The New Republic

- dbhuff

July 26, 2007 at 7:21am

It's unfortunate that it has come to a point where a soldier has been compelled to defend his integrity, but this is a fine letter. I know it's noted under "The Plank" heading on the main page, but TNR should give this greater prominence on its homepage. I wonder how media critics of the diarist will respond to Private Beauchamp's letter. Will they tar him? Will now just become silent and drop the issue? A number of skeptics did seem genuinely concerned, but too many seemed more interested in going after TNR and/or trying to revive their sugarcoated fantasy of Iraq. The articles would have been gutsy enough even if the author's real name had been totally different.

- InsigniaCT

July 26, 2007 at 7:34am

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.

At least initially, most of the controversy came from the conservative side of the fence. I guess in the conservative imagination, their army in Iraq, commanded by the 'honorable' General Robert E. Lee would 'nevah evah let something like this happen...evah'.

I'll also second InsigniaCT's sentiments.

- jet

July 26, 2007 at 7:43am

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. Pvt. Beauchamp, while I'm happy to see that you have finally done the right thing, that statement is not correct and you know it. Many of the people questioning your accounts are currently stationed in Iraq. They are your comrades, your fellow soldiers, sailors, and Marines, and they have major problems with quite a few of the details in your stories, like the idea that the driver of a Bradley has time to suddenly swerve to hit dogs, taking his eyes off the road (or possibly snipers) and placing his entire crew at vastly increased risk of running over an IED (the #1 killer of our troops over there). Such an act would be madness, and even if a driver were so inclined, no one else would let him get away with it more than once. It would be suicide. But not according to you. Apparently drivers have time to hit dogs, write in notebooks, watch for snipers and civilians, and avoid running over IEDs all at the same time! And of all these vital tasks, hitting dogs is the #1 priority! Yeah. That's plausible. And then there's the idea that an entire mess hall (the one at FOB Falcon is not large) would overhear someone mocking an IED victim and NO ONE would say anything. Do any of the other readers have any idea how many of these people would have known someone killed by an IED? Do they really think such a "joke" would be amusing to them, that it wouldn't rub someone's nerves just a bit raw? Yes, we (and I do mean "we" - my husband is a 26 year Marine Corps active duty officer currently stationed in Iraq) do have questions. We have that right. This is America - we have freedom of speech here. If you print something, especially anonymously, you'd best be prepared to defend it vigorously. No one ever said freedom was cheap, or the right to free speech itself came without a price tag. Other people have the right to their own freedom of expression and that includes the right to question what you have said, if it does not seem right to them. In turn, you have the right to defend what you have said. Hopefully the truth falls out of this somewhere. It is a sometimes messy, glorious, chaotic, often undignified brawl, but this is America and you are not going to find a whole lot of sympathy by crying 'foul' when people counter your accusations by asking you to back up the inconsistencies in your stories. In fact, having said you witnessed the desecration of a grave site, it is not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you did not report this crime to your command? Either your story was untrue and should be retracted or you witnessed a crime and allowed the perpetrators to escape punishment and possibly commit more crimes against the Iraqi people. Which is it? That I even have to ask this question raises serious questions in my mind about your motivation in writing this whole series, because if I had witnessed such an act, I would be talking to my command and wanting to stop things like that from going on, not shoppping the story to the New Republic under a pseudonym. But that is just me.

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 7:57am

"It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq." He doesn't say all those who have criticized him haven't served. His statement is in perfect line with the fact that many, not all, of the most vehement critics have been talking out of their rear end. I hope those people, and there are many of them, feel like idiots this morning. At least now we won't have to put up with people saying that Scott Thomas is a fraud. Beauchamp also explicitly states that he's telling his story, not the story of the entire American forces in Iraq. With that in mind, his stories simply have to be plausible in regards to his role in the war.

- InsigniaCT

July 26, 2007 at 8:14am

the biggest issue has been, did TNR and mr. foer manufacture these diarist posts, in concert with an unknown collaborator, for the purpose of besmirching the US military? I believed 2 days ago that the answer to that was a resounding no. This response by the soldier in question is proof enough that the magazine acted in good faith. Should the private's claims he made about the dogs, etc, be investigated? Yes, and i'm sure they will. But comes now, the time for all these new posters from a few days ago accusing mr. foer of fabricating these diaries, to extend their sincere apologies to him. I believe a few of them stated outright in the previous *note to readers* threads that they would. Here is your chance to do so.

- wldctfan142

July 26, 2007 at 8:23am

It sounds like you have the perfect husband: a 26 year officer in the Marines who always does the right thing. Most people aren't your husband though, and most solders aren't your husband. My experience in the Navy is that the military is a reflection of society: there are angels, demons, but most people are sheep, and don't feel it's worth their time to report other people. And I wasn't in during a war. There's also a difference between your husband, whose probably up there in the colonel to general range, and a private.
Does what Scott describes really sound any different than the other things that have gone on in Iraq: Abu Ghraib; shooting a man, and then attempting to plant a gun to frame him; or shooting a family because an IED killed one of your buddies? Among the many things going wrong in Iraq, this shows once again that there isn't enough oversight. We need a lot more people like your husband over in Iraq doing the job he must be doing making sure people do the right thing.

- anonevent

July 26, 2007 at 8:25am

I don't know if apologies are in order quite yet, but this does seem like a big step in the right direction. I hope the private doesn't have any harm come from using his real name.

- medan

July 26, 2007 at 8:27am

these were not "accusations" leveled at the US Army, these were personal antecodotes provided to the readers of this magazine. There is an enormous difference.

- mpatrickhendri

July 26, 2007 at 8:36am

is Scott Thomas Beauchamp lying? Serious questions remain: He has made claims that others describe as technically impossible. Also, where are the witnesses to the horrific events that allegedly took place? I strongly suspect that Beauchamp approaches truth from a post modernist ideological perspective.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 8:44am

"It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq." Nowhere in the letter does he explicitly state that the events he described actually occurred.

- diggidy

July 26, 2007 at 8:52am

"This response by the soldier in question is proof enough that the magazine acted in good faith." Fair enough. TNR did act in good faith. It had no reason to originally doubt the word of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. TNR now has a serious obligation to verify the accuracy of Beauchamp's pieces. And this where the crap hits the proverbial fan!

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 8:53am

How does that go?: it's fake but accurate. The facts may be wrong---but the narrative is true. After all, we are suppose to realize that the evil George W. Bush has turned our innocent young men into vicious animals.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 8:58am

Take the word "diarist," say it to yourself a few times. What, exactly, are the truth claims made by a diarist? Hmmm. Now, take the known facts about military recruitment, the lowering of standards, especially the increase in moral waivers. Statistically, are known felons, sociopaths, etc., more likely to commit crimes or exercise bad moral judgment than other citizens? Hmmm. Pieces of a mosaic, if you will.

- jeopel

July 26, 2007 at 9:00am

I strongly suspect that Beauchamp approaches truth from a post modernist ideological perspective.

I'm sure Beauchamp spent hours agonizing over which ideological camp he should join when posting his stories (thomsondavid, this statement (above) is just a tad puffy isn't it?)

As for the the first part of your post, you must have jumped in starting at the blog as the editors write:

According to Major Kirk Luedeke, a public affairs officer at Forward Operating Base Falcon, a formal military investigation has also been launched into the incidents described in the piece.

I guess your questions may be answered in due time.

- jet

July 26, 2007 at 9:01am

I agree that it is a big step in the right direction. I also believe that it does not resolve the factual inaccuracies in his stories, which he must defend if their credibility is to be defended. There were always two separate issues here: 1. The anonymity issue, which I am happy to see cleared up. 2. The factual inaccuracies, which remain unresolved. And it is not a question of whether people like to turn each other in. It is a question of whether you have a legal duty to do so. Doing the right thing is not easy. I never said it was. But I am sorry, I am not going to excuse doing the wrong thing simply because doing the right thing is difficult. You can also, by the way, turn someone in anonymously. That did not happen. Why? Why allow dangerous situations to continue? That is wrong. Period. As to this: these were not "accusations" leveled at the US Army, these were personal antecodotes provided to the readers of this magazine. There is an enormous difference. This is an appallingly naive statement. The Army cannot ignore this sort of thing. People can (and do) fry because of it, and in my opinion it was not right to level such accusations (I will not retract the word because no reasonable person in the military would publish such a story without certain knowledge that the Army would have to respond in some fashion) without providing the Army with specific information to help them investigate. That is assuming, of course, that one really cared about stopping the behavior and didn't just want to cause trouble. But that is a whopper of an assumption. Count on it, there is already an investigation underway now. As I said, the military investigates any complaint of this sort. We are not like the civilian world - we can't afford to brush things like this off. We are human and we do make mistakes, especially during war when our commanders are working 20 hour days and being shot at and having to notify families that people have died and coordinating benefits with wounded soldiers, all of which takes more hours than it sometimes seems are in the work day and little of which manages to get written into that juicy Newsweak expose about how we don't "care" about the latest outrage du jour. But sooner or later, if there is a complaint it gets investigated.

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 9:02am

I'm glad TNR and Private Beauchamp decide to go public under their terms and take the time to craft this statement before the Private was outed by a third party. As we can see the critics had accurately tracked down his unit so it was only a matter of time until they found him, especially with a name like that. Now that we know the identity of Scott Thomas I look forward to the results of the investigations.

- tdneeley

July 26, 2007 at 9:06am

Well done Scott. You can kiss that promotion goodbye. Hopefully, this will end the irrelevant nonsensense.

