Beauchamp, Updated

Well, it looks like The Weekly Standard and the right-wing blogosphere really had the goods turn out to be full of shit, though it does turn out that the incident with the soldiers making fun of the injured woman happened in a base in Kuwait rather than a base in Iraq. Nevertheless, despite being totally wrong, it's arguably mission accomplished for the right:

Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.

And there you have it -- if the troops say things the right doesn't like, they get mau-maued into silence. Meanwhile, anyone who says the war may not be so fantastic hates the troops.

UPDATE: See also this.

Comments

Bonus info on wingnut smear-carrier Sanchez, from clicking through Time to Radar:

You were also in a film called Touched by an Anal. Look, I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I don't remember doing a film called Touched by an Anal. That was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot films and they use them forever.

I don't know why, but that just makes me happy.

From now on, when the wingnuts attack, can the first response be to ask whether the interlocutor has ever made gay porn? And then we can note curious ellipses in information about said person's whereabouts on a day on which gay porn was made.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 4:14 PM

And so the conservative blogosphere has accomplished their task - they've created an atmosphere of intimidation, forced people to waste time and money justifying themselves, and none of the morons who posted here and all over the blogosphere about Bradleys and dogs will feel the least bit chastened.

Posted by vanya | August 2, 2007 4:14 PM

Well worth the wait, though I'm sure the 25%ers will seize on the Iraq/Kuwait distinction to argue... something.

After the scorn and mud heaped on Beauchamp and TNR, I think Foer would have been quite justified in closing the statement telling Malkin et al to "go F' themselves", but I guess the statement itself says that well enough.

By the way, I never did get why the Elspeth Reeve thing was such a big deal. If I wrote an article for my WIFE's magazine, I'd be even MORE inclined to be correct not less. It's one thing to jeopardize your own job as a freelance writer, much less both your and your wife's job.

Posted by TheF79 | August 2, 2007 4:19 PM

Screw Michelle Magalang.

Posted by John | August 2, 2007 4:22 PM

Kuwait, Iraq, same thing, obviously. So, Beauchamp's a liar about that, but everything else is surely true.

Hey, I'll be sure to remember this logic next time Scooter Libby says something.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 4:47 PM

The real problem was that TNR revealed his name because a bunch of idiots with 0 facts and a shitty track record for acuracy whined. This is really TNR's fault. They should have just said STFU, we stand behind our source.

Posted by IMU | August 2, 2007 4:48 PM

And, BTW, TNR's statement boils down to "a bunch of anonymous people say it's true, so therefore it's true". No, that doesn't cut it either.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 4:50 PM

A liar? Christ, Al. The dude was in a couple of different places, and he obviously misremembered where he was when that incident happened. It's a diary, so he was going off of memory, not taking notes as the stuff happened, I'd assume.

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 4:50 PM

"Kuwait, Iraq, same thing, obviously. So, Beauchamp's a liar about that, but everything else is surely true.

Hey, I'll be sure to remember this logic next time Scooter Libby says something."

Exhibit A, folks

Posted by TheF79 | August 2, 2007 4:53 PM

OK Al, what would be enough to convince you? As we've seen, soldiers generally aren't free to be quoted by name, so they're going to be anonymous sources. The point is, they're anonymous sources who were there and witnessed the events in question.

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 4:53 PM

Al,
What proof do you have that it is a lie, as opposed to an error? This question is especially worth asking you given that most of Beauchamp's claims have been corroborated, and that it would be against his interest to lie in a way that allows critics like you to raise doubts on the margins and try to blow them toward the center of his account.

Posted by jason | August 2, 2007 4:53 PM

Has parody-Al migrated over here from Washington Monthly?

I'm asking seriously.

Posted by grh | August 2, 2007 4:54 PM

Al,
I notice in your subsequent comment you're willing to accept TNR's word when it acknowledges a Beauchamp error (about location), but suddenly not when it validates his claims. Why is that anything other than a double standard?

Posted by jason | August 2, 2007 4:58 PM

OK Al, what would be enough to convince you?

Confirmation from members of his unit on the record, so they can be interviewed by other people.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:00 PM

Al, just shut up. Seriously, we've had enough. This smear-and-intimidate strategy worked like a charm, even though the facts turned out to be right

The entire wingnut fanatic claim about the face-injury story was, "Oh, no, that never could have happened because troops would never do such a thing." Where's that claim, now, Al?

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 5:02 PM

Al, you are dangerously close to crossing the line from "have serious reservations about the story" to "in denial of reality."

Are you sure you want to go there?

Posted by Formerly Wu | August 2, 2007 5:03 PM

Al, look at all of the shit Beauchamp's gotten for this. He can't speak to his family, for chrissake. Why would a member of his unit be willing to corroborate his stories, on the record? (well, actually, it was "on the record," it was just anonymous. From what I know of journalism rules, "off the record" means "you can't publish that, with or without my name.")

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 5:04 PM

so they can be interviewed by other people.

I think what's been most interesting about this episode is how the conservative magazines have looked on in wonder. Actual reporting? In an opinion magazine? A concept they're totally unfamiliar with.

Al, you would go to Iraq and interview soldiers? Obviously not. But you WOULD call up the Pentagon and demand those soldiers be driven out of the military. There's patriotism for ya.

Posted by Marshall | August 2, 2007 5:06 PM

The more I think about this story, the more I think Beauchamp is an idiot. He didn't have to join the Army but he did, he didn't have to pick infantry but he did (he's educated enough, he could have picked any MOS or gone to OCS). Finally, once he's over there-- well, save the material for your novel dude. You're under Uncle Sam's thumb, why make things hard for yourself?

Of course the Army is going to give you grief for writing negative things about the war, they treat you like.. you're in the Army! If he wanted to report a war crime or something that seemed completely insane, he has an absolute right to communicate with his congressman without fear of punishment. But publishing something under your own name (army officers aren't stupid, how long did it take them to run his pseudonym through a database and come up with his first and middle names?) critical of the Army-- that's not the actions of a rational person.

Granted, politically I probably agree with him, but I didn't enlist in the Army. The guy just sounds like a malcontent, take the king's pay, take the king's orders and all that.

Posted by beowulf | August 2, 2007 5:06 PM

What proof do you have that it is a lie, as opposed to an error?

Oh, please. After years of "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", etc., you're asking me seriously about the difference between a lie and an error. Can we go through Yglesias's blog to count up all the times he's called someone a liar, and ask him how he knows the statement is a lie rather than an error?

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:07 PM

I notice in your subsequent comment you're willing to accept TNR's word when it acknowledges a Beauchamp error (about location), but suddenly not when it validates his claims. Why is that anything other than a double standard?

It is a statement against interest.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:10 PM

The whole Beauchamp-business aside, I'm REALLY getting sick of people spending so much time making a big deal about Jeff Gannon's and Matt Sanchez's sexual pasts, or constantly referring to Ann Coulter as a "tranny," etc. Repeatedly shouting that it's the Republicans and the right who are intolerant of gays and unfair doesn't really cut it when it's blog commenters on the left who are constantly pointing fingers and sniggering at gay jokes (how long has it been since a joke about Bush sleeping with Gannon was funny, if they ever were?).

Frankly, the Radar interview pointed to by the post you linked pretty clearly shows that Sanchez is honest and open about his past, now that it's become public knowledge. Just because he's wrong on Iraq and other issues it doesn't mean that his sexuality is a legitimate subject for attack.

Bullshit ideological purity tests, on both the left AND the right, are destroying political debate in this country and making the potential for compromise -- on ANY issue -- less likely. They need to stop.

Posted by Nate | August 2, 2007 5:10 PM

Please, Al is always and only a degenerate liar. Degeneracy is Al.

Posted by Jennifer | August 2, 2007 5:13 PM

Why would a member of his unit be willing to corroborate his stories, on the record?

I have no idea. They have no obligation to help Beauchamp and TNR. And they'd probably look bad if they did confirm some of the stories.

Why should that make me believe Beauchamp and TNR?

