuation of ANYONE who might have been wounded or otherwise "injured in line of duty" so as to cover themselves legally in case of potential lawsuits and otherwise.

The idea that a female contractor with a 'half melted face' beggars belief...

Let's look at the facts as we now know them:

• "Scott Thomas" published three separate stories in The New Republic.


• "Scott Thomas" made two claims in his second article, "Dead of Night," that were flatly false:
  1. That he saw a spent "square-backed" pistol cartridge. As a firearms "expert" who deals with literally dozens of different kinds of pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition on a near-daily basis, I flatly deny that such a thing exists. Please feel free to quote me on that.
  2. Beauchamp claims that the "square-backed" cartridge was proof that the Iraqi Police were involved in the shooting, because "The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police." Someone should tell that to the New York Times, military press releases, video-sharing web sites and other media outlets that would have shown that Glocks are very common in Iraq.
  3. Glocks are quite likely the most ubiquitous handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all.
  4. A simple Google search would have disproved both of these claims made in "Dead of Night" within seconds or minutes.
  5. This strongly suggests that The New Republic did not even make a cursory attempt to fact-check "Dead of Night" before publication.


• Beauchamp's stories has been flatly denied by named U.S. Army PAO's Col. Steven Boylan (PAO to General Petraeus), LTC Andy Sams, Major Steven Lamb, Major Renee D. Russo, and Major Kirk Luedeke.
• Beauchamp's First Sergeant Hatley also flatly refuted the claims.
• Contractor William "Big Country" Coughlin has been at Camp Arijan since February, and flatly denies seeing such a woman.
• TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle admits to have received email from PAO Russo stating that this story was regarded as an urban legend or myth, but refuses to publish this contradictory account.


• TNR has not named a single witness, of any type. This included not only the soldiers they granted anonymity, but the civilian personnel they said they spoke with at the company who manufactures the Bradley IFV (BAE Systems), who are presumably not subject to a military gag order. TNR would not even disclose the name of the manufacturer, much less who their experts were, or precisely what they said.


• TNR has failed to cite or name the forensic experts they spoke with, reveal the questions they asked, or reveal their expert's responses.


• TNR has failed to cite or name the current or former solders they spoke with, what their qualifications were, reveal the questions they asked, or reveal their expert's responses.


• TNR has failed to cite or name the journalists they spoke with, explain why they are more qualified than TNR's own crack staff, reveal the questions they asked, or their expert's responses.


• TNR has utterly failed to address the obvious fact errors in "Dark of Night" that seems to prove their lack of fact-checking prior to the publication of that article.


• TNR has purposefully and willfully deceived their readers when they claimed "all of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication," as the various Glocks-in-Iraq-related links above abundantly prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.


• TNR did not present conflicting accounts from Major Luedeke or Major Lamb denying Beauchamp's claims as "urban legends of myths" and as "false".

Someone please explain to me why we should have any faith at all in what Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and the other editors and reporters at The New Republic claim. They've proven they have not fact-checked articles they claim to have fact-checked prior to publication, they have not proved a single named credible source to support their charges, and they refuse to admit that their time-shifting, country-hopping "burned woman" claims have completely undermined the premise of the entire article.

I cannot think of a single reason that we should trust them, when all they seem to be trying to do is muddy the waters just enough that they might possibly escape with their careers intact.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:52 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1345 words, total size 10 kb.

An email just in from a long-term contractor at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, where Scott Beauchamp says he verbally abused a female contractor, and the New Republic refuses to admit that they've been "Glassed" yet again:

I've been in the Middle East since March of 2004. I started contracting with CACI and have worked for KBR as well. I have had one six month break 'in service' from October of 2006 to February of 2007. (I had to let the kids remember who Dad was and who was paying the bills!) I was in Baghdad at Camp Victory for 22 months, and I have been here on Arifjan since February of this year, and NEVER have I seen ANY female contractor with ANY sort of wounds described by PV2 Beauchamp. I work EXTENSIVELY with ALL aspects of personnel here on Arifjan and can say without a doubt that he's full of it.

Also, for the record, in my experience, ANY and ALL contractors who are wounded in any way, shape or form are usually evacuated posthaste due to the liability issues involved with the companies that hired them. KBR and CACI both had in place strict rules regarding hostile action and evacuation of ANYONE who might have been wounded or otherwise "injured in line of duty" so as to cover themselves legally in case of potential lawsuits and otherwise.

The idea that a female contractor with a 'half melted face' beggars belief. If in fact there was such an unfortunate individual around, they would have been evacuated as soon as humanly possible. Hope this helps!

Best Regards

William "Big Country" Coughlin

We've had several weeks for the New Republic to provide something, anything, in the way of actual proof. They have failed, and stories such as this of William Coughlin add to an ever-expanding list of those who dispute their claims.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

The editors of The New Republic seem to be sticking to their story... just quite a bit less of it:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

Just five days ago, TNR editors claimed far more support for Beauchamp's stories, stating that they spoke to all sorts of experts—none that they would cite by name or position, but they assured us they were experts all the same—in addition to the soldiers they interviewed, and of course, Beauchamp.

They seem to have dropped their experts, Beauchamp, and claims of fact-checking before publication, all of which were murky at best, and deceitful at worst.

Now, they seem to hang their ever-less-descriptive claims on an unknown number of "military personnel."

Showing poor-form, TNR editors seem to be laying the framework to claim that they could have proven their contentions, gosh-darn it, if that mean old military would just let them dig into the military investigation, Beauchamp's personnel records be damned.