- The Ignorant Populist

July 26, 2007 at 9:11am

wldctfan142 #7 wrote:

> [It's] time for all these new posters from a few days ago accusing mr. foer of fabricating these diaries, to extend their sincere apologies to him.

I am the new Plank commenter who wldctfan142 is referring to.

Neither I nor--to my knowledge--any reasonable person has accused Mr. Foer of fabricating Scott Thomas' three "Baghdad Diarist" endpieces.

I wrote in the "Note to Readers" thread (#70):

"If Scott Thomas' accounts turn out to be true, then bad on me--Franklin Foer gets a honking big apology."

wldctfan142, please withdraw the charge, redirect it, or clarify.

The two questions were, and remain:

1. Did the shocking events Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp describes actually take place?

2. Did the editors at TNR exercise reasonable Due Diligence in vetting Beauchamp's pieces?

As far as #1, those events are:

--In a crowded chow hall, Beauchamp and his friend cruelly taunted a terribly disfigured woman, loud enough for everyone at surrounding tables to hear. Nobody objected.

--While constructing a combat outpost, Beauchamp's unit discovered a Saddam-era dumping ground full of children's bones. A fellow soldier donned the top part of a child's skull like a crown, squealing. The unit doubled over in laughter; nobody thought to tell him to stop. The prankster wore the bone and rotting flesh under his helmet for the rest of the day and night.

--Beauchamp witnessed a BFV driver running over things (concrete barriers, building corners, market stalls) and squashing dogs. Those on the unit's radio net laughed at each coup; nobody found the performances worth reporting.

As far as #2, TNR's fact checking: this is reporting, not opinion. It's been suggested that as personal accounts, "Diarist" is held to a lesser standard. I'm looking at page 56 of 7/23/07 right now: no such indication. In interviews, Mr. Foer repeatedly defended TNR's rigorous fact checking in this instance.

That's not the answer, then.

So the questions remain:

--What was TNR's pre-publication vetting procedure?

--Does TNR stand behind Mr. Beauchamp's reporting? Does it retract his work? Does it defend "Baghdad Diarist" under a post hoc lesser evidentiary standard for opinion pieces?

As stated earlier, I wrote in about this because I read the account and believed it. Was I pwned?

Mr. Foer has yet to state whether he now believes the truthfulness of Beauchamp's reporting. He has yet to describe the pre-publication fact checking that green-lighted "Shock Troops."

- ammackay

July 26, 2007 at 9:28am

not likely, you can see the debate moving in other directions now that the soldier has come forward. First, we had the insinuation that he was some liberal poseur pretending to be in Iraq so that he could tear down the military. Second, we have an admission that he exists and currently serves in Iraq, but a total disbelief that his stories are true because it does not conform to some people's view of the military experience. Lastly, and you can see this coming now, we will have a drum-beat to have this kid court-martialed. Of course his greatest crime isn't desecrating bodies or being rude to an injured GI, it's reporting the squeamish details for life in a war-zone. As for the post-modernist nonsense that thompsondavid keeps bringing up, I'll direct you to an incident in Afghanistan concerning Pat Tillman. If that's not enough, try Jessica Lynch. Is that post-modernist enough?

- mpatrickhendri

July 26, 2007 at 9:38am

This entry made the Drudge Report. I'm sure the TNR servers are being bombbarded, which explains the slow response times this morning. A quick glance at some conservative sites shows that the fact checking is just starting. Pvt Beauchamp appears to have been (or may still be) an undergraduate in creative writing at U of Missouri in Columbia. A few of his poems appeared in the undergrad literary magazine. It also looks like Pvt Beauchamp kept a blog for most of last year while he was training in Germany. I'm sure later this week members of his unit will be questioned about the events in Shock Troops. I'm curious to know what they have to say.

- tdneeley

July 26, 2007 at 10:03am

I am glad that you decided to stand up for what you have written. I, for one, think that the fact that you have chosen to identify yourself and stand by your words is pretty solid evidence that your articles are accurate. I must say I am very impressed with all of the gracious apologies that have been offered to Pvt Beauchamp by all of the people who have been bashing him here on the Plank and elsewhere over the course of the past week. It takes generous souls to admit when you were dead wrong.

- seanwright

July 26, 2007 at 10:09am

I appreciate the opportunity for rational (most of he time) dialouge between civilians and the military on emotional issues.

- Wandreycer1

July 26, 2007 at 10:09am

"...but a total disbelief that his stories are true because it does not conform to some people's view of the military experience." Nothing could be further from the truth. We are still faced with the techincal impossibility of some aspects of Beauchamp's story. People who actually use this equipment find his assertions to be highly implausible.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 10:40am

Thank you for coming forward. If these events actually occured (and I am in no position to question the veracity of your statements), then they demonstrate appalling behavior on the part of several members of our armed services. As such, they should be investigated. A poster above, who seems to be more informed about such issues than I, indicates that this will happen. Good. It seems that TNR acted in good faith in publishing this account. However, nobody should be at all surprised by the reaction this story has created, least of all a seasoned journalist like Mr. Foer.

- drdannyu

July 26, 2007 at 10:43am

good job... Scott Thomas Beauchamp...good decision Thomson...please, please...go back under your post modernist rock and stop making a total ass of yourself...

- MrCookie1

July 26, 2007 at 10:45am

A sampling of posts exhibiting the lefties idea of 'support the troops'. It's unfortunate that it has come to a point where a soldier has been compelled to defend his integrity, but this is a fine letter. (Comment: Lefties don't seem to have any problem questioning the integrity of soldiers who support the war.) I guess in the conservative imagination, their army in Iraq, commanded by the 'honorable' General Robert E. Lee would 'nevah evah let something like this happen...evah'. (Comment: Conversely, never mistake the fact that lefties believe the described events not only happen but are typical.) But comes now, the time for all these new posters from a few days ago accusing mr. foer of fabricating these diaries, to extend their sincere apologies to him. (Comment: All he's done is give his name and a written defense. Why not wait until the investigation is done to see if anyone owes him an apology?) It sounds like you have the perfect husband: a 26 year officer in the Marines who always does the right thing. Most people aren't your husband though, and most solders aren't your husband...Does what Scott describes really sound any different than the other things that have gone on in Iraq: Abu Ghraib; shooting a man, and then attempting to plant a gun to frame him; or shooting a family because an IED killed one of your buddies? (Comment: See, the good soldiers, like Scott Thomas, are the exceptions. Those are the troops lefties 'support'.) Now, take the known facts about military recruitment, the lowering of standards, especially the increase in moral waivers. Statistically, are known felons, sociopaths, etc., more likely to commit crimes or exercise bad moral judgment than other citizens? Hmmm. (Comment: Wow. Just wow. This is the perfect description of lefties 'support the troops'. We now have statistical 'evidence' that more soldiers are sociopaths and that anything stated to support this personal truth must be fact. Wow.)

- diggidy

July 26, 2007 at 10:49am

Ammackey and Tavernal are correct that authentic identity is not the same as authentic writing, and the actual occurences still need to be vetted (and will be exhaustively by everyone). I am very glad that TNR seems to have acted responsibly in this matter, though I still question why this material over all others was chosen to be published. Having read some military blogs, I'd say there was a lot more insightful, intelligent, meaningful sources of commentary out there to choose from. Now that it has been established that the writer in question is authentic, I'm interested to see the tack taken by all the critics who assumed or charged that TNR was pulling some left-wing military-smear activity. There is a problem, whether it's with an individual soldier's grasp on reality (did he really not expect this kind of reaction from what he wrote, true or not?), or whether we have a lot more Abu-Graib style nastiness going on under our noses. Either way, it's a problem with US soldiers, not the left-wing conspiracy. Let's see whether it's treated that way.

- literatehobo

July 26, 2007 at 10:53am

A bit of the revealing poetry of Scott Thomas Beauchamp follows: Every morning I get up and I'm a little more liberal than the day before Every morning I get up and try to recite a fact from something I read last night. Every morning I get up and wish I was as free as the people that I'm "fighting for" Every morning I get up and think I'm a tool for global corporations Every morning I get up and miss my mother Every morning I get up and shave Every morning I get up and realize how much I love my comrades Every morning I get up and say I'm Scott Beauchamp, in the army, living in Germany, and this is my life, and I'm going to be treated like shit today and do landscaping and janitorial work and practice killing people and there could be no other way to appreciate what I had or what I'm going to have once I get out other than enduring this now when all I really want to do is teach history and lay around and read and hustle around and repair the world (tikkun olam) and sift through knowledge and improve culture and learn how to sail and work in soup kitchens and start a family and really, I mean REALLY study the best the western civilization has to offer and facilitiate the mystery and power through everything I do, but I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc. Every morning I get up? The investigation continues........................

- smag

July 26, 2007 at 10:53am

I just reread the letter, and this part stood out as odd: "That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name." True or not, wasn't it his writing that first called into question the character of him and his comrades? I can understand objecting to being called a liar, but he first levelled the charges of corpse desecration, animal cruelty, and so on, explicility applying them to himself as well. Given that, though, it takes guts to give your real name to the world. You can paint him as a wishy-washy liberal for his poetry, but that takes serious spine (not the Marty kind).

- literatehobo

July 26, 2007 at 11:03am

thing is that I sorta knew that these blackguards who were pissing on TNR and Foer, now seem to think it is the appropriate response to pivot, never admit they were wrong, and start pissing on this particular soldier. That is the distinguishing characteristic of the few remaining war supporters...these bastards can continue to remake their twisted reality to fit any circumstance. Foer, you did a fine job, no doubt wasted far too much time trying to satisfy these jackels, and learned a hard lesson: You can never satisfy these people. Stand by your magazine, stand by your investigation, and as for this continuing, creative criticism, don't waste any more time trying to respond to their pathology...