(well, actually, it was "on the record," it was just anonymous. From what I know of journalism rules, "off the record" means "you can't publish that, with or without my name.")

Could be. I never quite followed all those distinctions.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:14 PM

After years of "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", etc., you're asking me seriously about the difference between a lie and an error.

This performance is so mind-numbingly moronic -- and seemingly purposefully so -- that it's hard not to think it's parody Al.

Posted by grh | August 2, 2007 5:15 PM

I have no idea. They have no obligation to help Beauchamp and TNR. And they'd probably look bad if they did confirm some of the stories.

Why should that make me believe Beauchamp and TNR?

Occam's Razor.

Proposition 1: Nationally syndicated publication fact-checks story, has story's validity questioned, re-checks it but can't publish specific details due to military investigations and negative pressure on witnesses.

Proposition 2: Nationally syndicated publication, knowingly or not, publishes false story; lies about it, waits a while, then lies about it in grander fashion, apparently hoping noone will notice.

Which do you think is more realistic, in the absence of other considerations?

Posted by Formerly Wu | August 2, 2007 5:19 PM

Somehow, if "The Weekly Standard" decided to sponsor a young black man writing about the dysfunctions of gang culture, I suspect that the left in general - and you, Matt, in particular - would call it racist.

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military. There are bad actors in any community, and focusing on them to the exclusion of all else says a lot about TNR, the left, and you.

None of it good.

Posted by James Robertson | August 2, 2007 5:20 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military.

That's right! Surely running over a bunch of dogs and mocking a disfigured woman is the worst things our troops in Iraq have ever done. Pay no attention to the guy's first story about how TEH ISLAMOFASCISTS!!1! cut out a kid's tongue -- he wasn't clinically psychotic then.

Posted by Steve | August 2, 2007 5:25 PM

I never quite followed all those distinctions.

Which is why you're clearly the best choice as an adviser on journalistic ethics.

Posted by KCinDC | August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military. There are bad actors in any community, and focusing on them to the exclusion of all else says a lot about TNR, the left, and you.

And thus the evolution is complete.

Step 1: It's not true!

Step 2: If it is true, which it isn't, it's a stab in the back!

Step 3: It's a stab in the back!

By this ingenious process, the right can safely insulate itself from all aspects of ugly, liberal-biased reality.

Posted by Formerly Wu | August 2, 2007 5:28 PM

Al, what makes you disbelieve it? How many anonymous sources would TNR have to bring forward before it equals one named source, in your estimation? Do you think TNR is making up the anonymous sources? Really?

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 5:31 PM

And the goalposts are being carried off the field!

Posted by TheF79 | August 2, 2007 5:32 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military.

And the stupidity just gets worse. There is literally no reasoning with some people.

Posted by vanya | August 2, 2007 5:40 PM

Nate,

Matt Sanchez is so frank about his past that he claims not to be gay. Like Roy Cohn in Angels in America he is just a man who has sex with other men.

Once various and sundry right wingers stop their gay bashing, we will stop having fun with the closet case freak show that is the GOP. But until then, it remains fair game that, for instance, a gay prostitute becomes the White House's go to guy in press conferences.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 2, 2007 5:54 PM

Al doesn't give his real complete name when he coments. Why should we believe that he even exists, or if he does, that he isn't a liar?

I won't take him seriously until I can interview him myself in person.

Posted by Ryan | August 2, 2007 5:55 PM

Al, what makes you disbelieve it?

What, the original story? I disbelieve it for all the reasons that have been recounted on the various milblogs. Those soldiers seems a lot more plausible than this one.

How many anonymous sources would TNR have to bring forward before it equals one named source, in your estimation?

A lot. I don't find anonymous sources very credible at all.

Do you think TNR is making up the anonymous sources? Really?

I have no idea. Maybe Beauchamp is getting people to lie for him. Who knows? That's the problem with anonymous sources - you can't assess their credibility well.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:56 PM

Al,
In raising MY's statements about Bush administration officials' having lied, you are changing the subject into a non-analogous situation where there is a much longer and (to some) more contentious evidentiary record. So that is a separate debate and to bring it up now, however tempting for a conservative, is an evasion. Therefore I repeat my original question: What actual reasons do you have to believe it is a lie rather than an error for Beauchamp to have located the cafeteria story in Iraq rather than in Kuwait? (If it was a lie, after all, it's not one that particularly helps his case -- the import of his concerns about the stresses on and fallibility of troops remains intact in either case.)

Posted by jason | August 2, 2007 5:59 PM

Al doesn't give his real complete name when he coments. Why should we believe that he even exists, or if he does, that he isn't a liar?

I won't take him seriously until I can interview him myself in person.

I wouldn't trust the truthfulness of something said by an anonymous blog commenter either! Most of my comments are in the form of opinions, not factual statements. To the extent I do make factual statements, I would completely understand if someone asked for a pointer to a credible source.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 5:59 PM

Al, have you ever performed in gay porn or worked as a gay male escort?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 6:00 PM

The standard wingnut strategy is to force you to jump through as many hoops as possible in hopes that you will give them an easy out by refusing to jump through one of them.

For example, they start off by saying "Unless you identify this anonymous soldier, we don't believe he exists!" They're hoping you'll stand your ground and refuse to identify him, so they can claim victory.

Oops, TNR went ahead and identified him. Then the demand became "unless you verify these aspects of the story, we're going to assume you're a liar!" They're hoping TNR won't bother with the tiresome process of re-verification, so they can claim victory.

Oops, TNR went ahead and confirmed every detail. Now the clowns like Al are stuck with "well, unless they get someone to confirm it ON THE RECORD, they're still a bunch of liars in my book!" It's a silly exercise and eventually TNR will come to understand you can only win the game by refusing to play.

Posted by Steve | August 2, 2007 6:00 PM

Al, have you ever performed in gay porn or worked as a gay male escort?

No. And I'm telling you I have 78 sources, who wish to remain anonymous, who say I'm telling the truth.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 6:06 PM

Already breaking my rule of not taking Al seriously...

Maybe Beauchamp is getting people to lie for him.

If so, those people would have to include people whom it seems very unlikely Beauchamp has ever met -- instructors, journalists, the makers of the Bradley, etc. Mind you the corroboration they provide is circumstantial -- they're not eyewitnesses to the actual events he describes. But they do support the case that they *could* have happened as he describes, which is something your trusted milbloggers (how many of whom blog nymously, by the way?) frequently and heatedly denied.

So you must admit, at a minimum, that the new evidence from TNR sets your case back. Unless you still believe it's possible TNR is making it all up out of whole cloth.

Posted by Ryan | August 2, 2007 6:25 PM

Huh. I guess this is the real Al, though it certainly sounded like parody-Al for a while.

clowns like Al

I've long argued that Al is not a clown (like James Robertson, for example). He's something far more unpleasant and dangerous -- comparable to the editor of Pravda, as opposed to a credulous Pravda reader such as Robertson.

On the other hand, Al does appear to have suffered mild brain damage recently. So he's nowhere near as alarming a character as he used to be. For instance, pre-brain damage Al would never have written something as transparently moronic as this:

After years of "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", etc., you're asking me seriously about the difference between a lie and an error.

Posted by grh | August 2, 2007 6:26 PM

Regarding those bloggers who won't apologize for slandering Scott Thomas Beauchamp etc., you can always pester them. Ie like

"Blogger so-and-so (who haven't apologized for his slander of Scott Thomas Beauchamp) says on another issue..."

Pester them. If you sit back and wait for apologies there won't be any. And there is no reason for them not to slander next time, and walk away.

It looks especially possible to have fun with the Bradley analyses.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 2, 2007 6:37 PM

And I'm telling you I have 78 sources, who wish to remain anonymous, who say I'm telling the truth.

Can I be the 79th, and if so, what might it cost?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 6:37 PM

Al's just trying to fulfill his weekly quota of professionaly-placed GOP talking points. give a workin guy a break, woncha ?

Posted by cleek | August 2, 2007 6:39 PM

So you must admit, at a minimum, that the new evidence from TNR sets your case back.

