Captain's Quarters -

This really hurts the New Republic. They should keep a copy of Shattered Glass playing 0n the cafeteria monitors at all times.

This is the cardinal sin of journalism, and they're going to have to eat sh*t again.

But this is a good example of one of the goods that has come out of the blogosphere -- keeping media responsible. Unfortunately, this sort of thing goes way overboard and is more about attacking than making sure the record is correct.

I have to say, with right wing blogs ready to pounce on any sort of journalism malpractice in Iraq (and other areas), there are few instances of this kind of thing. And when it does happen, it's a big deal.

Captain, I must respectfully disagree. "Gossip and innuendo" is a favorite weapon of those who work for American defeat. It is the trivial nature of it that makes it so easy to use. If some of the innuendo is proven false, it can be dismissed as trivial. The theory is that the majority of lies will stick and become part of the "common wisdom". Don't do their work for them, please.

The whole theme of Beauchamp’s story was that his traumatic service in the Iraq war had stripped him of his sense of compassion. He claimed that he and an Army buddy were so emotionally degraded that they cruelly ridiculed a woman with a bomb-disfigured face. In the story, Beauchamp said in the very first line, “I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.”

It turns out that Beauchamp's story was a lie from the very first line. He and TNR now admit that the woman wasn't even in Iraq. And, worse yet, it now seems likely that the woman never existed at all.

What you call blog overkill can be explained with one simple question: Why is it that the mainstream press almost never gets an Iraq war story wrong in a way that makes a soldier look more noble or courageous?

And in the singularly rare instance when The Washington Post did do that -- with Jessica Lynch -- why did Congress conduct a federal investigation into it?

why did Congress conduct a federal investigation into it?

Well, similarly to the Pat Tilman case, it involved inappropriate actions by our military and government.

I disagree that this was overkill on the part of the blogosphere. As Dean Barnett has emphasized all along, the whole point of the Baghdad Diarist entries was to smear the soldiers serving in Iraq. It would have been irresponsible even if the stories were true, because they were not balanced by any context or any stories of the bravery or positive accomplishments of the troops. And The New Republic is still a semi-reputable mainstream publication, and especially after the Glass fiasco, needs to be called on this.

This wasn't "slanted" coverage, it was outright fiction.

Beauchamp had already planned and begun his imaginings of the dehumanization of war while stationed in Germany - oh! the horror! - and blogged about it.

That said, this doesn't really hurt TNR at all. After Glass and Little Evie Fairbanks, no one who continued to read the magazine cared about the truth anyway.

Well stated Captain...

What is very concerning, if this is yet another Liberal Democrat who lied, slandering his own Country, and our bravest in harms way...

The big thing remains, LIberal Democrat Partisans are all too quick to be deceitful.

The lies are daily, engineered for personal political gain and partisan greed.

And the political Leaders of the Democrat Party seem eager to promote the same deceit.

Hillary Clinton actually claimed the economy is poor...

It all really smells, and must be more vigorously confronted.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., have all pushed the deceit.

The only way we can give them a dose of reality, attempt to get them to be legit, is to defeat them at the polls in 2008.

I'm with George on this one.

See (former KGB Lt. Gen.) Ion Mihai Pacepa's article in WSJ on propaganda. Beauchamp's lies could have been a part of the modern propaganda war against the US, exposing his lies is a victory for our side.

And if TNR goes under because of their deserved credibility loss, I'll count that as a plus, also. Propaganda matters, we lost in Vietnam because of it.

The Soviet Union started a propaganda campaign against the US back in Truman's day, the Left here and abroad are still carrying it out, even if they haven't received any orders for decades, it's now a part of their culture.

It has to do with something old-fashioned, called Honor.

Something that's increasingly rare in civilian life, but that the American military desperately needs for maintaining loyalty and discipline in the ranks. That’s why Scott Beauchamp's crime was even worse than Jayson Blair's. It was a false attack on the honor of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers, that also gave some aid and comfort to America's enemies (foreign and domestic.)

Perhaps TNR should go to a fiction format.

For a story "which never amounted to much more than gossip and innuendo" it was covered in the New York Times and Washington Post. I don't think you could possibly be more wrong on the implications and magnitude of this story. What Beauchamp wrote about was far worse that the goings on at Abu Gharib (killing dogs for fun, desecrating graves).

Sorry, Ed, but I disagree with the diminution of this episode and subsequent expose. As it stands America can only lose a war by losing hearts and minds. That dynamic of battlefield supremacy may change as history gallops forward, but the reality of public perceptions of war and how those perceptions are forever being massaged through propaganda will persist no matter what. It is that propaganda war that must be addressed each time, every time to get at the truth of acute conditions.

This war, perhaps more than most, remains an ideological one. Yes, we all know that war is hell, some much better than others, but it's vital that in the recollections of that recalled hell that the stories be true. We must formulate our opinions, our positions, and our decisions on the truth in as unvarnished a state as is possible. Substituting "truthiness" like the narrative that TNR and its staff tried to advance is an unacceptable option. A known fiction cannot be advertised as truth since the consequences are dire, nevermind that the actors were performing a charade not only due to ideological bent but also because of a desire for profit... perhaps even blood money.

Sometimes an inconsequential episode becomes a consequential one that gets picked up by other agenda-driven outlets and history ends up taking a sharp left or right turn. And such a turn would be caused by a misplaced sign in the road that should not have been. Perhaps that turn of the road becomes a mere detour. Worse, it becomes a dead end. Not to be partisan but an example that pops into my head at the moment is John F. Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony that recalled our soldiers' inner Genghis Kahn. The political milieu of anti-war sentiment was real whatever the military realities on the ground, and his words along with Cronkite's "Vietnam is lost" reportage may have been the straws that broke the camel's back on our policy in Indochina. History would suggest that maybe we reacted too hastily to their signposts.

Therefore, it's imperative that another generation of war survivors and veterans not be swayed by a false narrative no matter how "credible" or insubstantial the source. Winning hearts and minds are vital here and abroad, and dishonest anecdotes such as this peddled by TNR/Beauchamp poison both... a dangerous reality from, if not due to, their fiction. They deserve every ounce of critique and scorn than can be mustered. I don't consider the level of blowback against that discredited publication at all hyperbolic. It is well deserved.

And in the singularly rare instance when The Washington Post did do that -- with Jessica Lynch -- why did Congress conduct a federal investigation into it?

