The Atonement of Beauchamp-Updated
Posted by Lance on 25 Oct 2007 at 7:30 pm | Tagged as: Notes on the war, Military Matters, Media, Lance's Page, Domestic Politics
I see a young man who made a big mistake. I am a big believer in second chances. The editors of TNR have squandered their chance to fix this. Scott is doing what he needs to do, I hold no grudge.
That is me yesterday talking about Scott Beauchamp in a comment on my previous post on this subject. Before we address his case specifically I would like to say something about how we treat people in politics generally. I don’t mean professional politicians, journalists or even bloggers. I am speaking of the people who enter the political fray, often unwittingly and have their lives turned upside down.
I wrote earlier about this when it comes to the Frosts, who were a lousy choice to use in justifying an expansion of the SCHIP program, but they didn’t deserve the condemnation heaped upon them by partisans and opponents of the program. I don’t mean the investigation of their situation, the Frosts allowed themselves to be used as examples, that example should be looked at. Attacking them as opposed to assessing the merits of their applicability to the decision before us was uncalled for. They were not professionals, they saw themselves as citizens who valued a program, had used it, and wanted to support it. Unfortunately they were unprepared for what stepping into the partisan fire can mean, how decisions they made can be used and examined in the harshest light, with little knowledge of the real context within which their decisions were made. They not only became fodder for the discussion, but many people chose to take their decisions and launch personal attacks upon them.
We see this played out over and over in our political discourse, people who have not thought out the consequences of their lives becoming the object of a media or blog storm in way over their head. Many never even thinking they would become the object of such attention, or had no role in choosing their fate, they just happened to do something, or be someone, who captures the political wind. To some extent that is unavoidable, but at a minimum it would behoove all of us to be more generous in how we approach these people. This is a bipartisan problem, not just of Republicans or libertarians. The number of people who I read having their character assassinated merely for having views which don’t align with the “progressive, reality based” community astounds me. The lack of forbearance, generosity about other views, forgiveness and simple kindness is of a shameful character from people across the ideological spectrum.
I have said my peace about the editors of The New Republic. Their behavior continues to be scandalous and those soft peddling this only make themselves look ridiculous.
Scott Beauchamp himself is a different story. He is a young man who thought he could build a reputation for himself as a writer. He hoped to do it anonymously. What he did was wrong, very wrong. However, I quite a while ago decided he shouldn’t be the story anymore because he has moved on. His lack of appreciation ahead of time about the potential consequences of this are clear in this passage from the transcript of his conversation with Foer and Scoblic ,where he pretty much says as much in a discussion of the impact upon his wife:
Beauchamp: I’m sorry if it’s personally… if it hurts you or hurts my wife, which I know it will, then I’m really sorry. But, if I’ve learned anything from this, it’s that this is her area and I’ll stick to my area and things will be a lot better for both of us.
I call that lesson learned, I suggest we allow him to go ahead and put those lessons to work. This isn’t Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame, seasoned professionals who not only lied, but have continued to lie and turn their lies into a kind of celebrity status with books and speaking engagements. If Beauchamp down the road tries to do the same, savage him, for now we should appreciate him for the sacrifice he is making every day for us and the Iraqi people. He is by the way. I first began to form my opinion on this strongly some weeks ago when I read this from Laughing Wolf at Blackfive:
Yes, I have met and talked with Scott.
It was a good conversation, and I enjoyed meeting him. I had heard a lot of good things about him as a soldier from the people who know him, and the leaders above him.
What we talked about?
That’s between us.
What I can say is that he is not being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney, and that I found an interesting person that I enjoyed meeting.
At that point I knew who disgusted me. Not Beauchamp, but a magazine that was lying to us and forcing this story to linger over a young man who was trying to get on with his life. They are the old hands in the media business, not him. At any point, including the original decision to publish, they could have set the young man straight and helped avoid the whole sorry affair or set about putting an end to it. Luckily for Beauchamp he has commanders who have stood by him and helped him redeem himself. From Blackfive himself (my emphasis.)
When this thing was boiling last summer I wrote that I hoped STB would get back to soldiering and focusing on winning the war. At this time, I believe that he is (and his Commander believes it, too). Laughing Wolf met him and his sergeants just a few weeks ago. I’ve heard witness accounts of STB volunteering to be in the breech.