Is there a moral to this story? Perhaps.

If you're going to stick to your guns, make sure they don't fire square-backed bullets.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:32 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard reports that according to an anonymous source close to the investigation, PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp has recanted:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

The military sources I contacted will neither confirm nor deny Goldfarb's report, citing Beauchamp's right to privacy and on-going administrative actions.

I think that in light of everything else we know about this unfolding scandal, however, that the statement is quite plausibly correct.

Sadly, if the editors of The New Republic had actually fact-checked Beauchamp's claims prior to "Shock Troops," obvious fact errors in his second post, "Dead of Night," should have alerted them to the fact that Beauchamp was not a reliable or accurate source of information.

It didn't have to be this way

In "Dead of Night," Beauchamp wrote a paragraph that contained two factual inaccuracies that should have been quite easy to discern with even a minimal attempt at fact checking, fact checking that it is obvious that The New Republic did not engage in.

Beauchamp wrote:

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Anyone with even minimal familiarity with firearms--and by "minimal," I mean anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to firearms in news stories, television programs, or movies--should know that there is no such thing as a "9mm with a square back." All modern cartridges in common use are tubular cases with a round base, or in Beauchamp's parlance, "back."

Here is an excellent photo of the base of a spent 9mm cartridge casing as captured by PAXcam:

Note that this is a fired case manufactured by CCI, and in the middle is the primer. In the center of the primer, lending to a "bullÂ’s-eye" visual effect, is an indentation made by a standard firing pin. It is round in shape, due to the fact that most pistols in common use have rounded firing pins.

Taken in the context of the paragraph, it could be reasonably be concluded that what Beauchamp probably meant to say was that the indentation made on the primer was square or rectangular in shape, leading him to believe that the indentation was made by the squared striker used by Glock pistols. As a matter of fact, this is what I stated when I first addressed this "red flag" article on July 20.

Oddly enough, though, he returns to state "The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks." He is once again talking about the case itself, and not the mark on the primer.

In retrospect, as such shell casings do not exist as a clear matter of fact (and this is beyond dispute), I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that Scott Thomas Beauchamp never saw such a shell casing, and that this entire paragraph was fabricated based upon stories he probably heard from other soldiers, and then was inaccurately retold in this tale.

I could reasonably forgive The New Republic for missing this factual untruth, as it may simply be that they had no one on staff to vet this article that has even a passing familiarity with firearms.

The second factual error, however, was exceedingly easy to fact check, and would have exposed Beauchamp as being a fact-challenged writer well in advance of the publication of "Shock Troops."

This is the statement that should have sent the red flag:

And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

The obvious implication of this statement is that Scott Thomas Beauchamp was specifically implicating the Iraqi police in a shooting.

Such a implication demands at least a cursory attempt at fact-checking the claim that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols, and the easiest way to do that is to simply Google the words "Glock" and "Iraq."

If TNR's editors had taken even that minimal fact-checking step, they would have discovered articles from the New York Times, military press releases, video-sharing web sites and other media outlets that would have shown that Glocks are very common in Iraq. Glocks are quite likely the most ubiquitous handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all. The New Republic utterly failed to fact-check an inflammatory charge made by Beauchamp that implicated the Iraqi police as the only group that could have fired that cartridge.

In one paragraph in his second article, Beauchamp should have been exposed as a questionable writer, whose articles needed to be thoroughly vetted before publication. Franklin Foer's editorial staff utterly failed to fact-check "Dead of Night." Had they caught these errors, it is possible that "Shock Troops" would have faced more scrutiny that it obviously did, and the article that now has caused such a firestorm, and may yet cost Foer and other TNR editors their jobs, may have never gone to publication.

Even after "Shock Troops" was published, it wasn't too late

After "Shock Troops" went to press and Michael Goldfarb called the account into question in "Fact or Fiction?, various bloggers and military officers starting to pick the story apart.

Franklin Foer should have admitted at that time that they were relying on the word of a soldier well-known to them, and that they did not see a need to fact-check the stories prior to publication as a result.

Instead, Foer announced that TNR would conduct an investigation, and that conversations with soldiers have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions." Foer was conveniently and self-servingly ignoring structural problems with the story, apparently convinced that fervent testimony has more use than facts.

Just four days later, TNR made the rather outlandish claim that "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published," which is a blatant untruth.

As a matter of fact, it was obvious that fact-checking had not been completed prior to TNR's August 2 publication of the results of their investigation, as senior editor Jason Zingerle admitted yesterday at The Corner, when he stated that he did not receive word back from Kuwait-based PAO Major Renee D. Russo prior to publication of their self-styled vindication, and perhaps more damning, did not deem fit to print her statement that Beauchamp's story was a "likely urban legend or myth" once he had it.

Where do we go from here?

PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp is probably finished as a writer, and possibly finished as a soldier. At this point, if he has the common sense to keep his mouth shut, his role in this sad drama, at least in the public eye, should be over.

We in the blogosphere will move on at some point in the near future; as a matter of fact, so many of those who have defended Beauchamp and TNR on ideological grounds alone already have.

Others--myself included--will likely follow the incident for a while longer.

The New Republic's ordeal, however, is only just beginning.

TNR's owners, Canwest MediaWorks International and the TNR's editor-in-chief Martin Peretz have some tough decisions to make in the days ahead.