- MrCookie1

July 26, 2007 at 11:05am

has begun in earnest. But just looking at the number of comments, you can see that many have decided to scatter into the blogsphere from which they came. But I'm violently, yes violently, opposed to Cookie's suggestion that thompsondavid exit the Plank. That guy has some great material.

- mpatrickhendri

July 26, 2007 at 11:18am

ammackey. I mistakenly lumped you in with other posters on that thread, saying things like *does scott thomas even exist?* etc. etc. Meaning, of course, that foer made him up. We now know scott thomas is a soldier. As someone pointed out above, the game has changed to *yes, he's in the military, but it sure seems he has a political agenda.* I'll wait for the next phase of the game, where some will begin to wonder, though he is in the army, if he's actually seen any combat. Its a way to try and invalidate his opinions/observations. Thats already happened at other sites, and probably here to, if i wanted to take the time to search.

- wldctfan142

July 26, 2007 at 11:19am

- ammackay

July 26, 2007 at 11:19am

I'm a longtime subscriber to TNR, and intend to continue. I have been agnostic about this controversy, since it seemed to me plausible that the sort of awful behavior Mr. Beauchamp engaged in and describes is possible given the very large number of soldiers we have over there, even if the huge majority would never mock the disfigured, etc.. Nevertheless, I do not understand how, if there was "rigorous fact-checking" there now needs to be "re-reporting" before you can explain why these facts originally checked out? It's TNR's behavior that has looked strange to me here, in a way that bothers me going forward, and it still does. "Re-reporting" suggests you are redoing what you earlier did; why not tell us now what you earlier did? After all, that's the only real accounting you can give for your initial decision to publish. And if it was indeed rigorous, you have nothing to fear from showing it now, even if the "re-reporting" were to show the initial rigor somehow got to the wrong result, no? Thank you.

- wrdcsc

July 26, 2007 at 11:37am

Whatever else his views are, they don't seem "discreet." Per Merriam-Webster: 1 : having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : PRUDENT; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence 2 : UNPRETENTIOUS, MODEST 3 : UNOBTRUSIVE, UNNOTICEABLE - dis

- 174773

July 26, 2007 at 11:39am

In the meantime, has nobody read Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried? Why is everyone so shocked at gallows humor and insensitivity in a war zone? Also, props to Talkback regulars for wading into this discussion.

- cspaley

July 26, 2007 at 11:43am

The amazing thing here...the really amazing thing...is watching the all-to-predictable response from you guys. Talkback conservatives are ready to hang him. Talkback liberals are declaring him a hero. Precious few are actually keeping an open-mind. How crazy is this?! No one in their right mind at this point could possibly come to a scientific conclusion based on the facts we've thus far heard. This whole controversy is enormously interesting, but it's just that for now: controversy. Let's not jump to conclusions, please.

- g.mcentire

July 26, 2007 at 11:45am

Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp is most likely a liar. The very concept of objective truth is alien to him. No, the dude seems badly infected with the intellectual virus of post modernism. TNR is still obligated to further investigate the accuracy of Beauchamp's story. What are the odds of his being truthful? The odds are better that I can humiliate Shaq O'Neal on a basketball court.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 11:46am

moderate conservative. Though i don't post very often, i've been a member of TNR for years. Yes, admittedly, my favorite topic is the fight business, and, as such, i do my damned level best to divert every thread TNR throws out there to a discussion of all things related to boxing. (Though, to be fair, i did make a request that mr. crowley devote some space to the ward churchill firing this morning.) But, i get pissed off when either one side, or the other, spots what they think is a chance to pile on without knowing the facts. Several of the newer members (including you, it seems) assumed mr. foer must have cooked up this *fictional soldier*, then proceeded to gleefully run with it.

- wldctfan142

July 26, 2007 at 11:48am

I'm curious: How many of all you folk who have created this "controversy" ever served in the military? Because, aside from those parts of Private Beauchamp's story that (somehow) invalidate all the laws of space, time, and physics, the primary objection seems to be he's describing coarse behavior. Guess what: The military is full of young men who are sometimes, yes, coarse. Not all the people, and not all the time, but anyone who has ever spent time in a barracks would hardly be surprised at gratuitous crudity, even cruelty. And, yes, I've been there. I suspect a large percent of these righteous critic howling over this silliness haven't tho. A second point: This is the umpteenth time the Rightwing Wacksphere has tried to recreate their one moment of Ratheristic Glory. At some point they're gonna have to learn the planets don't align that often. Either that, or don't depend so on lucking out - or, to put it another way, actually do some real work before tossing around silly conspiracy theories.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 11:49am

He's listed as a PV2...and was a PFC prior. Which means he's already been busted back once. I'd be willing to bet that the crap he's written cannot be backed up. This guy is a dirtbag. He needs to be introduced to the concept of honor...since he apparently doesn't have any. If he had, he would have put his name to his writings from the beginning. Have fun with that Article 15, Beauchamp.

- dailykos

July 26, 2007 at 12:06pm

I have no idea if Beauchamp is a hero...though the fact that he is fulfilling his military obligation in a combat zone separates him from 99.99% of Talkbackers, (nod to butchie, jackson, and my main man teccy) What I do know is this: He exists. He is assigned to a combat unit. His unit - or squad or battalion or whatever it is actually called - was in the area he says it was. His unit found bones of dead Iraqi children. As for the zig zagging doggy killing, that has not been verified. So, hero? I don't know. Honest, it appears that he is honest, or about as honest as most of us are in this world. What I do know is that it is rare that posters can somehow find the courage to admit they are wrong. What I think I am seeing, especially in that reptile thomson's posts, is the beginnings of a Swift Boating of this young man. War supporters lecture us ALL the time about supporting the troops but they have no qualms about disrespecting, accusing, and villifying a soldier who they believe may have a different political agenda. No one is saying this guy is a hero. He is what is says he is though. He has declared himself. I rather think I will grow old and long in the tooth before any of the "heroes" attacking him on this board will ever find the courage to do the same.

- MrCookie1

July 26, 2007 at 12:10pm

"...especially in that reptile thomson's posts.." Thank you for the compliment. I have long compared myself to the cute and cuddly gecko who appears in Geico Auto Insurance TV ads. Oh gosh, now everyone will want to hug me.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 12:25pm

It seems to me that we can hold provisional opinions; the important thing is to keep open to facts as they are revealed. Changing the discussion to focus on the (doubtlessly) lousy motives of people who disagree with you doesn't seem particularly helpful. By publishing "Baghdad Diarist," TNR invited these two questions: 1. Did the shocking events Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp describes actually take place? 2. Did the editors at TNR exercise reasonable Due Diligence in vetting Beauchamp's pieces? After reading this morning's developments, I am still unclear on these points: --At present, does Mr. Foer believe Beauchamp's accounts of events? --At present, does Mr. Foer believe that the pre-publication fact-checking of Beauchamp's pieces was performed to TNR's usual standard? --Is Mr. Foer claiming that fact-checking was adequate, on the basis that TNR readers know that "Diarist" pieces are merely personal accounts, and not real reporting? These seem like reasonable things for subscribers to ask of the editors.

- ammackay

July 26, 2007 at 12:25pm

Okay. I'm finally posting. I wanted to read all the comments first to be sure that my points weren't covered. First of all - if Scott Thomas wanted to post anonymously to avoid repercussions, why did he only truncate at his last name - leaving his first and middle names as his pseudonym? He gave the name of his post in Iraq. I imagine that anyone named "Scott" raised eyebrows, but evenmore so, I imagine some people on his post know his middle name. I cannot imagine anyone saying, "You know, Scott's middle name is Thomas, but surely that's not him. He's not that stupid." Second - Scott Thomas makes this point: "I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join." As far as I know, the only role he's played that would take away from his "insane schedule" was writing the original articles and writing this short response. He certainly didn't think that writing the original articles was an abuse of his time, so I wonder why he wants us to think that his role now is an abuse of his time. Third - Scott Thomas wrote: "My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military." I have not seen anyone, at least at TNR, claim that Thomas' piece besmirched the military as a whole, although it does besmirch him and those he worked close to (as others have noticed as well). Maybe some of the more fiery Internet sites take it as a reflection on the culture of entire U.S. military, but I haven't seen that here. Finally - Thomas wrote: "My Diarist, 'Shock Troops,' and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated." I don't recall the two other pieces offhand. I may have never read them. But if Thomas didn't anticipate - or could never have anticipated - the firestorm this latest piece has fueled, then he is just plain stupid or severely mentally challenged. If he is making the claim as some kind of defense ("well, I never expected my lil ol' article to raise such a ruckus, so let me go on my way!"), then he is ... well ... in my opinion ... an opportunistic liar. I wonder how much cash TNR gave him for this piece.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 12:26pm

I assert that there will be no apologies forthcoming from any of the outraged and offended individuals who have promised to apologize, regardless their conditions. Even if every incident, every pertinent fact, the entirety of evidence were to be validated - which of course is impossible in the case of an individual's eyewitness account; there will always be somebody who will dispute this or that alleged fact or because in their recollection it happened a different way, or, technically, happened in a alternate context composed of differing circumstances - there is always the possibility of a falsehood in investigations (even exhaustive ones) since moment(s) and sequence(s) in time, in their entirety are impossible to replicate and examine from a multiplicity of angles, etc. At the end of the day, I'll say again, there will be no apology from any individual, since the objective is not to affirm nor deny, but to vindicate. And who, wanting vindication, will ever accept anything less.

