Breaking: Beauchamp signs military statement recanting TNR pieces; Update: “armylawyer” comments

posted at 10:32 pm on August 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

According to Goldfarb. No independent evidence is offered aside from the recantation itself so we’re where I thought we’d be two days ago — with a confirmed liar and no way of proving which side he’s lying to.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”

That’s a nice catch on the dates. Here’s the post at the Plank on July 26 in which TNR outed Beauchamp; they acknowledge in the first paragraph that the military investigation has already begun. Which means, assuming Goldfarb’s source is right, that Beauchamp hung TNR out to dry by letting them publish his denial even though he’d already formally recanted to the military.

The question now is how much tougher TNR wants to make things for him and the guys who corroborated his story. If they challenge the recantation and burn their sources, they’re putting six men in potential criminal jeopardy. That plus the fact that Beauchamp is married to one of their staffers means they probably won’t, that we’re probably in store for a pithy “we stand by our story” with a soft landing provided by the shrieking nutroots and smirking “reasonable conservatives” like Ross Douthat and John Cole.

Update (Bryan): Beauchamp was backing up his wild tales to the TNR as he was confessing that they were false to the Army. How interesting.

I had just about lost interest in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp story, not because it’s not interesting, but because it was following the trajectory that I had come to expect circa July 24. I’d figured out that he was a real soldier in Baghdad, who was using his real experiences to fabricate stories to smear the military (the stratified children’s mass grave was really an amalgamation of a landfill on one part of FOB Falcon and a children’s cemetery that was on another part of FOB Falcon, combined into one location by the fabulist Beauchamp and then sprinkled with the grisly story of the skull crown implausibly worn inside a troop’s combat helmet, etc). I’d also decided that TNR wasn’t going to come clean, and was going to stonewall, obfuscate, misdirect and mislead, so that it could maintain a shred of credibility with its supporters on the left while slinging mud at its justified critics on the right. I figured we’d never get a satisfactory solution out of Franklin Foer, his bosses weren’t going to fire him, and I figured the Army might end up keeping its findings out of the public domain, so we’d never really have a “Wasn’t that swell!” kind of ending. The whole thing would just fizzle into yet one more left vs right fist-shaker.

Of course, after I wrote the bit about the cemetery and landfill getting fused by Beauchamp to form the basis of his skull story, everyone got interested in the NYT/TNR back and forth over whether or not Franklin Foer knew for sure or just kinda knew that Beauchamp was actually a soldier or not. Well played, TNR. Well played, indeed. No one cared that I’d basically figured out the whole story without talking to or emailing anyone in Iraq, or talked to anyone married to anyone at TNR, or anything. But that’s just how it goes sometimes.

Anyway, as it turns out, I got that last part about the unsatisfying ending to this whole thing wrong. We do get a satisfying ending, courtesy the Army as Allah quoted above.

So Beauchamp was lying the whole time, and now that he has two entirely different stories, he was either lying to TNR, which probably paid him $50 per article and which can’t put him in prison for lying to them (because he’s not under oath when he’s spouting off to Franklin Foer), or he lied to the Army, which pays his entire salary and can and will put him in jail for quite a while if he lies to them (he is very much under oath when he’s being investigated by the US Army — for you liberals, that’s what “sworn statement” means).

So guess which one Beauchamp is more likely to have lied to — the people who couldn’t jail him, or the ones who could. And would.

That’s about as definitive a refutation as we’ll get in this saga, but it’s a good one.

And isn’t that swell!

Update (AP): To answer Bryan’s point, if I were in Beauchamp’s predicament I’d be more inclined to tell the Army whatever it wanted to hear to try to make amends for the bad press I’d given it in TNR. He’s in trouble no matter what he does: if he tells them the incidents were true he’s burned for participating in them and then not reporting his misconduct, and if he tells them the incidents were false then he’s burned for besmirching his unit in the American press with stories about what miscreants they are. In that case, the smart thing to do is to throw TNR under the bus and deny the incidents happened. He’s still in trouble with the Army but at least he’s restored their good name somewhat. That’s his best chance for leniency, I’d think.

Meanwhile, one of our commenters makes a good point. The TNR piece on the 26th noted that Beauchamp had had his communications privileges taken away after the Army investigation began. Presumably, then, the timeline went something like this: He sent his statement to TNR on or about the 24th, the investigation was launched on the 25th, and then he formally recanted for whatever reason on the 26th when he no longer had any way to inform TNR of his decision. The question is, knowing that the Army was going to want a word with him when his identity was revealed, why did he issue a statement to TNR under his real name standing by his story if he only planned to recant it when the Army came knocking a few days later? Where’s the logic in that?