I don't know, Ryan. The present some corroborating evidence. Some of which isn't very convincing (the anonymous sources). Some of which is more convincing (the Bradley company source, although he has a reason to say that). They also present the Kuwait lie/error, which makes the Beauchamp stories less credible. I'd say it's a mixed bag.

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 6:41 PM

Can I be the 79th, and if so, what might it cost?

Hmmmm, I never thought about it. How much you suppose Beauchamp is paying his anonymous sources?

Posted by Al | August 2, 2007 6:44 PM

grh,

You realize there is no "Al", so you never know from day to day which troll has taken up the Al banner.

There was an actual, bona fide Al (a wingnut but not completely trollish) who posted regularly at Kevin Drum's site a few years ago. He dropped off from posting and eventually a regular who claimed to know him posted that the poor guy had died of cancer.

So every Al posting since then is just some random troll or another pretending to be Al.

Posted by beowulf | August 2, 2007 6:45 PM

What, the original story? I disbelieve it for all the reasons that have been recounted on the various milblogs

Heh. SUcks to be you then, because you were misled by the "milbloggers" who turned out to be wrong. The "milbloggers" you read were, unfortunately, way too emotionally carried away by the personal offense they took regarding Beauchamp's blog and, unfortunately, you took them to seriously.

TheF79 summed it up nicely... you're reduced to carrying the goalposts straight off the field. Nice try. If your consistent support for the Iraq war didn't already prove it to everyone, we have now established beyond a reasonable doubt that you have poor judgment.

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 6:50 PM

OK, beowulf, so which one of the fake Als is a New Jersey Nets fan?

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 6:53 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military.

That's right! Surely running over a bunch of dogs and mocking a disfigured woman is the worst things our troops in Iraq have ever done. Pay no attention to the guy's first story about how TEH ISLAMOFASCISTS!!1! cut out a kid's tongue -- he wasn't clinically psychotic then.

Posted by Steve

T.S. Beauchamp chose not the "criminally most severe" acts, but those stories he thought would dishonor the Army the most without triggering a war crimes investigation of his ass.

1. Desecration of a grave in front of witnesses, wearing body parts, all soldiers doing nothing about it, chain of command nonexistent.
2. Severe emotional abuse of a wounded female comrade in the midst of a dining hall full of American troops that did not intervene or report the despicable behavior. Or physically attack Beauchamp and his crony in his story.
3. Reckless behavior of a driver of a multimilliondollar weapon of war, for the purpose of animal cruelty, destruction of native's property and livelihood - all without any correction or reporting by the Bradley's Commander, weaps specialist, 2-8 or so soldiers in the rear of the vehicle. No question or reporting of dangerous to dismounted troops behavior by other Bradley crews or dismounted troops in the combat formations. Cover-up of drivers activities by commanding officer in every after action report filed.

No, sorry to Matt and others never in the military, but this guy instantly smelled of liar to any Vet or current soldier.

Plus milbloggers got emails back from soldiers in that company they knew that signed with their names that Beauchamp was a "troubled soldier" and full of it.

Apparantly after it was quickly determined that every woman at the FOB when Beauchamp was there did not have the disfigurement he said existed and Beauchamp was confronted about that early in the flap....he changed his story to 'did I say the FOB? Kuwait...yeah, that's the ticket!

Despite the Left's constant claim they "support the troops", they miss no opportunity to smear the military the loathe.

All TNR does is claim that they contacted anonymous sources, perhaps some blind email addresses that Beauchamp suggested, of "Fred, who was there..." And some guy who says, hypothetically a Bradley might flush a dog by violently whipping the crew and transport troops inside around. (Just like hypothetically, George Bush could have been AWOL and the TANG documents, while fake, support that underlying truth..)

*******And I strongly disagree with a previous poster that said Beauchamp was "smart enough" that he easily could have been in any MOS he wanted or OCS. The guy just had a degree in journalism, and was busted twice as private. I strongly doubt his mental ability to qualify for the more elite MOS positions or that anyone with a day or so of monitoring his fitness to be an officer, would ever recommend him for an OCS program.*****

Posted by Chris Ford | August 2, 2007 7:21 PM

Wow. People who still want to believe Beauchamp made the whole thing up are completely off their rocker. Again, you wonder why TNR even bothered trying to satisfy these people.

Posted by Steve | August 2, 2007 7:30 PM

You realize there is no "Al"

No, I'm afraid Al is all too real. That's what's truly terrifying.

On the other, as I noted, he does seems to have suffered some kind of irreversible brain damage. Perhaps if he continues to deteriorate he'll eventually reach the level of a Chris Ford, who I believe is literally drooling.

Posted by grh | August 2, 2007 7:32 PM

Of course! How outrageous that anyone could dare to imply that any of Our Boys have ever done anything like this? (As opposed, say, to Abu Ghraib.)

And, by the way, TNR did NOT say that its confirmatory sources were anonymous, or of unproven identity, to them -- just that they "requested anonymity". (I can't imagine why, given the Pentagon's proven record of honesty and respect for whistleblowers in such matters.) As for his (three) corroborative witnesses in the Disfigured Woman incident: THEY were the ones who told TNR that he had gotten every detail right except for its location. Only then did they contact Beauchamp, who agreed.

Footnote in the TANG memos case: How many of you remember that Washington Post article a few days later, in which CBS told the Post that "60 Minutes" decided to run with that story only after they talked to Bush's aide who had shown the memos to Bush, and HE himself told them that Bush said he couldn't disagree with their contents? I think that the real story in that case is pretty obvious: Bill Burkett (who had previously talked about seeing about such memos, but couldn't prove their existence because they had been carefully destroyed by the Powers That be at Guard HQ) decided to try to get the ball rolling by using his memory of their contents to fabricate some replacements -- which is why they were physical fakes but Bush himself couldn't question their actual contents.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 2, 2007 7:39 PM

Beauchamp chose not the "criminally most severe" acts, but those stories he thought would dishonor the Army the most without triggering a war crimes investigation of his ass.

impressive display of mind-reading.

Posted by cleek | August 2, 2007 7:41 PM

I just want to point out that the change to Kuwait makes a huge difference in the story line. He said in his story that he felt bad about mocking that women afterward, but that "war degrades your sense of humor". But apparently he never had been to iraq or war prior to mocking that women and he was just a douchebag all along

Posted by Gordo | August 2, 2007 7:45 PM

I'm not sure confirming a previously anonymous source with 5 additional anonymous sources confirms much. I'm reserving judgment until the Army releases their findings.

If Beauchamp is telling the truth, then I expect he'll be held accountable under the UCMJ for Conduct Unbecoming.

Posted by John | August 2, 2007 7:48 PM

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 8:05 PM

Oh, and John -- what if the Army presents their findings without providing named sources? Will you believe them?

Posted by too many steves | August 2, 2007 8:06 PM

Al, look at all of the shit Beauchamp's gotten for this. He can't speak to his family, for chrissake.

His troubles are just beginning. He has Article 134 "Conduct Unbecoming, prejudicial to good order & discipline" charges coming if he is lying. Perhaps an Article 32 General Court Martial from the investigation - if he lied or was reckless for "endangerment of the lives of fellow soldiers in a war zone", "rendering aid and comfort to the enemy, by word or deed, in time of war." If telling the truth, (which more and more seems highly unlikely) he faces Article 134 charges for the severe abuse he inflicted on a female civilian, for failing to report crimes of desecration, destruction of property, wanton cruelty..

Plus bloggers found he had committed a serious OPSEC (operational security) violation by posting his units deployment schedule and locations in an active war zone. Another Article 32 violation, which his unit is also aware of from a post by the 1st SGT.