I have no doubt that he is. The irony is that those trying to defend Beauchamp are not his true friends, the ones really helping him are the men and officers in his unit who gave him the option to stay or go. Yes, he had the chance to leave as we find out in a wonderful and morally uplifting essay from Michael Yon. Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds:
Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.
Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.
Forcing him out would have left him bitter with no chance to redeem himself, nothing but trying to sustain his defenders, the path Joe Wilson. That is a morally corrosive path. Forcing him to stay would have robbed him of the chance to prove it was his choice to face his peers on a daily basis, to sacrifice for them, and those they are protecting. It would allow it to be said with credibility that his atonement and silence were due to the pressure from the army. For those peddling that line I send you once again to Laughing Wolf who has spent time with Beauchamp, unlike the ideological boosters who are enabling the dragging out of his tragedy, but the point remains, he could have left! How does that square with the military “pressuring” him?
No, the right to stay or go was the right choice from his commanders. It showed they thought he was worth taking a chance on, and if what I read at Blackfive, Mochael Yon’s and other places is to be believed, it is true. I certainly think it means those of us who don’t know him should give him that chance, make his attempt at redemption something to celebrate, not sneered at. Please read Michael’s whole piece, but I want to give you two more snippets:
The commander said I was welcome to talk with Beauchamp, but clearly he did not want anyone else coming at his soldier. LTC Glaze told me that at least one blog had even called for Beauchamp to be killed, which seems rather extreme even on a very bad day. LTC Glaze wants to keep Beauchamp, and hopes folks will let it rest. I’m with LTC Glaze on this: it’s time to let Beauchamp get back to the war. The young soldier learned his lessons. He paid enough to earn his second chance that he must know he will never get a third.
Perfectly put. As is this:
As for The New Republic, some on the staff may feel like they’ve been hounded and treed, but it’s hard to feel the same sympathy for a group of cowards who won’t fess up and can’t face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by their collective lapse of judgment. It’s up to their readers to decide the ultimate fate.
The New Republic treed like a bandit … personally, I think they would make a nice Daniel Boone hat.
PS: I see Keith just put up something with similar sentiments. I think everybody here is in agreement (I am speculating on Josh, but I bet I am right.)
UPDATE: More Votes on Second Chances
I am going to update this list, because I am interested how Scott will be perceived now that it is more widely known he is trying to get his act together, but the first entry is from Bob Owens, better known as Confederate Yankee:
For all of his faults, including writing three stories published in The New Republic that contained inaccurate, un-fact-checked, or blatantly false information, sources who have recently interviewed the soldiers in his unit indicate that Beauchamp is attempting to atone to his fellow soldiers and reearn their respect. He has, as much as I think he can without setting himself up to be sued for fraud by TNR, done as much as he can to rectify the wrongs he’s committed. His fellow soldiers and commanders are willing to give him a second chance. Perhaps we should, as well.
So Bob Owens, Keith and Michael here at ASHC, Laughing Wolf and Blackfive and Michael Yon are all on board with saying it is time to let Beauchamp make his atonement, maybe even make us proud. He seems to be making a good start. So who else? Well, I am going to turn the “slam Instapundit for everything an author says in something linked to” treatment to my advantage. He linked to Yon and Confederate Yankee didn’t he? I am going to call them approving links (and besides, it fits with Glenn’s generous nature) and say he is in as well. Please let me know of anybody who deserves to be listed as on board with the SBT second chance movement honoring his service, or the brickbats list which I am compiling below.
Others who seem to be onboard:
More:
Jonah Goldberg?
Stephen Spruiell?
Jon Ham and Hoystory seem willing at least to consider it.
Voice in DC
Mark Noonan
Ace??? “Well there is some perspective.” I’ll call it an approving link because I wish to, since that is the standard established by a certain sock puppet.
The Brickbat List. For those indulging in vicious assaults or dishonestly spinning (as opposed to say Kevin Drum, who has avoided that at the moment) in favor of the TNR and without regard for the effect on Scott.
I’ll start with two:
Greg Sargent of TPM and of course, who could have guessed…The worlds most famous piece of talking footwear, Glenn Greenwald each enter in the dishonest spinning category.