It seems obvious that TNR did not fact-check Beauchamp's stories before they were originally published, which is not by itself an unpardonable sin. What is far harder to justify is the decision of the editors to try to insist that they fact-checked Beauchamp's articles when they clearly did not. That, in my opinion, amounts to a lie.

Franklin Foer and other editors at The New Republic apparently tried to fool their readers with a combination of what they said and what they decided not to say, and abusing your readership in such a manner is one way to assure that an already shrinking readership will continue to collapse.

If The New Republic is to survive this latest scandal, it appears that that excising a significant portion of their editorial staff is the only real option.

Sadly, it the editors had only been forthright and admitted their mistakes early on, their futures at The New Republic--and perhaps even the future of the magazine itself--would not now be in doubt.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:07 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1565 words, total size 11 kb.

Adding to the debunking of The New Republic's new claim that "burned contractor" story took place in Kuwait before PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp deployed into a combat zone, U.S. Army Public Affairs Chief PAO for US ARCENT Kuwait LTC Andy Sams replies to an emailed inquiry about the claim:

Mr. Owens,

We have absolutely no record of this. MAJ Russo contacted Buerhing and our Area Support Group and they do not have anything either.

Sincerely,
LTC Andy Sams

This follows an earlier refutation from Kuwait-based U.S. Army PAO Renee D. Russo at Camp Arifjan, and the discovery of the fact that Jason Zengerle, Senior Editor of The New Republic knew in advance (update: this claim was unsupported. See correction here) of the publication of TNR's own investigation, which conveniently refused to address the fact that the U.S. Army has been unable to find any record of a burned female contractor at bases in Iraq or Kuwait, and considers the story "a urban legend or myth."

U.S. Army Col. Steven Bolyan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus, responded to an inquiry of mine on August 3, and stated that:

An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and
company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.

Further email exchanges with U.S. Army PAO Major Steven Lamb with Multi National Division-Baghdad states that any administrative punishment handed down to PV-2 Beauchamp is a personnel matter, and therefore, will not be discussed publicly. Access to the findings of the Army investigation of Beauchamp's claims, where all soldiers in his platoon and company were interviewed and could not substantiate his claims, has not yet been determined.

As Col. Boylan has released the findings conclusions of the Army investigation of this matter to this blogger and the information is in the public domain, the Army is not planning a press release discussing the findings at this time. Instead, Major Lamb states that the PAO system is only responding to specific inquiries, and little more is expected to be released unless PV-2 Beauchamp decides to discuss the matter further, which he is free to do.

Commenters on this and other blogs have speculated that since PV-2 Beauchamp is receiving only administrative and not criminal punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the allegations he made in The New Republic, that he has likely refuted his allegations when interviewed during the course of the Army investigation. I'd caution that this is idle speculation, and we have no evidence to support this theory.

The New Republic, which published a defense of the stories they published from Beauchamp that excluded contradictory statements from Major Russo and which failed to provide any documentation to support their claims that the Beauchamp stories were fact-checked before publication, and which failed to identify the experts that they say confirmed the plausibility of the claims by either name, organization, or qualifications, has taken a pre-scheduled vacation and is not apparently available for comment, even though the credibility of the editorial staff and the magazine's veracity are now in question.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:00 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

***Major Correction Below***

A funny thing happened on the way to The New Republic's verification/justification/re-investigation of the series of stories published in TNR by one Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

The editors of The New Republic declared:

... After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers...

It's quite interesting that in publishing the findings of an investigation in which the magazine's very reputation hangs in the balance, that The New Republic somehow forgot to cite the names and positions of the experts who corroborate their magazine's printed claims. Typically, the providing of such information is viewed as lending credibility to the organization attempting to defend itself.

Fortunately for The New Republic, I was able to find one of their experts, and the conversation I had with her was enlightening, to say the least.

As noted above, among the experts that TNR relied on were Army Public Affairs Officers, or PAOs.

Among the reasons The New Republic contacted Army PAOs was an attempt to verify this claim:

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 New Republic posted the results of their investigation, including the passages cited above, late on the afternoon of August 2nd.

On August 3rd, I contacted Major Renee D. Russo, Third Army/USARCENT PAO at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, in an attempt to fact-check the new claim that the verbally assault on a female burn victim occurred at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, and not at Forward Operating Base Falcon in Iraq as he had claimed after his series of articles published by The New Republic was first disputed.

In a response posted on August 3rd, Major Russo stated:

Mr. Owens,

We have received other media queries on the alleged incident, but have
not been able to find anyone to back it up. There is not a police
report or complaint filed on this incident during that timeframe. Right now it is considered to be a Urban Legend or Myth.

I am still researching the incident and will have to get back with you
later with any new developments.

This statement was viewed by many as quite problematic for the credibility of The New Republic and Beauchamp; not only had they been put in a position where they felt compelled to retract a key element that established the tone of narrative in "Shock Troops"--and one that fatally undermined Beauchamp's premise that the horrors of combat had caused him psychological trauma, as he had not yet been to war--it also cast serious doubts on the claimed event having occurred at Camp Buehring as well, or perhaps at all.

After publishing the information above, that the Beauchamp story is "considered to be an urban legend or myth," I asked Major Russo if she had been contacted by Franklin Foer or any other reporter or editor from the New Republic attempting to verify their new Camp Buehring claim.

It seemed odd to me that with their magazine's reputation on the line, they would go to press without attempting to verify the story of Beauchamp's location shifting.

It so happens that Jason Zengerle, Senior Editor of The New Republic did contact Major Russo. What did Major Russo tell Editor Zengerle?