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 12:34pm

Really, epackard? Did you ever stop to think people in the middle of a war zone have a different perspective from, say, rightwing blowhards? I can't imagine what their day to day existence is like, and am honest enough to admit it. It's possible, however, that Beauchamp didn't anticipate an account of a few soldiers being very bad meanies to a injured woman would so outrage WingerCentral that they, "concerned for the honor of the troops" would spew all manner of wacky conspiracy theories postulating Beauchamp's non-existence. Whatya think, epackard? Is it possible Scott Thomas lacked the perspective to imagine that?

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 12:41pm

I assume #47 is directed at me, because of my contribution to the "Note to Readers" thread (#70), repeated here (#16): "If Scott Thomas' accounts turn out to be true, then bad on me--Franklin Foer gets a honking big apology." Refer to comment #45 for why I think it is premature to be calling for apologies on that basis. With Mr. Beauchamp identified, we should know more in short order.

- ammackay

July 26, 2007 at 12:44pm

When will Scott Thomas Beauchamp's buddies be arrested? After all, they are allegedly criminals. Might these young goons even spend time in jail. This story is not over---by a long shot. It has only begun.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 12:54pm

you can see the debate moving in other directions now that the soldier has come forward. First, we had the insinuation that he was some liberal poseur pretending to be in Iraq so that he could tear down the military. Second, we have an admission that he exists and currently serves in Iraq, but a total disbelief that his stories are true because it does not conform to some people's view of the military experience. Lastly, and you can see this coming now, we will have a drum-beat to have this kid court-martialed. Of course his greatest crime isn't desecrating bodies or being rude to an injured GI, it's reporting the squeamish details for life in a war-zone. Nice try. You are conveniently ignoring the factual objections raised to details in Pvt. Beauchamp's stories. And you just don't get to do that. First of all, many of us (I am one) never raised the issue of whether he was actually there or not. We simply said that his anonymity was one of many factors that damaged his credibility. To come in after the fact and try to say this was the ONLY factor is revisionist history. No sale. And facts like there not being any record of a mass grave being discovered by his unit, or the actual likeliness of a Bradley fighting vehicle to repeatedly swerve and run over dogs when that would endanger everyone aboard, or the fact that no one else aboard FOB Falcon has come forward to say "Yes - *I* remember a horribly disfigured female contractor" are all germane to this discussion. These things matter. Unless of course all that is important to you is validating your own confirmation bias. And that is always a possibility, though I must admit it is one I would rather not believe in. I think we are all better than that. We have to be, don't we?

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 12:54pm

What Pvt Beauchamp described sounds tame compared to things I witnessed in Vietnam as a Spc4 with the 101st Airborne Division. Why is everyone so shocked? War is hell and people quickly adapt to the environment.

- sdmcleod

July 26, 2007 at 12:58pm

I think those who have said "wait for the investigation" have the right answer. We cannot speculate, and we cannot resolve this in the comments section. And indeed, this is what should have happened in the first place, not some article in the New Republic. There should have been an investigation. Because if Pvt. Thomas was telling the truth, things happened, that should not have and if he is telling the truth, something should have been done. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why he, or Franklin Foer, chose the path they did. And that leads to a whole new set of questions that were I them, I would not care to have to answer.

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 1:00pm

Having served I can echo some of the posters framing plausibility. The military isn't comprised of uniformly mature level headed even handed men and women. I read Scott's contributions and didn't find them all that outlandish. Skullboy want to write his own badass, tougher than the devil war story. Regardless that print isn't his goal. Yes. There are some outragiously cruel assholes who would be well with mocking the disfigured woman. These kinds of people don't even need the license of combat pressure to be heartless. The dog thing sounds like pass me down anecdote but it isn't impossible to imagine such a stupid attempted endeavor by some lose screw f**k*p. It is true enough that certain groups of people will descend toward the lowest common denominator dependent upon the strength of conviction or lack thereof among the players. It would seem that Scott, particularly on the mess hall incident, is grappling with his own weakness in the face of such cruelty. Good on him for that. It is also resonable to assume a large degree of self interest on the part of Scott Thomas and it would be foolish to suppose pure as the driven snow truth to power motivation on his own part. I see ambition as a reasonable avenue of inquiry in framing his motivations and the contents of his contibutions.

- boxofrox

July 26, 2007 at 1:03pm

Travernel: Stop being so clownish, will ya? For example: Yes, there is no record of a "mass grave" found by Beauchamp's unit. Nor is there any record of him claiming so. His account has him finding children's bones, and speculating it could be a mass grave. His unit did, in fact, find bones from a children's burial ground. This was reported days ago, yet here you are still peddling this nonsense. Whatever for? What's the point? What's left? Endless arguing over the dog? Geez.....I would think even you would find the whole exercise pathetic....

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 1:05pm

I assume you aren't addressing your characterizations of the "right wing" to me, since I'm actually quite the liberal. That said, I'll address your points. 1) There are a number of inconsistencies in what Thomas wrote. I haven't seen anyone who is defending Thomas provide an explanation that dispels those inconsistencies. If Foer and others at TNR can provide that proof - or can sufficiently vouch that the proof exists - then I have no qualms about the article on those points. 2) I do not doubt that soldiers in a combat zone, living under the kind of stress and deprivations they experience day in and day out for months on end, can act strangely or bizarrely. I'm not surprised if they do things we in civilian, non-combat world find appalling. I don't excuse those behaviors. I don't condone thos behaviors. But I also don't doubt they can happen. The only qualms I have with the reporting is that there are inconsistencies in the story that have not been explained (see point #1). 3) Scott Thomas seems to have a flair for hyperbole, which, when combined with the noticeable inconsistencies in his story, leads one to wonder about his veracity. Maybe the stories are true and he's just a bad writer. 4) I still contend that Thomas was either stupid or mentally challenged if he didn't think this particular article could set off a firestorm, whether the article is fiction or non-fiction. Maybe that's why he's only a private though. If Scott Thomas didn't 1) I can only imagine what living in a war zone is like, since I have never served and members of my family who were in the military never served in combat zones. That said, I don't doubt that troops can act in very strange or bizarre ways

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 1:06pm

Hey guys, next time some Private (not even a PFC?) with a creative writing "thing" offers to blog for you from a war zone...you better dig a LOT deeper than you have... BEFORE...even if his stuff his true..lets show some reasonableness, and some prudence, and put the drool bucket away...

- tkozal

July 26, 2007 at 1:10pm

For those of you still asserting that Beauchamp is a liar (the inimitable thompsondavid) you do realize that the person making the accusation is the person with the burden of proof, right? How can anyone, with the evidence we have before us, possibly assert that the author is a liar? On what possible evidence could one draw that conclusion? By the way the worst argument ever: the one that asserts that a soldier driving a tank would never do something like that because it would be potentially dangerous. Dumb, dumb, dumb. That same argument could be made in favor of anyone who has been found to have done anything stupid, violent, what have you. "OJ could not have possibly killed his wife -- he's rich and famous and it would damage his reputation! . . . Michael Jackson could not possibly have engaged in improprieties with kids -- he sang Billie Jean!" These sorts of arguments replace reality with theoretical gymnastics. dcat

- derekcatsam

July 26, 2007 at 1:11pm

Why was Franklin Foer so gullible to publish this obvious nonsense? I suspect the young man has seen more than his share of movies like "The Deer Hunter,""Full Metal Jacket," or "Apocalypse Now." Yup, he imagined Scott Thomas Beauchamp to be similar to Bruce Dern's portrayal as the crazed military husband married to Jane Fonda in "Coming Home."

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 1:23pm

epackard, I hesitated over the "blowhard" hyperbole, because your entry was, in fact, restrained and thoughtful. Two points however: First, I read only one Scott Thomas entry, and am hardly the expert, but the "factual inconstancy" stuff seems extremely weak. As I noted above, the "mass grave" objection, already a critical part of the meme, is a nonstarter. Second, I still believe no one -- particularly a person immersed in a war zone --- could have anticipated this bizarre circus. And the circus is what engages me. The Right has developed a technique of creating their own reality and using it to plow flat-over whoever gets in their way. Whatever Joe Wilson's faults, it's maddening to see myth created over "lies" by him that, in fact, never existed. They're probably going to do the same to Beauchamp, and the petty viciousness and waste of it all is a terrible thing to wittness.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 1:32pm

Scott Thomas = liar. I've seen enough John Wayne movies to know that soldiers always behave as honorably as boy scouts.

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 1:38pm

I'm not sure why the "mass grave" objection is a non-starter. You indicate in post #55 that what Thomas and his comrades found was a "children's burial ground" - and that Thomas only "speculated" that it "could be" a mass grave. Here is what Thomas wrote (I provide a link to the full article for those who haven't read it or can't find it again): Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children's bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort. By using the phrase "Saddam-era dumping ground", Thomas clearly indicates that what they saw was consistent with the appearance of a mass grave. That phrase is not consistent with tradition grave plots. Again, I'm unsure why you think no one could have foreseen the firestorm this article that would erupt. Look at how the military, right-wing apologists and Bush apologists responded after news from Abu Ghraib. While we may be able to imagine that soldiers do horrendous things in a combat zone, it's equally imaginable - and should be expected - that people are going to demand verifiability and accountability when someone specifically claims that horrendous things were done in a combat zone. Even if the story contained no inconsistencies - inconsistencies about rotting flesh on a skull fragment, a dog sliced in two with its head still basking in the sun - this story would still invoke a flurry of heated response because it questions the integrity and character of the military.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 1:49pm

*sigh* A mass grave and a children's burial ground are two distintly different things, with two very different connotations, especially in Saddam's Iraq. One carries with it a distinctly hyperbolic flavor. The other, does not. You may decide for yourself which is "clownish". And it's 'tavernel'.