Allah shouldn’t get a brickbat, no vicious assault, but Yon’s piece doesn’t sit well with him. I agree with his indictment, it just doesn’t change my opinion.
Technorati Tags: Scott Beauchamp, Michael Yon, The New Republic, Iraq, military, The New Republic, Franklin Foer, war
21 Responses to “The Atonement of Beauchamp-Updated”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
Your willingness to forgive the man is admirable.
But allow me to help you out with something…
I call that lesson learned, I suggest we allow him to go ahead and put those lessons to work. This isn’t
Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame,George Bush or Dick Cheney, seasoned professionals who not only lied, but have continued to lie and turn their lies into a kind of celebrity status withbooks and speaking engagements.plans to hit the talk circuit to “make a lot of money”.There, that’s better.
I thought I’d help you out knowing of your feelings toward the administration:
Why you don’t care is still a mystery to me. If you guys had spent half the time looking into the inconsistencies of the Bush administration as you did the Wilson’s, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
And young Beauchamp wouldn’t be there either.
Cheers.
WTF, Pogue? You’re a friend despite our better sense. However, the fact that you have an admirable sense of humor doesn’t excuse your supreme tactlessness, which you’ve exhibited that here in spades.
Seriously. Lance, and the rest of us commend Beauchamp for taking the high road, eschewing literary glory, and putting first things first, and what’s your response? A barely literate potshot at Lance. Lance? Really? Who do you even know who’s fairer in assessment than Lance?
Don’t take anyone’s willingness to forgive as a doormat.
Potshot maybe, but a fair one.
It was Lance who chose to use Wilson as his whipping boy. I considered it fair game.
Not many in the blogosphere for sure. But that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. And I consider the fact that he doesn’t care about the deceptions from this administration to be a huge failure of judgment.
And when have you known me to consider tact?
Thanks for the advice. But rest assured, I never assume anyone’s willingness to forgive envelopes myself. But that’s okay, rarely do I seek it.
Cheers.
Potshot maybe, but a fair one.
It was Lance who chose to use Wilson as his whipping boy. I considered it fair game.
Not many in the blogosphere for sure. But that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. And I consider the fact that he doesn’t care about the deceptions from this administration to be a huge failure of judgment.
And when have you known me to consider tact?
Thanks for the advice. But rest assured, I never assume anyone’s willingness to forgive envelopes myself. But that’s okay, rarely do I seek it.
Nevertheless…
Cheers.
You want to make your stand on Joe Wilson? Could you possibly choose a less worthy choice of “victim” to champion than a proven liar? At this point I have to believe that you’re simply spoiling for a fight.
So what? Are you perfect? What difference does this make? By your insipid and rather sophomoric logic, anyone who opines on anything sans the mantle of “perfect” (helpfully bestowed by Pogue) is simply devoid of the ability to opine on anything. So what’s your excuse? Are you perfect?
Huh? Have you been paying attention to the subject of the post? What does the Bush Administration have to do with showing some mercy to Beauchamp? Evenif we accept that your completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation were true, wtf does that have to do with the topic at hand? I’ll answer: None.
There’s always hope, my son.
What? Envelopes?
In case you’re not comprehending what I’m saying, I’ll make it perfectly clear: show some fu(k!ng respect. If you want to spout your barely formed BDS slogans, at least save them for something that approaches the subject. A post where Lance is urging people to show some sympathy to PVT Beauchamp is not that place.
Seriously, Pogue. Lance is trying to show some compassion for someone and you choose this moment to chide him for not agreeing with you on political matters. Do you seriously think that you’re are occupying a higher moral plateau in this instance? ‘Cuz it sure looks that way from what you’re writing.
Consider the context Pogue. My plea is to the right right side of the blogosphere, not the left, as broad and simplistic as such terms are. I doubt your version addresses my audience for this plea. If the situation were reversed maybe the administration would be my example instead.
I remember writing that, but not what it was about. So I assume the context was I didn’t care about them in the context of which I was writing. Frankly I don’t really care about Wilson or Clinton’s lies all that much either, except when it is the topic at hand. I have pretty low expectations of people, which keeps me cheerful as I am rarely disappointed, and allows me to forgive the indiscretions of someone such as Beauchamp (or embittered beekeepers) especially when he is so admirably (assuming what I hear is true) doing his duty, and frankly, starting to behave in a way that rises above my low expectations, and possibly even makes me proud.