Update (Bryan): He formally recanted in a sworn statement because he had nothing. The Army wasn’t going to be satisfied with a lot of smoke and wasn’t going to be distracted by questions over whether or not he exists or who he’s married to like most of us were. Its investigators probably did what I was doing at that time and asked him a simple, direct question: Where’s the mass grave of children? His entire story about that episode hinged on there actually being such a place. If it’s not real, his story is a lie. He couldn’t tell them where it was because it didn’t exist. Then they probably asked him more direct questions that he couldn’t answer, perhaps about his knowledge of guns given what he’d written about Glocks, and they probably tripped him up once or twice, and he figured out that the game was up and it was time to recant. By then he’d already sent off the note to TNR figuring that he was smarter than the investigators he’d face so he’d be fine. Like many petty criminals, he found out that he wasn’t so smart, and he found out the hard way.

There’s no rational logic in much of anything that this guy did. Why did he think he could get away with writing nonsense in a national journal, where there was always a potential that someone could read it and call him out on it? Why did he write about murderous US officers in Iraq when he was still in Germany or wherever. Why did he do any of what he did, including joining the Army on the presumption that he would a) survive the war at all and b) become some famous writer out of it. We’re not dealing with an entirely rational actor here.

When the investigation of his work began, he evidently was playing one side, then the other, and finally got himself squeezed too hard and decided that enough was enough. If you’re looking for a tight, logical answer to each move that he made in this, you’re going to be dissatisfied. The model you’re looking for is more along the lines of a trapped animal than a cold, rational and logical operator.

Update (AP): One of our regular commenters, “armylawyer,” has a post up weighing Beauchamp’s options. Read it all, but here’s the thrust:

Here’s the thing, if he was lying, there’s not much that he can be charged with. At most it would be some variant of an Article 92 violation for publication without permission or something similar (presuming such a prohibition existed within his command). At most, that’ll get him 2 years if it’s a general order, more than likely it’d be violation of an “other lawful order” which is 6 months max confinement.

Now some may argue that he’s lying to investigators but he told TNR the truth. Problem there is that the penalties for a False Official Statement are far harsher (7 yrs and a dishonorable discharge). Lying to investigators is often worse than the misconduct itself. So even if Beauchamp IS lying, he sure can’t ever say so while in uniform, as that subjects him to the more serious Article 107 charge.

I would have guessed that libeling my unit in an internationally read magazine would earn me more trouble than telling the Army a lie it wanted to hear but it sounds like that’s dead wrong. Which way would Beauchamp have guessed, I wonder? He doesn’t strike me as a real stickler for the regs so who knows if his knowledge base is closer to mine or AL’s.

Question: If in fact Beauchamp lied to the Army when he claimed the incidents didn’t happen, why did he do it on the first day of the investigation, when he didn’t yet know if they’d turn up any conflicting testimony from someone else in the unit? Assuming AL’s right and the thing Beauchamp is/should be most worried about is getting caught committing perjury, then he should either tell the truth right away or wait until the end of the investigation to lie, when he might have a better sense of what the investigators know and can conform his own story accordingly. What incentive does he have to lie to them right off the bat?

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Why did he do any of what he did, including joining the Army on the presumption that he would a) survive the war at all and b) become some famous writer out of it. We’re not dealing with an entirely rational actor here.

Prediction:
First, we all know that what he wrote for TNR was a big pile of BS. Regardless of what happens to him as this thing finishes playing out (which will never garner the attention of the MSM by the way), I predict that he will become a hero to the left when he returns. He’ll join Kos or one of these other idiotic groups as the latest Iraq War vet with absolute liberal moral authority. Depending on what happens to him in the near term, I think it’s 50/50 that he’ll eventually “stand by” his story, once he’s the left-wing flavor of the month. Can’t you just see that atop the DailyKos? “Beaychamp: Those atrocities really did happen!”

RightWinged on August 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Step back for a second, and hold in your mind just how obviously wrong, and even wronger under serious examination, the “Shock Troops” stories are. No one would know this fact better than STB’s own comrades.

Then think about everything we know about STB from the articles, from his blog, from research about his background, even from a few statements about his personality by friends at TNR: This is not some street-hardened criminal. He’s an ambitious confused young guy who bit off way more than he could chew, and made some bad decisions (though if Franklin Foer hadn’t given FOB Falcon away in an e-mail to Goldfarb, STB might have gotten away with it all).