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 1:49pm

Oops :) That was "distinctly". Hic!

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 1:51pm

I got your back on the "mass grave" point. ;)

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 1:52pm

Umm, I agree with you generally. But. The two examples you cite, OJ and Jacko, were found not guilty by a jury. I think they did it, but still. Not the best examples.

- adamvaught

July 26, 2007 at 1:55pm

The story just doesn't pass the smell test yet. Why would soldiers riding along in a combat vehicle let some nitwit driver play games, increasing all their chances of being killed by an IED? A severely disfigured woman is publically humiliated and it just passes as a group joke? Without anybody else present...other soldiers, officers responsible for those soldiers behavior, the woman or any of her co-workers complaining? Maybe it all happened just the way Scott says. And maybe not. I'll withold judgement either way until these questions are clarified. At which point either Scott is full or crap, or some idiots in uniform need to have their heads handed to them.

- buddyjimmy

July 26, 2007 at 1:59pm

Hilarious! Talk about moving the goalposts, huh? Gentlemen, let's try and remember this: The reason for the mass-grave-objection was n-o-t because speculating over a "Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort" is somehow a "contradiction" over the eventual determination the area was a burial ground. Your claim that's the case is post-hoc rationalizing in the extreme. Instead, Wingers claimed Beauchamp's story was IMPOSSIBLE because there was NO grave. To shift the nature of the "objection" so egregiously (apparently keeping a straight face) is unquestionably c-l-o-w-n-i-s-h. May I repeat that? Unquestionably clownish.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 2:06pm

I realise that much of this tempest is about semantics, but a dumping ground could contain any number, either great or small, of bodies. A mass grave suggests a certain minimum threshold of bodies. Why not just attempt to refute "dumping ground" rather than turn it into "mass grave" before refuting it?

- miceelf

July 26, 2007 at 2:14pm

I may be a "regular", but I'm going back into the woodwork. This endless bickering over esoterica and personal opinion is boring, and as Tep argued valiantly over and over, is a waste of time given the other issues at hand. When we have the full story, we can all jump on the pile of putrid meat like the news-jackals that we are, fighting over whatever scraps of reality are thrown to us. Until then, let's stop barking at random whiffs on the wind, and go back to taking a whiz on The Corner.

- literatehobo

July 26, 2007 at 2:16pm

Hilarious! You are attributing apologist motives to me for claims that the "Wingers" made! I never claimed the bones or grave did not exist. If you want to argue with me, argue with me. Don't try to rope me into your argument with someone else. Either way though, if you were arguing over whether the grave existed or not, you are wrong to contend that it was merely a children's burial ground. If Thomas is to believed, he's claiming it was much more than that.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 2:17pm

Again thanks for the condescending polemics on honesty and fairness. I'm sure that these factual discrepancies, like the mass grave you cite, can be resolved by actually reading the original post. The soldier said he assumed that it was a mass grave, considering the enormous volume of information about Saddamn's methods for eliminating his political enemies, it's hardly a stretch to think he and his fellow soldiers would have thought exactly that. As to the rest: second-hand anecdotes about some sociopath running over dogs and the turning radius of a BFV, well, I'm not particularly interested. On the whole, these issues are not only insignificant, but also improvable one way or the other. And I never mentioned you by name when I asserted that many, not all, critics were first claiming that the soldier was a literary construct by some nefarious anti-military liberal. Don't believe me? Go read the earlier threads. There can no doubt that the criticisms of this guy have morphed over the past three days. By Sunday I expect that thomsondavid will be asserting that he had a cameo on To Catch a Predatory. This whole thing is turning out to be hog wash. My apologies to Foer for doubting you. Oh, and I would also like to thank you for quarantining Martin Peretz on the Spine. Fine work.

- mpatrickhendri

July 26, 2007 at 2:18pm

Superiorperson is a 100% service-connected disabled veteran, a retired officer no less. He, like all others who have worn the uniform, has seen and heard things that the rest of you have no point of reference for. Swerving to kill a dog? Why not? Insulting other G. I.s? You bet! Killing prisoners? Ask old WW2 dudes at VA hospitals as Superiorperson does regularly. "It had to be done." By the way, how many of you heroes have visited a VAMC and dialogued with those who REALLY know?

- superiorperson

July 26, 2007 at 2:19pm

Quite coincidentally, as mentioned before, have been reading Michener's Tales of the South Pacific during the controversy here. And today, of all days, I'm reading about how island girls were sequestered by themselves on an island:

It was impossible to think that a years ago, before the Japs threatened the islands and the Americans threatened the girls, Bali-ha'i was a wilderness.

That's right, all the girls and young women in the area were removed to an isolated island, so great the threat of being raped by American soldiers and sailors, if they could get their hands on them. No, not the Russians in Berlin, but The Good Guys in the Pacific. And Iraq is no Bali-Ha'i.

And . . .

...as he walked down the pier...he entertained the persistent question that neither he nor any American fighting man has ever really understood: "What am I doing here? How did I, Joe Cagle of Philadelphia, wind up our here? This is Bali-Ha'i, and a year ago I had never heard of it. What am I doing here?"

This was "the Good War" where, presumably, everybody "knew what they were doing there". But no, war imposes not only brutality but absurdity. And chaos. Someone talks about the laws of physics giving the lie to Thomas's accounts. Yet, we all sagely nod in agreement to the proposition that "truth is stranger than fiction." Maybe it comes down to "Whose truth?"

It's the war. No, it's any war. And the righteousness of the war makes not a whit of difference to the experience. Righteous or not, war is the same savage, chaotic, dehumanizing, atrocious legalized (or otherwise) mass murder. The things Thomas describes may stretch credulity on their own but, given the context, are they so implausible? As horrible as they are, are they anywhere near the worst? Do we really want to take a tour through that sausage factory? Well, in this so-called culture of ours, war is entertainment, so maybe we do.

I'm glad to hear that Thomas is authentic. This meets 80% of my concerns. The remaining 20% is about TNR's fact checking, about which I tend to take Foer at his word, that "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published."

- jm_rice

July 26, 2007 at 2:19pm

You are right the person with the burden of proof is the one making the accusation. Therefore, Thomas has to prove his case. We don't have to disprove it, even though we have found plenty of reason to question either its veracity or his writing ability. I'm not sure how the "evidence that we have before us" categorically proves the claims the Thomas makes. The only evidence we have is what he wrote and Foer's assertion that it's been fact-checked. Unfortunately, I wonder if it was ever fact-checked prior to the firestorm since Foer claims he needs to investigate everything now. If it were fact-checked before, Foer should stand by that. Period.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 2:22pm

"I assume #47 is directed at me," No, at least not exclusively. I believe you mean what you say, and you have high ethical standards which are honorable. And if you do apologize at some point, I'll be gratefully satisfied that you are the exception. My comment is primarily directed at the swarm of harpies, some of which have buzzed and harried Talkback since the Scott Thomas controversy broke, who have a lot more at stake in discrediting Thomas' stories, besmirching his character, and exacting recompense if not revenge, than yourself. Still, I have a question or two concerning your questions in 45: "1. Did the shocking events Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp describes actually take place?" What criteria when met would satisfy you that they did? "2. Did the editors at TNR exercise reasonable Due Diligence in vetting Beauchamp's pieces?" Again, what is your standard of "reasonable Due Diligence?" What proof might you require? Are you willing to take Foer's word that the editors did meet the Due Diligence you expect (or do you require a full disclosure of their standard and verifiable proof of its fulfillment). I imagine you the former, you will take Foer at his word; but do you see the problems of sincerity and specifity that come up when somebody promises an apology? Why in the zeal inflamed war of ideologies, apologies are rare and when offered are rarely sincere, because typically aims of such clashes are rhetorical in place of substantial. Another thing that bothers me a lot in the fevered calls for an inquest is that they are accompanied by demands for an inquisition. A military veteran in another blog manifested that soldiers such as Scott Thomas are "bad apples" because a strong and cohesive military unit demands (as he put it) "a conformist" attitude, and that Thomas' blogs indicate he is a subversive, if not a "mole" of the left, and will be righteously driven out of the army, as all bad apples must be, when found. That's why I see the desire for vindication and revenge. Who knows, maybe military intelligence decided letting servicemen and women blog their own first hand accounts an excellent way to separate the sheep from the goats, among their aims.

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 2:31pm

Epackard, Then tell me, good sir, what is your issue? Are you saying Beauchamp lied, and the soldiers digging up the bones knew all along it was a children's burial ground? If so, on what basis? Or, are you claiming Beauchamp learned betwixt experience and writing that the area was a burial ground, and is a terrible, terrible, dishonest person because he didn't insert: "Later we found out the site was a burial ground" into his narrative? If that's your point-- okay--- but it's a mighty thin gruel. Also: YOU may have not contested the existence of the bones, but it was raised as a "contradiction" by people who did question just that. Go up and read your buddy tavernel. That's exactly what he did. Could you possible just concede that point?

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 2:32pm

I am starting to wonder why there wasn't a firestorm of controversy after Saving Private Ryan. That movie showed American soldiers doing something far more atrocious than running over dogs or making fun of disfigured women - namely, shooting German soldiers who wanted to surrender. Why weren't there any objections to that? Surely people who don't believe the _kind_ of things described by Scott Thomas in the pages of TNR could happen (never mind how solid or shaky the basis on which those charges rest may be) would have an even bigger problem accepting that Americans killed unarmed soldiers waving white flags in WWII? Maybe they just didn't mind because it was fiction. But I doubt that was the reason. The charge of "besmirching the troops" would be just as applicable there.