Our military has done an incredible job in rising above those expectations, I am glad to think Scott is one of those who is doing so. If it makes you feel better to make such forbearance an object for you to trash this administration, so be it. I am no friend of theirs, except in relation to some others. I find it sad though to distract from the subject at hand, which is to show a little understanding for the failures of others, in particular for one young man, is not only warranted, but healthy for us all.
Maybe that is wrong though, maybe your comments serve to highlight its necessity. I’ll let others decide, but for me, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and leave other bitter recriminations for another time.
Not to burst your bubble here, Lance - I’m sure your willingness to forgive Scott Beauchamp is genuine. It’s also a convenient set of frames. After all, he’s a soldier, not a journalist. It’s easy and ideologically coherent to be nice to soldiers, especially when you can implicitly speak for them and say that their accusations against their fellow soldiers were lies.
I find the whole thing sickening. I mean, his fr*aking squad leader was in the room on his first call to TNR in a month, and he still said nothing whatsoever like “gee, I was lying”. From here anyway, it seems sickeningly obvious that he was intimidated and browbeaten into passively not rejecting the conclusions of a report that drew conclusions about the inaccuracy of his stories without doing anything like proving that inaccuracy.
He was allowed to stay in the military on the condition that he allowed them to refute the stories and cease defending them.
As usual, once the military says something - whether or not it’s been proven - you simply accept it and assume the other guy is lying.
And then you lampoon TNR for this? And people who are skeptical of this entire charade, for pointing out the charade-like character of the event?
Tell me: what, specifically, has TNR done wrong here? That they accepted a story from a soldier as true? That they refused to call the soldier that came to them a liar unless that was proven? That, since nothing has yet to be proven either way, they stand by what they were told in good faith?
I mean, seriously, where is the crime? The crime is the audacity of believing that US soldiers could ever do something like - what, run over a dog? Man, we’re on record as raping and murdering civilians. How did the idea of running over dogs come to be a thoughtcrime?
PS: Yes, I know that raping and murdering - in the sense of killing helpless people for fun - are not representative of the average soldier.
When, exactly, did “Gee, the military interviewed some people and nobody corrobrated this story” end up being “Scott Beauchamp was proven wrong!”. ? If the Russian military put that out, would you swallow it so unquestioningly?
I guess the point of my post is in a nutshell, “I can’t applaud you for showing acceptance of some people’s failures when I don’t accept your basic premise that a failure occured”.
It would be like me making a post on how I forgive Bush II for destroying his National Guard records - no, that happened. I would be like making a post on how I forgive Bush II for skipping out on his Guard service, based on Dan Rather’s faked records.
I think the skipping out happened as well - I forget what Dan Rather’s memos were trying to prove - actually - but you get my point.
Only if you are a complete and ideological moron.
Frankly, I’m done with you, glasnost. Post here at you own peril. I’m sick of these irrelevant and idiotic comments that do not even begin to approximate reality. See if you can reacquire some intellectual honesty, because I promise you I won’t be so kind with your next offering otherwise.
And if you think I’m bluffing, then go ahead and post another one of your ill-informed, illogical and entirely incouth comments. I double dog dare you.
This is a warning to all of you. I’ve tried to be fair and accomodating with my commentary and posting, but to no avail. From now on the gloves are off. I’ll tell you and the rest of the blogosphere what I really think of you, and I can promise you that you won’t like it.
Seriously. WTF is wrong with you idiots? You attack a guy whose never said an ill word towards any of you when he’s offering olive branches and encouraging others to do the same. What the freakin’ hell is wrong with you people?
With as dull a wit as yours, glasnost, that may be a much taller order than you’re capable of.
Sorry glasnost, he wasn’t browbeaten, unless you include Foer and company. First of all we know for a number of reasons he was lying without any confession. Second he signed a confession and hasn’t told anyone he didn’t mean it. In fact, if you clicked through the links you will see that bloggers have spoken to him, they have said he is making amends, feels badly for what he has done and they liked him. Given they are still saying he was lying at the time I find it pretty hard to square with the idea that they feel that way and he is telling them he was telling the truth. If that was the case I can pretty much assume he isn’t peddling the line you are. In fact, Laughing Wolf refuses to reveal the conversation as he defends STB while launching an attack upon those defending your interpretation.
