The Left still believes him anyway
On July 23rd, The New Republic published an article — supposedly written by a Soldier in Iraq — about the atrocities of war, and what it does to a person. In the article, the Soldier recounted how him and another Soldier in his unit loudly and publicly ridiculed a female in their dining facility who was horribly disfigured from an IED attack.
The story went on to talk about how soldiers took great joy in using their Bradley track vehicles to run over dogs. And the final anecdote — which was intended to illustrate how the utter depravity of war could destroy a young man’s humanity — was about another Soldier who, upon finding a mass grave of children, put the skull of a child on his head and was dancing around with it on.
I didn’t write about this right away, because I knew it was total bullshit. Too many details didn’t pass the smell test. And besides, the MilBloggers were all over the story, tearing it apart — because they knew it was bullshit too.
Well, as they started to dig deeper, and press TNR harder and harder for details, some troubling facts (real facts) started to emerge.
First, the identity of this “anonymous” Soldier was discovered to be PV2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It also turns out that soon-to-be civilian Beauchamp was also married to a TNR staffer.
Then it was easily enough discovered that the events in the story written by Mr. Beauchamp, which supposedly took place in Iraq, really took place in a staging area in Kuwait, far from the “horrors of battle.”
But despite all of this, TNR stood by their story and their reporting.
The reason I’m finally writing about this today is because what I knew was forthcoming has final come to fruition. I knew once the Army knew the identity of the writer, that they would commence upon an investigation of their own. If Beauchamp wasn’t lying, then he was going to be in a shit-load of trouble for his behavior.
But if he was lying, the Army needed to find that out too.
And they have:
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.
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.”
It’s time for Mr. Beauchamp to start packing his bags for Ft. Leavenworth. And it’s time for Franklin Foer (the Senior editor at TNR) to start packing his bags, too. Between Stephen Glass and now Scott Beauchamp, TNR as exactly zero credibility left.
________
The saddest part of this entire affair is how quick Leftwing media is to believe, print, and publish stories that denigrate our troops. Can I doubt their patriotism now? Sorry, but I doubted it a long, long time ago. This just confirms it.
As for Mr. Beauchamp — I hope the military hammers him hard. At the very least, some hard time served at Leavenworth, a complete reduction in pay and grade (though from E2 to E1 isn’t exactly that big a deal), and an eventual dishonorable discharge.
Of course, when it’s all said and done, he’ll be lifted up by the Left as a hero who “spoke truth to power” — how long until he’s a regular contributor at the Huffing-and-puffing Post?
Because, without even looking, I know that the Left is already writing the following stories:
- The military “forced” Beauchamp to recant his story (they probably waterboarded him to make him recant).
- Despite his forced recantation, the stories are true.
- And, even if these specific incidents are “exaggerated”, they are still accurate (even though they’re fake) and “stuff” like it probably happens all the time.
*yep, a real quick look, and Shake’s Sister is already at it:
while there seems to be no question that Beauchamp lied about part of his stories, I’m not convinced his recantation is evidence that every aspect of all three “Baghdad Diarist” columns were false
And the Democratic Daily paint it as the “shameless irony of the current smear of Private Beauchamp and the TN”.
Sigh. So predictable it hurts.
________
OTHERS:
Don Surber wonders why there is a market for lies.
Roger Simon: The New Republic - Only an Idiot Would Pay for This
Mark Steyn at The Corner:
In essence, they made the same mistakes all over again - falling for pat cinematic vividness, pseudo-novelistic dialogue, all designed to confirm prejudices so ingrained the editors didn’t even recognize they were being pandered to.
I believe the Army already said that because they were lies, he did not commit any crimes and the matter would be handled administratively. Therefore, no Leavenworth in his future. I almost feel sorry for him because he is such a loser. I blame his wife (who is obviously smarter than him) and TNR for allowing this crap to be published since on it’s face it didn’t pass the smell test.
Left by kma on August 7th, 2007 at 9:59 am