And then they never called Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post to explain here they got their exclusive "bogus" story about Lynch. Instead they left in place the "urban legend" that the pentagon and White House PR-ed the bogus story.

With all respect, Captain, I disagree too.

No matter whether TNR is a grand leader of thought and opinion, or a freebie giveaway with ads all over it, it deliberately set out on a campaign to warp public opinion into considering our military a gang of beasts - as John Kerry did in his mendacious speech in front of the Senate all those years ago.

Failure to haul TNR onto the carpet, and to examine and publicise and slap down its slanders, would fit very nicely into the general failure of the Administration to counter the vicious lies directed at it by the MSM. But acquiescence to such a malicious campaign by non-response - even if you consider the liar of small moment - is not far from living a death wish. Some of us are still alive and intend to remain so, and will take pride in taking a poke or two at the 'intellectual' hatchet-men at TNR.

And it's beyond belief that TNR wasn't just throwing 'Scott Thomas' into the breach in hopes of turning the tide of opinion arising from the success of the 'surge'. Such little light that has been shed on its editorial behavior show beyond doubt that fact-checking wasn't part of the deal right from the beginning. For TNR, the means justified the hoped-for ends.

I have to join the ranks of those who respectfully disagree with your assessment of the scope of the response. While it is true than in the grand scheme of things Beauchamp and TNR really matter very little, if there is not a high price for them to pay for this, someone else will try it again and again.

The message behind the "blog swarm" is not limited to TNR but telling all of the media that they better have their facts straight because they are being checked. It is sending yet another needed reminder to the MSM that they are no longer the last word.

Re: DaveB at August 7, 2007 10:52 AM

Exactly. The lying scumbag Beauchamp was "reporting" on the moral character of his comrades. Supposedly, it was the "inside scoop"--"what the embeds don't see."

A sample:

BAGHDAD DIARIST
Shock Troops
by Scott Thomas
Post date 07.13.07
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307

excerpt:

I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America--providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

I didn't see the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.
"So, you killed a few dogs today," I said skeptically.
"Hell yeah, I did. It's like hunting in Iraq!" he said, shaking with laughter.
"Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" I asked him.
"No," he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.

I could not disagree more with you on this, Captain. Tom Shipley's hapless claims to the contrary, journalistic fraud is widespread - and does not get nearly the attention it deserves.

A partial listing of recent MSM fraud concerning only the military and the War on Terror is illuminating: The fake Bush Air National Guard memos, the fake Koran-flushing story, the fake Gitmo=gulag stories, the fake Reuters photographs (a.k.a. "fauxtography), the fake "no WMDs in Iraq" meme, the fake "no Saddam-al Qaeda connections" meme, the fake "no al Qaeda in Iraq" stories, the fake "no Iranian involvement in Iraq" stories, the fake stories attributed to "Jamil Hussein", the fake "domestic spying scandal", and now the fake Beauchamp diaries. And we have not even gotten to the MSM stories where they cherry-picked the evidence to produced the desired result.

What is really interesting - not to mention scary - is that all of the above proven MSM deceits have their enthusiastic, die-hard defenders. Some will no doubt surface on this blog to claim that – despite all evidence to the contrary – these stories are accurate because a Greater Truth is being served. Joseph Goebbels is alive and well in the MSM.

The First Amendment – which most MSM journalists view as their private property and not to exercised by the unwashed masses – does not have a “truth clause” requiring its adherents to always strive for accuracy and honesty. For that reason, in a Constitutional democracy there is nothing that we can “do” about MSM deceit. But citizens who value their freedoms would do well to push the MSM as far as possible to the fringes of society. The MSM can write what it wants, but we do not have to help them create the illusion they are telling the truth.

Thus, the Beauchamp fraud – along with any other MSM fakery – needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops. Keep up the pressure.

Well Ed... certainly the story doesn't have the significance or ramifications of... say... structural fatigue in bridges, but it's a helluva lot more interesting, and a lot more of us have relevant experience that applies to the Beauchamp story. I don't think there's anything exactly wrong with you having little interest in the story, but I don't think there's anything exactly wrong with the rest of us feeling otherwise.

Deathly silence over at Democrat Underground on this story. I wonder why?

I'm sure Jason Leopold will offer Beauchamp a job over at truthout.org, probably within the next 48 "business hours".

And I have no doubt that Larry King will have Beauchimp on for an hour-long sob-fest about how his military colleagues "Swiftboated" him, and how his military superiors waterboarded him to get him to recant the story...

RBMN,

Thanks for the excerpt (wish I hadn't been eating when I read it...). I think it really throws light on just how serious "Beauchamp" and TNR's lies were. This was nothing less than fifth column propaganda. Whether it was "effective" is beside the point. After all, Benedict Arnold and Major Andre didn't succeed in their plot, yet Andre was hanged and Arnold would have been had we been able to get our hands on him.

And, yes, I'm implying that Thomas and the other quislings at TNR should be hanged for collaborating with the enemy in a time of war.

However, we need to keep some perspective on this story, which never amounted to much more than gossip and innuendo at any point.

Trouble is, that gossip and innuendo adds to the overall attack on the legitimacy of the fight in Iraq that the anti-war Left has been waging since, oh, 2003 or before. Like Lenin's "big lie," if left unrefuted, it eventually becomes an accepted part of the narrative, whether true or not. I don't think there was much overreaction at all.

As for TNR, I used to respect that magazine quite a bit, but this incident has just killed it for me.

Deathly silence over at Democrat Underground on this story. I wonder why?

I'm sure Jason Leopold will offer Beauchamp a job over at truthout.org, probably within the next 48 "business hours".

And I have no doubt that Larry King will have Beauchamp on for an hour-long sob-fest about how his military colleagues "Swiftboated" him, and how his military superiors waterboarded him to get him to recant the story...

" Nice guys finish LAST "

If this blog-based effort at anti 'agit-prop' succeeds in driving TNR into the ground for good ---- Excellent !! .

One down and many to go.

It is unreasonable to expect that the 'media' can be 'reformed'. Therefore it must be cut down to a mere shadow of its former glory (and influence). You don't do that by trying to kill off the nobles all at once. You do that by waiting for the weaker members of the group to stumble and then doing EVERYTHING possible to ensure that they can never rise again.