My nephew was a Bradley gunner in Iraq in 2005, sent from an artillery regiment after an IED got the designated gunner he replaced on an emergency "lateral assignment". Served a year in the Ramadi snakepit. In 2006 a car bomb at a checkpoint gave him a bad concussion and blew out an eardrum, progressively affecting his hearing & balance so he got a medical discharge, another purple heart. He's back in college to become a state trooper/EMT and join Army Reserves. (If his hearing and balance continue to improve after surgical reconstruction). Last week, his Dad and I were talking and he'd stopped by and he mentioned that Beauchamp. He was 99% convinced Beauchamp was lying about everything, 100% convinced he was lying about the Bradley hijinks from his experience and knowledge of what happens to a driver that just does fucked up stuff or destroys Hadji's stuff with no cause. He had heard from some of his buddies he once was in charge of now back in Iraq in his Sarge spot in charge of others - that dudes there are pissed and want to rip the guy's throat out...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 2, 2007 8:06 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military.

Ah yes, TNR and their notorious anti-military editorial line.

Dumbass.

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 8:11 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying, seeing as you hired Stephen Glass who made 75% of his stories. Not to mention hiring plagiarists like Hanna Rosin. Yith that history, you didn't do any fact checking relying on the Valerie Plamesque tie to the magazine. I want names, dates, places, photographs of everything involved

Posted by narciso | August 2, 2007 8:14 PM

That's odd, given the number of other soldiers who have regularly told NY Times and Wash. Post reporters about various flat-out brutalities (never mind discourtesies) inflicted on Hajis. To say nothing of the testimony that appeared during the Hamdaniya murder trial (which ended, you'll recall, with a literal slap on the wrist for the convicted man):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/20/Iraq.Hamdaniya/index.html?iref=newssearch

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 2, 2007 8:24 PM

I want names, dates, places, photographs of everything involved

Look you worthless little right-wing lemming, you were both too stupid to understand that the Iraq war was a bad idea and endlessly claimed that Scott Thomas was a fake. You haven't got a clue and have no credibility. Nobody owes you anything. You're only commenting on the issue now because you were mindlessly following the lead of a bunch of sociopathic right-wing bloggers hoping to lead a lynch mob, because that's the only thing you people know how to do. You placed a bet. You lost.

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 8:34 PM

TNR picked out a sociopath in order to stay with a narrative they believe about the military.

Perhaps this was meant as a reference to Marty Peretz...

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 8:59 PM

There's an interesting contradiction within Al's argument. Jason wrote:

I notice in your subsequent comment you're willing to accept TNR's word when it acknowledges a Beauchamp error (about location), but suddenly not when it validates his claims. Why is that anything other than a double standard?

Al replied:

It [i.e. the first] is a statement against interest.

What's interesting is that just about the entirety of Scott Beauchamp's diary is a statement against interest. Yet Al's convinced he's a liar, i.e. fabricator, nonetheless.

I'd love to hear him explain that one. Why does 'statement against interest' confer credibility in the case of TNR admitting the one small discrepancy, but a much more substantial 'statement against interest' carry no weight of credibility at all in Beauchamp's case?

(The ways in which Beauchamp's account is a statement against interest are almost too numerous to require listing -- it makes him look like a terribly indisciplined soldier, it exposes him to possibly severe punishment from the Army, it exposes him to the 'winger mau mau treatment, etc. You could argue that the account was a way to *get published*, which is in his interest, but for this to be decisive you'd have to argue that he couldn't have got published by writing a 'pro-war' piece, i.e. one that would not offend the Army or the 'wingers. But in fact Beauchamp *did* write just such a piece and got it published in TNR back in I think January. And if your premise is that he's a fabricator, obviously he could have made up any damn heroic story about himself and got it published in the prowar TNR or lots of other places easily.)

What it comes down to it, if you're going to persuasively argue intent to deceive you need to offer a motive, and it's very hard to see what Beauchamp would hope to gain by fabricating *this* particular story. If it's purely ideological -- underming the case for war -- why also write about the horrible episode involving the American-friendly kid mutilated by jihadists a few months ago?

The only way out of that would seem to be an argument that his motives are irrelevant because he's mentally ill or something -- "a sociopath", someone said. And that would seem to be pretty easily disproved (not to mention not reflecting particularly well on the Army either, if it were true).

Posted by Ryan | August 2, 2007 9:28 PM

The alleged mocking of the disfigured woman in the chow hall in Iraq (now relocated to Kuwait) isn't the first Beauchamp story to be contradicted by facts. As Jack Kelly wrote (Pvt. Beauchamp: In Big Trouble Either Way):

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

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

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

Now it's possible that Beauchamp did mock a disfigured woman in Kuwait instead of Iraq, and it's also possible he shot a man in the head in Germany instead of Iraq. I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else here. That goes for the rest of Beauchamp's claims as well. But, I am inclined to give U.S. troops the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proof of misconduct -- proof which the current investigation may uncover. Why some on the Left would rather assume the worst about American troops, absent evidence, I am not sure.

Posted by Fred | August 2, 2007 9:33 PM

The problem is, Beauchamp used this event to illustrate how war had desensitized him to violence, maiming, etc. Since the event happened BEFORE he was in Iraq, it pretty much destroys the entire point of his article, that war dehumanized him and his colleagues to the point where he was cruel to a disfigured woman intentionally.

All this proves is that Beauchamp is a jerk, and was one before the war had 'changed' him. He is also now proven a liar.

Come on Matt, do you have to knee-jerk defend every asshole who is attacked (this time fairly, it seems) by the right? Why do liberals have to claim and defend this total horror of a human being, who makes fun of disfigured people, then lies about the circumstances so he can make some tired point about 'war changes you' that's not even valid, now that we know the circumstances.

Posted by darcy_lane | August 2, 2007 9:35 PM

Too Many Steves wrote: what if the Army presents their findings without providing named sources? Will you believe them?

Well I'd certainly be suspicious, but that's a moot point I think. The Army doesn't work like that. None of the services do.

Posted by John | August 2, 2007 9:52 PM

Look you worthless little right-wing lemming, you were both too stupid to understand that the Iraq war was a bad idea and endlessly claimed that Scott Thomas was a fake. You haven't got a clue and have no credibility. Nobody owes you anything. You're only commenting on the issue now because you were mindlessly following the lead of a bunch of sociopathic right-wing bloggers hoping to lead a lynch mob, because that's the only thing you people know how to do. You placed a bet. You lost.

Dear Tyro,

Class assignment: go back and carefully read what you just wrote. Break it down and parse it sentence-by-sentence. If you methodically put enough time and energy into your analysis, using a an objective approach, you'll eventually realize your response says a lot more about you, and your Weltanschauung, than it does about the other guy's.

Posted by MarkJ | August 2, 2007 9:55 PM

Tyro,

Do you hate America or just American soldiers?

In case it's not clear to you, yes, I am questioning your patriotism. Because anyone who is quick to believe vile claims about American troops without any evidence, and who roots for the American military to fail isn't a patriot but the opposite.

Posted by Eric | August 2, 2007 10:04 PM

The hardcore wingnuts sure aren't dissuaded easily, are they? Look at them pretending like there's absolutely "no evidence," as if TNR's detailed description of its fact-checking process didn't even exist. When they don't want to believe something, they simply aren't going to believe it, unless you document every detail right down to the molecular structure of each person involved - and probably not even then.

Posted by Steve | August 2, 2007 10:12 PM

He had heard from some of his buddies he once was in charge of now back in Iraq in his Sarge spot in charge of others - that dudes there are pissed and want to rip the guy's throat out...

Those buddies of your nephew are the ones disgracing the flag and the US military. Nothing Beauchamp wrote reflects badly on the US military as an organization, it's behavior typical of young men in every country in the world. In about 5 minutes I could find you 10 examples of far worse behavior in the Russian army just in Russian boot camp. This fratboy "defend our honor" crap is ridiculous, immature, and unbecoming of a true soldier. If there are people on the left who hold the military in low esteem it is mostly because of people like Chris Ford.

Posted by vanya | August 2, 2007 10:13 PM

Eric, you should root for the American military to fail in Iraq, because it was an aggressive war.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 2, 2007 10:13 PM

without any evidence

You must not believe anything!

Well, err, other than blogger anecdotes about Bradley's and pentagon briefings.