According to Major Russo:

I released the same information that I gave you. The process and answers are the same when dealing with media queries.

In other words, the Army PAO contacted by The New Republic was told by the PAO that the claim could not be verified, and that the burn victim story was regarded as an "urban legend or myth"... and The New Republic ran their story without disclosing this apparent contradiction.

Apparently, The New Republic decided for their readers and critics that they did not need to know that the military considered Beauchamp's claim an urban legend.

It makes one wonder if any of their other un-credited, unnamed people relayed a similar tale, only to have that news covered-up by the editors of The New Republic.

Update/Correction: Though he has not attempted to refute these claims directly with me, Jason Zegerle, senior editor at The New Republic, is disputing them via John Podhoretz at The Corner:

Zengerle has emailed me to say he actually received an communique about this from Maj. Renee Russo (yes, that's her real name), an Army public-affairs officer, the day after the Note was published rather than before. He also points out that Russo's email to him differs from other statements by Russo in that she told him "a couple of soldiers did say that [they] heard rumors about the incident, but nothing based on fact. More like an urban legand [sic]."

The public-affairs officer told Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee that "we have received other media queries on the alleged incident, but have not been able to find anyone to back it up. There is not a police report or complaint filed on this incident during that timeframe. Right now it is considered to be a Urban Legend or Myth." She did not mention the "couple of soldiers" who "did say that [they] heard rumors about the incident," but the repetition of the "urban legend" term kind of implies that.

Is Zengerle's claim that he didn't receive word from Russo until after the August 2 TNR investigation accurate?

I don't know that for a fact, and didn't know that for a fact when I published, and so I owe Jason Zengerle an apology.

It doesn't much matter if what he says is factually true; what matters is that I made an assumption that in my mind was obvious. It was, in retrospect, guided by what I thought was probably true based upon the way the magazine has and continues to act, instead of what I could support with the facts.

I apologize to Jason Zengerle, and I apologize to my readers for making that unsupported assumption.

That said... why did TNRdecide once again to publish before their fact-checking had been complete?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:44 AM | Comments (50) | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Ouch! That'll leave another mark. But don't forget, Beauchamp exists, Bob. They got that part right. You can't deny that. 1!one!11!!

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 05, 2007 08:11 AM (0pZel)

2 Hmmmm. I think it's clear now that TNR will have to release the names of those people contacted so that the independent verification process can continue.

Posted by: memomachine at August 05, 2007 09:15 AM (0aIoB)

3 Sometimes you step in some stinky stuff and no matter how much you scrape and scrape, it just will not come off.

Posted by: 1sttofight at August 05, 2007 09:55 AM (N0PbM)

4 I'll point out that there is a character like the one mentioned -- a woman disfigured by an IED, written about by Brad Thor. However, she appears in a FICTIONAL thriller... Perhaps Beauchamp is a Brad Thor fan? http://www.scifan.com/writers/tt/ThorBrad.asp

Posted by: thanos at August 05, 2007 11:37 AM (gHDgB)

5 I heard it was the Easter Bunny that was the first to make fun of the disfigured woman. Batman and Robin then joined in on the insults.

Posted by: El Guapo at August 05, 2007 11:42 AM (mylCw)

6 Next announcement from TNR: "The character of Scott B. is a composite of many people who were made up to say made up stuff to provide an insight which will satisfy democrats about Iraq."

Posted by: graham p at August 05, 2007 11:47 AM (uwi2e)

7 Nice research, Thanos....

Posted by: Ma Sands at August 05, 2007 11:54 AM (BCf3W)

8 CY, A followup question. TNR and later you contacted Maj. Russo, the PAO at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. TNR now claims that the "corroborated woman" [sic] has been placed by a witness at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, and that Beauchamp has conceded that he and a pal (a number of pals?) did the taunting there, before being deployed to FOB Falcon in Baghdad. Does Russo serve as the PAO for Camp Behring as well as for Camp Arifjan? Or is there another PAO for Camp Behring who should be available for comment? Second question: is the timeline of Beachamp's arrival in Kuwait and departure to Iraq known well enough to provide "not earlier than" and "not later than" dates for the chow hall incident?

Posted by: AMac at August 05, 2007 12:12 PM (9jxMs)

9 How long will it be before TNR comes out with the old cover: "Names and places were changed to protect the innocent"? The only thing correct at the TNR is their name... they want to replace the old republic with a new one they learned about from their leftists teachers (indoctrinators) back when they happened to show up for the sit-in at college.

Posted by: ThinkPeople at August 05, 2007 12:23 PM (iSn6Y)

10 Did it ever occur to you guys that 5 soldiers just may have told the Army that they didn't know about the events because none of them were worth getting in trouble over? Can you at least admit that this hypothesis is in the realm of the possible?

Posted by: The Voice of Reason at August 05, 2007 12:41 PM (K1Emm)

11 Beachamp's has now been fully identified as John Stoltz of Daily Kos whose job description is to make US soldiers out to be barbarian unAmerican aliens! Alas, the citizenry refuses to be bullied into accepting their lies and misinformation campaigns. Long live the US Military who spend their lives (all too often, literally) defending our freedoms--even the freedom to be fools and charlatens such as John Stoltz and Thomas Beachchamp.