You can find some unlikely explanation that could possibly explain that, but give it up. The military was going to let him go. It was his choice to stay. You have no proof, and none has been offered anywhere by anybody. It is one thing to defend an unlikely, but possible, version if it has even been offered as a defense, it is another to get all upset because you and others trying to justify this just make it up. Let me repeat, neither SBT, his fellow soldiers, the military, his wife, nor The New Republic has offered that defense. The defenses they have offered in the past we now know are lies. He wasn’t being kept from speaking to them. He hadn’t stood by the story despite claims he was or they would explain themselves. They misrepresented their own experts testimony and on and on. Eventually you have to admit TNR lied.
Michael is right, it is irrelevant to my post really. He seems to be behaving admirably at this point, we should give him credit for doing so. That is true regardless of the excuses you make for the magazine.
Either you’ve vulnerable sensitivities, or you’ve completely overestimated the tone of my initial comment.
My very first comment,
The rest of the body was merely a – albeit cheap – passing shot. I’m surprised you read so much into it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though, I’ve come to learn that you are an emotional guy.
And the Wilson to Bush and Cheney slap-shot comment I made, although Lance doesn’t remember so I guess I should have linked it, was in reference to a previous discussion we had over Wilson’s lies vs. the Administration’s lies.
And yeah, it didn’t have anything specific to do with this particular post… But when does that stop anyone. The joy of reading and commenting on blogs, you should understand, is that one gets to read the piece the author most generously decided to write and publish for the world to see and invite input, take what one will, and agree, disagree, recall, remind, suggest, and/or offer any two cents one wishes to rub together and also generously write and publish for the world to see.
Well like it or not, that was my two cents. I decided to offer a snarky suggestion that Wilson references should be replaced with Bush and Cheney. Only because I believe their misdeeds to be greater than Wilson’s.
Then today I see Lance write this:
And he’s right. I didn’t consider to whom the plea was intended for… (it’s all about me, you understand.)
If one’s intended audience is for the Right, it is perfectly reasonable and understandable to use a Wilson reference instead of Bush.
So there… My … umm… dammit … apologies to Lance.
But Michael,
Oooooooooh
Is that so?
And all along I thought you didn’t even own a pair of gloves.
Seeing as how I remember when you viciously deemed any and all who attend anti-war rallies to be “anti-American slime” because of the nature of the sponsors of the rally…. Sponsors like,
Augustana Lutheran Church
Christ the Healer United Church of Christ
Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House
People of Faith for Peace
And many other such slime…
The gloves are off, you say… Well, it will be interesting to see just how bloody – and slippery – it will get in here. We’ll see!!
Cheers.
Pogue, once again you’re barely literate commentary shows how dim your bulb really is.
Not only did I not make the claim you say I did, I wasn’t particularly vicious either.
As for your (now shortened) list of “protesters” maybe you should go back and read my last comment on that post.
Oh, why bother, we both know you won’t do it, and even if you say you did you will intentionally misinterpret what I wrote. Of course, maybe I’m giving you too much credit. Occam’s Razor says you’re just an illiterate imbecile.
Well live and learn, I guess. Or don’t. At this point I really don’t care what you do.
“Barely literate commentary”… “Dim bulb” … Are these examples of what your “gloves off” are?
Flyweight.
Hah!
It was your own “shortened list” of protesters that your post was about in the first place. Which summoned me to complain about your point in the first place – that not everyone who attends or sponsors these rallies are “anti-American” slime.
I didn’t include the entire list but I linked it, and I pulled the selected sponsors that proved your point wrong, which I assumed would be enough.
Use your razor, Michael. I had to find the post to link it, and I had to scroll down to the comments to grab my selected list, therefore I would have seen your last comment had I not read it the first time. Which, btw, I read it again. You’re still wrong.
Awe,
Go back to your corner, Rocky. You’re winded.
Cheers.
Well I guess you told me.
