TNR posts Beauchamp “confirmation” that, um, doesn’t really confirm anything

posted at 6:52 pm on August 2, 2007 by Bryan

The New Republic has posted “A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp” that conforms to what I predicted they would do to put this sordid mess behind them. Here’s what I predicted on July 21.

Foer’s two public statements on the matter do absolutely nothing to suggest that he’s seriously looking into the matter and that he is treating the criticism that’s been leveled at “Thomas” fairly. He’s playing defense by going on offense, not by basic fact-finding.

Given Foer’s smear as quoted by [Howard] Kurtz, he should not be be trusted when he comes out in a few days or weeks and says “It’s all true. I can’t show you any evidence or introduce you to a single corroborating witness, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.”

And what’s he asking us to do today? Why, he’s asking us to trust his relaying the word of a bunch of anonymous sources. “I can’t show you any evidence or introduce you to a single corroborating witness…”

Oh, he has “corrorborating witnesses,” or so he says. But they’re all anonymous. And they might all be the same person. We have no way of evaluating what the witness or witnesses say, because conveniently for TNR they’re not identified.

Ace has already gone through line by line and fisked TNR’s get-out-of-town statement, so I’ll refer you there. I’ll also refer you to the JunkYardBlog, where Geoff has bundled the TNR up and tossed it down a well.

For my part, I’m going to remind TNR what their man in Baghdad actually wrote about one incident, and then ask a simple question. It’ll be a familiar question by now.

At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children’s clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. 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.

One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.

That’s from Shock Troops. It describes a stratified mass grave. Here’s what TNR is saying now.

In the second anecdote, soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit discovered what they believed were children’s bones. Publicly, the military has sought to refute this claim on the grounds that no such discovery was officially reported. But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp’s combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children’s cemetery near Beauchamp’s combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.)

Yes, it’s consistent with the Army finding and moving a children’s cemetery. But it’s not consistent with what Scott Thomas Beauchamp actually wrote. See above, compare and contrast.

Where, TNR, is the stratified mass grave? This is a physical location, if Scott Thomas wrote about it accurately, and can be verified without resorting to anonymous sources. Where. Is. It?

Remember the melted woman? Thomas’ abuse of her was supposed to have been a result of his having been dehumanized by Bush’s war. Today, TNR says Beauchamp got some niggling details wrong.

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

Anonymous sources, who now put the story in an entirely different country, prior to Scott’s entry into Bush’s dehumanizing war. That’s one heck of a mistake.

TNR says today–

All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details.

Yet TNR has now moved the melted woman story to pre-deployment, peaceful Kuwait instead of hellish war-torn Baghdad, and still hasn’t offered up a shred of proof that the stratified mass grave exists. As for the dog-and-Bradley story, TNR says this:

TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

None of that answers whether any NCO or officer is going to let his drivers run amok in a war zone playing some macbre game of Pac-Man with a massive military machine that’s moving in a convoy. We’ll have to wait for the outcome of Beauchamp’s AR 15-6 investigation to find out; TNR has moved the ball precisely not at all.

And we’re supposed to believe this?

Short of doing the right thing and coming clean, TNR has done the only thing it can: Bury its bogus stories under layers of additional anonymous reporting to try to misdirect its critics and satisfy its base. The second will probably work; the first has little chance of doing so.

TNR concludes by blaming the Army for its own slapdash, anonymously sourced report:

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.

TNR doesn’t need any of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers, and TNR knows that. It’s all very, very simple: Where is the stratified mass grave?

Update: You’ve probably made the rounds by now, but if you haven’t, Ace has another great post on this, John at OpFor checks in, and Stephen Spruiell and Mark Steyn dissect the TNR statement too.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

TNR is doing excatly what AP did right after jamil hussien and Rueters has been doing for years.

Instead of a person that can be tracked down and asked if the story is bogus we get “Police Said”

No names. No independant confirmation. No idea if said policeman is working with the insurgents (A real possiblity)

No we are to take everything they said as gospel and we dont need to know if its factual or not.