Posted by: marlowe anderson at August 05, 2007 12:52 PM (81PLI)

12 "Did it ever occur to you guys that 5 soldiers just may have told the Army that they didn't know about the events because none of them were worth getting in trouble over?" Isn't that reversing the burden of proof? TNR was challenged, as to the credibility of an author, and has now admitted that the circumstances of the most important allegation were factually incorrect - Kuwait before seeing combat, not Iraq after seeing combat. No evidence to support that it happened in Kuwait, either, has been produced, and your hypothesis is that "5 soldiers" would commit a crime by lying to an investigative officer because none of the events "were worth getting in trouble over?" Sorry, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at August 05, 2007 12:59 PM (r9vMZ)

13 Sure Voice, but isn't it more reasonable that Scott is a lieing sack of dog poo?

Posted by: David at August 05, 2007 01:01 PM (qzwdJ)

14 No evidence to support that it happened in Kuwait, either, has been produced, and your hypothesis is that "5 soldiers" would commit a crime by lying to an investigative officer because none of the events "were worth getting in trouble over?" An investigative officer? I thought it was a PAO asking the questions.

Posted by: The Voice of Reason at August 05, 2007 01:09 PM (K1Emm)

15 Hmmmm. @ The Voice of Reason "An investigative officer? I thought it was a PAO asking the questions." 1. Try to keep up. The PAO is in Kuwait, the soldiers are in Iraq. The official investigation is in Iraq, where the soldiers are. The "researching" is being done in Kuwait by the PAO because the official investigation wasn't extended to Kuwait. And to forestall some additional silly comment about this the most probable reason why the US Army isn't investigation this latest allegation by Beauchamp is because we don't have any direct evidence that **Beauchamp** did in fact change his story so it occurs in Kuwait. So far only TNR's editor Foer has made that allegation. For all we know Foer has falsely claimed that Beauchamp agrees that the incident with the disfigured woman happened in Kuwait. Why? Because changing his story like this, particularly if he *didn't tell the investigators first*, could cause the US Army to re-open it's investigation only this time in Kuwait. Plus Beauchamp would be in even more trouble. 2. If you're thinking 5 soldiers lied to US Army investigators, in an incident that has come to the direct attention of General Petraeus, because they think it's no big deal, then you are absolutely wrong. The conduct described can, and would, earn an Article-15 of the UCMJ. But that's just administrative punishment. Restriction to base, loss of specific privileges, reduction in rank and loss of pay are the punishments meted out for an Article-15. Lying to investigators is a whole new set of issues that can lead directly to military prison. I can guarantee you that no soldier in his right mind will risk being slammed with a court martial in order to avoid an Article-15.

Posted by: memomachine at August 05, 2007 01:33 PM (0aIoB)

16 Voice, you apparently missed the part where an official investigation was conducted at FOB Falcon, and that no one in the company nor in Beauchamp's platoon corroborated Beauchamp's allegations.

Posted by: SWLiP at August 05, 2007 01:36 PM (WfQGW)

17 The PAO doesn't ask questions of privates. They put out the information obtained by whoever investigated... in this case the commander or 15-6 officer. Besides, the whole point of the article was to show the dehumanization of troops after exposure to the horrors of war. Beauchamp hadn't been to Iraq yet. The fact that the rest of his tall tales are also false is beside the point. His premise is a lie, unless you too subscribe to the "fake, but accurate" school of journalism.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 05, 2007 02:06 PM (3oP4o)

18 Either Beauchamp is telling the truth, in which case he should be punished and discharged as soon as possible, or he's telling lies, in which case he'll make a fine TNR journalist with a lucrative side-gig 'discoursing' at Lefty gatherings.

Posted by: Clioman at August 05, 2007 02:12 PM (CNAh+)

19 "Voice of Reason"? Not so much. Voice of Rationalization, more like.

Posted by: Ian Hamet at August 05, 2007 02:14 PM (hBNGD)

20 I prefer "Voice of Desperation."

Posted by: Fatmouse at August 05, 2007 03:06 PM (jUAFq)

21 The burden of showing the stories true should be TNRs. They are not doing a very good job of that. At this point, I don't believe anything TNR says because their timeline is bad. 1) BeauchampÂ’s story is published 2) Criticism comes in 3) TNR "investigates" and "fact checks" 4) TNR continues to support the story as told 5) Criticism still comes in 6) TNR "investigates some more 7) TNR declares only one error found, one story was from Kuwait If they fact checked at step 3, they would have found the location error the first time. Yet they supported the whole story as having been double checked. Their double check would have involved talking to the people in the unit in Iraq, not Kuwait. They would have known immediately. Once the first rechecking of the story was done, the story can't change locations because they re-verified it at the location listed in the story. So Foer is lying about the location, his fact checking or both. I tend to think both and that the stories told were made up in the first place. Their purpose in printing the article doesn't match the new story very well. They have boxed themselves in, with no way out. Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at August 05, 2007 03:17 PM (dsW+/)

22 I read a comment on some blog early on in this imbroglio that I thought was the best anecdotal refutation of the DFAC incident so far. The poster mentioned that Beauchamp and his buddy had no clue who they were insulting and could have potentially been insulting an officer or a contractor with access to influential officers. Seems to me most soldiers at that point would be worldly wise enough to not go shooting off their mouths without knowing if the person had rank to make them pay for those insults.