Read what you wrote again very slowly. Do you see the inconsistency? Most everybody else will have already gotten what’s wrong with it. Maybe you can catch up.
That’s the sort of analysis I’ve come to expect from you, Pogue: long on ipse dixit; short on logic, facts and reason.
I noticed in your first comment that you’re also still laboring under the impression that Bush/Cheney lied about something. Care to lay what those lies were? Any of them at all?
Then this should be incredibly easy for you. Why is then that you keep swinging and missing?
Michael, I’m making logical and factual arguments. Please accept my apologies for the bare minimum of personal frustration that seeps through, but it’s a free country. If you find challenges to your alternate universe too frustrating and upsetting to deal with, then by all means, don’t deal with them. But I’m not here because you like me. I don’t depend on your approval. I don’t really care what you think about me. I’m engaging Lance, not you.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/10/26/a-scott-beauchamp-update.aspx
TNR’s recent statement:
Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,” a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”
The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during the September 6 conversation: “[A]ll we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it’s—if it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we’ll end that way. If it’s proven to be true, it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth.” The September 6 exchange was extremely frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.
The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.
On September 14, we also spoke at length with Major John Cross, who led the Army’s investigation into the Beauchamp case. Contrary to reports in The Weekly Standard and other outlets, Cross explicitly said that Beauchamp “did not recant” his article in the sworn statements he had given the Army. Moreover, although the Army’s investigation—which declared that the claims in “Shock Troops” were false—purported to be conclusive, Cross conceded that there were at least a dozen soldiers in Beauchamp’s platoon whom he had not interviewed. TNR pressed for clarification:
Scoblic: So you didn’t get statements from everyone in his platoon, then?
Cross: We got statements from everyone in his platoon that was available that day we were conducting the investigation.
Scoblic: At a later point did you follow up with any of the people that weren’t available that day?
Cross: No.
Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious gaps—as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp’s accounts—The New Republic decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp, particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division, to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.
It was as we were awaiting the documentary record of the Army’s investigation that the Army leaked several documents, including the September 6 transcript, to The Drudge Report, which incorrectly reported that the documents show that Beauchamp had recanted. In fact, they show no such thing, and Drudge soon removed the supporting documents from its website, and later its entire report.
The New Republic is deeply frustrated by the Army’s behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover whether Beauchamp’s article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked selective parts of the record—including a conversation that Beauchamp had with his lawyer—continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.
This is a story being dishonestly spun, complete with convenient ‘forgiveness’ in a way that serves the conservative media’s following interests: pro-troop and anti-non-conservative media.
Either TNR is inventing this later conversation with Beauchamp out of whole cloth, or, like is abundantly clear, whatever he said to the Army was coerced. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter whether there was a ‘confession’ or not. The story has in no way been disproved.
Specifically rebutting:
First of all we know for a number of reasons he was lying without any confession.
Baloney. Because the army asked some people who were around and they denied it? Because it’s impossible to run over dogs with Humvees? The conservative media came up with some contrary reports and called them ‘proof’. This kind of story is almost impossible to prove or disprove without audio-visual recording of the events.
Second he signed a confession and hasn’t told anyone he didn’t mean it.
There was no confession in the leaked documents, just Beauchamp refusing to talk about the issue anymore. The confession hasn’t been seen by anyone. It’s a rumor.
Your second clause is literally untrue, see the above TNR cite.
In fact, if you clicked through the links you will see that bloggers have spoken to him, they have said he is making amends, feels badly for what he has done and they liked him.
Right. He’s not defending his stories and this helps them cement the concept of the stories as “disproven”, regardless of whether they have been.
The Army said to Beauchamp, “it’s your choice to stay or leave” - let me translate that for you. It was his choice to stay - and allow his stories to be discredited, and to allow himself to be silenced about the stories - or to continue to defend them, and be kicked out of the army. They said “your writing career or your army career: pick one.”
The guy is letting other people discredit his stories so that the Army will let him stay. But none of this has anything to do with proof.
I have no idea if the stories are true or not. I just know that all the blather about “gee, TNR knows the stories are lies, they’re dishonest manipulators for not apologizing etc” is total baloney. TNR knows no such thing.