Anyway, I personally would find it very hard to believe, almost as hard to believe as the “Shock Troops” stories themselves, that STB had either the wit, the stones, or for that matter even the bad intentions to lie to Army investigators once it was clear to him that this all was going to get and stay serious. We forget that in his own mind he was likely more than half an idealist serving a larger truth. He wasn’t, however, some committed Bolshevik yearning to die for the Revolution, looking forward to writing “Shock Convicts.” (Even less can we assume that his buddies, assuming he had a few, were going to go to any figurative or literal wall for him, or depend on each other to sustain some serviceable fiction).

I figure they got STB in a room with a grown-up who a) already knew going in, just like we all knew, that it was a complete load of crap; b) could explain just how much trouble STB could get in if he told any lies; and c) could also explain convincingly just how little the Army wanted either to hurt him or make any bigger deal out of this thing than necessary. In short, STB would see very quickly that his one and best option was to tell the truth. I doubt much more pressure than that was needed, but even a beginner investigator probably wouldn’t have had much difficulty generating it.

Nothing else even comes close to making sense.

CK MacLeod on August 7, 2007 at 12:55 AM

Best comment in the thread, CK MacLeod, in my opinion, and there were lots of good ones.

Yep. I suspect that’s how it went down.

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM

One more point on this irrationality/stupidity line of thinking. How rational, and how intelligent, was it for Scott Thomas Beauchamp to use “Scott Thomas” as his pen name and expect to stay under cover while writing what he was writing for a national journal? That’s what he did. Here’s why I think he did that. Part of him knew that what he was doing was dangerous, but the other part wanted the credit for what he was doing. Logic and hubris collided, and so he made a stupid and irrational compromise to try to mitigate the danger while getting some amount of credit for his work (ultimately, if he couldn’t bask in some credit, why bother?) and Scott T. Beauchamp became “Scott Thomas.” How many of his mates knew his middle name was Thomas anyway? They’re in the Army, they’re not smart enough to figure me out. And when TNR first asked him for some kind of ID to satisfy us, he dribbled out FOB Falcon, again thinking that on a busy base he could still stay under cover, probably because he thought he’d been just vague enough in his articles that his stories couldn’t be checked. He stayed one step ahead of TNR, but some simple factual question that TNR never bothered to ask, but the Army did ask, got him.

As Bugs Bunny would say, what a maroon.

The irony here, if I’m right and I may not be, is that Beauchamp probably looks up to TNR as the brilliant minds and views the Army as a collection of warmongering dolts, but he fooled TNR and didn’t fool the Army. Whenever he gets around to thinking that through, the implications will come as quite a shock.

Bryan on August 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM

“Scott Thomas” Beauchamp

… piece. of. crap.

juanito on August 7, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Personally, I wonder if he exaggerated and made up stories to impress the girl. Wouldn’t be the first time a guy’s dick got him in trouble.

Blake on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

As crazy as that sounds, liberal girls will do ANYTHING if you tell them you’re a war criminal. And the gorier the stories, the better. Back in the seventies that was a free ticket on pretty much any college campus.

As for this loser, he probably thought that as long as he only “implied” the whole military was full of psychotic retards, but only actually SAID the worst things about himself and a couple of friends, he couldn’t get in any real trouble.

…Until the investigation started and somebody told the feeb – in no uncertain terms – exactly what would happen if he tried to tell any little white “exaggerations” to full grown men who eat smart-mouthed pissant scuttlebutt artists like him for breakfast.

logis on August 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM

The what having already been covered, CK MacLeod nails the how to the wall.

Right on.

Misha I on August 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Another future ‘best-selling’ author working at Inland Waste Management. Who woulda thunk it? Have a good life kid.

Limerick on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 AM

As crazy as that sounds, liberal girls will do ANYTHING if you tell them you’re a war criminal.

How about we just ease up a tiny bit on the demagoguery throttle there.

Allahpundit on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 AM

He was clearly detached from reality…he actually thought his prose was good.

Even with his military “credibility” that he desired so much, who would hire him to write? Oh yeah, the New Republic.

They might want to shorten that vacation.

Nosferightu on August 7, 2007 at 1:10 AM

How about we just ease up a tiny bit on the demagoguery throttle there.

Well, AP, we certainly can, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Except that it’s a very overbroad generalization. It’s by no means limited to liberal chicks, and it’s not limited to being a “war criminal” either.