Posted by: Chas at August 05, 2007 03:22 PM (oNBzF)

23 Was Brad Thor the origin of the disfigured woman or Oliver Stone?

Posted by: capitano at August 05, 2007 03:23 PM (+NO33)

24 Up above, Thanos wrote that Brad Thor writes fiction; and in his fiction he has a woman who is disfigured by an IED. In all likelihood BeauCHUMP took this fiction; and wove it into the story he SOLD TO The New Republic. TNR still claims the story they printed is accurate. And, then they closed shop for 3-weeks, and toodled off for vacation. There's currently a movie out there, SHATTERED GLASS. If you've seen it; or even if you've just seen the trailer; you know it's about TNR, and their other LYING reporter. With the line in it; that the only truth in the article Stephen Glass authored was that "Nevada is a state in America." Whoopie, for getting that one right. In a sea of lies. As to John Stolz and Wesley Clark, lending their names to the current Kos Kids attempts to insult our soldiers; AGAIN, I SMELL BACKFIRE. Smells as good as napalm in the morning. And, because of the Net we're protected. This stuff happens fast! I wouldn't touch a TNR magazine. Don't look for them. Don't buy them. Don't open them if I'm in a doctor's office waiting for an appointment, because I bring my own books. HOWEVER, this BeauCHUMP story broke a a few of the blogs I read every day. Very early on, at (JUST ONE MINUTE: JOM) I learned that someone had gone over BeauCHUMP's pay records, and discovered that he had been demoted BEFOREHAND from Private First Class, to 2nd class.) In a sense, because of the wonderful research that you get from the many people who come aboard the Net and comment, even Franklin Foer at TNR can learn something, he'd never learn with his own fact-checkers. And, BeauCHUMP is married, and is supposed to marry Elsbeth, again, in October. So, the NET WINS. Hands down. While all you can be sure of is that to Franklin Foer that article from BeauCHUMP is just an expense.

Posted by: Carol Herman at August 05, 2007 04:18 PM (KWhzz)

25 chas, You might think that, but anyone can make stupid decisions before considering the consequences. I did it as a private and learned why it was dumb. What makes me disbelieve it is that supposedly nobody took issue with the idiots. Even in a busy DFAC, someone running out in tears would be noticed and if, as Beauchamp claimed, she had been around a while, one of the officers or NCO's would have taken care of those morons.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 05, 2007 04:18 PM (3oP4o)

26 Stashiu3, you can't take care of "fictional reporting." It was passed off as the real deal. Now, all you've got is a story full of holes. While TNR "vacations."

Posted by: Carol Herman at August 05, 2007 04:22 PM (KWhzz)

27 Did it ever occur to you guys that 5 soldiers just may have told the Army that they didn't know about the events because none of them were worth getting in trouble over? Can you at least admit that this hypothesis is in the realm of the possible? shorter voice of reason: can't you guys toss TNR a bone?

Posted by: R30C at August 05, 2007 04:40 PM (3+0jc)

28 I prefer "Voice of Desperation." Nah, the whiff of desperation is coming entirely from the right here. This is the best you guys can come up with to prove the insidious plot by the so-called Liberal MSM to tarnish the reputation of our fighting forces and destroy America? Regardless of whether or not this guy lied -- and right now the evidence makes it all just he said/she said -- we're still talking about whether a woman got ridiculed and some dogs got ran over. On the scale of the monumental catastrophe that is Iraq, I just can't see how it matters whether Beauchamp's allegations are true or not. Yet here you guys are, clinging to this story as if it were as important as...I don't know, pick ANY story coming out of Iraq.

Posted by: The Voice of Reason at August 05, 2007 06:11 PM (K1Emm)

29 On the scale of the monumental catastrophe that is Iraq, I just can't see how it matters whether Beauchamp's allegations are true or not. Why did it matter that Stephen Glass made up a software company? Why was he fired for it? Why was a movie made about it? Did his little indiscretion mean the software industry doesn't have problems?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 05, 2007 06:26 PM (0jtcT)

30 Why did it matter that Stephen Glass made up a software company? Why was he fired for it? Why was a movie made about it? Did his little indiscretion mean the software industry doesn't have problems? Imagine going to the trouble of making up events in Iraq that you could sell as a story. Wouldn't you try for something a little more incendiary than running over dogs? I mean, there are plenty of real incidences there that beat this, hands down.

Posted by: The Voice of Reason at August 05, 2007 07:11 PM (K1Emm)

31 Well if this "incidence" isnt true maybe the "plenty of real incidences there that beat this, hands down." arent either. How many anti-war vets spewing stories of atrocities have to be proven liars before the left will believe that the military isnt a pack of homicidial maniacs? when did the left abandon the truth and decide a narrative supporting what they want to be true would suffice?

Posted by: chas at August 05, 2007 08:01 PM (oNBzF)

32 "Regardless of whether or not this guy lied -- and right now the evidence makes it all just he said/she said -- we're still talking about whether a woman got ridiculed and some dogs got ran over. Then why do you feel the need to keep commenting. The truth is that he tried to smear the military with a bunch of lies. It's not he said/she said any more than anyone else who is guilty saying, "I didn't do it!" Beauchamp's story has been completely refuted by the Army, physical laws of nature, and his own stupidity. Allegations of war crimes (and desecration of human remains is certainly one he wrote about) are serious business and deserve more than administrative punishment. Unfortunately, I'm not his commander and unable to make that call. Your defense, as pitiful as it is, of his ass-hattery is the only desperation I see going on. Continuing to minimize and rationalize this just makes you look stupid. Give it up.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 05, 2007 08:10 PM (3oP4o)

33 Beauchamp's next missive from the battlefield would have featured this notorious incident: "And then, when we drove the Bradley back to the FOB ... caught on the door handle was a bloody, dangling hook!"

Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at August 05, 2007 08:19 PM (uZ0g+)

34 Voice of Reason: The "why this is important" reason is that Beauchamp's narrative, if believed, would show a unit out of control. The narrative is not just that he is less than a gentleman, but that all his pards are also depraved and acting in a sick fashion, all with the tacit--- if not acknowledged--- consent of their chain of command. That is why so many military folks opining here think it is slandering shinola. A bad soldier can and does exist (there will always be a&^holes among us), but a bad command is a different story. I'm sure Beauchamp's Captain and Lieutenant are less than happy with his sorry butt right now because what he wrote is a direct reflection on their leadership.

Posted by: wjo at August 05, 2007 10:06 PM (cP6Lq)

35 Imagine going to the trouble of making up events in Iraq that you could sell as a story. Wouldn't you try for something a little more incendiary than running over dogs? I would pick something incendiary enough to impress the editor, but not incendiary enough to attract widespread attention from people who could pick holes in my story. Back luck, Beauchamp.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 05, 2007 11:00 PM (0jtcT)

36 Imagine going to the trouble of making up events in Iraq that you could sell as a story. Wouldn't you try for something a little more incendiary than running over dogs? Trouble is, Voice, that Beauchamp himself wrote on his blog that he intended to write a book about his experiences when he got out of the Army. He seemed to think that his service would give him Absolute Moral Authority, not unlike Mother Sheehan's. Alas for Scottie, he turned out to be a screwup and recognized as such by his superiors, who busted him in rank at least once. Apparently he seldom (if ever) went out on patrol, and instead was assigned to motor pool or ditch-digging detail, so his actual combat experiences were nonexistent. And if he wrote about the horrors of combat in his book, any claims could be refuted immediately. So instead he wrote about an incident in a "chow hall" (hey, everyone has to eat), and about an incident during a cemetary exhumation and reburial (that supposedly happened to someone else), and about the driver of a BFV (again, someone else). And about how this damned obscene war dehumanizes us all ... even before we reach the war zone. Or as Tom Lehrer put it ... With the hell of war he's come to grips, Policing up the filter tips! It makes a fellow proud to be a soldier!

Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at August 06, 2007 12:08 AM (uZ0g+)

37 Excuse me, but it's irrevelant if people don't say the truth to avoid Article 15s, because their actions will cause ripple effects through the unit and through the base itself. Sergeant sees idiot walking around with Iraqi baby skull under his helmet, bitches him out for causing a sanitation nightmare and being an ***hole. Goes into the mess, and bitches about it with the other sergeants; the story goes around. Scuttlebutt goes around the BFV community at the FOB about the psycho driver who likes to run over things, causing thrown tracks, and to avoid him like the plague.

Posted by: Ryan Crierie at August 06, 2007 06:19 AM (qgEHt)

38 I mean, there are plenty of real incidences there that beat this, hands down. Thing is - they get reported and there are real consequences for the malefactors. Like the guy who raped the girl and killed the whole family to cover it up. He just got sentenced to like 100 years in case you didn't notice.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 06, 2007 08:06 AM (0d45V)

39 Wait... Bob, you're telling us that an Army PAO says he can't confirm information potentially embarrassing to the Army? Well, that seals the deal for me. As a reporter, I've never known any publicists/public affairs people to ever lie or be less than absolutely forthcoming with the truth. Nope, never ever.

Posted by: Alex at August 06, 2007 08:09 AM (2EgQ8)

40 There is a very simple explanation as to why TNR got a different story than what the Army got. Statements and answered questions in a 15-6 investigation are written down and then signed by the soldier, going on record as official statements. If the answers or statements prove to be fabrications, this is tantamount to perjury, and are a violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ. The maximum punishment for making False Official Statements is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 06, 2007 08:10 AM (oC8nQ)

41 Wait... Alex, you're a reporter? So what's your position on TNR clearly not vetting their story before publication? I mean, why would they have to confirm, then re-confirm, and re-confirm again if they had performed due diligence the first time? Also, have you ever built anything with chicken-wire to see if you could melt it? You've definitely re-confirmed my opinion of reporters. Pondscum rates higher.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 06, 2007 09:18 AM (3oP4o)

42 I'd trust a public relations officer before I'd trust a far left wing ideological hack of a reporter like Alex.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 06, 2007 10:03 AM (Lgw9b)

43 Hmmmm. @ Alex "As a reporter, I've never known any publicists/public affairs people to ever lie or be less than absolutely forthcoming with the truth." Except that a PAO is a commissioned *officer* in the US military and is held to a specific code of conduct. Violating that code of conduct, such as lying to the public/reporters, can result in dismissal, reduction in rank and host of other punishments. At the very least it would end that officer's career in a bad way because the US military has a universal "up or out" policy. If you don't get promoted after, I believe, 2 promotion boards then you're "encouraged" to resign your commission. After the third one they dismiss you. And something like this on a personnel jacket wouldn't be an advantage.

Posted by: memomachine at August 06, 2007 10:05 AM (3pvQO)

44 voice of reason, Regardless of whether or not this guy lied -- and right now the evidence makes it all just he said/she said -- we're still talking about whether a woman got ridiculed and some dogs got ran over. No, we're talking about whether The New Republic is printing agitprop. Beauchamp is less than meaningless. TNR is the most egregious actor here, and the problem is that they'd print such a fabulist without doing due diligence. Alex, Well, that seals the deal for me. As a reporter, I've never known any publicists/public affairs people to ever lie or be less than absolutely forthcoming with the truth. Nope, never ever. And how about TNR? What's your experience with their history of veracity?

