Posted on 10/26/2007 10:43:12 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne
A Scott Beauchamp Update 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.
We have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so. But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and promise to deliver a full account of our findings.
--The Editors
Mary Mapes school of journalism.
Stopped reading here - all lies after that.
Perhaps you just define “truth” in a different way than they do.
On the TNR site there’s an unrelated column with an unfortunate headline: What Lies Ahead
I use concrete for my definitions.
They use Silly Putty.
Seems their Freudian Slip is showing...
Maybe it because they're just a little busy fighting a flippin' WAR.
If these clowns were interested in the truth, they wouldn’t have published those ridiculous lies in the first place. This is the worse job of CYA I’ve ever seen. This is worse than “the dog ate my homework” and just as juvenile.
One possibility is that he was blowing off steam to his wife, and SHE pushed the story (she is some sort of deputy associate assistant editor at TNR).
Or maybe SHE thought it a good idea to make up the story and get him to "corroborate" it.
Fake but accurate, you know.
I guess the feeling is mutual.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, no, the New Republic has no political agenda, no axe to grind. They are only interested in objective reporting. That's really been noticeable over the years. Not.
Their order of procedure is, as it was in this case, have an agenda, write a story to support it, and then pretend that the administration is preventing them from doing an actual investigation, so it's not their fault if the facts on which the story was based were entirely falsified.
Seems to me, after reading this article, that the main pressure on Beauchamp (and his wife) is coming from the Left who has as much invested in losing this war, as the military does in winning it.
Here is related information from Michael Yon that gives more insight into what’s happening with Beauchamp, and the FR thread discussing it:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/beauchamp-and-the-rule-of-second-chances.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1916282/posts
I hope Beauchamp by this time is cleaning Iraqi outhouses.
Beauchamp is an ignorant punk, and he did an ignorant punkish thing.
TNR, on the other hand, should know better.
Ignorance is curable, but stupidity is not.
I don't; I hope he's fighting his butt off to kill the bad guys over there. I hope he's learning WHO the bad guys really are. I hope he's on point and wondering if the guy behind him knows about the stunt he pulled.
I was reading what Yon wrote and thought he did a good job. Beauchamp, however, needs to be sent home immediately. This is continuing to give the Army a black eye and also provide cover for TNR. If Beauchamp stands by his story, why did he not have the balls to say so when his superiors were in the room. Seems he wants it both ways, recanting to his fellow soldiers and telling TNR and his wife he stands behind his story. Get him the hell out of Iraq and out of the army now.
Didn’t know that about Beauchamp’s wife working there. Glad you mentioned it. That makes me even more cynical about TNR’s “search for the truth”. The thirst for the BIG story, and a contribution to the BIG agenda must be overwhelming for them.
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.