But it’s also no secret that an amazing amount of girls light up like a Christmas tree when in the company of the “strong, mysterious, ‘dangerous’ silent type” and that uniforms, no matter what they say, are a powerful aphrodisiac.

Misha I on August 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM

As crazy as that sounds, liberal girls will do ANYTHING if you tell them you’re a war criminal.

Really, I thought liberal girls would do anything if you tell them you support their glorious God-given right to have an abortion after?

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM

If he truly lied about and scandalized his band of brothers in TNR, Beauchamp gets a military court to decide his military fate.
I hope most of the rest of us will ignore him and move on, even if his lies are defended by some misguided mind readers… by reason of mental defect.

Randy

williars on August 7, 2007 at 1:22 AM

armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 11:17 PM

I would expect more of an Administrative action than Punitive. Discharge under General or OTH or at least an LOR with a UIF and possibly place him on a Control Roster. Not knowing the particulars or being privy to the investigation it all depends on his Command, and how much discredit they think he brought upon the Army.

BDU-33 on August 7, 2007 at 1:34 AM

How about we just ease up a tiny bit on the demagoguery throttle there.

Well, AP, we certainly can, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Except that it’s a very overbroad generalization. It’s by no means limited to liberal chicks, and it’s not limited to being a “war criminal” either.

But it’s also no secret that an amazing amount of girls light up like a Christmas tree when in the company of the “strong, mysterious, ‘dangerous’ silent type” and that uniforms, no matter what they say, are a powerful aphrodisiac.

Misha I on August 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM

I don’t claim to be much of an expert on whatever the heck “demagoguery throttles” are supposed to be. And I’m not just talking about a natural attraction for “strong, silent types” either.

Tell a leftist college girl you were just there doing your duty for your country, and she’ll spit in your face. You have to get that wild look in your eyes so she knows you couldn’t help yourself once you were surrounded by all those blood-thirsty monsters.

Back in the Seventies, when colleges were stuffed with card-carrying Communists, that was common practice – whether you’d ever seen an M-16 or not. What, did you think the hundreds of guys who went to those “Winter Soldier” love-ins John Kerry held and made up all those crazy stories were all there just to help him start a political career? Hell no, they’d been practicing that patter for years.

We give liberals way too much credit. Most of them can’t “calculate” their own checkbooks, let alone a political opinion. When they say they feel compassion for all those poor, innocent kids the Evil NixonBushHitler personally brainwashed into becoming maniacal mass-murderers, they honest-to-God BELIEVE every word of it.

logis on August 7, 2007 at 1:40 AM

What incentive does he have to lie to them right off the bat?

Allah you ae asking questions that makes an incorrect assumption. When Beauchamp sat down with Army lawyers he KNEW it was over.

Military culture is not like an episode of Law & Order. When “The Moment of Truth” comes at boot camp (your last chance to admit anything that may disqualify you from entering the military) people are confessing to stealing a candy bar in the sixth grade, confessing to things the Marine Corps could never know. The UCMJ is no joke and military culture holds integrity above all else.

Theworldisnotenough on August 7, 2007 at 1:50 AM

The only important question left at this point is when will Iowahawk go dumpster-diving for Beauchamp’s first drafts?

Purple Fury on August 7, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Oh snap! Looks like this guy has a history of deceit…

Following links after arriving at his myspace page, have lead me to believe that he totally screwed this girl over after telling her he would marry her, etc. then suddenly saying “see ya” and later marrying this TNR broad.

You can see she abandoned her page in November, the day after his last message to her
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=54454789

(translate them with Altavista babel fish)

Then if you go read messages left on his Myspace, from late April… All these broads unload on him for what is clearly cheating on their “sister”… I can’t tell if there are like 4 or 5 actual sisters, or friends who call themselves sisters, and I can’t tell if this is a separate broad (from the first link I gave you) that he also strung along. I think they are friends/sisters of that first girl though.

RightWinged on August 7, 2007 at 2:36 AM

Oops, forgot the link to his myspace

http://www.myspace.com/ghostswatchingtv

(and if you want to translate the comments he typed in German to that girl and don’t know what babelfish is, here ya go:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
)

RightWinged on August 7, 2007 at 2:37 AM

RightWinged, I’ll be frank and admit I don’t care about this German woman.

Nothing to do with being German — half my ancestry is — but I despise elitist racists, even the ones who merely revel in it and I can’t tell whether they’re being sincere or just “pretending”.