*cough*

I'm so, so, sorry, for you.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 2, 2007 10:15 PM

Wow, Eric. Ballsy, man. You sure do call 'em like you see 'em. And I gotta say, man it sure makes me feel good to see a real American like yourself, standing up for the Red, White and Blue. 'Cause, golly, all these damn America haters, we just got to keep them in their place, damn liberals. Keep asking questions, getting all skeptical and shit. Can't be good for the damn country, people asking questions. Doubting what they're told. Just can't.

Posted by AemJeff | August 2, 2007 10:25 PM

Darcy Lane: "Come on Matt, do you have to knee-jerk defend every asshole who is attacked (this time fairly, it seems) by the right? Why do liberals have to claim and defend this total horror of a human being, who makes fun of disfigured people, then lies about the circumstances so he can make some tired point about 'war changes you' that's not even valid, now that we know the circumstances."

Uh, Darcy: What the Kook-Right Blogosphere was initially screaming was that Beauchamp had to be lying about the incidents occurring at all. Now we have solid evidence that quite of Our Boys besides him have indeed engaged in such relatively minor-league naughtiness, which proves (gasp) that (contrary to the opium dreams of the KRB) not all US soldiers have haloes. Shocking, isn't it?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 2, 2007 10:37 PM

Typo in my last paragraph (predictably). Let's replay it:

"What the Kook-Right Blogosphere was initially screaming was that Beauchamp had to be lying about the incidents occurring at all. Now we have solid evidence that quite a few of Our Boys besides him have indeed engaged in such relatively minor-league naughtiness, which proves (gasp) that (contrary to the opium dreams of the KRB) not all US soldiers have haloes. Shocking, isn't it?"

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 2, 2007 10:39 PM

As opposed to a passive war, Bengt?

You've already outed yourself on here, Bengt: you want to see America fail (even if that means more misery for the majority of Iraqis), because you don't want to see America intervene elsewhere. Be careful what you wish for, Bengt, because the worst shit in the world happens when we don't get intervene militarily (e.g., Rwanda).

Frankly, even if things work out eventually in Iraq, we are out of the invading business for a long time. So next time you're heart bleeds for some third worlders being abused by a genocidal tyrant, or perhaps next time your countrymen are held hostage by some potentate, you can look to another country to come to the rescue. If you don't like America as an active hegemon, perhaps you'll prefer China, or Russia?

Posted by Eric | August 2, 2007 10:43 PM

It's convenient for those of you who think TNR has come out of this affair spotless to latch onto the "you're just so unpatriotic" posts as indicative of the entire conservative blogosphere. But I haven't actually seen Matt, Andrew Sullivan or any of you explain how Iraq could have desensitized Beauchamp so much that he would mock this woman BEFORE he ever even made it to Iraq. A third of his story is nonsense. Maybe he "misremembered," though I doubt it. That still doesn't change the fact that one of his three examples of how desensitizing the war shows no such thing. All it shows is that he was a not-very-nice person before he even made it to Iraq.

As for his other two claims, TNR's fact checking "confirmed" exactly one incident of each - one incident of wearing the skull by one soldier, and one incident of a soldier killing a dog. HArdly the "The troops are out of control and its this horrid war thats making us do it" storyline that Beauchamp wanted to push.

Then there's the fact that TNR's "Frontline view of the war" actually consisted of two individuals giving an more than 100,000 people a bad name. That hardly tells us much about this war and its effects on the soldiers.

Finally, there's TNR's claim that you can only do so much fact-checking of a story that takes place in a war as an excuse for why they didn't really do much in the first place beyond talk with an "expert" to make sure it "smelled right." But then, when their ass was on the line, they suddenly found out that you indeed could fact check a story about war. That they decided they just didn't need to do this in the first place was just reckless and lazy.

Posted by Dan | August 2, 2007 10:51 PM

Bruce, you'll no doubt recall Jane Galt and others saying that the "I (Beauchamp) made fun of a cripple" story didn't sound right (ie, he was lying, as you say) because they couldn't imagine a soldier himself facing regular IED threats being able to abuse another IED victim that way.

Since it turns out the encounter occurred BEFORE Beauchamp ever made it to the warzone, Galt's intuition was right, even if the story itself wasn't a total fabrication. Making fun of a gravely injured war victim, before your time "in the box" starts, is the inexcusable act of a moral cripple. By his own admission, he's a horrible poster boy for TNR, or anti-war advocates generally.

It's basically the equivalent of someone from John Kerry's generation saying, "Yeah, I stood around LAX spitting on injured veterans. War changes you, man." It's hardly a surprise that someone who openly claims that kind of behaviour would now face an investigation from his superiors, either.

Posted by BruceR | August 2, 2007 10:55 PM

I should also add, the fact-checking of the skull story confirms that one guy put it on his head. Not that he and other soldiers wore the skull around all day. There's a big difference between the two - whether its one guy doing something very tasteless and stupid or many soldiers entirely out of control.

Posted by Dan | August 2, 2007 10:56 PM

AemJeff,

What's ballsy is for a lefty who is quick to believe the worst accusations of American troops and wants America to fail, to whine that someone is "questioning their patriotism" when they're called on it. So I figured I'd just own up the accusation ahead of time, and spare Tyro the whining.

Posted by Eric | August 2, 2007 10:56 PM

Anyone notice all they give a damn about is the American woman and the dog in that order?

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 2, 2007 10:57 PM

Anyone notice all they give a damn about is the American woman and the dog in that order?

Actually, they spilled more virtual ink about the dog (remember the endless speculation about Bradley maneuverability and tread-lengths?) than about the woman. Galt was up front about this, saying point blank that the story couldn't be true because Americans really, really like dogs.

Posted by Tyro | August 2, 2007 11:15 PM

As opposed to a passive war, Bengt?

No, as opposed to a defensive war, Eric. Most of America want an intervention to be supported by allies and the rest of the world, anyway. Did you notice that the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan invasion had such support? It's not that nothing can be done.

When there is such support we can talk about a police action in the world, instead of a unilateral action with profit interest.

This could be called a "global test". I think that was the expression used by John Kerry.

As for Darfur, there probably won't be any international action there with the US involved, because the rest of the world don't want to deal with the Bush Administration, who are total a***s. They always want to dictate and they take no advice.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 2, 2007 11:18 PM

Um, Dan, if I wanted to say the troops were out of control I wouldn't be citing these TNR stories as my main source of evidence. For one thing, they sound pretty much like the kinds of ugly stupid things many young men do, in or out of the military. You happy rightwingers must lead such a sheltered existence, not knowing that guys can sometimes be very cruel to women, not to mention animals. It must be heartbreaking finding out what many young men are like.

If I wanted to make a case for US troops being out of control (and actually, I wouldn't, since that is an obvious exaggeration), I'd probably cite the evidence that's come out of the Haditha trials, where it seems that killing civilians is no big deal so long as an insurgent was in the house. The fact that no insurgents were present is what made Haditha an atrocity. Or I'd point to Abu Ghraib. Or I'd cite that Pentagon poll which found that the only a minority of US troops thought that Iraqis should be treated with respect. Or I'd cite the recent NATION article. From what I've read, brutality is pretty common in wars, especially guerilla wars, and it'd be strange if American troops in Iraq weren't guilty of some atrocities. I hadn't even heard of these trivial TNR stories until the rightwing blogosphere in its collective wisdom thought they were somehow significant.

Posted by Don | August 2, 2007 11:21 PM

Not sure about how to do links here, but I found a story summarizing the Pentagon poll I just referred to. It's a lot more shocking than this idiotic TNR flap.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/050507dnintethics.372ee0d.html

Posted by Don | August 2, 2007 11:26 PM

Oh, come on, Don. That survey was conducted by the US Army, and everyone knows they're a bunch of anti-American troop haters -- probably partisan Democrats with a book to sell as well, and mentally ill, with strange personal habits.

Posted by KCinDC | August 2, 2007 11:43 PM

I could find you 10 examples of far worse behavior in the Russian army just in Russian boot camp. This fratboy "defend our honor" crap is ridiculous, immature, and unbecoming of a true soldier. If there are people on the left who hold the military in low esteem it is mostly because of people like Chris Ford.