Posted by: Pablo at August 06, 2007 11:24 AM (yTndK)

45 Alex, If you've ever been lied to by a PAO, please report it to the military and they'll take immediate action. If not, please retract your snide statement. You seem to think that the military world (i.e. publicists vs. PAOs) works the same as the civilian world; THAT is the fatal flaw of most reporters view of the military.

Posted by: JFH at August 06, 2007 11:43 AM (c+Pwv)

46 Clearly TNR screwed the pooch. It should have been child's play to corroborate Beauchamp's BS. The actions as related by Beauchamp would have had dozens, perhaps, hundreds of eye witnesses--some potentially hostile to the US. If it was common practice for the crazy BFV driver to ram into buildings, wouldn't there be Iraqi eye witnesses?

Posted by: Old Dad at August 06, 2007 12:33 PM (JQwWt)

47 JFH "most reporters?" How about ALL liberals?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 06, 2007 12:35 PM (Lgw9b)

48 One thing that amzes me, and that I've not seen raised before, is that IF Beauchamp and his buddies had been insulting a burned woman in a mess hall/rec hall, I'd have expected a number of other soldier to have dragged them "out back" and "explained" to them that such conduct was not tolerated.

Posted by: Ralph at August 06, 2007 09:19 PM (DbToW)

49 CY, Your Update/Correction/Apology to Jason Zengerle is noted. It is proper to take Zengerle at his word that he didn't hear back from the PAO in time to include that information in the 8/2/07 Statement that the TNR posted on their website. Here is the final sentence of that Statement: If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you. I see no further Statement, or any Update or Correction to that one. Once its mighty Presses have started inking the newsprint, it's hard for a biweekly magazine to alter content. I thought most Web publishing software now included workarounds to address that problem.

Posted by: AMac at August 07, 2007 08:15 AM (9jxMs)

50 So, where's Voice of Reason? Where's Alex-the-reporter, telling us why it's all lies by the PAO? I'm sure, if they show up, it'll be a song-and-dance about why Beauchamp lying doesn't change the underlying reality. You know, "fake, but accurate." Or, to borrow from Evan Thomas, editor at Newsweek: The narrative was true. It's just the facts that were off.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 07, 2007 01:01 PM (/ZD7V)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus, just emailed me the following in response to my request to confirm an earlier report that the U.S. Army's investigation into the claims made by PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp made in The New Republic had been completed.

He states:

To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by
Thomas?

Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the
command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and
company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.

As to what will happen to him?

Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to
Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under
the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not
releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not
happen.

Let's look at that once more: "members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims."

Presumably thorough, in-person interviews of all of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, and Beauchamp's platoon within Alpha Company by military investigators, and not one of those soldiers could confirm Beauchamp's stories as told in The New Republic.

Note that the investigation didn't just stop by stating that the claims were uncorroborated; Col. Boylan states categorically that Beauchamp's allegations were false. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

It appears that the proverbial ball is now in The New Republic's court. It will be interesting to see what their next move will be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been silent on the New Republic's latest attempt to explain their editorial dereliction of editorial duties in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp collection of stories know as "Shock Troops" when those latest explanations surfaced yesterday, but that doesn't mean I've been disinterested.

Instead, I've been trying to run down some of the claims TNR has made by contacting experts for on-the-record discussions of Beauchamp's allegations... a level of transparency that Franklin Foer and The New Republic doesn't seem to want to provide.

One of the revisions to the Beauchamp story was the new claim that Beauchamp's verbal assault of a badly-burned female contractor for wounds he claimed were caused by an IED happened not in Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon in Iraq after Beauchamp's psyche had been scarred by the horrors of war, but instead occurred in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, before Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division had even deployed into combat.

This, of course, completely undermines the narrative Beauchamp was seeking to establish, and that Franklin Foer claimed to have fact-checked.

But beyond those tiny inaccuracies--you know, that the incident happened in the wrong country, and before he experienced the horrors of war, and not after--we are left to ask the obvious question: did Foer put any effort into checking to see if this new claim was any more accurate than Beauchamp's previous one?

I did.

This morning, I contact Major Renee D. Russo, Third Army USARCENT PAO in Kuwait, to ask her if she knew of "a female civilian contractor at Camp Buehring with severe facial burns, and if so, when" she was there.

Here is her emailed response, in full.

Mr. Owens,

We have received other media queries on the alleged incident, but have
not been able to find anyone to back it up. There is not a police
report or complaint filed on this incident during that timeframe. Right now it is considered to be a Urban Legend or Myth.

I am still researching the incident and will have to get back with you
later with any new developments.

As it stands now, the U.S. Army in Kuwait, like the U.S. Army in Iraq, is casting strong doubts on the veracity of Beauchamp's claims, stating that to the best they can determine at this time, the female contractor Beauchamp claims to have abused is either part of an "urban legend or myth."

I've also attempting to get verification form a total of five PAOs in Kuwait to see if they have any record of Franklin Foer or any other reporter or editor from The New Republic attempting to contact them prior to publishing the revised Camp Buehring claim to see if TNR made a good faith effort to verify that a contractor matching this woman's description was based in U.S. military bases in Kuwait.

Update: Both Bryan at Hot Air and Ace link to a post by Matt Sanchez from FOB Falcon, claiming that the military investigation into Beauchamp's stories was completed August 1, and that his claims have been:

"...refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false."

That quote comes from Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID.

I'll post any documentation as it becomes available.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:40 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.