With respect this is so NOT overkill. It is merely a necessary but not obviously sufficient blow against a perfidious, self-selecting and and self-aware information(propaganda?) machine. Today TNR ---- tomorrow ---?

I disagree, Captain. TNR slandered the troops and no amount of critcism is enough. They slander the troops. The bring more shame down on the press.

As far Moran saying this doesn't mean we won the war in Iraq... who said it did? And for you to say that this doesn't mean soldiers don't do bad things... that smacks of "fake but accurate". Are you all friends in this business? Why are you trying to fend off harsh criticism of TNR?

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a silly, immature boy who got himself way in over his head and, unfortunately, there were no adults around to rescue him from himself. It's the latter that makes the story important, that several supposedly responsible adults found no reason to question the validity of the Private's articles before publishing them.

I can allow some for Beauchamp's moronic behavior here because I think when you're his age, you're never as smart as you think you are and other people aren't as dumb as you think they are and you often end up learning both lessons the hard way. I'm not quite as forgiving of the editors at TNR. They are supposed to be the grown-ups in the room, at least if they expect us to take them seriously.

Cap'n - No sooner did I post a comment gently poking fun at your preoccupation this last week with the Twin Cities bridge collapse .... calling you to task for your newfound interest in the emerging science of pidgeon poo-ology and the starting implications for the exciting debate topic of steel bridge inspection doctrine ... than you go and gore the ox of your base readership's sudden victory in an important propaganda war.

I'm starting to wonder if your evil twin has suddenly emerged to take over your blogging identity.

I'm with nearly everybody else commenting here, Ed - you're wrong about the importance of the TNR/Scotty Beauchamp knockdown. This is big doin's. As several posters above have noted, this is all part of a concerted campaign by the lefties to change the subject in the war debate. They thought they had a winner when the AQ suiciders and sectarian militias ruled the streets of Bagdad, Baqubah, Ramadi, et al ... but when that story went in the toilet, and our GIs were obviously kicking ass on the bad guys, their next logical move, their next trick pulled from the bag, was to go after our GIs .. to defame them, and to make them unworthy of respect.

You mention The Nation and its recent piece involving 50 anti-war vets? That may get smacked down too ... but it's a lot easier to smack down a single author than 50 ... after all, it took us nearly a month just to smoke out the one weasel .... there isn't enough time to focus the same laser beam on all 50 of The Nation's naysayers.

So we'll pocket this one victory, savor it, use it to discredit the Defeatocrats, and do what we can to win this war on the home front, as our GIs are doing on the battlefields of the Middle East.

TNR took Beauchamps words and gave them instant credibility by publishing them without any real fact-checking.

Will they take back their words? Will they issue an apology to all the troops who were slandered by Beauchamp?

Of course not! They will keep up their denials that the story was false, and promote the 'fake but accurate' tome. Eventually they will reference Beauchamp's story over and over as long as they run antiwar articles. Oh, they may not directly identify them as Beauchamp's words, but they will be given a sort of 'moral authority' because they fit the Left's view of those in our armed forces.

I, too, disagree. The Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson episode is an excellent example of a non-story that was glommed onto by the media and by the Democratic Party, with the ultimate result that a rogue special prosector managed to jail an arguably innocent man.

Given this track record by the moonbat left of ginning up a story, and then riding it despite all evidence to the contrary to the point where it distracts those involved and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars in unwanted litigation, I think a mass pile-on at the onset of another happy leftist fable is warranted, justified, and indeed logical.

If the left want their stories to be taken seriously, then they REALLY need to quit lying, making shit up, photoshopping pictures, and all the other fraternity-like juvenile pranks that have passed for "strategy" the last decade or so.

I wonder if Mr. Beauchamps is related to Cindy Sheehan anywhere along his family tree.

Add me to the list which disagrees with you Capt.

BUT FOR a 'blogswarm," total and complete crap goes unchecked. "This blogswarm was born of frustration over what the Right sees as slanted coverage of the Iraq effort." Wrong. Its conception and birth was the result of the essential and basic phoney fishiness of the accusations, plain as the nose on ANYBODY's face who does not already have a pre-conceived negative notion of the military. I guess the whole cockamamie thing must have sounded nice and "truthy" to the leftist a-holes who accepted it; but to anyone who isn't a military hating left-tard, his claims didn't pass the smell test from the get-go. This blogswarm was born of the desire to actually have the FACTS accurately and fairly conveyed. See, unlike our brainwashed brethern on the far left, people like me want the TRUTH - and IF the guy is telling the truth, courtmartial his ass, and all those who participated. But if he is instead a heinous LIAR, we need that confirmed, so that he can be exposed, and the publication which in its "zeal" seemed to have forgotten all about "FACT CHECKING" is shamed. Hopefully shamed loudly and with enough "overkill" so that they try a little of something called integrity, next time.

"Rick Moran warns the Right that this doesn't mean the war is won in Iraq. " And Rick Moran is, apparently, a complete idiot. It would be nice of him to provide a SINGLE LINK to ANYONE from "the right" who claimed that exposing that lying jackass for the piece of excrement he is, is connected in any way, shape, or form, to our progress in the war.

Don't discount the blogswarms, Captain. If it wasn't for the blogswarms, and their "overkill"(your word) this jerk's fictional stories would have become part of the Left's daily talking points lexicon, both from politicians and the posters on blogs . We'd have to put up with liberals starting their sentences with stuff like "If we weren't sending troops over to run over citizens dogs for fun, maybe we would be able to....." For that reason alone, the blogswarm was worth it.

Another day, another media hoax designed to erode the war effort. This TNR/Beauchamp hoax joins the Boston Globe rape hoax, the Daily Mirror torture hoax, the Joseph Wilson hoax (yes Iraq did try to buy yellowcake in Africa), etc etc.

And like these other media outlets I expect TNR will pay no price whatsoever.

And since these media outlets can get away with it they will continue to produce such stories.

It does make one wonder how many hoaxes the blogosphere hasn't caught though doesn't it?

Jim, you stated it way better thatn i could. Thanks. It surprises me when I hear people say that we shouldn't get so worked up over a news magazine lying about our troops while they are over there fighting for us. There can be no amount of "overkill" with regards to this story.

According to Little Green Footballs, Beauchamp's story has all of a sudden disappeared from TNR's website. No explanation given to their readers.

