Posted on 07/26/2007 4:26:20 AM PDT by TomB
A STATEMENT FROM SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
As we've noted in this space, some have questioned details that appeared in the Diarist "Shock Troops," published under the pseudonym Scott Thomas. According to Major Kirk Luedeke, a public affairs officer at Forward Operating Base Falcon, a formal military investigation has also been launched into the incidents described in the piece.
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.
In the meantime, the author has requested that we publish the statement below. --The Editors
I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
--Private Scott Thomas BeauchampMy Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.
Let the investigation commence...
Seems to me, Scott, that you were the one calling your comrades character into question. There's a lot of questions of your own you are going to need to answer, to a lot of people.
Something tells me he isn't the most popular person in Iraq right now.
FYI
Interesting sentence. In fact, the plausibility is being questioned by a number of people who have served in Iraq and a number who are serving there right now.
Kind of makes you think that if there had been an internet in 1970, there may not have been a Senator Kerry. Or at least he wouldn’t have gotten away with his lies. But then there wouldn’t have been a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, either. Of course, they wouldn’t have been needed.
I’m sure the Libs will hold this guy up as a “true American hero” - - - just to show their support for the troops doncha know.
I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
Wow...wonder how long it took him to come up with that 'hard to figure out who this is' pseudonym?! Sheesh....
Real clever psuedonym you picked there, bro.
What a dumbass.
Plausible: 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth, acceptability, or reliability; specious: the plausible talk of a crafty salesperson. American Heritage.
Press 1 or 2?
A more confident word would have been chosen if everyone really believed. IMO.
“I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join.”
If he didn’t want to join an “ideological battle” why did he publish this in The New Republic? Why not in the Washington Post or Washington Times?
Future Senator from Massachusetts wannabee.
Oh, really, now...
Oh, Scott, dear...it was also questioned by many who are in Iraq...military and civilian alike.
Just sayin'...
i’m anxious to see the corroboration. surprised we haven’t seen it by now.
Scottie boy you in some deep doo doo now. I thought the military prevented such posting and blogging a while back
One has to wonder what his squad-mates think of this guy...do you suppose someone like Michael Yon will ask?
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.
Pvt. Beauchamp, while I'm happy to see that you have finally done the right thing, that statement is not correct and you know it.
Many of the people questioning your accounts are currently stationed in Iraq. They are your comrades, your fellow soldiers, sailors, and Marines, and they have major problems with quite a few of the details in your stories, like the idea that the driver of a Bradley has time to suddenly swerve to hit dogs, taking his eyes off the road (or possibly snipers) and placing his entire crew at vastly increased risk of running over an IED (the #1 killer of our troops over there). Such an act would be madness, and even if a driver were so inclined, no one else would let him get away with it more than once. It would be suicide.
But not according to you. Apparently drivers have time to hit dogs, write in notebooks, watch for snipers and civilians, and avoid running over IEDs all at the same time! And of all these vital tasks, hitting dogs is the #1 priority!
Yeah. That's plausible.
And then there's the idea that an entire mess hall (the one at FOB Falcon is not large) would overhear someone mocking an IED victim and NO ONE would say anything. Do any of the other readers have any idea how many of these people would have known someone killed by an IED? Do they really think such a "joke" would be amusing to them, that it wouldn't rub someone's nerves just a bit raw?
Yes, we (and I do mean "we" - my husband is a 26 year Marine Corps active duty officer currently stationed in Iraq) do have questions. We have that right. This is America - we have freedom of speech here. If you print something, especially anonymously, you'd best be prepared to defend it vigorously. No one ever said freedom was cheap, or the right to free speech itself came without a price tag.
Other people have the right to their own freedom of expression and that includes the right to question what you have said, if it does not seem right to them. In turn, you have the right to defend what you have said. Hopefully the truth falls out of this somewhere.
It is a sometimes messy, glorious, chaotic, often undignified brawl, but this is America and you are not going to find a whole lot of sympathy by crying 'foul' when people counter your accusations by asking you to back up the inconsistencies in your stories. In fact, having said you witnessed the desecration of a grave site, it is not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you did not report this crime to your command?
Either your story was untrue and should be retracted or you witnessed a crime and allowed the perpetrators to escape punishment and possibly commit more crimes against the Iraqi people. Which is it?
That I even have to ask this question raises serious questions in my mind about your motivation in writing this whole series, because if I had witnessed such an act, I would be talking to my command and wanting to stop things like that from going on, not shoppping the story to the New Republic under a pseudonym.
But that is just me.
- #4 -- posted by tavernel@erols on 2007-07-26 07:57:20
Of course, nothing said there is true; just ask Fat Jack Murtha!
He’s in deep doo-doo with his fellow soldiers.