This is the new age of Ratherism. “Fake but Accurate” is imprinted in the new media’s code of conduct rules.

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Speaking of mass graves where are the 100s of thousand bodies Milosovich supposedly had killed?

TheSitRep on August 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM

(All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Countdown to Beauchamp & Co. stonewalling the official investigation starts…now!

Karl on August 2, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Un-be-friggin’-leivable. The morons that swallow this bullcrap are beyond hopeless; it’s useless even to argue with them.

The scariest part is that prior to the rise of the blogosphere, the MSM could do this same sort of reporting and nobody would be the wiser. Thank God for the blogosphere.

Splashman on August 2, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Bryan Preston: Seer and revelator extraordinaire!

Nice call Bryan.

csdeven on August 2, 2007 at 7:25 PM

The day when Beauchamp is exposed as a fraud just can’t come soon enough.

SoulGlo on August 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM

The hole in the Bradley story is not the maneuverability, but visibility to the side from driver’s location. Why doesn’t somebody ask the manufacturer’s “spokesman” (curious, that the spokesman is *also* anonymous, no?) about that?

LagunaDave on August 2, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Here’s more non-corroboration from the so-called corroborating sources.

First, this is what Beauchamp wrote in “Shock Troops”:

One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn’t have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

Here’s what’s in the TNR statement:

On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: “How you do this (I’ve seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline.” TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

Compare and contrast the method Beauchamp describes with the method described by the anonymous “corroborator.” Then compare the new reliance on dogs being attracted to noisy military convoys with the old account of sneaking up on the sleeping dog.

Karl on August 2, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Scott Thomas Boy Chump was only trying to make the themes of the stories thinkable. He had no intention of getting the facts straight. Note that the three vignettes were in public settings where they could be assumed to be “normal” because other witnesses did not object or report the events. If the story about abusing the woman were set in a private place it would not have the imprimatur of acceptance by the military personnel.

The Boy Chump writings were pernicious, and should be attacked with the fury that was missing toward the first Truther stories.

Any insulting language toward STB is purely intentional.

TunaTalon on August 2, 2007 at 8:10 PM

The rowback on IED-woman reeks of BS too.

Consider – Beauchamp said it was at FOB Falcon, which is where he has been stationed for months.

Now we find out that it actually happened at another base where Beauchamp and friends were just passing through and probably stayed for only a few days.

This is like misremembering something that happened in the restaurant of the Holiday Inn on your last vacation as having happened at the dinner table at home.

And remember that his friend’s derision was uttered “loud enough for not only her to hear us, but everyone at the surrounding tables.” It was implausible enough to claim they would dare to try, much less get away with, this at the base where they were stationed. For a bunch of cheese-dicks just in from the world to act this way in a base full of complete strangers seems completely unbelievable.

LagunaDave on August 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM

In “Shock Troops,” Beuachamp says

Then, on one especially crowded day in the chow hall, she sat down next to us.

But the the new statement, his anonymous buddy says

She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right.”

Clowns!

baldilocks on August 2, 2007 at 8:45 PM

That’s it Bryan, if you can’t believe someone like TNR than you don’t belong in the commentary business.

I mean, they even said “honest injun” and “cross our hearts”, why would you ever not believe them? You are very cynical, isn’t there anything else for you to write about?

Shame on you, exposing them…haven’t you ever heard the phrase…let sleeping dogs lie.

right2bright on August 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM

TNR’s attitude is the same as CBS after Memogate. Just make vague affirmations of the published/broadcasted lies and then stick by the vague affirmations and get morally indignant that those right-wing “Jesus Freaks” keep stirring this matter up.

The solution here is as simple as it is necessary. The DOD and/or Congress needs to get weasel Beauchamp in front of an investigation and demand he name names, dates, and corroborating evidence to back up his claims.

highhopes on August 2, 2007 at 8:56 PM

I hope the Army sticks Beuachamp in the brig for a long time. I hope Bryan and others do not let it drop until they do.