Posted by vanya

Russia, like Cuba with it's Marielitos, dumped quite a bit of it's dirty garbage on the USA as immigrant refugees. If you happen to be in that pack of flotsam, vanya, do us a favor and move on to Israel, Chechnya, or back to Russia..

As for Darfur, there probably won't be any international action there with the US involved, because the rest of the world don't want to deal with the Bush Administration, who are total a***s. They always want to dictate and they take no advice.
Posted by Bengt Larsson

Without the USA, all the Eurowussies and noble nations like Canada and NZ and Japan will do is wring their hands and go "My, my, isn't this horrible! Just like Rwanda. Someone should do something now that we morally uplifted nations have condemned it and double-deplored it in the strongest possible diplomatic language!"
The US has it's hands full. The public doesn't want us in the middle of another Muslim nut on Muslim nut civil war.
If Eurowussies want to save the Darfurans, time to step up and spend more time bleeding Euros in a desert than nibbling on elegant desserts at a "Stop the Genocide" get together of the Rich and Powerful at Davos. I don't think any of the Europeans wish to do any heavy lifting anymore, just run their mouths off on what Others should do.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 2, 2007 11:54 PM

Brucemoomaw:
No one is disputing young men will do boorish things. That's hardly news. And the incidents he describes, even with his lousy sense of honesty, are trivial. THE ENTIRE POINT of his article is how war desensitizes men and CAUSES this boorish behaviour. Without that point, there is no article. Running over a dog, playing around with a child's skull and making fun of a disfigured person, although regrettable and disgusting, is not news, and does not deserve an article in TNR. The entire reason they printed it is because of this turd's main point, how war dehumanizes people. Now it turns out, when he said he shot a man and celebrated his head "exploding into red mist" he was actually stationed in Germany. When he made fun of the woman, he had not yet been in Iraq. This destroys the CENTRAL PART of his entire thesis. He fudged these facts to make a point. He does not present it as fiction, he presents it as fact and declares we should take an object lesson from this. The fact that he does indeed exist does not make the "right" idiots and totally wrong: they didn't say he didn't exist, they said "the facts as he presents them doesn't add up" and they don't and TNR is admitting as such, and this horror of a human being is going to face military justice for lying, for revealing restricted details, and he deserves more just for being a jerk.

This is the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes school of "not true, but true to the narrative we want to present"- if we are supposed to be the reality based commmunity, we can't support this kind of crap. The fact that some of his stories are tangentally or close to being true is lame and unworthy of defending. Why Stoller does so, I can only guess is his knee-jerk reflex to be against anyone the right likes and be for anyone they attack.

On this one, M. Stoller is making an ass of himself defending the indefensible. Beauchamp is now a proven liar, fabricator and propagandist, the exact thing Stoller decries when done by the US Gov or military.

Now he defends this guy because he likes the message. Its called hypocrisy.

Posted by darcy_lane | August 3, 2007 12:10 AM

Chris Ford, the problem with interventions has more to do with Legitimacy than with Action. There is a reason societies don't have vigilantes to police right and wrong but law enforcement and a legal system. I'm sorry if this is beyond your understanding.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 3, 2007 12:15 AM

darcy_lane nails it:

This is the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes school of "not true, but true to the narrative we want to present"- if we are supposed to be the reality based commmunity, we can't support this kind of crap. The fact that some of his stories are tangentally or close to being true is lame and unworthy of defending. Why Stoller does so, I can only guess is his knee-jerk reflex to be against anyone the right likes and be for anyone they attack.

On this one, M. Stoller is making an ass of himself defending the indefensible. Beauchamp is now a proven liar, fabricator and propagandist, the exact thing Stoller decries when done by the US Gov or military.

Now he defends this guy because he likes the message. Its called hypocrisy.

Posted by Fred | August 3, 2007 12:40 AM

Uh, Darcy. His attackers initially screeched that he must be lying when he said that any large number of Our Boys would be willing to engage in such disgusting pursuits (which was already obviously idiotic on their part, given some of the other things Our Boys have already been caught doing there). Now we have confirmation from six of his fellow soldiers that, yes, Our Boys frequently DO engage in things like that -- which would be shocking only to someone who is (A) a chickenhawk, and (B) an idiot. (One of them, you'll notice, admitted that he too had made fun of the disfigured woman before he actually arrived in Iraq.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 3, 2007 1:31 AM

I hate to inject a bit of reality into those of you who feel that TNR and Foer are somehow vindicated because they say they are, but there is definitive proof that TNR was not fact-checking Beauchamp's articles in the least, and at best, provided merely spell-checking, if that.

Beauchamp's second post, "Dead of Night" stated:

"Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

There are no such things as 9MM pistol casings with square backs; they all have a round rim on a tubular case body. This is not a small detail; it shows that Beauchamp is a sloppy writer, but more importantly, establishes that TNR did not take steps to edit Beauchamp's work beyond proof-reading or running a spell-checker.

But in addition to this technical incompetence (what STB was probably tying to communicate so incompetently is that Glocks leave a square or rectangular mark on a pistol cartridge's primer, (which, like the rim in which it resides, is round).

Likewise, Beauchamp was factually incorrect, and more than a little defamatory, when he claimed that only the Iraqi police carry Glocks. Even a cursory Google search reveals that Glocks are very popular among all groups in Iraq, from soldiers, (American and IA), police, militiamen, insurgents, terrorists, politicians, to civilians, both men and women.

Foer clearly failed to do his job as an editor in regards to Beauchamp articles, and failed miserably, even prior to "Shock Troops."

The New Republic stands not vindicated, but further damned.

Posted by Confederate Yankee | August 3, 2007 1:48 AM

OK, C.Y: So you claim that either TNR is lying when it says that it has six eyewitness accounts from other soldiers confirming all three of Beauchamp's stories in "Shock Troops", or that all six soldiers are lying (including the one who said that he too had made fun of the disfigured woman)? Not quite the same thing as questioning the precise shape of a Glock cartridge (especially when you add that that was "probably" just sloppy phrasing by Beauchamp, rather than a deliberate lie by him).

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan ain’t amused about this cretinous debate either:

“No one doubts that most of the troops are doing an amazing job in near-impossible conditions. Describing some bad apples and occasional crudeness – especially when you are criticizing yourself as well – is utterly banal…

“I truly have no explanation why the rightwing blogosphere has managed to largely ignore and deny actual claims and cases of torture and abuse by US soldiers but have gone batshit over some trivial, unshocking, now-verified soldier stories by a man who, unlike Barnett and Malkin, is actually serving his country. But this is my best shot: Their president and their Congress and their movement have lost a war, wounded America’s moral standing in the world and caused tens of thousands of deaths and a greater risk of terrorism across the globe.

“After four and a half years of this nightmare, who are you going to blame but The New Republic? ”

Posted by BruceMoomaw | August 3, 2007 1:56 AM

Chris Ford, the problem with interventions has more to do with Legitimacy than with Action. There is a reason societies don't have vigilantes to police right and wrong but law enforcement and a legal system. I'm sorry if this is beyond your understanding.
Posted by Bengt Larsson

Oh, that's a fucking classic, Larsson. Euros watch a genocide with the US with it's hands full elsewhere, and decide they can't act because they lack the legitimacy to do so, given China's opposition from it's economic interests in the Sudan.

Your "it's beyond lesser human's understanding" was the same line used by Kofi Annan to explain why he stood around with a thumb up his ass as 400,000 people were butchered in Rwanda and was so pathetic at stopping the same thing in Bosnia and Kosovo that "unlegitimate powers" had to step in and end the carnage. Samantha Brown wrote that Kofi was an endless fountain of excuses - how "non-diplomats did not understand the careful meetings, review of protocols, communications that had to be tendered 1st to the machete weilders of the Hutu leadership and customary response times in these matters." They lack appreciation for the slow consensus building that maximizes the legitimacy of the International community, when it does act..."