Captain, I have to strongly disagree. In the cosmic scheme of things, Beachamp's situation was insignificant. He's a garden variety sh!tbird. Every unit has one. The difference is that the New Republic siezed upon the crap he was peddling because it fit their agenda, and the left in general backed them up all the way for the same reasons.

For those interested in the Truth(TM), this kind of nonsense has to be opposed in all cases. This was not an insignificant event. The inherent dishonesty and bad faith is symptomatic of the anti-war left in general, and it needs to be exposed as such.

Hate to join the dogpile, but the Captain has this one exactly wrong.

If we are committed to the well-being of our troops in Iraq and, more importantly, the truth, we are obligated, in strong and forceful acts and language, to confront any distortion or slander perpetrated against them. Yes, the slimy little bastards of the MSM need to be "hounded and pounded" every time they willfully and recklessly impugn the character of those who serve with, by and large, tremendous honor, discipline and distinction.

While the truthful reporting of troop misbehavior makes me both uncomfortable and ashamed (USN MCPO w/ 30 yrs service), I don't go to General Quarters in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Soldiers who behave in a criminal manner deserve the consequences of their actions. The Beauchamp Fraud, however, was different. Too many of the details rang false. Specifically, the mess hall incident was entirely implausible in that no NCO worthy of the title would have tolerated such an insult. If such an incident had, in fact, occurred, I suspect that Scott would told TNR readers of his severe facial bruising and very sore buttocks. Twerps such as he almost always get "thumped," even in today's PC military.

Shame on TNR and shame on those who hesitate to forcefully confront the serial liars and propagandists masquerading as serious journalists. Enough with the Marquis of Queensbury rules!

I care that these leftists pound the drum day after day that republicans are "liars."

I always suspect this might be a case of psychological projection. My suspicions seem to be confirmed: leftists are hypervigilant to liars because they seem able to appreciate all to easily of the benefit of lying.

Now it's time to turn to the leftist spew that conservatives are the nazis. Its said with the same emotional intensity. Is this projection too? I don't know, but given what we find when we scratch the surface of leftist opinions, especially their puzzling disdain for Jews, it's enough to make me suspect that we need to keep a close eye on the mob that has defiled the once-great democrat party.

Hate to join the dogpile, but the Captain, uncharacteristically, has this one exactly wrong.

If we are committed to the well-being of our troops in Iraq and, more importantly, the truth, we are obligated, in strong and forceful acts and language, to confront any distortion or slander perpetrated against them. Yes, the slimy little bastards of the MSM need to be "hounded and pounded" every time they willfully and recklessly impugn the character of those who serve with, by and large, tremendous honor, discipline and distinction.

While the truthful reporting of troop misbehavior makes me both uncomfortable and ashamed (USN MCPO w/ 30 yrs service), I don't go to General Quarters in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Soldiers who behave in a criminal manner deserve the consequences of their actions. The Beauchamp Fraud, however, was different. Too many of the details rang false. Specifically, the mess hall incident was entirely implausible in that no NCO worthy of the title would have tolerated such an insult. If such an incident had, in fact, occurred, I suspect that Scott would have told TNR readers of the neanderthal SFC or CSM who left him with severe facial bruising and very sore buttocks. Twerps such as he almost always get "thumped," even in today's PC military.

Shame on TNR which willfully perpetrated this fraud and shame on those in the blogosphere who hesitate to forcefully confront the serial liars and propagandists masquerading as serious journalists. Enough with the Marquis of Queensbury rules!

George, you ask (in bold-face, presumably because you regard it as the 64-million-dollar-question): Why is it that the mainstream press almost never gets an Iraq war story wrong in a way that makes a soldier look more noble or courageous?

Well, not to be pedantic here, but how do you know they don't? Presumably, given the dismally low standards of journalistic practice that seem to be rampant everywhere, this has happened too. It's not controversial when it does, so we don't hear about it. Incompetence and laziness are, i suspect, equal opportunity offenders.

And a broader question; why has the right blogosphere ignored the Nation's piece? it's far more damaging.

Well Captain, the next time someone says you preach to the choir, you may want to show them this thread! I think the choir just stood up and threw their hymnals at you!

ps. I think a few of them may have used 2X4's too.

Hey, I still love this choir, even when they're throwing 2x4s. I'd prefer the hymnals, of course ...

I agree with the pro-whistleblower posters. The liberal media fabrications need exposure, early and often, irrespective of audience size or initial influence (e.g., Who outside the Twin Cities reads Nick Coleman?)Think "broken window" treatment for the left's memeography.

20 years ago, the MSM would have trumpted TNR's story as another Abu Griab. If the truth were eventually discovered by a military investigation, it would have been months later and it would never have been reported by the MSM. The lie would have become fact.

After Rathergate and Kerry's Cambodia Christmas were exposed, the old media became gunshy of racing to report stories like Beauchamps. By exposing all false stories, the blogs frighten the MSM and keeps then (relatively) honest.

That alone, makes exposing every falsehood a worthwhile effort.

20 years ago, the MSM would have trumpted TNR's story as another Abu Griab. If the truth were eventually discovered by a military investigation, it would have been months later and it would never have been reported by the MSM. The lie would have become fact.

After Rathergate and Kerry's Cambodia Christmas were exposed, the old media became gunshy of racing to report stories like Beauchamps. By exposing all false stories, the blogs frighten the MSM and keeps then (relatively) honest.

That alone, makes exposing every falsehood a worthwhile effort.

The National Review or Rush in cooperation with Brent Bozell's Media Research Center should annually present a "Jayson Blair / Walter Duranty Trophy" for Liberal media overt falsification.

The statue on the trophy could derive from Jeff MacNelly's cartoon portrait of Slick with one foot in the toilet with the seat around his neck.

"which never amounted to much more than gossip and innuendo at any point."

Really? That's strange, because i got the impression these stories were being stated as facts. Nice little touch linking to The Nation story, you're clearly another "reasonable" conservative who understands that Democrats are busy people and they need subservient, excuse me, reasonable conservatives to do their work for them occasionaly. Thanks for doing your part.

I am not sure you guys understand the importance of this case. The New Media has drugged the TNR through the mud for lying. This was an excellent show of strenght, and it will most likely scare the hell out of other media outlets. You catch one criminal, and 10 will think twice before doing anything wrong. The NYT, the W. comPOST and the rest now realize that thousands of citizen journalists are waiting for them to slip. I have a feeling those luberals will be much more careful with facts next time.