GoodBoy on August 2, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Oh, totally highhopes, they’re like every other media clowns who get busted, they all resort to the same tactics.

Bad Candy on August 2, 2007 at 8:58 PM

What a freakin’ tap-dance! Just as you predicted nearly 2 weeks ago, Bryan.

TNR is exposed again. Disgraceful.

IrishEi on August 2, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Interesting. My brother is in Kuwait with the airforce and has been there since may/early June. Never asked him about where as I figured I didnt need to know.

Im wondering if he has some insider info ? I will ask him

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 9:05 PM

I like how it went from Beauchamp becoming a sick SOB because of war to Beauchamp just being a sick SOB, and TNR doesn’t think we’ll notice. Well, they’re hoping this will give them enough ammo to shut us down and do damage control, letting the MSM and lefty blogs spread their propaganda.

And he was a sick SOB beforehand, as any thorough look in his blog will show.

Bad Candy on August 2, 2007 at 9:10 PM

My brother just told me he visits cthat camp often. He is a medic with the Air Force

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

My brother just told me he visits cthat camp often. He is a medic with the Air Force

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Hm. Can he “confirm the woman” for us? Foer did that, but it turned out he was just delaying the Kuwait disclosure.

Bryan on August 2, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Im emailing him right now. I can ask him to contact you

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Much appreciated, William.

Bryan on August 2, 2007 at 9:23 PM

I sent him the hotair email addy. If he sends it will be there

William Amos on August 2, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Here’s a thought. I wonder if the Army determined that the disfigured woman incident was in Kuwait and that somehow got back to TNR, possibly via the source. Thus the need to put something more out so that the error was self-admitted before it was exposed.

Dusty on August 2, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Goldfarb notes that in the original story, Beauchamp claimed he “saw [IED-woman] nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.”

This makes the new story even more damning. It wasn’t an incident that occurred with a stranger he had seen once, it was (supposedly) someone he saw on a regular basis in familiar environs.

Only now, we find out it happened during a presumably brief sojourn of a few days. At a temporary staging base. In another country. Nine months earlier.

Why don’t you try again, TNR?

LagunaDave on August 2, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Man – the hole TNR dug.

All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp’s account.

Sanchez emails Michelle…

Michelle:
I spoke with the Army PAO, they confirmed that prior to the publication in The New Republic, the PAO had never spoken to anyone from that publications editorial staff.

It’s difficult to imagine anyone could confuse a DFAC (dinning facility) in Kuwait, with one in Baghdad. I’d like to see the list of military experts TNR consulted prior to publishing the story…

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 9:58 PM

This makes the new story even more damning. It wasn’t an incident that occurred with a stranger he had seen once, it was (supposedly) someone he saw on a regular basis in familiar environs.

TallDave…a soldier comments to MMalkin

There is a good reason why Beauchamp chose Camp Buehring as the place to relocate his “disfigured woman” tale: it is a way station for units deploying into Iraq, and, besides a small cadre, very few people spend more than 2-3 weeks there, making it difficult for anyone to contradict him and the buddy who backs him up. It is silly, of course, since it means his cruelty towards his fellow man began before he heard his first shot, but most civilians would not know the transient nature of Buehring and it makes the water cloudier for those who wish to defend him.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Oops LagunaDave, not TallDave.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I didn’t really catch this the first time – but TNR corroboration consited of

contacted *** a *** corroborating witness

um- that’s really, really bad and a pretty slimy way to sneak it in.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 10:04 PM

“I can’t show you any evidence or introduce you to a single corroborating witness…”

Didn’t Dan Rather try that once?

Kevin M on August 2, 2007 at 10:07 PM

From Beauchamp’s original story:

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.