She’s got:

“NIGGERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR” as her user page name and, in case you missed it, “KRAMER HATES NIGGERS” underneath her name.

While I have no doubt Beauchamp is a dipshit, and his choice of girls further illustrates that, I couldn’t care less about this elitist cow’s feelings.

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 3:01 AM

RightWinged, I’ll be frank and admit I don’t care about this German woman.

Nothing to do with being German — half my ancestry is — but I despise elitist racists, even the ones who merely revel in it and I can’t tell whether they’re being sincere or just “pretending”.

She’s got:

“NIXXERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR” as her user page name and, in case you missed it, “KRAMER HATES NIXXERS” underneath her name.

While I have no doubt Beauchamp is a dipsh*t, and his choice of girls further illustrates that, I couldn’t care less about this elitist cow’s feelings.

[I had to replace Gs with Xs to get it past the site profanity filter... I figure my comment is relevant to the topic at hand and the comment that came before it... replace Xs with Gs to decode]

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 3:05 AM

Scott Thomas Beauchump… so suave` and so de-boner

If those myspace links and the info in them in-fact are related to this guy, coupled with the rest of the Beauchump debacle, it’s almost a done deal this dude will get a book deal. Maybe even a made-for-TV Friday night movie.

I mean, shucks, he and TNR are hero’s after all. Good ol’ Private Beauchump. Hee-ro. Kicking rocks in Iraq. Exposing the madness and insanity plaguing our military in-country. Coupled with the partnership of an international print and digital publisher, they will smite the imperialist dogs-of-war! The pen is mightier than the sword! Even if it’s a product of our imagination! *RAWRRR*

…friggin’ tools

SilverStar830 on August 7, 2007 at 3:18 AM

“If those myspace links and the info in them in-fact are related to this guy…”

They’re related. Via MM.

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 3:27 AM

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 3:05 AM

Oh I’m not claiming she’s some prize pig herself, and yeah I did see all of that… but it was necessary to link to her to prove my point about what a deceitful s**t this guy is, and has been apparently for some time, with TNR and otherwise. By the way, he was definitely engaged to this other broad (the racist) just last fall, as evidenced by this photo of her “fiance” and nephew:
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=54454789&albumID=0&imageID=2088793

Again, I’m still not quite clear on why she disappeared off the face of the Earth the day after his last comment to her in November.. but the overall point was that he obviously screwed this girl over to draw such wrath from her sisters, which seems to have come as a result of them all being shocked by his wedding to the TNR girl this spring… that still doesn’t explain the disappearance of the other girl from Myspace, but whatever.

RightWinged on August 7, 2007 at 4:08 AM

I should note that a false official statement carries a 5 yr max, not 7.

A typo on my part.

armylawyer on August 7, 2007 at 6:43 AM

It seems to me that just about everything they have to say about the military is based on falsehoods….from Jesse MacBeth and all the other faux military ‘experts’ who supposedly have experience, right down to the people they parade in front of us who are serving now.

Lies, lies and more lies, but people still vote for their candidates…I just don’t understand it.

Cao on August 7, 2007 at 6:50 AM

Lies, lies and more lies, but people still vote for their candidates…I just don’t understand it.

Good vs. evil, truth vs. falsehood, light vs. darkness… theres aren’t new issues.

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 7:09 AM

Look, it’s a sacrament of most leftists that they should be able to hire medical doctors(!) to rip babies apart and not just anyone’s babies, but their own.

Does it really surprise you they lie and see things in muddled ways that make no sense?

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 7:12 AM

That dirt bag needs a blanket party.

TheSitRep on August 7, 2007 at 7:17 AM

What incentive does he have to lie to them right off the bat?

People like Thomas don’t need any external incentive to lie. They build internal fantasy realities founded upon lies they tell not only the people they’re trying to impress, but also themselves. I don’t think this is so much a case of calculated dishonesty as it is habitual fantasy nonsense. He really, really, really wants his world to be a certain way, so he constructs elaborate falsehoods to make it that way. There’s a certain point at which a person like that becomes so accustomed to discarding facts in favor of the mashed-up fiction that he wants those facts to fit into that the subject himself begins to have a hard time discerning where the line between truth and falsehood really lies.

Now that’s not to say I think he lied on his sworn recantation. I think Bryan is probably right here. He got in the room with an investigator and got flustered, got tripped up, and got backed into a corner where he had no choice but to let go of the way he wanted things to be and fess up to the way they really were. Don’t underestimate his facility with falsehood though. Folks who construct elaborate fairy tales like Beauchamp’s here tend to make a habit of lying for no good reason.

