The Beauchamp controversy: Many Foots in Many Mouths [UPDATED]

This is one of the few articles that has been pure joy to write. A lot of pundits are now eating crow over the Scott Beauchamp affair. I know it's unseemly to be a gloating winner, so I'll refrain from sarcasm and keep the side comments to a minimum.

I'll give a brief background primer for those that haven't been following this: The New Republic printed a story called "Shock Troops", by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who was at first anonymous, but later identified himself as an infantry soldier in Iraq, and it turned out he was married to a reporter at TNR. The article made some claims about crimes/bad behavior by US soldiers that many military people (including me) and several conservative web sites pointed out were quite impossible. The backlash was so strong that on Aug 2, the editors of TNR claimed they stood firmly by the story, did a "re-investigation", and found only one inconsistency. So the many supporters of The New Republic felt vindicated over what they felt had been dishonest, right-wing smear jobs designed to silence all critics of the war!

This is where the article you are reading now comes in. In the midst of all their premature jubilation, this group, largely clueless of the military and living in ivory towers, wrote many self-congratulating articles that they probably regret now (fortunately, they are all saved in Google's cache).

The reason they probably regret them now (and some must be livid with anger at Beauchamp), is because the Army decided to conduct it's own investigation, and could not find one single soldier to corroborate the TNR or Beauchamp's claims, and decided to impose administrative punishment against him (meaning local restriction only, no court martial). Beauchamp himself refuses to talk to anyone about it now.

Yes, he had his laptop and cell phone confiscated during the investigation, but he still has access to MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) computers with internet, MWR telephones, Iraqi internet cafes, and the good old-fashioned US Postal Service.

As Mark Steyn puts it:

It seems silly and rather sad for The New Republic to be crawling further and further out on the limb for this guy [Beauchamp] when he's all but sawn it off

But this might be a little harsh. My gut feeling is that PVT Beauchamp never expected that the article would generate so much publicity, or that it would be scrutinized so closely by other veterans. He just wanted to help out/impress his reporter wife, and now that the whole thing has blown up, he wants to keep quiet so he doesn't jeapardize his wife's job at the magazine, and is now hoping the whole thing would just go away. But that's just a guess.

Of course, he has some die-hard fans who will claim that the Army is just covering this up, or is coercing or brainwashing Beauchamp. I can't help people who think this - (there's quite a few that even believe the Moon landing was faked) except to point out, as I remarked before, that his story itself did not stand up to scrutiny. We didn't really even need to do an investigation. In any case, both I and many other military bloggers, warned other bloggers about this a long time ago. Those that tried to hitch their wagons to Beauchamp's star have only themselves to blame now.

Anyway, enjoy. The range of authors here is from the well-known to the truly obscure. In no particular order:

Franklin Foer, editor of TNR (requires media player):

My magazine this last week has been subject of basically a smear job by the Weekly Standard and a lot of the conservative blogosphere over a piece that we published from a soldier in Iraq, which we have gone back and re-reported and it turned out to be aside from one mistake to be the case and I just wish that there was, and this sounds like a trite mainstream media criticism, but that those in the blogosphere who kind of move from one reckless allegation to another reckless allegation for once apologize when they get something wrong.”

(As of right now, Mr. Foer has not apologized for the story)



Andrew Sullivan, on 26 July:

Obviously, my love for TNR and my respect for its new editor, Frank Foer, makes me hope that every single aspect of his [Beauchamp's] stories is true.

(At least he's up front about his biases here. A note of background: Andrew Sullivan used to work for TNR, and is the one who hired Stephen Glass, another well-publicized fraud. That may be why he reacted very differently to this story than he did to this similar 2004 story of fraudulent Iraq abuse photos printed in the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror)

Also, Sullivan on 27 July:

Well, I trawled through the various knuckle-dragging websites and there's still no actual, you know, evidence that he fabricated anything. Maybe he did. First-person war-stories are always hard to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt, no? But if Malkin can't dredge up something and fling it by now, no one can.

Sullivan, again on August 2:

Read TNR's accounting. It is as I predicted: honorable and, except for one small inaccuracy, it checks out. All the aspects aggressively challenged by the usual propaganda organs have been verified and corroborated. The military is now conducting its own investigation. Given the record of such formal investigations, I'm not as confident in the Pentagon as I am in TNR. Can we now expect apologies from the people who smeared and maligned the magazine and its soldier-reporter? I doubt it. The attackers are not the kind to acknowledge their own errors.

(Neither, apparently, is Andrew Sullivan. As of right now, he has not issued an apology for these statements)




Matthew Yglesias on 26 July:

as best I can tell nobody has yet brought forward any serious reason to doubt his story...
All these people [Beauchamp's critics] need to stop. They need to take a deep breath. They need to apologize to the people at TNR who've wasted huge amounts of time dealing with their nonsense.