I wonder if the average TNR reader’s attitude toward the story would significantly change if it was (improbably) proven that this was the site of a former abortion clinic.

angryoldfatman on August 2, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Check this out (via Ace): Foer may have lied a few times. (Sorry for the link-whoring)

baldilocks on August 2, 2007 at 10:23 PM

In an interview with ABC last week, TNR editor Frank Foer said that he had “talked to one of the members of [Beauchamp's FOB Falcon] unit to confirm the woman, a female contractor”–referring to the existence of a disfigured woman at that location who was allegedly harassed by Scott Beauchamp and friend at FOB Falcon in Iraq.

Baldilocks – I specualted it was Matt Sanchez’s email to WS that prompted TNR to admit Beaucamp lied or the person he contacted did confirm it – only after Sanchez’s email it suddenly shifted to Camp Buehring. In either case, I think it was Sanchez’s email and either scenario it’s very slimy.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I’ve only check out Sanchez’s missives a few times. I’ll look at them again. But either Foer lied or this mysterious other-soldier did and Foer was to eager to believe Beauchamp and didn’t ask enough questions. Sloppiness can be forgiven. Not being up front about it cannot.

baldilocks on August 2, 2007 at 10:38 PM

According to the link at Malkin, the Camp Buehring DFAC is large enough to serve “several thousand troops at the same time” and “steak and lobster” is often on the menu.

Sounds pretty easy to confuse with the spartan facilities at FOB Falcon. Not.

LagunaDave on August 2, 2007 at 10:54 PM

So, if Scott T.B. is telling the truth, he was mocking a war-wounded woman for being disfigured.

Which makes him a low-like scumbag.

Or, if he’s lying, he’s merely a traitorous scumbag.

Choices, choices…

profitsbeard on August 2, 2007 at 11:12 PM

…low-life scumb…

A low life-scumbag.

profitsbeard on August 2, 2007 at 11:13 PM

To baldilocks on August 2, 2007 at 10:38 PM

It was published on the 13th, then July 18 Golfarb first raised a flag and on July 20th Feor said

I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermineand much to corroborate–the author’s descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

on July 20 – plural

then on July 28th he said

At least one soldier in the unit had already confirmed the events described, Mr. Foer said, but the magazine plans, “to the extent possible,” to “re-report every detail,” a task made more difficult now that Private Beauchamp cannot easily communicate with anyone overseas.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Oh an Baldilocks – when Weekly Standard contacted TNR on the 18th they said

We contacted the New Republic in order to get any information that might help us to verify the authenticity of “Thomas”‘s disturbing account, and the magazine, while insisting that it had promised to protect the identity of the author to shield him from retribution by the military, did provide us with some additional details. “Scott Thomas” claims that the incident at the chow hall occurred at Forward Operating Base Falcon. And the mass grave, he says, was discovered a couple miles south of Baghdad International Airport in farmland. We have also contacted the Pentagon in the hopes of getting more information to either corroborate or disprove “Thomas”‘s account.

When asked the location STB said it was Forward Operating Base Falcon and just 2 days later Feor said:

I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events…these conversations have done nothing to undermine–and much to corroborate–the author’s descriptions.

So again – either Feor was lying or the witness (s?) were because of course there was a “undermine” it wasn’t FOB Falcon…and

And the mass grave, he says, was discovered a couple miles south of Baghdad International Airport in farmland.

then today, it’s a Cemetery

But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp’s combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children’s cemetery near Beauchamp’s combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.)

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 11:27 PM

and here is what a soldier emailed Weekly Standard – so I can see why Bryan is persistent in this point and how utterly irresponsible TNR is in their handling of it – they make no mention that Beaucamp actually portrayed it as a mass grave or confirm the remains were recovered for proper burial, for to do so would again reveal this whole story was and is a fanciful narrative of a single jerk and not a revealing “troop” and war piece

Second: There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied. While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, I can tell you that no Soldier put a human skull under his helmet and wore it around. The Army Combat Helmet (ACH) is form fitted to the head. Unlike the old Kevlar helmets, the ACH does not have a gap between the helmet and the liner, only pads. It would have been impossible for him to have placed and human skull, of any size, between his helmet and his head. Further more, no leader would have tolerated this type of behavior. This type of behavior is strictly forbidden in the U.S. Army and would have made the individual involved subject to UCMJ actions.

