A Scott Beauchamp Update

The New Republic ^ | Aug. 10, 2007 | The Editors

[inkling]

For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist "Shock Troops." While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at The New Republic take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay.

Indeed, 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."

[inkling]

Looks like the same-old CYA and obfuscation from The New Republic on their anti-military hit piece. Basically, there viewpoint is that the Army is guilty of every ridiculous allegation until they prove their innocence. Oh, and that the military is a bunch of ideological meanies.

Earlier this week I created a tongue-in-cheek summary of the Beauchump scandal for those new to it.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.

So TNR says the Army pressured STB to sign a statement that said his stories were true? Now that makes sense...

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Maybe it's a typo. Here, let me fix it for them:

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.

[rlmorel]

"...While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas..."

"...while we at The New Republic do NOT represent a fever swamp of rabid leftists suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome who will stop at nothing, including slandering in the most dishonorable and viscious way the men who are fighting and dying to protect us..."

These people make me angry beyond words. The gall. The unmitigated gall.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Comments from the Blogosphere (Strata - Sphere):

New Republic Asks Military To Prove Their Lies

************************Leadin Excerpt**************************

The saga of Pvt Beauchamp (married to someone at the New Republic no less) is one of propaganda lies placed in media outlets to spin falsehoods about our military and their activities in Iraq. It is a shameless and near criminal act of lying to the public face on. The Weekly Standard hit the news yesterday claiming Beauchamp had recanted. The Army is not providing details and the New Republic (of Lies) is standing by their ‘investigation’ (not by an outside group of course) that the stories are true. So what does the New Republic do when faced with an Army conclusion that the stories are false? They demand the military share their internal investigation details with them:

[pogo101]

From blogger Ace of Spades:

Let's be clear about this, [Editor of The New Republic] Frank [Foer]: There never was actual fact-checking before you ran this piece. You've said as much, by stating you only passed the story around to other journalists to see if it "smelled good." Not if it was factual, and verifiably so, but merely if it was within the limits of plausibility.

That is not "fact"-checking no matter how many times you redefine the term. That is merely plausibility-checking. Or smell-checking.

As I've written before, the scandal was already complete when you published these articles without fact-checking. It didn't matter ultimately if you got lucky and could establish veracity after the fact, because you're supposed to be doing the fact check before publishing, and you didn't. Whether you got lucky or not, you'd already committed the sin that TNR of all magazines ought not to have committed in the first place.

Owned.

[nuconvert]

“When The New Republic did its initial investigation, it admitted that Beauchamp had erred on one “significant detail.” The disfigured woman incident happened not in Iraq, but in Kuwait.

That means it all happened before Beauchamp arrived in Iraq. But the whole point of that story was to demonstrate how the war had turned an otherwise sensitive soul into a monster.”

” the mess hall incident happened before he even got to the war. On which point, the whole story — and the whole morality tale it was meant to suggest — collapses.”

“The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait “detail” undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why did The New Republic run it?

Because it fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the anti-war left.” (Krauthammer)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/08/10/exposing_callousness_in_the_army

[caisson71]

“Here’s what we know.....” ROFLMO. They don’t know diddly.

[Enchante]

"we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves"

Scumbags!! Liberals have no problem at all with any "rush to judgment" on any matter that will harm our military or our current WH, etc. It's only when this vicious dishonest leftist flake comes along, who is thoroughly indicted by his own writings and blog posts, that TNR suddenly discovers this great reluctance to "rush to judgment".....

They are trying to put the burden of proof on the US Army to disprove these fanciful tales, when in fact the burden of proof exists for any respectable journalist to fully substantiate their own "reporting"..... IF we can even grace what TNR has been up to with the word "reporting" -- time for these ass-clowns to go down once and for all. They survived Glassgate, but they should not get away with this crap now.

[IslandJeff]

Hopefully this story continues to have “legs”. Had thought there for awhile it was going to be successfully buried.

[Jacquerie]

Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist.

Professionals, as opposed to hacks with BDS would have examined Beauchamp's veracity prior to publication.

Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army

If true, and I doubt it, why should the US Army cooperate with an enemy?

[rlmorel]

[rlmorel]

[rlmorel]

[rlmorel]

I'm with you. If I had been the Public Relations Officer, I would have responded to any request from the NYT or TNR for information with an icy: "We don't provide intelligence to our enemies."

[Red Badger]

How did they speak to “members of his platoon” if they cannot speak to him?..........

[boop]

I don’t understand. TNR says it has “anonymous sources” that will prove Beauchamp’s stories, but it then complains about the Army covering up by not revealing it’s sources. TNR needs to go first and reveal it’s so-call “evidence” or STFU.

[keat]

While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas...

[3AngelaD]

The New Republic, which held the previous record in a tie with the New York Times, has performed the amazing feat of setting a new land speed record for intellectual dishonesty.

[jaydubya2]

"Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army."

Gosh, why would the US Army not want to cooperate with them? /s