Beauchamp Recants

Weekly Standard ^ | August 6, 2007 | Michael Goldfarb

[West Coast Conservative]

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 magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.

Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."

Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

[DoughtyOne]

Ah which “NEW REPUBLIC” does the magazine represent? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic(s) or the reincarnation they so fervently hope for?

They sure were outed on this one. I still expect to have leftists site this lying bastard for years to come.

[LowOiL]

Ok, I never did keep up with this story whatsoever, can someone fill me in on if this is the fellow that was quoted over and over and sent out via a chain email.

Thanks ...

[SeafoodGumbo]

• 2 Journalism scandals in the United States
  • 2.1 Walter Duranty, The New York Times (1930s)
  • 2.2 Janet Cooke, Washington Post (1980-1981)
  • 2.3 "Waiting to Explode", Dateline NBC (1992)
  • 2.4 The Oregonian's coverage of the Packwood scandal (1992)
  • 2.5 Bob Wisehart, Sacramento Bee (1994)
  • 2.6 Stephen Glass, The New Republic (1998)
  • 2.7 Patricia Smith, Boston Globe (1998)
  • 2.8 Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand (1998)
  • 2.9 Mike Barnicle, Boston Globe (1998)
  • 2.10 Michael Gallagher (1998)
  • 2.11 Jay Forman, Slate (2001)
  • 2.12 Bob Greene, Chicago Tribune (2002)
  • 2.13 Christopher Newton, Associated Press (2002)
  • 2.14 Houston Chronicle Light Rail Controversy (2002)
  • 2.15 Brian Walski, The Los Angeles Times (2003)
  • 2.16 James Forlong, Sky News (2003)
  • 2.17 CNN coverage of Iraq and Eason Jordan (2003)
  • 2.18 Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003)
  • 2.19 "Gropegate", The Los Angeles Times (2003)
  • 2.20 Jack Kelley, USA Today (2004)
  • 2.21 Stephen Dunphy, Seattle Times (2004)
  • 2.22 The Oregonian's coverage of the Goldschmidt scandal (2004)
  • 2.23 The Boston Globe's Fake "GI Rape" Photographs (2004)
  • 2.24 The ABC News election memo (2004)
  • 2.25 Carl Cameron, Fox News Channel (2004)
  • 2.26 CBS News and the "Killian Documents" (2004)
  • 2.27 Thom Calandra, Marketwatch.com (2005)
  • 2.28 Eason Jordan, CNN (2005)
  • 2.29 Fake American hostage, Associated Press (2005)
  • 2.30 Eric Slater, Los Angeles Times (2005)
  • 2.31 Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press (2005)
  • 2.32 Barbara Stewart, Boston Globe (2005)
  • 2.33 Diana Griego Erwin, Sacramento Bee (2005)
  • 2.34 Chris Cecil, Cartersville Daily News (2005)
  • 2.35 The Daily Egyptian's fake orphan (2005)
  • 2.36 Bush administration journalism scandals (2005)
  • 2.37 Jim Van Vliet, Sacramento Bee (2005)
  • 2.38 Nada Behziz, The Bakersfield Californian (2005)
  • 2.39 Tim Ryan, Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2006)
  • 2.40 Hassan Fattah, New York Times' Abu Ghraib photos (2006)
  • 2.41 Michael Hiltzik, The Los Angeles Times (2006)
  • 2.42 Paul Bradley, Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006)
  • 2.43 Philip Chien, Wired News (2006)
  • 2.44 Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher (2006)
  • 2.45 Adnan Hajj, Reuters (2006)
  • 2.46 Miami anti-Castro broadcasts (2006)
  • 2.47 Jack Hitt and New York Times Abortion/Infanticide Article (2006)
  • 2.48 Jacqueline Gonzalez, San Antonio Express News (2007)
  • 2.49 Maria Bartiromo, CNBC (2007)
  • 2.50 Allan Detrich, The Blade (2007)
  • 2.51 "Katie Couric's Notebook," CBSNews.com (2007)

[SeafoodGumbo]

I don't know why those links aren't working, but you can read about more journalism scandals than you ever knew about here.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well....check here:

The Last Chapter In The Scott Thomas Beauchamp Story

And here is a search on the Flopping Aces site:

Beauchamp Entries

[Choose Ye This Day]

Thanks for the explanation and the link. I had never heard of him. I’ll have to check out the movie sometime.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This might be a better source:

The New Republic has, in essence, defended the personal essay by U.S. soldier Scott Thomas Beauchamp on all grounds save one:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This seems to lay it out well:

*********************************EXCERPT************************************

MORE: Now this is news: Beauchamp recants: "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."