So in this thread we learn that "killing dogs for fun and desecrating graves" is "far worse than the goings on at Abu Ghraib." We're also told that a silly kid who conflates fiction with fact should be "hanged for collaborating with the enemy."

The thing is, a few years ago I would have automatically assumed both comments were sarcasm.

Nowadays... who knows? Maybe they're actually intended to be taken at face value.

CE. I don't know ANYONE who has risked life and limb while in uniform...who would agree with you on this one.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

So in this thread we learn that "killing dogs for fun and desecrating graves" is "far worse than the goings on at Abu Ghraib." We're also told that a silly kid who conflates fiction with fact should be "hanged for collaborating with the enemy."

I could not have put it better myself. This war has created far worse self-inflicted PR disasters than anything he came up with. If the soldier lied, the army can deal with him. People need to back off and stop passing judgment (as if they had the right to in the first place). It looks ridiculous.

Tom Shipley wrote, "Well, similarly to the Pat Tilman case, [the Jessica Lynch story] involved inappropriate actions by our military and government.

Tom, no thank you for perpetuating this myth from the Democratic party.

In his House Oversight Committee on April 24 this year, Rep. Henry Waxman’s did all he could to imply dishonestly that the White House or the Pentagon pushed a false story about the March 23, 2003, capture in Iraq of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. It takes no more than an hour of research to find out that the colorful “fighting to the death” account did not come from an official White House or Pentagon announcement. It came from sloppy reporting by The Washington Post.

The “fighting to the death” description came from one unnamed “official” in an April 3, 2003, Washington Post story, by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb, in which “several” other “officials” cautioned that the facts weren’t yet known, and “Pentagon officials” said reports of Lynch’s gun-firing heroics were only “rumors.”

In his hearing, Waxman never did call Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb to testify. Waxman clearly wasn't looking for the truth in the matter. This was the only "inappropriate action by our government" and you can thank Waxman and the Democratic Party for that.

TNR isn't some Johnny-come-lately. It's been in existence since 1914.

I don't know any active duty person who said "hang him". After all, nearly every unit has a couple dip shits. They never get hung. The problem here is that your pals at TNR take what the assclown says...and plasters it across the nation....along the way, smearing all of us who are only trying to do our duty....and serve with honor

The overkill is in focusing on the Army Private who was stupidly running his mouth.

What we are not focusing on enough is the unprofessional left-tard bias of the editor who passed this junk off as news.

Beauchamp will pay the piper, but it is really TNR and their editor who should be be taking the bulk of our outrage.

"TNR does not qualify as mainstream media, and barely qualifies these days as anything more than a blog -- and not a very good one at that."

Bingo.

From the TNR today:

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors

posted 2:32 p.m.

Looks like someone jumped the gun here.

"We're also told that a silly kid who conflates fiction with fact should be "hanged for collaborating with the enemy."

Typical Leftist tactic, whether you are actually one or not. The guy is a noble truth teller; someone to place on a pedestal and who WILL be quoted ad nauseum by the Left, as the "real face" of this war......in other words, someone to take VERY seriously.....uh, that is, until he is exposed as a fraud, a fake, a jerk, and a heinous LIAR. Then, it's "oh what's all the fuss, its just a ....."silly kid." Silly kid my ass.

You know what you can do with your transparent misdirection tactics.

"This war has created far worse self-inflicted PR disasters than anything he came up with. If the soldier lied, the army can deal with him. People need to back off and stop passing judgment (as if they had the right to in the first place). It looks ridiculous."

More irrelevant misdirection and sidestepping. Pathetic. Oh I get it: Since there are already plenty of "self inflicted p.r. disasters" (assisted any, by the MSM - ya think?)- why pay any attention to a lying SOB's fabrications put out by a respectable publication as a FACTUAL recounting of actual events? I mean, let's just mingle the "self inflicted p.r. disasters" with total fiction and who cares what the facts are versus the lies - it all just FEELS so Truthy. Yeah, I really make the connection there, genius. You're brilliant. Really.

Oh, and explain to me why the f--k we should we "back off" and not "judge" the lying little pri-ck for the damage he clearly intended to cause to the image of our military and to his fellow soldiers?

But how do we know the New Republic isn't falsifying Major Lamb's statements too?

How do we know that the New Republic isn't in full CYA mode like so many Peter Arnetts repackaging something far worse as a mere "baby milk factory"?

That's the problem when Liberal activist media integrity is now as dubious as a Clinton promise. If anything, the New Republic should have pressed Beauchamp on his claims no matter how desperately the New Republic editors wished those claims to be true. Otherwise one eventually ends up like the decrepit political shill Dan Rather parroting a "fake but accurate" mantra at DNC fundraisers.

The Net's been wonderful on this story.

For starters, I discovered as soon as people began posting stuff about Buttchump, that TNR let the lie that he was "first class" stay there. But his pay had been demoted to "second class." At some point, because of some infractions of Army rules, Buttchump's pay was downgraded. No. He didn't cover "that" in his "testimony."

In the old days, John Kerry got away with accusing our military of being "baby killers," and worse; Genghis Khan cut throats. The Internet has fixed this media mainstream bias, but good. Now.

As to the rest of the hokum in TNR, what you're not told is that the magazine was sure this was Pulitzer material! So, you'd have heard these phony claims for months, ahead. Now? Let's see if advertisers are willing to buy pages in their Christmas issue. When things hit the fan in business, the place to go is where you'll find the accountants. At TNR? They're probably beginning to pull their hairs out.

Now, where did the "yarmulka skull" story come from? Seems, when Buttchump was in GERMANY, there was some front page news about American soldiers cavorting in an old WW2 cemetary. HE STOLE THE IDEA. But he did not attribute.

As to the "movablestory" of the defaced lady, with half her face gone after an IED attack? FICTION. Written by BRAD THOR. Again, no attribution.

TNR will get stuck with those lies, just like they did with Stephen Glass. Whose only "correct" written observations included "Nevada is in the United States."

For the "smidgen of truth" for Buttchump? Male. And, in uniform. Now somewhere within the Army's "adversary" system. Being punished.

Franklin Foer? Ya know, I just don't care. I look at C-BS, and I know the prices these liberal orgs eventually pay. And, I just don't care.