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Slowly building consensus over the last 4 years with Darfur, as well. With the appropriate statements of outrage and shock....but until China rules otherwise...Europeans of conscience don't have to get their hands dirty or expend blood and treasure saving any lives while the US is sidelined. Awfully convenient, isn't it, Bengt? You law-abiding, non-vigilante hero of international legal conscience and proper protocols, you!

Posted by Chris Ford | August 3, 2007 2:06 AM

One little fact that non-military people posting here overlook is that Beauchamps "anonymous" verifying sources will not be anonymous for long in the course of criminal investigation of UCMJ violations in a war zone.

Beauchamp has no journalist 1st Amendment sanctuary. He is an active duty soldier, as are all the people he implicated in criminal activities or activities unreported that cast discredit on the US Army. So he will be asked for the name of the reckless driver that killed dogs and destroyed property for fun. And everyone who was with that driver. If Beauchamp refuses, he gets a direct order from a superior commissioned officer serving as lead investigator - and Beauchamp and his lawyer can discuss the likely outcome of a refusal to comply with a direct order. Same with the name of the soldier with the corpse parts, and his buddy who joined him in abusing a wounded female comrade.

The investigators will be checking the Bradley commnders, their daily mission reports, log of staff assigned to the Bradleys. Anything about dog-killing, or records of payments to Iraqis for property damage. They will check with his 1st Sargeant and company comrades and work out day-by-day what TS Beauchamp did every day while he was in Iraq. All other personnel will be asked to cooperate, and formally ordered to do do if they don't come forward. They will learn if he was just rear ech in a base motor pool or had ever been out to witness corpse desecration, or in a Bradley or accompanying 2-3 of them out on foot patrol. Or saw a 5.56 turn a man's head into red paste while he was in Germany.

That they blacked out FOB Falcon and ordered involved personnel not to discuss the Beauchamp allegations and unreported crimes while this is going on indicates they take this investigation very seriously.

The truth will be confirmed very shortly.

Then his UCMJ trial and any involved in anything he was telling the truth about.
My guess is that it will only be a trial for one soldier, and it will be properly harsh and brutal. This might be a long stay in Leavenworth sort of case..He also already has other legal busts in the military, which add to "aggravation of charges" at sentencing time.

Besides his other stuff, they have him cold for violating OPSEC in a war zone by posting his unit's deployment schedule and location, movements, groups combat strength - on an open, unsecured Blog..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 3, 2007 2:30 AM

Yup. Now, if he'd only been one of the high-level officers in the Abu Ghraib case, or one of the guys at Camp Nama, or Sgt. Trent Thomas in the Hamdaniya case...But, as we all know by now, the military -- especially under Bush -- does not take kindly to squealers. They tend to end up dead with canaries stuffed in their mouths.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 3, 2007 4:40 AM

Chris,

Just what is it about this minor article in a magazine with a tiny circulation that drives you and your buddies so insane? Your reaction is completely out of proportion to the offense committed. It simply makes no sense to get that worked up about such a trivial story that, in fact, does not do anything more damaging than repeat the banal "war is hell" tropes people have been writing for 2000 years. Either you have spent your whole life in a cave and are now traumatized, or you are just an asshole troll trying to cause trouble. But clearly you are not sincere in your defense of the American military. In any case you are doing far more damage to the reputation of the American military with your stupid rants than Beauchamp did.

Posted by vanya | August 3, 2007 6:21 AM

Chris,

"Just what is it about this minor article in a magazine with a tiny circulation that drives you and your buddies so insane?"

These bastards were insane to begin with; and there is no hope for them ever being sane.

Posted by Jennifer | August 3, 2007 8:24 AM

Vanya,

The theme of the TNR/Beauchamp stories isn't "war is hell" but "American troops are hellish".

Obviously, if you get 150,000 members of any profession or trade in one place you are bound to have at least a handful of assholes. The larger question is: are these assholes representative of the group? Bruce Moomaw seems to think so, and that was the point of the TNR articles, to paint all American troops in a bad light. That TNR was so desperate to do this that it relied on a dishonest, self-aggrandizing soldier with his own agenda, has ended up discrediting TNR.

Posted by Harry | August 3, 2007 8:46 AM

Chris Ford, I think you stop implying that you care about people in Darfur and Iraq. It's merely a debate tactic for you.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 3, 2007 8:52 AM

It's worse than I thought. What they are trying to do is to use mob rule to maintain the fiction that war is clean.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 3, 2007 8:59 AM

Bengt Larson,

I'm sure you care more about the people in Iraq, since you'd like to see Al Qaeda defeat American troops. You'd rather see America chastened even if it means more Iraqis have to get their heads cut off by theocratic goons.

Where are you from, anyway? Some Nordic country that remained profitably neutral while Nazis were making lampshades out of human skin? How about you stop pretending to be a moral arbiter here.

Posted by Harry | August 3, 2007 9:00 AM

the point of the TNR articles, to paint all American troops in a bad light.

Show me one passage making this alleged "point".

TNR was so desperate to do this

TNR supports the war. Do you deny this? So why would it want to paint the troops in a bad light?

You really sound like you're living in a parallel universe, Harry, reading a different article than I read in an anti-war magazine which doesn't actually exist.

Posted by Ryan | August 3, 2007 9:03 AM

Harry, the only implication that Beauchamp's stories are intended to be generally applicable descriptions of American soldiers has come from the Right. TNR was a pretty consistently pro-Iraq war publication. I don't think they've become the loony parody of left-wingers most of the detractors would like to imagine.

Posted by AemJeff | August 3, 2007 9:05 AM

The theme of the TNR/Beauchamp stories isn't "war is hell" but "American troops are hellish".

Harry, you are either an insincere liar or you have a reading comprehension problem, because that statement is simply false.

Posted by vanya | August 3, 2007 9:06 AM

Harry is just another insane racist troll.

Posted by Jennifer | August 3, 2007 9:22 AM

I don't doubt there are errors in Beauchamp's account and I don't have any trouble believing he might be a pretty severe asshole, but it's not his fault if people believed that because he and his buddies did whatever bad things they're supposed to have done that all American soldiers are BAD.

That's just stupid. Even if that was Beauchamp and TNR's intent as the righty line says, it's just a stupid thing to believe. If TNR publishes a story that says the earth is flat, and you believe it, I don't think TNR's perfidy at saying the earth is flat is the first thing I'd think of.

As to the character of The Troops, Paul Fussell wrote about the guys who served in the WWII infantry with him that they contained the same proportion of sociopaths and idiots as any random bit of society. Anyone serious believe that's changed very much since they were storming islands in the Pacific?

Posted by witless chum | August 3, 2007 10:43 AM

Yeah, well Fussell clearly hated the troops. He has a whole chapter in _Wartime_ on how they used bad words a lot. Obviously he wants us to hate them.

Seriously: this whole thing is surreal. I can't stand TNR. I don't trust the magazine's judgment either in the editorial positions it takes (i.e. stubbornly, obtusely prowar) or the people it pays to write for it (some of whom have been exposed as fabricators in recent years).

Yet here I am defending TNR *against* charges of fabrication on precisely the grounds that it *is* prowar, and therefore would have no incentive to fabricate and publish an article that its editors had to know would be perceived as antiwar.

Posted by Ryan | August 3, 2007 11:14 AM

Harry, I live in Sweden in Europe. In Europe, there have been hundreds of wars, even in Sweden, which was a very nasty militaristic country about 250 to 400 years ago. We have a lot of experience with wars, especially the parts of wars that don't change, such as occupations of cities and whether torture on war prisoners work.

As for lampshades, the U.S. didn't get involved in the war in Europe in order to stop the Holocaust. In fact, no country got involved in the war in order to stop the genocide. A sad fact. You can see this in how Jewish escapees from Germany before the war were refused from entering the U.S. There was quite a lot of anti-Semitism in the world then, including in America.

