"The difference is that instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax, thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are Sweetness and Light." - Jonathan Swift

« LA Reporter: Media Myths About The Jena 6 | Home | Code Pink Lunatic Attacks Condoleezza Rice »

Drudge Has TNR’s Scott Beauchamp Documents

In case you haven’t heard yet, the Drudge Report has gotten his hands on some of the transcripts of conversations between The New Republic and its latest fabulist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

However, the article seems to have been pulled from the site’s front page. But this link still works:

SHOCK DOCS: THE NEW REPUBLIC ‘SHOCK TROOPS’ STORY COLLAPSES

WED Oct 24 2007

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained internal documents from the investigation of THE NEW REPUBLIC’S “Baghdad Diarist”, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private turned war correspondent who reported tales of military malfeasance from the Iraq War front.

The documents appear to expose that once the veracity of Beauchamp’s diaries were called into question, and an Army investigation ensued, THE NEW REPUBLIC has failed to publicly account for publishing slanderous falsehoods about the U.S. military in a time of war.

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)

THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of “stonewalling” their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that “I just want it to end. I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really.” The editors respond that “we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece” without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he “doesn’t care what the public thinks.” The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to “Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations” (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed “Memorandum for Record” in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army’s investigation — that his stories contained “gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct” by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales “Completely Fabricated,” Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army’s official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had “completely fabricated” the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a “Saddam-era dumping ground” was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was “completely unfounded.” Further the report stated “that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway.”

The report concludes that “Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption.”

Developing…

At the very least these documents reveal much misrepresentation on the part of the New Republic, who were either defending or ignoring the challenges to Beauchamp’s tales at this time.

Here are some excerpts from the transcripts:

Enlarge

Enlarge

Enlarge

Enlarge

Drudge’s original article had provided links to the three pdf files. But since they are no longer available, I have uploaded them here and here and here.

Related Articles:

  Print Email

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm. You can leave a response.

7 Responses to “Drudge Has TNR’s Scott Beauchamp Documents”

  1. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps
    October 24th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    Great job SG catching and archiving those PDFs before they vanished into the ether.

  2. SG
    October 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    From the New York Observer:

    TNR’s Foer: Drudge’s Documents Could Have Come Only From the Army

    by Leon Neyfakh
    Published: October 24, 2007

    Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents relating to Scott Thomas Beauchamp that Matt Drudge posted this afternoon–and removed several hours later without explanation–could have only come from the Army.

    Mr. Foer said he called TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.

    “It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.” …

    http://tinyurl.com/2b6gu8

    Oh, boo hoo.

    The chutzpah of these lying weasels trying to make themselves out to be victims.

    Especially when Foer is complaining that he didn’t have access to his own damn conversation.

  3. 1sttofight
    October 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    The chutzpah of these lying weasels trying to make themselves out to be victims.

    That is a liberals only defense. The facts will never back up their argument and they are just so much more intelligent than the huddled masses who fall for every Bush lie that when they are caught telling another bald faced lie , it of course has to be someone elses fault.
    Funny how the really stupid people keep fooling these genuis’s , isn’t it?

    BTW Steve, thanks for putting that enlarge feature on the site , It really comes in handy for me.

    Another BTW, I am now gainfully employed as of today. Ooooh Ahhhh.

  4. wardmama4
    October 24th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    So uhm, what do we call PVT Beauchamp? He isn’t a Phony Soldier but plays one in TNR?!?

    The apologies from TNR is deafening.

    Defame, demean and lie about the military and it’s just oops, when the truth comes out. Sort of like Haditha.

    We really need to come up with a term since no one in America seems to like the word Traitor anymore.

  5. BillK
    October 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Alas, for whatever reason this story is tainted now.

    The left will just claim that Drudge pulled it because the posted documents were found to be false, and unless Drudge comments one way or another we’ll never know. :-(

  6. Musette
    October 25th, 2007 at 12:34 am

    1st, what do you do (as of today)?

  7. SG
    October 25th, 2007 at 4:52 am

    And update on this from the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz:

    Baghdad Diarist Was On Guard When Questioned by Editors

    By Howard Kurtz
    Thursday, October 25, 2007; C01

    The soldier whose New Republic article about military cruelty in Iraq was labeled false by Army investigators refused to defend his accusations when questioned by the magazine, even after being told that the editors could no longer support him unless he cooperated.

    In a recorded Sept. 6 conversation, the writer, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, said from Iraq that the controversy had “spun out of control” and had become “insane” and “ridiculous” and concluded: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything.”

    Beauchamp stood his ground even after Editor Franklin Foer told him “that if you’re not able to talk about this and able to stand by your story, I’m not sure we’ll be able to stand by it. . . . You wouldn’t have much credibility left in the public eye. . . . You basically made a vow to us that what you were publishing was the truth.” Foer added that Beauchamp’s wife, Elspeth Reeve, then a New Republic reporter, had said “that it’s the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didn’t recant.”

    Beauchamp replied that she was a journalist and he was a soldier.

    Despite the contentious conversation, Foer continued to defend the article days later. He did so again yesterday, reiterating that other soldiers whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.

    While Beauchamp “didn’t stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn’t recant his stories,” Foer said in an interview. “He obviously was under considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the room with him.”

    While the discussion “was extremely frustrating and engendered doubts,” Foer said, Beauchamp defended his story in a subsequent conversation that was conducted with no superiors present.

    In the Sept. 6 conversation, Executive Editor Peter Scoblic repeatedly urged Beauchamp to cooperate, saying that “Frank and his reputation have been dragged through the mud.”

    A transcript of the conversation was obtained by Internet columnist Matt Drudge, who yesterday also posted the internal Army report on the case. The report concludes that Beauchamp “is not a credible source,” adding: “Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway.” The investigating officer recommended that Beauchamp be given a “mental health consultation.”

    Beauchamp’s July 13 column, published under the pen name Scott Thomas, was quickly attacked by conservative bloggers, sparking the biggest crisis for the liberal magazine since staff writer Stephen Glass was fired in 1998 for a series of fabricated stories.

    Beauchamp had written that he and other soldiers had taunted a female soldier whose face was badly disfigured. The Army report said every soldier interviewed in Beauchamp’s unit could not recall such a woman and called the account “completely fabricated.”

    The Army report also called Beauchamp’s assertion that drivers of Bradley Fighting Vehicles deliberately ran over stray dogs “completely unfounded.” And it dismissed as “false” Beauchamp’s account that soldiers had played with the skulls of Iraqi children, saying just one skull was found and was buried with dignity.

    Foer said the Army has refused to turn over supporting documents in the case, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, and then “selectively leaked” material to Drudge. In an e-mail to the magazine yesterday, Army spokesman Maj. Kirk Luedeke said he was “surprised and appalled that this information was leaked” and that the military would investigate.

    Beauchamp, with the Army’s encouragement, had agreed to talk to The Washington Post and Newsweek on Sept. 6, but canceled the interviews at the last minute at Foer’s urging. Foer said yesterday that “given everything we have on the line, we have a right to have this exclusive line of communication with him.”

    http://tinyurl.com/32myrz

    Beauchamp’s wife wasn’t a reporter at TNR, but a “fact-checker” and wannabe editor.

    All traces of her have since been disappeared from The New Republic, in suitably Stalinistic fashion.

    Also note how the WP buried this about as deeply as possible in their paper.

    Must not let stories like this get to the great unwashed. They might catch on as to how much they are lied to by our watchdog media.


Leave a Reply

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.


« Front Page | To Top
« LA Reporter: Media Myths About The Jena 6 | Code Pink Lunatic Attacks Condoleezza Rice »