Halffasthero,

If, by stating: "Looks like someone jumped the gun here," you are implying that Beauchamp has not, in fact, recanted, well, I wouldn't lash myself to that particular mast just yet.
I suspect that the good Major is playing bureaucratic CYA in that Beuchamp's current legal status is protected by the Privacy Act and/or, any UCMJ Article 15 proceedings associated with Beauchamp's recanting of the TNR pieces have yet to be finalized.
I will also speculate that Scott B. is currently negotiating the terms of his Administrative Separation in an attempt to avoid an OTH discharge. This can be a drawn-out process, especially given the media attention involved.

I also disagree with your position, Ed. Others have given the reasons above. I'm a little baffled where both you and Moran are coming from. I don't think either one of you gets it and maybe both of you have become a little mainstream of late. You were off the reservation with immigration at the beginning as well.

I have to diagree. How long must we stand-by while the left tries to turn us into a bunch of baby-killers like they did with the vietnam vets.

I am sick of the media trying to "blue falcon" us every chance they get. It's bad enough when the broadcast our diry laundry when we are trying to deal with it "in house", but it's totally unfathomable when it is totally fabricated agenda-driven B.S.

We have to draw the line in the sand... the journalists MUST be held accountable for their failure to even modestly fact-check their articles. I don't care if it is TNR "embeds", CNN executives, Reuters photographers, or AP stringers. All have been doing their part to a. invoke sympathy for our enemies or b. make the US look bad...

If Beauchamp is indeed negotiating an Other Than Honorable discharge then perhaps John Kerry could be kind enough to advise on how he did so?

:Halffasthero said:

"Looks like someone jumped the gun here. "

First of all, notice that TNR claims they have other people to verify Beauchamp's "story", yet don't name them. Why not?

Second, nowhere in their statement does the military spokesman DENY that Beauchamp recanted.

And guess what? TNR themselves in their response do NOT deny that Beauchamp had recanted the story. The Clintons taught them to parse very well.

Here's a great comment I saw on Hot Air:

"What that statement is saying is “we dont care if Scott Thomas has recanted. We have secret sources that verify what he said is true. but we wont tell you who they are”

Oh yea... forgot to mention this....

written to me by a platoon member of STB the day after this story broke: (direct cut/paste, spelling errors his)

"His exact quote to me several months ago when i asked him about some of the things he wrote was. " just because it didn't neccarly happen to us doesn't mean it isn't true"."
I assuming, since I have gotten no replies since, that he has been ordered NOT to speak to anyone about his.

As for Carol Herman's question:

"But his pay had been demoted to "second class." At some point, because of some infractions of Army rules"

that soldier also answered that question too:

as for private beauchamp him self. he just received is 2 article 15 for going awol for three weeks up at BIAP after he returned from R&R. not a model soldier...

So this chump not only goes AWOL... but he goes awol in BIAP (Main FOB in Baghdad other than the IZ). What a tool...

Even now "Haditha" is a byword for massacre among the left. You guys have to challenge them on this stuff quickly and almost as often as they bring it up. Read up on it, and then remind them how little they know about their own talking points.

I'm not sure it matters that "TNR doesn't have the influence it once had" when Beauchamp's original accusations are plastered on drudgereport.com.

People won't remember where the lies came from but they will remember the grimy little made up details.

No disrespect intended to the grieving in Minn. but I laughed at this:

Immolate wrote: Well Ed... certainly the story doesn't have the significance or ramifications of... say... structural fatigue in bridges, ....

"I suspect that the good Major is playing bureaucratic CYA in that Beuchamp's current legal status is protected by the Privacy Act and/or, any UCMJ Article 15 proceedings associated with Beauchamp's recanting of the TNR pieces have yet to be finalized."

This is specualtion (as you yourself state) and, ultimately, you are also making my earlier point for me. Let the army handle this if he lied - it is not our right to pass judgment on this which many here are ready to do with rope in tow. I stand by that.

Rope in hand....lol.

Assclowns protecting and defending assclowns.....lol.

I hope the push back is only beginning. TNR smeared an unappreciated military fighting a difficult war. When their correspondent's facts were challenged they vouched for his credibility.

How many stories have they run detailing the sacrifice, bravery and heroism of these same forces?

RE: Halffasthero (August 7, 2007 3:54 PM)
...it is not our right to pass judgment on this which many here are ready to do with rope in tow. I stand by that.

Not only is it our right to pass judgment, it is our obligation. The entire premise of Beauchamp's "diaries" was to paint a picture, supposedly first-hand documentation, of the impact of war and its ability to convert humane beings into monsters that wouldn't really recognize themselves... driven as they were into amoralistic actors at the behest of a military script. Now we discover that he was an aspiring writer who knew someone in the liberati and endeavored to use the contact just as much as TNR was willing to reciprocate the favor so that he could earn some military bona fides that would validate anything he wrote post-experience. He could latch on to and capitalize upon the absolute moral authority he earned as soldier to pitch his already cemented viewpoint... that just happened to be quite liberal and antagonistic towards the military. If you know the history of Beauchamp's (life) story, making these judgements is not premature.

His anecdotal experience with regard to the Iraqi/Kuwaiti chow hall soldier (with "melted" face) which was full of lies and hedges proves that he had already recorded "his experiences" in his mind but needed only a validatable venue in theater and stationery to put them to paper. He was on a mission, a non- or anti- military one, and there was nothing honorable about it. TNR committed many sins, one of which was likely encouraging this slanderous piece to continue by exploiting one who seemed to invite it. It's hard to know who was leading who in their little dance, but partners they were.

It's good to see so many recognize the tune being played and to call for an instant halt to the music. No more Liberal orchestrations will tarnish this generation of soldiers. That is our duty and one we need loudly trumpet.

Here's a July 27 story from Real Clear Politics, with some of Beauchamp's background:

"That he is Pvt. Beauchamp suggests this is not his first brush with the UCMJ. He called himself PFC Beauchamp on his Web site last September, which indicates he's been busted a stripe. He's been in the Army long enough to be a Spec 4.

On his blog (Sir Real Scott Thomas), Pvt. Beauchamp indicates he's an aspiring writer who joined the Army to establish credentials for voicing his liberal political opinions.

"I know that NOT participating in a war (and such a misguided one at that) should be considered better than wanting to be in one just to write a book," he wrote May 18, 2006. "But...maybe I'd rather be both."

But is Pvt. Beauchamp telling the truth about what he sees in Iraq?