There will be an investigation at his unit. His NCOs and chain of command will come under scrutiny. The fellow soldiers which he BLUE FALCONED are going to be hating on him in a big way.
Not saying these fellow soldiers didn’t necessarily deserved to be BLUE FALCONED, but not in a public forum. If you have a problem, you go to your chain of command first. He essentially BLUE FALCONED his entire chain of command.
This guy deserves to be prosecuted under every UCMJ rule he might have broken. The military does not need more soldiers like this. It causes unit cohesion to fall apart.
The military DOES need soldiers to keep other soldiers from doing stupid things (these soldiers are called NCOs), but they don’t need this crap.
Ooops! I was just going to ping you, but I see you are already on the case. Good!
I have no idea what this means - if anything - but “googling” Scott Thomas Beauchamp, this came up as the last of 6 hits:
Korova
[ANLP] Public servilce anouncement: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a flaming faggot. he is gay, do not interact with this vile excuse of a little boy. ...
korova.newgrounds.com/ - 23k - 24 jul 2007
Note date, 24 July, two days before the letter to the New Republic.
As I say, no idea what that site is about, whether it is the same STB, but at least something to make you go hmmmm.
Radigan’s Raiders pinglist—if you want on or off, let me know via Freepmail!
(Stories like this one is why we need a RR pinglist.)
Why do I suspect that Private Beauchamp’s commanding officer already knew all of this prior to this “confession” in the New Republic?
Thanks for the ping, brityank. Awwww, poor Scott is busted. The incident with the woman in the mess hall was just too unbelievable.
ping
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.
— Um, didn’t they just say they were kinda sure he was a soldier (before it was changed - re: NYT)
It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join.
—Huh? What the hell is he talking about?
But I am struck by something......
"I did not have sex(ual relations) with that woman, Ms. Lewinski, and now I have to get back to work for the American people.
And this:
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war(for the American People)in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join.
Seems like there is a bit of a tell in this. As already noted he is being challenged by those who have been or are in Iraq. But if its about the truth of what he said, its plausible, that he is lying.
I’m thinking the CSM at 2 BCT ought to be REAL happy right now...
What I was trying to post was this from Instaputz blog (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/)
Which links to this: (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com)
The second link appears to be STB's own blog. Although there don't appear to be any entries after Sept. 2006.
The story about mocking someone disfigured in an IED attack drove me nuts (BTW - 2 of my kids were in Iraq, and I’ve been in Afghanistan). How could anyone not know if someone in the chow hall was a soldier or a contractor? Soldiers wear uniforms everywhere, including chow halls. Special ops types sort of do - and they stick out like sore thumbs. Contractors wear civilian clothes or uniforms marked DOD civilian.
I also cannot imagine anyone mocking someone hurt by an IED when you know you will be going out tomorrow to face the same threat. Nor can I imagine anyone sitting quietly by while someone else did so. And doing that to a woman? I don’t think so.
This moron has be disgracing his fellow soldiers...bet he’ll have a real good time for the rest of his tour!
He has violated the sacred trust of the brotherhood. In short, he is screwed.
BWT, I did a quick search before posting it and didn't see any blogs or news sites covering the TNR bombshell, so FR is again at the front, even if they don't want to admit it.
French ancestry. Who would have guessed?
Re: What's that now? [Mark Steyn]
Jonah, it's even more precious than that. Scott Thomas Beauchamp complains that his character has been called into question. Just for the record, here is Private Beauchamp's character in his own words:
“I think she’s f*****g hot!” I blurted out.
“What?” said my friend, half-smiling.
“Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .”
“You’re crazy, man!” my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.
“In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles.”
My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground.
In English libel law, Private Beauchamp would be regarded as a man with no character left to defend.
07/26 10:01 AM
No doubt the fact that a formal military investigation has been launched into the incidents described in the piece had something to do with the author disclosing his identity.
Having posted more than once against “Scott Thomas”, I’ll eat a bite or two of crow and salute the man for coming forward. Also, I strongly admonish anyone from going after him physically or psychologically. I still believe he did a very bad thing by writing his lies or exagerations, but he still maintained the honor to step forward and sign his work.
The official military investigation and court martials associated with all of these diaries should go forward. The events described in these diaries, particularly the grave desecration, require punitive military discipline. If it turns out the Pvt Beauchamp fabricated this event, it is he that should be disciplined.
So it was Scott Thomas HIMSELF that’s making jokes of disfigured vitims. Hmmmmmm. Does he also drive a Bradley?
There is no honor here, he was about ready to be outed (see Ace o' Spades blog) and he was just beating them to the punch. If he did have any honor, he wouldn't have engaged in any of the behavior and he would have reported all the other incidents he observed to the proper authorities.