Of course I have no moral advantage from where I'm from. Would my argument have carried better weight if I had been born on the North Pole? Would yours?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 3, 2007 12:47 PM

TNR must be bleeding money if they have to find special correspondents to discredit the military. They could just have copied AP reports from this week's trials. There's marine, Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, convicted of unpremeditated murder, larceny and making a false official statement yesterday, in a case involving killing an Iraqi man who was guilty of living in the neighborhood of an insurgent leader. There's Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman of the 101st Airborne Division, who admitted to arson, conspiracy to obstruct justice, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking, in a trial a couple of days ago. And that corpse? It wasn't of a female buried in a cemetery - it was of a 14 year old that Spielman's friends raped and killed, Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, along with her family. Spielman acted as lookout for his three pals.

But of course, if the TNR had described the rape and murder of this Iraqi family, the rightwing deathtrippers would have leaped into action on the other side. They just love defending soldiers who are accused of murder. It is their favorite thing. Second favorite is saying that they want to save Iraqis (in a war where the deathtoll on Iraqis is at the half a million mark) from a 'bloodbath' that will happen if we withdraw. Third favorite thing is fantasizing about killing all Moslems, or turning their countries into glass.

It is the politics of schizophrenia, 24/7.

Posted by roger | August 3, 2007 1:01 PM

Matt Sanchez, who is at FOB Falcon, reports:

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st.

I think I'll hold judgement until we hear more.

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 1:10 PM

The war-mongers don't want to admit that wars involve a lot of people killing other people even if there are no sociopaths involved.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 3, 2007 1:35 PM

Well, now we can see whether the Army is going to name the sources in their report. I'd be very surprised if they do.

Posted by too many steves | August 3, 2007 1:39 PM

You know, if there’s a story about the conduct of Our Boys in Iraq whose veracity very badly needs to be checked, it’s Cpl. Saul Lopezromo’s testimony in the court-martial of Trent Thomas for the Hamdaniya murders.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch :

______________________

CAMP PENDLETON, California (AP)—A corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to “crank up the violence level.”

Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas.

“We were told to crank up the violence level,” said Lopezromo, testifying for the defense. When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: “We beat people, sir.”

Within weeks of allegedly being scolded, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman went out late one night to find and kill a suspected insurgent in the village of Hamdaniya near the Abu Ghraib prison. The Marines and corpsman were from 2nd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment.

Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the “prince of jihad,” and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system. Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony.

Four Marines and the corpsman, initially charged with murder in the April 2006 killing, have pleaded guilty to reduced charges and been given jail sentences ranging from 10 months to eight years. Thomas, 25, from St. Louis, Missouri, pleaded guilty but withdrew his plea and is the first defendant to go to court-martial.

Lopezromo, who was not part of the squad on its late-night mission, said he saw nothing wrong with what Thomas did. “I don’t see it as an execution, sir,” he told the judge. “I see it as killing the enemy.” He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.

Lopezromo and two other Marines were charged in August with assaulting an Iraqi two weeks before the killing that led to charges against Thomas and the others. Charges against all three were later dropped.

Thomas’ attorneys have said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury from his combat duty in Falluja in 2004. They have argued that Thomas believed he was following a lawful order to get tougher with suspected insurgents.

Prosecution witnesses testified that Thomas shot the 52 year-old man at point-blank range after he had already been shot by other Marines and was lying on the ground.

Lopezromo said a procedure called “dead-checking” was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified. “If somebody is worth shooting once, they’re worth shooting twice,” he said.

The jury is composed of three officers and six enlisted personnel, all of whom have served in Iraq. The trial was set to resume Monday.
_______________________

Intersting, no? Even more interesting is that 5 days later, Thomas was convicted of the murder, but given a -- literal -- slap on the wrist. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/20/Iraq.Hamdaniya/index.html?iref=newssearch : “Cpl. Trent D. Thomas was found guilty Wednesday of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit several offenses -- including murder, larceny, housebreaking, kidnapping, and making false official statements -- for his involvement in the April 2006 death in Hamdaniya, Iraq. Thomas will be demoted to the rank of entry-level private and will receive a bad-conduct discharge.”

Combine this with those “reduced sentences” for all the other participants, and one does wonder whether he was let off lightly because he was in a position to help kick the lids off too many garbage cans.

I don’t believe that any of the Blogospheric Rightists currently frothing about Scott Beauchamp have uttered a peep about Lopezromo’s story, though. Once again, a little too hot for them to touch? (Kind of like the Americal Division’s conduct in Vietnam, of which --according to the decidedly non-hysterical Charles Lane in his story about Colin Powell in the 4-17-95 New Republic -- the My Lai massacre was only one part? Guerrilla warfare brings out the absolute worst in all armies, including America’s.)

Posted by BruceMoomaw | August 3, 2007 2:08 PM

Official report is out. Looks like everything he said is false if you believe every other person in his platoon.

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.

Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Luke Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a "surge" Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions.

In the month of July, Operation Dragon Hammer resulted in the capture of over 110 detainees and "no mission has been delayed or adversely effected by the investigation into Private Beauchamp's allegations of misconduct among the soldiers of his unit the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment", said Timmons.

The 4th IBCT, 1st ID Area of Operations, Rasheed District in Western Baghdad is one of the toughest and most violent districts in the Iraqi capital.

http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/08/beachamp-invest.html

Posted by Dave | August 3, 2007 2:25 PM

Without the USA, all the Eurowussies and noble nations like Canada and NZ and Japan will do is wring their hands and go "My, my, isn't this horrible! Just like Rwanda.

Chris, you know as much about about recent history as you do the US Army. The French intervened in Rwanda during the genocide with combat troops. The United Nations herded the refugees into camps right across the border. The "Eurowussies," as you call them (aren't you so manly!), would like a "no-fly" zone enforced in Darfur, but the Bushies with the necessary logistics and equipment won't agree to one. Do you really one want other countries attempting to match our military? To challenge our technology? That's what you are inviting the EU to do and they could do it if they had the will.

Personally, I would rather take their money and have the damn "no-fly" zone, but then that makes sense.

All your argument says about you is that your strategic thinking is as weak as your tactical thinking. With that record of competence, perhaps you could George's new AG?

Posted by tb | August 3, 2007 3:07 PM

tb,

Before you start praising the French military for Rwanda, I suggest you do a little research on this; there is evidence that the French helped facilitate the genocide.

Posted by Harry | August 3, 2007 4:03 PM

didn't praise the French military for its many recent military interventions, harry, just pointed out they were there and that Chris was wrong.

In fact, I fail to see how "the French intervened in Rwanda with combat troops" is praise. It's a statement of fact.

Posted by tb | August 3, 2007 4:22 PM

Matt Sanchez, who is at FOB Falcon, reports

Uh, stop right there, Al. You have heard the latest about Matt Sanchez, haven't you? Certainly credibility problems -- and a background in gay porn is not the worst of them.

Posted by Ryan | August 3, 2007 4:54 PM

And if you can't trust an investigation of an internal scandal by the Pentagon to be honest (especially under this administration), what can you trust? Don't answer that.

Really, given such other fascinating tidbits from the front as Lopezromo's testimony, the current frantic obsession of the Right with straining instead to disprove Beauchamp's tales of vegetarian-level misconduct on the part of some US soldiers would be hilarious (if it wasn't appalling). And as for their fury at Beauchamp supposedly concocting such Outrageous and Unbelievable stories to Smear Our Troops, see the two YouTube entries that Sullivan refers to in http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/rebutting-tnr.html : "Here's a YouTube of some soldiers tormenting a wounded dog. Here's another of soldiers taunting thirsty Iraqi kids with water bottles. The incidents are gross, but in a war-zone, they're hardly something to be shocked, shocked at."

And now I intend to knock it off. The Kook Right's obsession with this affair has now gone way beyond intellectual error into the realm of flat-out psychopathology, and I'm not a nurse.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 3, 2007 6:38 PM

Here's an interesting quote from Sanchez:

Despite the media coverage back home, most of the fifty or so soldiers I spoke with had never heard of Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and shrugged their shoulders when I mentioned the “Baghdad Diarist”.

So why is this such a big deal?

Posted by vanya | August 3, 2007 10:31 PM

Beauchamp can talk if he wants to. It is his choice and has refused to do so.

Posted by j b | August 15, 2007 2:05 PM