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 11:40 PM

“folding in half with laughter”? What a jackass! I cannot fathom anyone in uniform “folding in half with laughter” at the site of some private having a piece of a skull (matted with air) on his head, let alone marching around with it. Hell even a PFC would snatch him up!

As for the mass grave, why would clothes and sandals, etc., be found ABOVE the bones? Do they have special soil over there? or did Saddam bury the bodies naked throwing the clothes on top of the dirt covered bodies?

As for the melted lady, he is a liar. Nobody who witnessed such a site would forget anything about seeing something such as that, particularly if that person were cruelly ridiculed, especially what COUNTRY it was supposedly in.

As for the Bradley…I’ve driven one, and yeah they are maneuverable, but it does nothing to answer the question of some soldier deliberately maneuvering one to run over dogs.

Who gives a damn how maneuverable it is, answer the question of whether it was used to run over dogs, the story that painted soldiers as so uncaring as to wantonly kill even animals.

As for any animal “flocking towards noisy convoys”, I cannot imagine ANY animal, other than the Al Queda type, that would do so. What BS!

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.

Ahhh waaahhh. Good on the military to snatch up his ability to spread more lies and smear more soldiers.

Would any soldier feel comfortable “communicating with reporters” if what was “reported” was so false?

As for sharing, perhaps TNR should share some truth.

They will look very stupid if any media organization (including Hotair (hint) submits a FOIA for the AR 15-6 investigation report) finds the facts of their investigation. Having been involved in one in the past, many little details will be found out….and I doubt TNR will dutifully report on it.

91Veteran on August 2, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Topsecretk9 on August 2, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Well, so much for the sloppiness angle. I tried to keep an open mind. :-)

However, I did catch the “Saddam-era mass grave” (as Beauchamp originally characterized it) versus “children’s cemetery” misdirection play at my blog (Michelle threw me a link on that post at her other blog.)

baldilocks on August 2, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Yikes – I’m sorry Baldilocks – I see that now.

Sully is now allowing that righty critics have point (as opposed to his original TNR is honorable post) but of course instead of grappling with the true implications goes on to whine about the critics.

Topsecretk9 on August 3, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Will check, though I don’t read AS normally.

BTW, thanks for the comment. :-)

baldilocks on August 3, 2007 at 12:43 AM

You betcha Baldilocks – and did you see what YOU DID?

Also, Sanchez has a new post up about The REAL FOB Falcon

…I spoke to several drivers on patrol that evening, none of whom thought the details of the “Baghdad Diarist” were even remotely true. At the risk of offending some pet lovers, it’s not beyond a deployed member of the armed forces to kill a dog. Especially, in a culture that does not keep canines as pets and rarely names anything that walks on four-legs. I saw a Marine shoot several strays with sniper accuracy in the Anbar province, after a bitting incident had sent one of his buddies back to Baghdad for a series of long painful rabies injections in the abdomen.

The sounds of shots, massive shells sent to an unseen and distant target, is common on FOB Falcon, but the shock of the media coverage around the “Baghdad Diarist” took the public affairs office by storm. Pending the investigation no one was allowed to comment, not even on the simple questions like Private Beauchamp’s whereabouts, but it is notable that a soldier who enlisted two years before and has some college credit would still hold the rank of private…

Topsecretk9 on August 3, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Yeah I saw that. I’m going to give Mr. McLeary a pat on the back the first thing tomorrow.

baldilocks on August 3, 2007 at 1:54 AM

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.

When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error.

How was Beauchamp able to acknowledge his error when he was unable to speak to even his family?

jaime on August 3, 2007 at 11:16 AM