ConfigSys.boy on August 7, 2007 at 7:43 AM

Beauchamp ’36.

Niko on August 7, 2007 at 8:01 AM

Under threat of waterboarding, he told the officers whatever they wanted to hear. It was obvious that the military was going to cover up these atrocities. He had to find a way out, and that was to lie to the military, that has told so many lies and killed so many people. He did what he had to do to get out of this mess and tell the truth…which is what is in his diaries.
Don’t believe the military, they will do or destroy anything that attacks them. If they can do that to a whole country, what chance does Beauchamp have.

Now when he is out, he can tell the “Real” story. The story of his torture and signing under duress.

He is the real hero, standing up and exposing the military. Just like John Kerry.

That will the a story (or parts of) spun by the pathetic left.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 8:25 AM

That dirt bag needs a blanket party.

I am confident he is already no stranger to this.

Anyone who has been in the service knows this guy. He is the 2% that occupies 98% of your time. Smart kid, but would you please just stay out of trouble for 2 seconds? I know you have the brain the size of Alpha Centauri, but could you just sit behind the CQ desk and answer the damn phone. And another thing, why don’t you use that great big intellect of yours to NOT forget to take out the trash like you are supposed to. I don’t care that you were studying for your Soldier of the Quarter board and that you know every single possible question inside and out, you’re never going to get selected because you can’t keep your nose out of trouble. And another thing, don’t give me that look every time I tell you to PMCS the vehicles, its not my fault Humvee’s aren’t powered by warp core reactors. AND STOP CALLING ME “L-T” THIS ISN’T ‘NAM.

/waiting 5 years to get that off my chest

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 7, 2007 at 8:38 AM

right2bright,

WOW! For a minute there you had me ready to jump through the screen until your last sentence.

When he gets out there’s no doubt that he will become a poster boy for the left. Excellent comment.

pocomoco on August 7, 2007 at 8:47 AM

The story of his torture and signing under duress. He is the real hero, standing up and exposing the military. Just like John Kerry. That will the a story (or parts of) spun by the pathetic left.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 8:25 AM

Will it be Katie,Diane or Barbara who will reach out and touch his shoulder to comfort him during the interview?

JiangxiDad on August 7, 2007 at 8:48 AM

4) TNR needs to issue a statement apologizing to the military, the U.S. government, and the TNR readers.

jediwebdude on August 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Please don’t hold your breath dude, being part of the liberal establishment means never having to acknowledge guilt or culpability. Dan Rather/CBS never admitted they faked those memos! ABC News never hung its head in shame when that e-mail came out telling its staff that it was okay to skew coverage to favor John Kerry in the Campaign 2006 stories. The NYT certainly never admitted they had a hand in letting terrorists get away when they published classified information concerning US intelligence gathering mechanisms for targeted financial transactions. What makes you think TNR would ever apologize?

highhopes on August 7, 2007 at 9:04 AM

From all he other comments I gather a military investigation revolves around interviews and sworn statements. I would think a better way to get to the bottom of all this is for the investigators to gather up the group who were digging at FOB Falcon when the “Mass Grave” was found, hand them all shovels, return with them to the site, and sit in a lawn chair in the shade drinking iced tea waiting for one of two things to happen…. either some childrens bodies or the truth will soon be uncovered. No lies, no more BS, just the truth plain and simple.

I would also think a female in a mess hall with a half melted face and hair would be more of a celebrity than an out cast and certainly very recognizable. Shoudn’t the Haliburton/ contractors food service workers know if they have EVER seen this horribly disfigured woman EVEN ONCE? I would think just asking her what veggies she would like with her meatloaf would leave an ever lasting memory of an encounter with this poor woman. Wouldn’t personnel records that matched dates w/ STB being on that base allow you to interview the people who served her that day? And if those people swear to never have having seen her, then someone so unforgettable must surely NOT exist.

Just my $.o2.

Storybec on August 7, 2007 at 9:16 AM

The question is, knowing that the Army was going to want a word with him when his identity was revealed, why did he issue a statement to TNR under his real name standing by his story if he only planned to recant it when the Army came knocking a few days later?

Allah

I think the answer to that is here:

He formally recanted in a sworn statement because he had nothing.

Bryan

The Army wanted it to be false and likely went hard on him, trying to trip him up and was likely able to do so, something our imaginative writer probably hadn’t anticipated, something that made his lie much more difficult.