NewGrounds is a site loaded with sometimes entertaining user-submitted content in the form of flash videos, flash games, music, etc. I remember playing many flash games where you get to beat up or bomb Osama or Saddam, among other things, on that site. Go HERE to find out more.
Korova seems to be a user on the site. Why he would call out Scott Thomas Beauchamp that way is still unknown. Will have to dig further. One guess is that Korova is actually Beauchamp himself and he thought he was being cute by putting that stuff in the comment portion of his own page.
Here's a SOLID hit:
He has (or had) a blog at BlogSpot.com called Sir Real Scott Thomas. At one time it was called ghostsonfilm (hence the name) but the title page says Sir Real Scott Thomas. Go to ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com. We better suck some of this down before he makes it disappear as the heat gets turned up on him.
He lists his name as: PFC Scott Beauchamp A Co. 1 18 Infantry, 2nd BCT, 1st ID
The last post he made on his blog was September of 2006 and his earliest was January 2006. He's got a number of entries here that I have not gone through yet.
Has this guy been authenticated as a soldier yet??
If you’re interesting in reading his pre-TNR blather, this looks like his blog:
ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com
I was wondering the same thing......did he commit a crime when publishing this stuff?
They have found his blog on Hot Air, and there is quite a lively discussion going on. (Nothing on the gaming site though) . Apparently he is into writing war stories (surprise, surprise) - liberal arts studies (another big surprise) and he does not like the GOP (I’m sure THAT came as a really big surprise).
If he is in Iraq because he thinks he will become a new Hemingway is anybody’s guess.
I hope PVT Beauchamp enjoys his 15 minutes of fame. He has just taken A/1-18 INF out of the war for at least a week. He has wrecked his platoon leader’s career, and probably his company commander’s as well. Blogging from theater is going to become even harder, thanks to him. He has brought dishonor and discredit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army. This Blue Falcon from FOB Falcon richly deserves what he has coming to him.
He is The Surge’s Lyndi England.
More from Power Line
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018343.php
Scott Thomas speaks
“The editors” of the New Republic have posted a statement from the soldier formerly known as Scott Thomas — he now identifies himself as Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp — with this preface:
As we’ve noted in this space, some have questioned details that appeared in the Diarist “Shock Troops,” published under the pseudonym Scott Thomas. According to Major Kirk Luedeke, a public affairs officer at Forward Operating Base Falcon, a formal military investigation has also been launched into the incidents described in the piece.
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.
In the meantime, the author has requested that we publish the statement below.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp writes:
My Diarist, “Shock Troops,” and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.
I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier’s view of events in Iraq.
It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
Now that Beauchamp has stepped forward, the issues regarding the veracity of “Shock troops” should be resolved in short order. It is striking that Beauchamp’s statement does not add any facts to support the veracity of “Shock troops,” although his identity is certainly a start. Yesterday ABC News published an account of the contorversy by Marcus Barum. Barum’s account quotes New Republic editor Franklin Foer on the fact-checking that preceded publication of Beauchamp’s “Shock Troops” article:
As for the specific accounts in the stories, Foer said that the articles were rigorously fact-checked before they were published. “We showed the stories to people who’d been embedded in Iraq to make sure that it all smelled good. We talked to one of the members of his unit to confirm the woman, a female contractor. We talked to a medic who’d served in Iraq to make sure that a woman could be in an FOB. We spent a lot of time with him on the phone asking hard questions.”
In their preface to Beauchamp’s statement, “the editors” state that they have thus far found nothing to disprove Beauchamp’s article. They do not add, as they did earlier, that they have communicated with soldiers who have done much to corroborate the events recounted by Beauchamp. Indeed, neither Beauchamp nor “the editors” have disclosed a single fact to corroborate the article, although the disclosure of Beauchamp’s identity counts for something. I trust that all will become clear in the fullness of time.
JOHN adds: That’s right. In the meantime, Beauchamp’s concern over the “character” of his “comrades in arms” being “called into question” is touching. I’d had the impression that that was the sole purpose of his articles.
Michelle Malkin has a whole lot more on Beauchamp, who has a blog and a MySpace page. He’s a pretentious ass, and a lefty. Here he is:
“Scott Thomas” steps out of the shadows Update: The blog of “Sir Real Scott Thomas” Update: His MySpace page
By Michelle Malkin • July 26, 2007 08:35 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/scott-thomas-steps-out-of-the-shadows/
Many links, please click on link for more
What is that supposed to mean? Why not simply write:
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.
Perhaps he's simply a bad writer, on the other hand maybe he's letting slip the fact that he never actually witnessed the events he describes, but merely believes them to be plausible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.