Several weeks ago The New Republic published a series of stories written by a U.S. soldier using the pen name "The Baghdad Diarist." The author who's name we now know -- Scott Thomas Beauchamp -- recounted stories of U.S. soldiers and their indefensible behavior while in IRAQ. Tales like U.S. troops getting their kicks by running over dogs with "Bradley fighting vehicles and playing with children's' skulls taken from mass graves." Thomas also described how soldiers in a mess hall openly mocked a woman whose face was severely disfigured from an injury presumably suffered in Iraq.
Shortly after these articles were published bloggers, conservative web sites and even the magazine "The Weekly Standard" started raising questions regarding "Thomas'" reporting.
Thomas fired back at his skeptics, saying his pieces -- one titled "Shock Troops" and his two others -- "have stirred more controversy than he ever could have anticipated." He claimed he wrote under a pseudonym because he wanted to write honestly about his experiences without fear of reprisal. He is then quoted as saying, "I'm willing to stand by my writing of these articles using my real name."
The investigation that was launched after the stories were published is now complete, and U.S. military investigators have determined that Thomas fabricated the tales of troop misconduct.
The issue of credibility is of particular concern for TNR, which fired editor Stephen Glass in 1988 for stories he concocted in two thirds of his 41 articles. With the increasing tendency of media outlets to run unchecked or bogus stories -- take the "fake but accurate" memos pushed by Dan Rather on CBS or the altered photographs provided by Reuters by Israel/Lebanon "War" photographer Aidan Hajj, the media continually exhibits their partisan views in hopes of breaking the big story.
obiyodan - Please let me know what articles and soldiers in Scott Thomas Beauchamps unit corrobated his lies!!. If you don't want to address my post and want to spin that's your call. I pointed out that i thought it was strange that you would talk about what soldiers are capable of without mentioning that the majority of our soldiers behave honorably. YOU CHOSE NOT TO and i simply commented on it. We were not speaking about the Pat Tillman case but if you would like to that's fine. The Tillman case deals with friendly fire and a cover up by higher ranking officers. It has nothing to do with the U.S. soldiers and the "sick things that they do". It also has nothing to do with denmitch's post. In answer to your question - I served 6 years in the National Guard - NY AIR 106th Rescue Wing do you have any other questions! Am i now qualified to comment on this subject? I have never been in a combat zone and would probably sh*t my pants if i ever was. But if i somehow managed to survive i wrote about my experiences i would not LIE and TRASH my fellow soldiers.
Seaman- you are such a kiss ass. This article was posted 4 days ago but you onle decided to make a post today based on a disagreement between myself and obiyodan. What's the matter can't you comment on the original story. And what the hell does your comment about the TV mean? Please explain!!!
take the "fake but accurate" memos pushed by Dan Rather on CBS or the altered photographs provided by Reuters by Israel/Lebanon "War" photographer Aidan Hajj, the media continually exhibits their partisan views in hopes of breaking the big story.
This "news story" is not a news story but a news story that contains personal views.
I am sorry, njrepublican, I haven't got a clue, as to what I meant by the comment about the TV?- sorry!
I hesitated to comment on this story, until I had gained all the facts, so please don't call me a "kiss ass". This "news story" is slanted with adverbs and adjectives that are designed to portray a particular view. I am not a flag-waving patriot, nor am I unpatriotic. My point is news stories should be just the news without
Additionally, from my research, this story is far from over, since the latest information I could find on the Internet, indicates Beauchamp stands by his comments and video. The only thing in question are the dates.
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?
Beauchamp, 23, who is married to New Republic reporter Elspeth Reeve, wrote last month that a soldier had used a Bradley Fighting Vehicle to run over stray dogs, and that others had found and played with the skulls of Iraqi children. Beauchamp also wrote that he and other soldiers had openly mocked a woman whose face had been disfigured by an injury -- but later acknowledged the incident had taken place in Kuwait before his unit was deployed, not at a Baghdad base as he originally maintained.
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.
Acccording 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?
That is the $64,000 question that remains unresolved. Since Beauchamp is unable to communicate on this matter, the question remains open.
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."
I also recall reading that he was bewildered by the attention paid to him and just wanted to write and honest report of what it was like for him and others in the unit he served.
seaman- why is Beauchamp UNABLE to communicate? Has the cat got his tounge? Maybe he is running for cover.
obiyodan: You are the only one who is dodging. This is your third post on this story and you still have not responded as to why you would only speak of what soldiers are capable of or if any of the soldiers you served with committed such acts. What is it you think i am dodging and why would you have guessed? Please tell me so i can respond. I anxiously await your answer.
njrepublican....seeing as you seem to NEED to know why I would speak of what soldiers are capable of...I guess its because it is my prerogative to.....and since you also seem to want to demand to know if any soldiers I served with had ever committed such acts,I would respond no....but only because circumstances diverted such a thing from happening....as far as dodging...I didn't know I was held to any obligations by you....but in most cases,in my experiences,most people that join the military in any capacity other than active duty in either the army,navy,air force,or marines seem to want to say they have the same sense of duty and pride as any person serving full time,yet aren't willing to obligate themselves fully...its easier to say anything you want,which is your right,while others take the risks to allow you such a privilege,than to step up to the plate and take the responsibility upon yourself....you are obviously living in this fantasy world in believing that all of these individuals in the military are somehow the most upstanding,moral,and courageous people in the world....get a grip buddy....many of these people had no other choice,needed the money or a place to live,were told by judges to join or serve time,etc....while this is not the majority,I personally have know liars,thieves,thugs,and outright criminals in some of those units....you have this parochial view that todays military is some kind of spartan-like machine.....I am sure that probably comes from all of that experience you garnered in the National Guard..as far as the article...I don't know where you get your info,but if you do a google news search or just go to the Washington Post,you will find that every article states that he has not recanted and soldiers who served with him have corraborated some of his statements...you obviously believe everything the military is putting out to the press...thats scary
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
Seaman- you are such a kiss ass. This article was posted 4 days ago but you onle decided to make a post today based on a disagreement between myself and obiyodan. What's the matter can't you comment on the original story. And what the hell does your comment about the TV mean? Please explain!!!