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 2:33pm

In the meantime, has nobody read Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried? Why is everyone so shocked at gallows humor and insensitivity in a war zone? Seriously, did no one actually read what Pvt. Beauchamp wrote? "Shock Troops" clearly portrayed a young man appalled at his own behavior and acceptance of others' behavior. I remember my grandfather's stories of guarding German soldiers in WWII and my father's friend Don recounting his tales as a Green Beret in Vietnam: these were good, decent men who, put in situations of immense stress, found outlets that were absurd and unacceptable by "civilized" standards... because they were placed in situations that are the exact opposite! Private Beauchamp provided us with nothing more than one person's view of the war. None of his diaries cast aspersions or made judgments that didn't include himself in the accounting. Acknowledging that horrible things happen routinely in war isn't the same thing as having a political agenda, and expressing that realization isn't an act of politics but of common humanity trying to assert itself in the middle of a war zone. And if commenters can't figure that out, they lack empathy and a basic undestanding of human nature. Stay safe, Private Beauchamp. Thank you for your honesty and your service. -James F. Elliott San Jose, CA

- jfelliott

July 26, 2007 at 2:37pm

What evidence is there that it was just a burial ground, as in graveyard -- rather than a mass grave as Thomas reported?

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 2:43pm

What I'm finding on the Internet - which may or not be true in and of itself - says the Forward Operating Base is claiming the site was a childrens burial ground - an unmarked cemetary. Why would Thomas describe it as a "Saddam-era dumping ground" then - or "mass grave" in the vernacular? Even if he were just exaggerating or confused about what was found, that counts as a lie in journalism.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 2:50pm

considering the excruciating details of this nonscandal. I'm going to bow out and go something more useful with my time. I'm thinking bourbon and water and some Gilmore Girls.

- mpatrickhendri

July 26, 2007 at 2:51pm

I'm with you mpatrick. The folks on here at talking past each other and it grows tiresome.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 2:52pm

And what evidence is there that the actual events Beauchamp described--- soldiers, digging up bones and talking about Saddam--- didn't occur? None. The only objection was there were NO bones for soldiers to dig up. That the story that was peddled by wingers and they were wrong. Now, faced with their error, we have bizarre obscurantism about the difference between burial grounds, graveyards, and mass graves. But the only thing to disprove, epackard, is what's in the original writing: Soldiers, digging up bones, and talking about Saddam.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 2:55pm

as good old Sam Goldwyn used to malaprop, Include Me Out too. whoa, what a bunch of nuts. Makes thomson almost look sane...

- MrCookie1

July 26, 2007 at 2:56pm

Epackard, I'm simply repeating this in the hope you'll answer: Tell me, good sir, what is your issue? Are you saying Beauchamp lied, and the soldiers digging up the bones knew all along it was a children's burial ground? If so, on what basis? Or, are you claiming Beauchamp learned betwixt experience and writing that the area was a burial ground, and is a terrible, terrible, dishonest person because he didn't insert: "Later we found out the site was a burial ground" into his narrative? If that's your point-- okay--- but it's a mighty thin gruel.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 2:58pm

By the way, anyone who is surprised that the kind of behavior described by Thomas can occur should watch these videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UruMsel4Wfs No, these videos don't prove that what Thomas described in his articles happened. But his critics are asserting that soldiers don't engage in this kind of behavior at all. That much can be discounted out of hand.

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 2:59pm

Just one question for people on this thread. When was the last time you got laid? (Not online now)

- The Ignorant Populist

July 26, 2007 at 3:05pm

Ignorant: Sigh....There is something in what you say. I've always tended to get obsessive compulsive in the face of outright weaseling, tho. I don't claim it a character trait to my credit.

- Gil

July 26, 2007 at 3:09pm

I'm getting into my VA-provided lift-equipped van in my VA-supplied motorized wheelchair. Then I'm going down to my watering-hole and hoist a couple with my fists. While there, I will continue to remind non-vets who like to fight the war from here that if they're under 44, they can enlist. I haven't had a taker yet but I'm still trying. It's the patriotic thing to do. Drinking, I mean.

- superiorperson

July 26, 2007 at 3:23pm

Turns out the reason he got to write this scree was because of his leftist politics (read his blog, he boasts of it), his "creative writing" B.A. and the fact that he is engaged to current TNR staffer Elspeth Reeve. And the person who revealed the Reeve/Beauchamp matrimonials just got fired by TNR for his/her troubles. Coverup? What coverup?

- diggidy

July 26, 2007 at 3:28pm

The folks on here at talking past each other and it grows tiresome. Amen to that. When the discussion devolves to demonstrably untrue statements like "the ONLY argument was that there were NO BONES" and that this was made by "wingers" (i.e., anyone I disagree with), Elvis has left the building.... *sigh* By the way, how many of you heroes have visited a VAMC and dialogued with those who REALLY know? So funny. Doncha think it would be far less patronizing to simply "talk" with the men and women over at Bethesda and WRAMC, not "dialogue" with them? This, at least, is what I've found. They're just like anyone else, you know. :p I'm not all that fond of dialoguing, even on a good day. Now where's that beer?

- tavernel@erols

July 26, 2007 at 3:28pm

I don't think I can stomach reading through all of these comments on this apparent non-issue, so forgive me if someone has already said this, and someone probably has. But what really disgusts me here is that n general, the same people screaming that our soldiers couldn't, just couldn't act so horribly are the same people who proudly support our president's current, crazed, pro-torture policy. Oh, sorry -- "enhanced interrogation." Perhaps those people might -- just might -- want to try a tiny bit of self-introspection and think about the fact that maybe rules governing humane behavior, developed over centuries of waging warfare, do actually serve a purpose. JUST MAYBE it's not such a great idea to throw a bunch of young men and women into a situation in which they are dealing daily with the stress of killing and the threat of being killed, seeing on a routine basis horrors that shake your basic faith in humanity, and tell them "Hey guys, anything goes." There's a really good reason we have had -- until our current, lovely administration -- extraordinarily clear-cut rules about how soldiers are to behave towards their enemy. You people wanted to take the gloves off, right? Did it ever occur to you that those moral guidelines might give people trapped in a war zone something to hold onto, that they existed not just to protect our enemies, but to help uphold the type of military we wanted to have? The same people who defended Abu Ghraib are calling a soldier a liar for reporting that a guy killed dogs. How blind, how oblivious, are these people? I can't defend the actions of the soldiers in this report, but I can try to judge them in the context of a brutalizing war zone. And I can say that the man who wrote this sad, bitter report is at least capable of introspection and shame. I cannot say the same about his critics.

- tmv0674

July 26, 2007 at 3:32pm

"Just one question for people on this thread. "When was the last time you got laid?" What are your criteria? :P

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 3:33pm

Question for Foer: how, if at all, is Scott Thomas Beauchamp connected to TNR reporter-researcher Elspeth Reeve? It could be just a coincidence and if so then it's a quick answer, but people with these names from Missouri appear to be engaged.

- tdneeley

July 26, 2007 at 3:36pm

My question 1 (#45) was, "Did the shocking events Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp describes actually take place?" Tgossard asked, reasonably: What criteria when met would satisfy you that they did? I suspect we'll be hearing from soliders in Alpha Company, 1/18 Inf., 2BCT, 1ID. Some may deny Beauchamp's accounts, others may offer context, yet others may hem and haw. I think the outlines of the truth will be visible within a week. I'll take non-denials and silence as implicitly supporting what's in "Baghdad Diarist." My question 2 was, "Did the editors at TNR exercise reasonable Due Diligence in vetting Beauchamp's pieces?" Tgossard asked: What is your standard of "reasonable Due Diligence?" What proof might you require? Are you willing to take Foer's word that the editors did meet the Due Diligence you expect...? Mr. Foer has repeated that "Baghdad Diarist" was "rigorously fact checked" before publication. I would like to know what that standard means to him. I would like an outline of the steps taken to meet that standard. I would some context: does Mr. Foer think that Beauchamp's account is honest, or is he defending TNR's pre-publication processes irrespective of truthfulness? If Beauchamp's account is truthful and fact checking was rigorous, Foer's earned apologies from people like me. If the account is not truthful on its main claims, yet fact checking was rigorous (e.g. Beauchamp is a master scammer, or Foer was misled by other soldiers), Foer still gets the apology. What if no flags went up? No veteran reviewing a draft, exclaiming "Whoa, these are serious UCMJ violations, and they don't ring true!" No verification beyond, "Yep, the author's a soldier at a FOB in Iraq"? Then I don't think Mr. Foer's entitled to an apology. Each of us could draw on our experiences to fabricate a "Diarist" essay that shocks and appalls, then submit it to TNR (or, if you wish, to the Weekly Standard). The fact-checking standards that would separate out such fabulist chaff from the wheat of authentic first-person accounts are the right ones to have employed in this case.

This ought to do it.

- adamvaught

July 26, 2007 at 3:55pm

that everything Beauchamp wrote is implausible. A skull fitting on another's head seems unlikely, but STB may not have meant that description literally. Nonetheless, jfelliott is correct. Why would such events be shocking? The execution of war is an abasing activity. Why would cruelty, and inhumanity be a stranger to the combat zone? When I learn of such behavior, I'm never particularly outraged. My reaction may be wrong, but I usually feel an initial pang of pity for soldiers, sailors and Marines, mostly kids, who are accused of wrongdoing (e.g., abuse, murder, etc). Rapists draw my immediately draw my ire (that crime strikes me as a bit different). However, reports of servicemen who snap and shoot civilians, (oh wait, everyone in Iraq is a civilian; how f--king frustrating)or rough up prisoners sadden me. The constant danger and particularly the frustration of not knowing the identity of one's enemy can easily cause a person to snap. Like the rest of society, the military is made up many types of people. Some are sociopaths. Some are just pitiable types who are sucked in or break. Are all a disgrace to the uniform? I don't know. The National Guard sergeant at Abu Gharib was an s.o.b. who was given an opportunity (thanks Bushco for the torture scheme) to show his true colors. The rest of the junior enlisted? I don't think so. I feel the same regarding the Marines involved in the Haditha killings. Part of me pities those kids.