And he probably didn’t have the same knowledge armylawer does, but I imagine they explained his situation to him, making his choice very clear once he realized he wouldn’t be able to lie his way through this one.

His wife works there. I doubt he ever planned on hanging TNR. It seems more likely that he came to the realization that he just couldn’t keep it up. After all, he’s just not that good a story teller.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 9:53 AM

There’s no rational logic in much of anything that this guy did. Why did he think he could get away with writing nonsense in a national journal, where there was always a potential that someone could read it and call him out on it?

Why? Because he is a believer. Just like the wacky left, he believes that the military is corrupt and he assumed that just because he had not seen it personally, it MUST be happening. So, he pulls the old “fake but accurate” schtick.

csdeven on August 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

The irony here, if I’m right and I may not be, is that Beauchamp probably looks up to TNR as the brilliant minds and views the Army as a collection of warmongering dolts, but he fooled TNR and didn’t fool the Army. Whenever he gets around to thinking that through, the implications will come as quite a shock.
Bryan on August 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Bryan, That the people at TNR are brilliant and that Army is full of dolts are not conscious views of STB. They are underlying assumptions. It’s rare for people to examine their underlying assumptions. New facts which reinforce underlying assumptions create a sense of pleasure as they are accepted. New facts which conflict with underlying assumptions make us uncomfortable and are almost always rejected.

This thread makes it clear that everyone commenting here shares two underlying assumptions:
Army good.
Lefties bad.

What I would like to know is how many minds were actually changed by the STB incident. Even though the facts are clear and the expertise (AL) in the field clearly show that STB was fabulist not fabulous, what effect has it had on the lefties?

Has anyone in the HA community tossed the leftie blogs to see if anyone who went into the story thinking “Army bad, Lefties good” believe that STB is cough less than truthful cough. I have time to make the search but fear that it will make me puke on my shiny new notebook.

Oh, and keep up the fight. The STB incident looks like the beginnings of the Truther movement.

TunaTalon on August 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Not necessarily. Beauchamp might — might — have had enough honor to go to the guys who corroborated his story during the TNR investigation and tell them that if the Army comes calling, they should just deny everything and he’ll take the fall.

Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Maybe, but if he’d been thinking that far ahead, he probably wouldn’t hung TNR out to dry with that denial he wrote.

It makes sense in the context of his means of communication having been taken away, but if he’d been planning to bail all along, taking away his computer would have been too little too late. After all, why give your fellow soldiers the heads up (especially when you have such disdain for the military) if you won’t even give your wife the heads up?

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I’m really starting to think TNR threw him under the bus. He had zero incentive to reveal himself as you say. If the incidents never happened they had no way to track him down. He was safe. Even if they were threatening to can his wife, so be it. What’s a job compared to jail time? Or, maybe his wife so believed in him, did it for him…. we’ll probably never know.

TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Except, the outing wasn’t that big anyway, was it? I mean we already had his real first name and his real middle name. With his wife working at TNR, wouldn’t this have been pretty easy anyway?

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Although the article was rigorously ideologically edited and fact-checkedfree before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-reportpeat every detail. This process takes considerable time stalling, as the primary subjects are on another continent imaginary, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we’ve found nothing to disprove the facts thruthiness in the article; we will release the full results of our search smirch when it is completed, assuming that we don’t get caught with our britches down and still have a job.

Fixed that.

Immolate on August 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Here’s my theory on the melted face girl. The incident DID take place in Kuwait, she DOES exist. She doesn’t have horrible injuries caused by a senseless war, she’s fat.

They sat down in the mess hall next to a fat girl, they then started talking out loud about how they dig fat chicks, and she ran away crying. Take the mess hall story, cross out IED and put in FAT. Makes perfect sense and is in line with the maturity of ex-PFC Beauchamp.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM

If he got paid for this, then he was officially “moonlighting” and that’s prohibited without the direct permission of the commander.

jeffshultz on August 7, 2007 at 12:24 PM

What will this guy do when he gets out of the Army? Probably become a Senator…

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

m1a1usmc on August 7, 2007 at 12:31 PM

He’s looking at that if he lies to them under oath. The 5th Amendment still applies, and he could just as easily clam up. He’s not required to incriminate himself.

Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM

I’m not so sure the 5th Amendment applies, you have to remember he’s in the military, and thus, under the UCMJ and not the Constitution. In other words… he is not “At Law” but rather he is “At equity.” And “At equity” in law simply means he is under contract to do whatever he signed up for via the enlistment contract. The UCMJ gives you some protections… but for the most part the military “owns” you.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM

He’s looking at that if he lies to them under oath. The 5th Amendment still applies, and he could just as easily clam up. He’s not required to incriminate himself.

Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Hahahahahahaaha!

m1a1usmc on August 7, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Let a dishonorable discharge follow him around for the rest of his life. every job application he will have to list it or lie which he appears to be good at.

robo on August 7, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Yes, soldiers under UCMJ do have 5th Amendment rights. Here’s the rights warning document that ex-PFC Beauchamp probably had to sign before being questioned.

1. I do not have to answer any question or say anything.
2. Anything I say or do can be used as evidence against me in a criminal trial.
3. (For personnel subject othe UCMJ I have the right to talk privately to a lawyer before, during, and after questioning and to have a lawyer present with me
during questioning. This lawyer can be a civilian lawyer I arrange for at no expense to the Government or a military lawyer detailed for me at no expense to me,
or both.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 7, 2007 at 1:51 PM

If you believe as I do this person is clearly interested in making a splash in his element, i.e. the liberal side of the pond, nothing would give him more cache than going up against the US Army as a whistle blower on Iraq. Of course to do that, he’d have to have the truth on his side or at least a defensible lie. If the story is totally fabricated, he’s pretty well out of options, and so he capitulates.

Dash on August 7, 2007 at 2:21 PM

At the minimum this guy is going to get an NJP, loss of rank and loss of pay… His buddies will ridicule him, most will never talk to him again (if they can help it), and he’ll be on every Sh*t detail until he gets out… non-rec for the remainder of his time in…

m1a1usmc on August 7, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Latest from the new republic. Posted today

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

–The Editors

William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM

When we [TNR] called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
–The Editors
William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM

There you have it: another evil coverup.

The Army is refusing to fully disclose all of the details of how they performed every step of their investigation. Instead, all they hand over is one measly signed affidavit from TNR’s only named source, swearing under penalty of incarceration that he his entire story was a fabrication.

But did the Army provide a signed affidavit from even ONE of TNR’s new anonymous sources to prove that they are lying about what TNR claims Beauchamp said? Huh. I didn’t think so.

Say what you want about TNR, but you have to admit they are leaving absolutely no doubt about which side is hiding the ball in this case.

logis on August 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Hmmmmm…..I think the editors at TNR are snortin’ something….

We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement.

Link

GT on August 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Why can’t I stop hearing:

razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan

In my head?

RightWinged on August 7, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Ah, Mr. J-enghis Khan.

Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 6:24 PM

There is one “catch-all” article in the UCMJ that can at least get this guy non-judicial punishment. UCMJ article 134

Here is the descriptive text of article 134:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

During my early service in the Navy, this was the one article that always hung over my head when I contemplated doing something stupid, silly, or just plain wrong that wasn’t specifically mentioned by any other UCMJ article. On page 3 of that link, there is a pre-determined list of offenses that virtually guarantees being hauled in front of the CO or worse. However, the text of the article in no way limits the chargeable offenses to that pre-determined list. That’s why I seldom pushed my luck in my young and dumb days as a new sailor.

In this particular case,

…all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces…

seems to fit the bill nicely. I’m sure this man will be hauled in front of his CO for NJP unless he demands a trial by court-martial.

If he demands trial, I’m not sure how the burden of proof changes, but I’m sure a “jury of his peers” will not look kindly upon his actions.

I’m not sure if they can award a punishment in excess of article 134 limits, but I’m willing to bet a trial would net him as much punishment as allowed by the UCMJ. Armylawyer might be able to provide more insight if he is so inclined.

American_Jihadist on August 7, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Beauchamp probably looks up to TNR as the brilliant minds and views the Army as a collection of warmongering dolts, but he fooled TNR and didn’t fool the Army. Whenever he gets around to thinking that through, the implications will come as quite a shock

.

Not really. It’s child’s play to fool someone who really really wants to believe. TNR wants to believe the worst of the military and grasped Beauchamp’s fables with both hands…”The moral of the story is that military training and warfare brutalizes even sensitive poets, as we’ve believed all along”.

Once again lefties reckoned their strong feelings about something (truthiness) trumped actual facts. Even when the facts eventually trip them up, they seldom convert, despising rational thought as inferior to their “noble instincts”.

tarkus on August 8, 2007 at 12:41 AM

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

ABSOLUTELY FABULIST
August 8, 2007

m1a1usmc on August 8, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2