STILL MORE: More on Beauchamp here: "So Beauchamp was lying the whole time, and now that he has two entirely different stories, he was either lying to TNR, which probably paid him $50 per article and which can’t put him in prison for lying to them (because he’s not under oath when he’s spouting off to Franklin Foer), or he lied to the Army, which pays his entire salary and can and will put him in jail for quite a while if he lies to them . . . . So guess which one Beauchamp is more likely to have lied to — the people who couldn’t jail him, or the ones who could. And would. That’s about as definitive a refutation as we’ll get in this saga, but it’s a good one."

Plus, a victory dance from Ace.

And Bill Quick observes: "The biggest mystery to me is why the mainstream media has any credibility left at all. Maybe its users aren’t looking for credibilty any more. Just reinforcement."

[jeffers]

Wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out Lyddie England and the rest of the genital shocking crew at Abu Graib were hard core Liberals too.

It’s a standard Democrat tactic, and besides, who else besides Liberals have regular sex orgies?

Sleazy, cheap, no ethics, just interested in unearned benefits, that’s how half our country lives.

That’s why I never worked to my full capacity, to avoid paying taxes to keep them alive.

No thanks, let them starve. I get more benefit from an hour working for myself, that is not legally taxable, than I do working for some drooling Democrat anyway.

[glock rocks]

In my opinion, somebody at the New Republic needs to be fired for this. It is an unfathomable disgrace.

Unnngh? In my opinion, that person should be promoted to editor in chief of tnr!

[fatez]

I hope his superiors load him up with every crappy job there is in front of his peers, extend his duty just before he gets out for as long as they can and again load him up with the crappiest duty imaginable. At the same time I hope they conduct “further” investigations into a court-martial, then let him out with on an Other than Honorable discharge or Dishonorable discharge. I hope this ba$tard likes Greenland.

[Shelayne]

I saw this over at AceofSpades blog. Ace has been all over this from the beginning and was dead-on. He even had an inside source at TNR, who ended up getting fired when they figured out he/she was speaking out of turn. It really got interesting then because “Scott Thomas” was basically forced to ‘out’ himself.

It wasn’t supposed to go down like this. (Beauchamp thinking)

Poor little Elspeth now knows that her husband is a liar—or was she in on it? Though I am doubting she knew as one of the quotes from a source at TNR was, “Foer doesn’t want to tell Elspeth her husband is a liar.”

Well, OK, start off with “He’s a loser.” and finish with “He’s toast.” The long and short of it, if you will.

[Bogtrotter52]

From what I have been reading there has been some doubt for awhile about the truthfullness of his stories. I suppose all his supporters are running for cover. I am going to go to DU right now....I gotta see what the DUmmies have to say about it. Just guessing, but I am expecting something along the lines of.....”But but but.....the reports still stand even if embellished because they reveal deep and powerful thruths about the military and the war”.....or something like that. I’ll let you know. LOL!

[Enchante]

“Foer doesn’t want to tell Elspeth her husband is a liar.”

OK, Foer, just tell her that hubby is a scum-sucking leftist parasite who is lower than rat feces......

[Allegra]

...the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts.

Some jokes just write themselves.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Yeah, but Connors’ Jason McCord was innocent of cowardice.

This piece of chickencrap isn’t.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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

[Checkers]

Related thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877445/posts

[Robert A Cook PE]

Amazing list!

How did you develop those references from the originals?

[Checkers]

“Steven Glass is a “reporter for the New Republic back in the 990’s. He falsified about half the stories written for them. There is a movie about the event called “Shattered Glass.” It stars Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen.)

more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Glass";

Shattered Glass is a must see for all Freepers:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0323944/plotsummary

Excellent film.
I netflixed it last week. It’s deja vu time at TNR.

Here’s a line from the movie: (WARNING - LANGUAGE!)

“Caitlin, When this thing blows, there isn’t going to be a magazine anymore. If you want to make this about Mike, make it about Mike. I don’t give a shit. You can resent me, you can hate me, but come Monday morning, we’re all going to have to answer for what we let happen here. We’re all going to have an apology to make! Jesus Christ! Don’t you have any idea how much shit we’re about to eat? Every competitor we ever took a shot at, they’re going to pounce. And they should. Because we blew it, Caitlin. He handed us fiction after fiction and we printed them all as fact. Just because... we found him “entertaining.” It’s indefensible. Don’t you know that?”