- tec619

July 26, 2007 at 3:56pm

So, unsurprisingly some conservative pundits have reacted by smearing the hell out of this soldier. For the most egregious example, there's this on the website of the complete joke otherwise known as Michelle Malkin: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/scott-thomas- steps-out-of-the-shadows/

- InsigniaCT

July 26, 2007 at 3:59pm

Thank you for that post.

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 3:59pm

I have a prediction to make: Franklin Foer should be looking for another job. I expect him to be fired by Monday. Scott Thomas Beauchamp will likely admit to lying before the end of the week.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 4:01pm

I got fifty that says Foer is still editor come Tuesday. Care to wager?

- adamvaught

July 26, 2007 at 4:06pm

What always kills me is that the conservatives, most of whom wouldn't get near the responsibility, danger and sacrifice required of the uniform, let alone fight a war, are always quick to rise up and defend the military. I think the military could do better without them. Look at the mess neocon foreign policy and war-mongering has created. Isn't it funny that those who glorify war, never want to be in the same position as our service members? Yeah, they honor and respect the military, that's why the neo-pambies are populated by the student deferees, bogus physical ailment types, high draft number types (apparently a high draft number precluded one from volunteering)and the Peretz anti-communitist/pro-McGovern/never called/yet never volunteered types. War's potential to feed debasing behavior is exactly why military lawyers opposed the administration's torture policy. (Not to mention that the Army, stated that such tactics don't work.) And maybe the JAG lawyers wondered how, in future wars, can the U.S. presume try enemies for torture, or tortured POWs could bring private suits, when American standards of torture allow everything short of "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function[s]." Yet the tough guy non-serving neocons ruled the day. One of their number, the blood thirsty, tough guy, John Yoo, aged 34 in the year of 9/11, and 36 at the time of the Iraq invasion, decamped to the genteel environs of LIBERAL, UC Berkeley, far, far, away from the Mesopotamian mess. All the while the Army is desperate for smart hard-chargers like Yoo. The Army IS accepting non-prior service enlistees up to age 42.

- tec619

July 26, 2007 at 4:06pm

After 18 years service as a Marine infantry officer, some details of Beauchamp's allegations make my b.s. meter quiver pretty strongly. Nevertheless, I would by no means accuse him of lying. I was not with him in his particular corner of the war. The investigation that's apparently been initiated may shed some light on the facts in due course. The real issue goes beyond PVT Beauchamp's credibility, though. The most disturbing point of the current controversy for me is the readiness of some to generalize (rather eagerly in some cases, I can't help but feel) from Beauchamp's allegations to a negative conclusion about the state of the force in Iraq as a whole. I don't think Beauchamp's testimony gets you there -- even if he's 100% truthful, all it reveals is that his unit has some rot in it that needs to be cleaned up. As boxofrox pointed out above, in any large group of people there are going to be some bad and occasionally some truly rotten apples. There are also going to be some basically good people whose judgment or self-discipline has eroded under the stress of combat. Finally, there will be a large majority who will stand the strain, with proper support and good leadership, and carry out their duties without much temptation to slaughter animals or decorate their bodies with putrefying flesh. The ability of those who prove unable to control themselves to cause lasting harm to innocents, to their own humanity, and to the goals of their unit and ultimately their nation is generally in inverse proportion to the quality of leadership in the organization, starting at the smallest unit level and going all the way up. Offering no comment on those recent issues in Iraq that are still involved in formal investigatory or legal processes, I think the point on leadership is pretty well established by a number of well-known cases of battlefield misconduct in the more distant past. Incidents such as those Beauchamp describes are alien to my experience over 18 years and three combat tours including battalion command in Iraq from March to September last year. They are, as Beauchamp himself clearly, one soldier's view of the war. My experience in my own little corner of the war leads me to believe that the vast majority of Army and Marine units in Iraq are carrying out their missions professionally under solid small unit leaders and simply don't have time or inclination for the type of nonsense that Beauchamp describes. I am not a public affairs officer, a right-winger, or an apologist for either the current administration or for the armed services in general. I simply offer my personal opinion based on my own military experience. I applaud those in this forum and elsewhere who are serving the critical function of examining the actions of our military and contributing their part to holding us to the highest possible standard -- it's one of the things that makes this nation worth fighting for. But I do urge all to avoid the temptation to draw broader conclusions from Beauchamp's testimony than it can really support. Matthew Jones LtCol, USMC

- jonesml

July 26, 2007 at 4:07pm

So a soldier, who apparently was already a hard core leftist, enlists and is apparently busted in rank. He and his TNR girlfriend/fiancee create this fictional account smearing U.S. soldiers (so far the ONLY people getting smeared, by which I mean wrongfully accused of something they did not do are U.S. soldiers). Malkin and the rest of the blogosphere a) note the impossibility of some of these acts alleged (the precision of the Bradley, etc.) b) note this guy was busted in rank and has an axe to grind with his unit and/or C.O. c) note this guy had an anti-Bush, anti-war political bent and bragged on his blog and d) his fiancee works for TNR and e) the person who revealed the engagement was fired first thing this A.M. But oh yeah, it is poor little SCOTT that has been "smeared".

- diggidy

July 26, 2007 at 4:08pm

No such unit 1/18th Inf, 2BCT in the First Infantry Division. Look it up on the 1st Div site

- ehrgr

July 26, 2007 at 4:09pm

Well said. Thanks. There's some disturbing stuff being dug up now, such as that alluded to by Diggidy, that I'm waiting to hear a response to. Good grief, this story gives me whiplash.

- literatehobo

July 26, 2007 at 4:13pm

mebbe so, mebbe not, either way we'll still have you so don't pine.

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 4:13pm

I'm not ready to jump to any conclusions. But, this is now looking much more complicated. I am concerned for TNR. Time to speak, Franklin.

- rishy

July 26, 2007 at 4:18pm

Good idea. Check out the site: http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/Organization.htm 1/18, 2 BCT, is in fact an organic unit of the 1st Infantry Division according to this organizational chart.

- jonesml

July 26, 2007 at 4:18pm

"I got fifty that says Foer is still editor come Tuesday. Care to wager?" Let's do it. $50 to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. The stuff is really going to hit the fan within the next 48 hours. Heads are going to roll.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 4:19pm

$50 to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. And $50 to yours if I'm wrong. It's a bet.

- adamvaught

July 26, 2007 at 4:21pm

Did TNR really fire someone who revealed that Beauchamp is engaged to a TNR staffer? That's pretty hard to believe.

- Johnni

July 26, 2007 at 4:21pm

- rishy

July 26, 2007 at 4:22pm

Good for you for sticking to your guns on this, and let's hope that TNR will continue to take risks with edgy pieces like this one that nonetheless respect the readers and adhere to basic principles of good journalism. More please. t

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:23pm

Pvt. Beauchamp did the right thing by identifying himself, rather than hiding behind a pseudonym. But the big question has always centered around the veracity of his reports. Did these events actually happen? Given the inflammatory and sensational nature of the events he describes, F. Foer would be expected to perform some thorough fact-checking before publishing. One thing in Beauchamp's letter disturbs me: he never states unambiguously that the controversial events he reported actually occurred. Beauchamp states "It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned..." PVT STB, almost anything can occur in a war zone, so the "events" you reported are PLAUSIBLE. But if they really happened, why didn't you choose to use the term "accuracy" or "truthfulness" instead. Maybe it was an honest omission, but I'm concerned that your choice of words is a bit CLINTONIAN here...

- dlrocdoc

July 26, 2007 at 4:25pm

Pvt. Beauchamp did the right thing by identifying himself, rather than hiding behind a pseudonym. But the big question has always centered around the veracity of his reports. Did these events actually happen? Given the inflammatory and sensational nature of the events he describes, F. Foer would be expected to perform some thorough fact-checking before publishing. One thing in Beauchamp's letter disturbs me: he never states unambiguously that the controversial events he reported actually occurred. Beauchamp states "It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned..." PVT STB, almost anything can occur in a war zone, so the "events" you reported are PLAUSIBLE. But if they really happened, why didn't you choose to use the term "accuracy" or "truthfulness" instead. Maybe it was an honest omission, but I'm concerned that your choice of words is a bit CLINTONIAN here...

- dlrocdoc

July 26, 2007 at 4:25pm

Thanks for the great perspective, jonesml (#106). Should be required reading, or at least a Letter to TNR. Google turned up this post at "Ace of Spades". There's snark, but a lot of information too. This may have the makings of a train wreck. URL http://tinyurl.com/2uya5m Too many strange new twists--I'm signing off. Time will tell where this all leads.

- ammackay

July 26, 2007 at 4:26pm

paypal accepted

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:27pm

There's a war on.

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:28pm

He also refered to them as incidents he "witnessed." I don't see "plausible" as a big deal when they're in a sentence that claims that he witnessed them. If wanted to be weaselly, he would have referred to incidents he "described" Methinks you're reading too much into that one word.

- miceelf

July 26, 2007 at 4:28pm

"Time will tell where this all leads." Not much time to wait. Less than 48 hours should do it. Why am I so confident? The military authorities are almost certainly asking some hard questions of soldier Beauchamp and his close buddies. Would you like to be in their shoes?