In a blog entry for May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp describes an atrocity: "'Put a 556 in his head.' (The caliber of an M-16 rifle is 5.56 millimeters.) On the street below, the man's brown face dissolves in a thick red mist. The lights in the city's houses shut off in unison. Electricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in 120 degree weather?"

On May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp was in Germany, where temperatures rarely reach 120 degrees, and the electricity and water work just fine."

Halffasthero,

I think this is about a lot more than if and how the Army deals with Scott B. Don't fool yourself, but Beauchamp is definitely going to get his.

This is also and largely about a purportedly neutral chronicler of the facts abusing it's position of trust to advocate an ideological and factually deficient position on this war and it's participants while pretending otherwise. It is also about a once-respected publication knowingly embracing a turd, being told that they are now sporting a large brown stain and then complaining that the brown won't come out. The attempt by the TNR and it's supporters/apologists to obscure these points is fairly infuriating.

Unfortunately, the Army can't Article 15 Franklin Foer, but an informed, outraged and organized public can effectively advocate that he receive a form of punishment appropriate to the circumstances. While I don't know anything about ropes and the hanging to which you allude, I do believe that Foer is a Class A weasel who very richly deserves both the censure and the pink slip that are surely headed his way.

Despite the on the information available thus far, I think that people are fully entitled to their judgements on this issue.

I must disagree also Captain. These lies have very real consequences for members of Beauchamp’s unit and for veterans of Iraq in general.

The anti-war left painted Vietnam Veterans as drug-addled, baby killers. Try finding a job with that on your presumed resume.

These lies must be challenged for the good of all of those young men and women who are serving honorably and will hopefully have long lives after this war is history.

Thanks for the link, Captain, but I also disagree (scroll down; and, yes, I've noted your reconsideration).

Captain, if you're still readings these, I think your squirrel and bazooka analogy is apt. I do think every time the blogosphere exposes a falsehood it is a good thing, so kudos to the ones that got this right. I think the critique of single sourcing has taken a well deserved beating the past couple of years, and thanks to bloggers. but so many blogs chase innuendo, planted garbage, an isolated commenter, or blow up some pathetic nobody into a huge conspiracy, which may be red meat to the faithful but ultimately is shoddy and juvenile, and erodes credibility in a serious way (proving true critics who say blogs elevate second-order sideshows in to first order conspiracies). You don't go down that path, and your credibility is better for it, even though you may have underestimated the roar on this one.

Captain Ed:

True, TNR is not big MSM, but don't you think that the stories would have bounced back and forth and gained more publicity amongst the larger MSM, if not challenged?

"But is Pvt. Beauchamp telling the truth about what he sees in Iraq?"

Obviously he's not telling the truth and the blogs need to keep exposing this man for what he is, a liar and a fraud. Since the MSM doesn't want to address this, the blogs are the only place to expose him. Keep up the good work, guys.

BTW, the claim that he shot a man in the head "in the street below" and could see his face is suspect enough. (never mind the fact that he was apparently in two different countries at the same time.) I find it hard to believe that someone could be LOOKING DOWN on someone and actually see their full face in a combat situation.

Beauchamp's account of the shot itself is pure Hollywood. I doubt the this guy has ever fired a round in combat and is relying on books and movies for his stories as he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

Everyone in the military is taught to aim center mass. That usually means a bullet square in the chest as this is the largest target area and therefore is the easiest to hit. Aim center mass! This is drilled into you over and over again until it becomes automatic. The only time you would shoot someone in the head is when that is the only target presented. If he could see the man's face in the street below as he describes, it is obvious that he had a full profile available and would have aimed center mass and shot into the man's chest just as he was taught.

Even if you shot someone in the head, a 5.56 mm round doesn't have enough mass to do much more than make a small entry hole. Remember, a 5.56mm round is about the same size as a .223 caliber Remington. This is not a large, heavy round like a 50 cal (the ol' Ma Duce). The round will break apart and tumble around inside the skull, this is called spall, but that round wouldn't even exit the head, let alone cause kind of injury he claims occurred ("the man's brown face dissolves in a thick red mist"). He's describing something straight out of a Rambo movie.

Sorry for the gory details, but Beauchamp has been watching too much TV and people need to understand just what kinds of fiction he's trying to portray as reality.

The Weekly Standard fired back late this afternoon on TNR's "non-rebuttal"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants_update.asp

1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "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."

(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?

(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?

Never meant to suggest the bridge collapse wasn't worthy of our attention. You'll forgive me though if I only skim the more technical posts concerning bridge inspection?

I realize in a few months most people will have forgotten Beauchamp's name but I guarantee my leftist friends will remember the little eccentricities he made up ... soldiers wearing pieces of a child's skull, for example. The same people tend to forget that a story was retracted. I can't show any proof but I believe this constant anti-military drumbeat here makes our soldiers less safe.

And I subscribe to the broken window theory regarding journalism. If you let the little beauchamps slink by then you'll eventually end up with more jayson blairs and dan rathers.

"Rope in hand....lol.

Assclowns protecting and defending assclowns.....lol
.
Posted by: swabjockey05 at August 7, 2007 4:06 PM
"

I don't agree with most of the people here regarding this affair, but they certainly countered me respectfully.

Your comment speaks for itself.

Both stories should be covered in great depth. CQ has done a tremendous job of providing the back story of the funding etc., for I35. Keep talking about it.

The TNR debate, as has been stated repeatedly, is a necessary evil in the blogosphere. I am not sure where I saw it today, but someone said that Beauchamp is the first person on record with pre-post traumatic stress syndrome. If TNR had any credibility, they would have put this to rest immediately, but instead, they are blaming the right because they were caught in what appears to be a lie. I get that the left doesn't support the war, but can anyone point me to a left-wing source story that doesn't involve our troops badly?

.“…but they certainly countered me respectfully.”

…and exactly how was the assclown respectful to the rest of the Active duty force…?

…and somehow…for some reason… someone should be respectful to you because you defend the assclown?

I stand by my previous statement.

Ray -- The 5.56 IS the .223 Remington, just like the 7.62 NATO is the .308 Winchester.

From AR 381-12: Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army (SAEDA), 15 January 1993

Subversion:

...

(1) (l) making or conveying false reports or
false statements with the intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the armed
forces of the United States or to promote the
success of its enemies... (1)

Sounds worthy of a rope, don't you think?