Let me repeat:
Tell me: what, specifically, has TNR done wrong here? That they accepted a story from a soldier as true? That they refused to call the soldier that came to them a liar unless that was proven? That, since nothing has yet to be proven either way, they stand by what they were told in good faith?
I’d like to see your response to this question. It seems pretty fair to me.
We disagree on the basic facts of this situation. Can you imagine TNR disagreeing in a similar manner? Where’s your benefit of the doubt for them?
That’s what you got, Michael… pointing out flaws in grammar??? At a blog comment page, no less.
Well I guess you told me.
No, I don’t care to. Those are old pancakes.
It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe that Bush/Cheney lied. Yeah, that’s it Michael, the government doesn’t lie. That’s exactly the kind of libertarianism I’ve come to expect from you… Faith in government.
Well, you’re assuming that I’m actually in the ring. You are the one fighting, Michael. Not me. I have acknowledged my mistake, and have apologized.
Let me guess, it’s that time of the month again for you, right?
Cheers.
Really putting those reading skillz to work aren’t ya. The flaw was not with your grammer. Read it again and check the logical premise (hint: my denigration of a “’shortened list’ of protesters” prompted your complaint “that not everyone who attends or sponsors these rallies are ‘anti-American’ slime”).
So I guess you’ll be dropped the lefty cant “Bush Lied!”
Again the problems with logical premises. It’s almost if your being deliberately dishonest about this. Certainly you don’t want have an actual debate since you can’t focus on any real facts, such as what lies were told, or what did Michael actually write. But I guess you’ll fight the battles you know you can win, which thusfar are completely imaginary ones.
Riiiiiiiiight ….
Not much of an apology if you ask me. It’s mostly rationalizations followed by attacks on me.
I made the source of my issues quite clear. I’m sick of people like you and glasnost coming in here and heaping the same old thoughtless drivel, regardless of the topic or whom your addressing. Lance is a friend of mine, and I thought he was doing an admirable thing. For you all to comment completely off topic and throw mindless insults at him for absolutely no reason is not just rude, it’s indicative of y’all’s lack of any decency and overall cluelessness. When my friends are attacked like that, I defend them. That’s just the way I operate. Don’t like it? Tough.
glasnost:
No you’re not. Indeed, you continue to make up things and completely ignore the real facts. You frequently spout off about things which you know nothing about and seem to think that the sheer volume of your comments will somehow carry the day. Instead they just reveal your intellectual dishonesty.
Case in point is this whole Beauchamp thing. You are clinging to the lefty narrative despite ample evidence that the stories were false and absolutely zero evidence that they were true. It’s been presented to you over and over again and yet you still spew garbage such as:
Now there are only two possibilities here: either (1) you haven’t informed yourself about the topic at hand, or (2) you’re deliberately mischaracterizing the facts. If (1), then STFU until you’ve gotten up to speed. If (2), then what good are you?
Even liberal commenters at Drum’s site who have any familiarity with the military warned him the stories were obviously bogus. We also know that TNR misrepresented the conclusions of the only expert identified, about the dog story. It turns out their expert thought the story was bogus as well.
I am working on a post on just that, but let us start with them releasing the transcript and have someone independently confirm that is what was on the call. Reporters document such things, show it to us. I hope SBT didn’t continue to lie, but I have no doubt he didn’t say what Foer is trying to claim. They should prove me wrong and it wouldn’t be hard to do so.
As for the second clause it was true when I wrote it. Now Foer claims they have had such a claim after all this time. Maybe. Actually the documents say he made it up. You obviously haven’t read them all. We already know about the burned woman being made up. So how about this? According to the documents:
Note, he admitted it!
If you don’t want to call that a confession fine, call it admitting he made it up based on rumors or little vignettes which inspired him. Did you read all three pdf’s?
Uh, did you read laughing wolf’s post? He isn’t trying to cement anything.