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 4:33pm

Oh, well. I guess I'll post one more time so Gil can catch some air. (Get it? Gil. Air. Gill? heh) As posted before, my issue with Thomas is that, without more evidence, his article appears to be exaggerated, at best, and a lie, at worse. However, an exaggeration in reporting is really nothing more than a half-truth lie. Regarding the mass grave, Thomas claimed it was a "Saddam-era dumping ground." A cemetary or "burial ground" would not have had the appearance that Thomas described. So, from what I read, either Thomas lied or other people at his duty station lied. It can't be differing nomenclature for the same thing observed by two sets of people. Which is it? I haven't claimed definitively that I believe Thomas lied. But I have doubts based on the inconsistencies within the piece.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 4:33pm

And why not? In Las Cruces, New Mexico, some people were charged with intentionally swerving to hit joggers on a main road. Las Cruces is some 80,000 people. Allegations that a few people in an organization twice as large and in a war zone did something similar aren't surprising. Private Beauchamp's story can therefore not be rejected out of hand. It shouldn't be accepted out of hand either, especially considering the circumstances that damage his credibility - rather, it should be investigated seriously with any guilty parties being punished. Most importantly, just as one cannot assume that serving to hit pedestrians is a characteristic of those in Las Cruces, the military as a whole cannot be presumed to be acting as Private Beauchamp describes.

- phargle

July 26, 2007 at 4:35pm

on my own. My findings thus far: After a rigorous examination under a 4X magnifying glass, I have found no drool stains on any of the Diarist pages Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) wrote. All pages were intact, indicating I hadn't ripped them out to send to Time or CNN, thus to desecrate our troops in Iraq, or anywhere else (which, btw, I support with my prayers and my taxes) - and I'm damned Liberal too, no f-ing "progressive." I have asked several of my Liberal friends, and a couple of conservative ones, if they have any recollection of my making sneering comments or vulgar noises or lewd hand gestures, triumphal bays, that "HAH! There's another of our 160,000 scumbags who has the guts to tell it like it is." Before Thomas' Diarists and since, not until a couple days ago, have I ever heard a discouraging word about him (Thomas), or a praiseworthy one. However, at the rate this going, by Friday maybe Scott Thomas will have admitted he lied, or next Monday Foer will be gone (gone where? gone missing?) as thomsondavid predicts, but the whole sloppy-jo will get a mention on Hardball, or Hannity, perhaps the Billo cri de coeur, and will have earned Scott Thomas' victims a right to a hearing and an airing. Then can I get laid?!?!? LiterateHobo?

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 4:35pm

What if Foer is fired and replaced by Scott Thomas? Who owes who money?

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 4:37pm

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 4:38pm

"there's a war on" and that ain't the half of it.

- Tgossard

July 26, 2007 at 4:40pm

I have no idea if Beauchamp is a hero...though the fact that he is fulfilling his military obligation in a combat zone separates him from 99.99% of Talkbackers, (nod to butchie, jackson, and my main man teccy) From what I've seen, Beauchamp's writing skills don't impress me terribly, and I'm not sure his literary career is off to a good start, but here's the only thing that matters: Beauchamp is there, on the ground, in Iraq. His ass is on the line. He's serving. He has given us some impressions of the reality he sees around him, and at great personal cost he's now outed himself. Back off, o ye jackals. There's a war on. Let this soldier serve. And let the armchair Patriotically Correct morons get back to whatever it is they do for a living.

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:40pm

"What if Foer is fired and replaced by Scott Thomas? Who owes who money?" Sniff, I can see it now: Marty Peretz fires Foer one minute past midnight on Tuesday morning just so I lose the $50.

- thomsondavid

July 26, 2007 at 4:43pm

Patriotically Correct Good phrase.

- adamvaught

July 26, 2007 at 4:43pm

hat tip to the art critic Robert Hughes, who has little tolerance for either of the PC brigades.

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:44pm

The TNR staffer is Elspeth Reeve http://ace.mu.nu/archives/234925.php There's alot more info there. Go read it all

- WilliamJE

July 26, 2007 at 4:51pm

I largely agree with your post. And I share your dismay regarding those who jump to extrapolate from Beauchamp's anecdotes and make negative conclusions on the state of our force in Iraq. But, on a slightly different note, just because troops carry out their missions competently and honorably doesn't mean they are gung-ho about the war. As you know, personal pride, a strong work ethic and a sense of loyalty towards one's buddies and unit count for more than sublime concepts such as spreading liberty, etc. Unfortunately, Beachamp may be a Stephen Glassesque fabulist (again, TNR!?). So that will distract from the important issues, such as the stupid decision by this administration to invade Iraq, and the immersion of the military in a country that wasn't an al Qaeda stronghold before Bush ordered the invasion of the (wrong) country. Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on Abu Gharib. As a field grade officer, do you think it is possible that the events that occurred at the prison could ever happen on your watch and without you knowledge? My experience in the Marines and Navy tell me it could happen, but, without your knowledge, not for very long. You, your junior officers and SNCOs would have to be in on it or woefully irresponsible and incompetent. I think the "a few bad apples" assertion is b-o-g-u-s. Ooray, Devil Dog.

- tec619

July 26, 2007 at 4:55pm

http://registry.weddingchannel.com/cs/searchresult s.action?sortField=&isReverse=false

- WilliamJE

July 26, 2007 at 4:55pm

So now you're trying to gin something up about the guy's fiancee? Are you auditioning for a Maxwell Smart role?

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 4:56pm

Tep, I recent days I seen posts by teplukhin2you and by teplukhin? Who is the real tep? Or are you really Beauchamp? Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

- mghogwild

July 26, 2007 at 4:56pm

The co-chair of the President's commission on veterans care is married to a current Republican senator.

- frb63

July 26, 2007 at 4:58pm

No kidding. You people have no irony.

- Gabbage

July 26, 2007 at 4:58pm

Maybe it's Lee Siegel.

- epackard

July 26, 2007 at 5:00pm

Foer is in trouble when even rishy is concerned and asking him to speak up about this. I agree. If Foer and the Powers That Be at TNR thought revealing STB's identity would silence their critics and answer all questions they were very, very wrong. There are more, and more troubling questions than ever. Where are you FF? Editors? Hello?

- tdneeley

July 26, 2007 at 5:01pm

Without trying to recapitulate this whole agonizingly long thread, let me make a point that no one in the last 131 posts seems to have noticed. AN ARMY INVESTIGATION OF BEAUCHAMP'S ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT NECESSARILY UNCOVER THE TRUTH OF THE SITUATION, NOR WILL AFTER-THE-FACT "FACT CHECKING." Not only has everyone so far ignored this truth; some have even gone out of the way to deny it. Tavernel, for instance, way, way back at the beginning of the thread, wrote: "Count on it, there is already an investigation underway now. As I said, the military investigates any complaint of this sort. We are not like the civilian world - we can't afford to brush things like this off. We are human and we do make mistakes, especially during war when our commanders are working 20 hour days and being shot at and having to notify families that people have died and coordinating benefits with wounded soldiers, all of which takes more hours than it sometimes seems are in the work day and little of which manages to get written into that juicy Newsweak expose about how we don't 'care' about the latest outrage du jour." Unbelievable. Anyone who could hold these opinions after the Pat Tillman scandal is either ignorant of the facts or in denial. A Pentagon bureaucracy that could fabricate evidence to cover up the Tillman deception and the Jessica Lynch fiasco is certainly capable of covering up the relatively minor lapses of good taste and ethics -- NOT crimes under military regulations -- that Beauchamp reports. And just how are Beauchamp's reports to be "fact-checked"? Outside of verifying that his unit was in the places he describes at the times he describes, the only way to substantiate his reports is to get testimony from his fellow soldiers. And which of them is likely to admit that these incidents took place? To answer that question, ask yourself whether the members of Pat Tillman's unit would ever have told what they knew without the continuing pressure from Tillman's family and concerned groups outside the military? Let's live in the real world, people. After all the dust has settled and all the "investigations" have finished, he ultimate question will still be: whom do you trust -- Beauchamp or the bureaucracy? I know my answer to that question. What's yours?

- davezimny

July 26, 2007 at 5:02pm

Not by choice. Go ask TNR's DBA why the hell their subscriber db can't recognize me anymore.

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 5:05pm

I can't believe I'm saying that. No this would be a scarier idea. Bring back Michael Kinsley. LOL, this was an attempt at sarcastic humor. Don't say it- William don't give up your day job. I read TNR way back then. I've always enjoyed the magazine, its the drama I could have done without but I love 'Shattered Glass'. William Jempty TNR Subscriber 80-88, 93 or 94 to present I met Martin Peretz at Palm Beach Junior College in 1988. He was speaking in support of Al Gore.

- WilliamJE

July 26, 2007 at 5:06pm

Please print more controversial pieces like this. Controversy = good. Publicity for TNR = excellent. Here's hoping you add another 10,000 subs as a result of this affair. The Patriotically Correct jackals who've given legs to this non-scandal deserve thank you notes. Maybe a $5 Starbucks card each.

- teplukhin2you

July 26, 2007 at 5:09pm

mghogwild- teplukhin is in actual fact the finance of teplukhin2you, and the only way teplukhin2you came to post on this and other Talkback threads is a direct result of that Plame-ish link.

- JosephCuomo

July 26, 2007 at 5:09pm

The Reeve/Beauchamp connections now been confirmed, now the question becomes for how long did they plan on this sort of his piece on the U.S. miliary? Indications are Reeve knew Beauchamp's politics for years and "interviewed" him at length.