What ARE we to do with Scott Thomas Beauchamp? Is it now permissible for members of the Armed Forces to lie through their teeth about their unit, their fellow soldiers, and their activities either for profit, political reasons, or some perverse need for attention? Beauchamp hasn't even got the excuse that his captors brainwashed him or forced him to do it: he slandered the Army and his fellow soldiers and handed a temporary propaganda victory to the enemy of his own free will.

Oh, indeed: I'd hang him for this.

------------

(1) http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar381-12.pdf

Dr J.

These assclowns aren't worth the effort. No matter what you say, they'll always say, with a straight face, "We are simply speaking "truth" to power".

The few "assclown defenders" who actually do have a clue...yet still chant "truth to power"... know that the truth has nothing to do with their chanting.

swabjockey,

I look at it as nipping it in the bud. Lefties seem to think that the military is something like the Scouts with guns. Look at that yellow bastard Watada and his defenders: he wasn't refusing a movement order, disobeying a lawful order, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer, or demonstrating cowardice: he was simply standing up to an "immoral" war. Ward "Forked Tongue" Churchill has suggested that enlisted men frag their officers to stop this "immoral war". I can't remember his name, but some yellow SOB deserted from the 82nd and went to Canada because he didn't want to participate in this "immoral war". The left defended all these actions, which are anathema to good order and discipline.

If the military doesn't crack down hard on this sort of thing, then there will certainly be more of it.

Dr J...sorry...this time I wasn't talking about the military assclown...I was talking about the non-military assclown-protector who whines and stamps his feet when he thinks he hasn't gotten his due "respect"...

The doc would hang this guy. Yup, damn straight. Really, seriously, hang the kid by the neck until dead.

All based on an anonymous unsourced news realsae to Weekly Standard, mind you. (Which by the way is refuted by the actual, named military spokesman.)

And all this manly savagery over some juvenile nonsense for which the kid's superiors have punished him by "confiscating his cellphone and laptop for an unspecified period of time."

This kind of hysterical over-reaction is why the nation no longer takes neocons all that seriously.

news release :-)

Michelle Malkin puts the Beauchamp story in a historical perspective

The tale of Army Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the discredited “Baghdad Diarist” for the discredited New Republic magazine, is an old tale:

Self-aggrandizing soldier recounts war atrocities. Media outlets disseminate soldier’s tales uncritically. Military folks smell a rat and poke holes in tales too good (or rather, bad) to be true. Soldier’s ideological sponsors blame the messengers for exposing anti-war fraud.

Beauchamp belongs in the same ward as John F. Kerry, the original infectious agent of the toxic American disease known as Winter Soldier Syndrome. The ward is filling up.

... Winter Soldier Syndrome will only be cured when the costs of slandering the troops outweigh the benefits. Exposing Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his brethren matters because the truth matters. The honor of the military matters. The credibility of the media matters.

Think it doesn’t make a difference? Imagine where Sen. John Kerry would be now if the Internet had been around in 1971.

Dafydd at Big Lizards points out the "dog that didn't bark" aspect of TNR's "confirmation" of Beauchamp stories.

Too much has been written about the follies and foibles of Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his handlers at the New Republic, especially including editor Franklin Foer. So much verbiage, in fact, that I think we're in danger of missing the forest for the fires.

There are a number of elements of Beauchamp's fabulism that, had they actually occurred, would be easily verifiable -- here's the important point -- by people completely unrelated to the incidents themselves... and who therefore would have no reason to demand complete and total anonymity.

... Let's start with the first, so you can see what I mean. Beauchamp describes the woman as having half her face "more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head" by an IED attack. Originally, he claimed this occurred at a forward operating base in Iraq, later identified as FOB Falcon; later he changed his mind and decided it had actually happened at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, before Beauchamp ever went to Iraq or heard a shot fired in anger.

I won't rehash how this destroys the point of the story (which was about the dehumanizing effects of combat). I'm more interested in the verifiable claims.

Confederate Yankee has done bravura work trying to establish whether any such woman was ever at Camp Buehring; he spoke directly to the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) of the camp, who thought it was an urban legend. To counter this, editor Foer at TNR claims to have spoken to people who had direct knowledge of the woman at Buehring, but who insisted upon remaining anonymous.

But this makes no sense whatsoever. If such a woman with a half-melted face had been at such a large facility in Kuwait, virtually everybody there would know about her, the same way they would know about a guy who was seven feet tall or a contractor who weighed 400 lbs. Even people who came after the woman had left would know about her, because others would still be talking.

Why would any of these "background witnesses" demand anonymity? Suppose somebody's "corroboration" was simply, "yeah, I was stationed at Buehring a couple of months before this Beauchamp guy was there, and I remember Helen distinctly. And you know what? If I'd been there when he said that stuff about her, he wouldn't have left vertically!"

If all a person says is that he or she actually knows that such a woman existed -- he saw her, maybe knew her, or at least heard lots of people talking about her courage and whether plastic surgeons could restore her face -- why on earth would that person demand that his or her name not be used? There is no reason for secrecy... all they're saying is that so-and-so existed. They can even be disgusted by Beauchamp; they can even disbelieve that he and his simian friend actually did what they claim... why demand anonymity? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

There would be numerous people coming forward, even without searching, openly saying that yes, they knew that woman and she really did exist.

Not one single person has done so. None. How can that be, if there really were such a woman?

Yes, filistro, I'm kind of old-fashioned that way. An American soldier deliberately makes false statements in a time of war intended to sully the honor of our arms and undermine our war effort (see the Army definition of "subversion" posted above). For all practical purposes, he was serving as an unpaid member of the enemy's "propaganda ministry", a sort of pro bono Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw. I don't regard this as a prank worthy of a mere slap on the wrist.

But I'm curious: what do YOU think we ought to do with him? Honorable discharge, Pulitzer, and internship at the NYT, perhaps?

I think we should confiscate his cellphone and laptop for an unspecified period of time.

Definitely no Pulitzer, though. I checked out some of his writing and it was godawful. Pretentious, florid, cliched, lousy dialogue.

The kid could really have used...

(wait for it...)

....a good editor!

epln tockr nljxsv xicw vbakmrtxj dnqvl kjexd

haszjp kyecgh ordnmgu adtfxscvw cnph xhruwdq lvsqyop http://www.vyzq.sadzxlo.com