Here, read this:
Sure sounds like SBT is over there refusing to talk about it, refusing to face things with the men in his unit. (/sarcasm)
Maybe he is telling LW and his fellow soldiers one thing and Foer another, but that hardly speaks for his veracity either. So who would you lie to? The guys in your unit who know the truth or Foer? If he is lying I’ll put any sum you want up glasnost that it is Foer who is getting taken. The evidence is overwhelming, the investigation is damning, and without access to witnesses his story was demolished from across an ocean. That his commanders and people such as LW are so protective and complimentary of him sure doesn’t square with the military intimidating him. This is getting as ridiculous as the defenses of Dan Rather’s memo’s. There was no Saddam era burial ground, the Bradley’s cannot do what was described, no woman fitting the description was there. If she was I wouldn’t believe the story if only because he would have gotten his a** kicked if he had behaved that way, but the fact is she doesn’t exist.
Foer and you wish to sit back and act is if because you can claim it could be true we have to act as if it is. Sorry, even if it could be true, the burden of proof is on TNR. They made claims, they need to prove they are true. They never checked this stuff out, which was disgraceful. Now they check things out and since they have no evidence it is true they, and you, want to act as if the goal is to prove it false. So, whatever evidence we present you can claim doesn’t prove it. That is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. Anyway, I’ll put up my dissection of Foer’s response later, but why listen to people who lie in the very piece you use to defend them? I cannot understand it. They repeat the lie about the army keeping them from talking to him. They admit that isn’t true in the transcript. How clear is that as to Foer’s honesty?
Well there is little wonder why I didn’t get what you’re talking about. It’s complete nonsense. Look, it’s simple, you use a short list of assholes to damn ALL WHO ATTEND an anti-war rally as “anti-American slime”, I come back and suggest that you shouldn’t use just a few assholes to condemn all who attend and I back that up with my own shortlist of organizations that co-sponsored the event and shouldn’t be lumped in with your condemnations.
Get it?
Whatever… There is a laundry list of more than circumstantial evidence that the administration hasn’t been honest with us. I’m just not going to rehash them here and I find it telling that you believe the administration hasn’t lied.
I stated that I made a mistake, and I apologized. What more do you want?
I mean wow,… what a whiney bitch you are. I sit here writing this thinking I’m having an argument with one of my ex-girlfriends. I’ve known scorned high school cheerleaders that kept it together better than you.
And I didn’t attack you, you sniveling tart. You stated that the gloves were off, I stated that I didn’t think you had any gloves, then followed it up with a post from you in which I thought the gloves were already off.
I mean what is “anti-American slime”? Constructive criticism? A helpful suggestion? A kiss on the cheek?
An “attack”… please. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, Nancy.
Look, I have never once come on here and insulted any of you with words like “imbecile” or “dim bulb” or anything of the like. First of all, it’s not my style, secondly, I’ve heard more witty insults and put-downs on an elementary school playground.
And the few times that I have made a comment that was out of line or inappropriate, I’ve stated as much and apologized.
Well it’s noble of you to want to help your friend out, but Lance is a big boy and he can take care of himself (and I’m sure he appreciates this allegiance). He’s done so in the past, and he’s done so on this thread. And he was right, and I was wrong.
And I’m also sorry to understand of your sickness. But put your mind at ease, Dorothy… I won’t be bothering you on any of your posts anymore.
Got it. You’re simply an idiot.
Or perhaps you’re just being dishonest. I’ll let you pick.
What’s telling is that you won’t deign to list a single one of these lies, much less provide your circumstantial evidence. I’m quite certain that the Administration has lied to us. All administrations do. But they did not deceive anybody into the Iraq War, which is exactly what you’re intimating with the whole “Bush/Cheney lied” crap.
I don’t want anything from you.
It doesn’t surprise me that you’d go for the manly type.
No, you were real reasonable there, Pogue. Heck it only took you a couple of comments and lots of explaining why there was nothing wrong with your lame-assed attack on Lance before you sort of apologized. And of course none of your following address to me should be taken as an attack. That would just be ridiculous wouldn’t it.
Actually it was a non sequitur with respect to the post and your attack on Lance. It was also a mischracterization of what I actually wrote.
Yeah, like calling people “Nancy” and “sniveling tart.” Witty. So so witty.
So?
Yes he has, and I’m sure he’ll do so again. But it’s got nothing to do with quid pro quo. It’s just the decent thing to do to defend someone who’s gets blind-sided, especially when that person is doing something admirable.
Fair enough.
There’s that razor sharp wit again. How do you do it? It’s almost like you have dictionary of girls names or something. So very, very clever. Your sparkling commentary will be missed.