And Yglesias again on 2 Aug:

Well, it looks like The Weekly Standard and the right-wing blogosphere really turn out to have the goods be full of shit... Nevertheless, despite being totally wrong, it's arguably mission accomplished for the right...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.

Glenn Greenwald, at Salon.com:

I would simply add that right-wing troop-exploiters always reserve their most hateful, vicious and deeply personal attacks for soldiers and veterans who deviate from their political church

Ezra Klein on American Prospect:

these people are thugs. They freaked out about The New Republic's anonymous diarist because his words clashed with the childish mythology they've constructed around the US Military. Despite lacking any actual evidence disproving or even calling into question his story, they were able to make enough noise to spark an investigation and media attention.

Also, later:

If Beauchamp is indeed a liar, I'll be surprised

Jon Swift, on his blog:

even though no one has proven a single factual inaccuracy, this did not discourage our brave milbloggers. Nor did the fact that Scott Thomas does exist and is a soldier do anything to give his story more credence. In fact, knowing the author's real name makes it even easier to discredit him [sarcasm].

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:

you can already see how this is going to play out. Not only will Thomas's character be dragged savagely through the mud (Michelle Malkin is leading the charge over at her site), but eventually some small part of Thomas's account will turn out to be slightly exaggerated and the right will erupt in righteous fervor

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

Imagining that every story that doesn't kowtow to the Bush personality cult is another Rathergate in the making, the rightwing blogosphere exploded with a wave of accusations and fabrications, all alleging in one fashion or another that the stories were made up. The charges even got recycled and trumpeted in the Washington Post.

Unfortunately for them, TNR did a in-depth re-fact-check of the pieces (which given the Glass backstory, was, I am sure, extremely thorough) and with the exception of one relatively minor error they all check out.

Digby at his/her blog:

now that they know he does in fact exist, they are working their way into a complete frenzy going after this soldier as if he were al Qaeda and acting as though the hawkish New Republic has just endorsed Cindy Sheehan for president. It's like watching a bunch of piranhas attack some kids who accidentally fell into the water.

I have never been to war... But if you have the habit of reading books you will have come across descriptions of war that make your hair stand on end. (Emphasis mine)

Steve Benen on the "Carpetbagger Report":

A U.S. soldier was in the right’s good graces until he strayed from the party line and noted the personal toll the war has taken on him and his compatriots. For that, he’s been smeared, rather viciously.

Professor Brad DeLong's blog:

When the New Republic published Scott Thomas, the right-wing slime machine swung into action:

Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns, and Money wrote:

very simple, people. A TNR diarist wrote about a series of events. Righties freaked out, insisting that the stories couldn’t possibly be true. Lefties didn’t assert that it was true, but insisted that it could be factual. Battle ensues. It turns out that the story is, apart from an irrelevant detail, true.

Harto, at Democraticdaily:

the Wingnuts of the rightie hate machine have launched a typically mindless, reflexive attack on the Columbia Journalism Review for having the temerity to toss some water on the bonfire of the vanities that the “milbloggers” and the drooling wingnuts are up in arms about: the ‘high tech lynching’ to discredit, destroy and either jail or frag Private Beauchamp

"dday", a diarist at Daily Kos:

But the insaneosphere doesn't want to deal with that, so they attack a member of the military personally. It's revolting. It's grade-A thuggery. To protect the President and his failed war, they will frag an American soldier. Nice people.

"Catwoman" at Democratic underground:

Since the wingnut blogs are scrambling to try to discredit him, good for Scott for coming out from the shadows. Will he get apologies for all the ugliness they’ve thrown at him? I don’t think so either…

Upyernoz at the Rubber Hose blog (through Huffington Post):

they shift gears and declare that beauchamp (the now non-anonymous soldier) must be destroyed and so they set out to smear him, his patriotism, his honesty, his military service, pretty much everything. what started as a comedy is now turning into a tragedy.

for me, this whole thing just confirms that a lot of the bigwigs of right blogistan (i'm referring to people like malkin, ace, the folks of hotair, townhall, powerline, the corner, etc.) are quickly losing touch with reality

Jonathan Swartz at Tiny Revolution, wrote:

At first it seems amazing that Orwell [in his book "1984"] could have precisely described today's right-wing blurgh world sixty years ago. But the right-wing blurghs are just an outgrowth of human nature, which never changes...

Gavin M. at SadlyNo:

1) WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor.

2) WingNet proven wrong.

3) WingNet backfills, engages motorized goalposts, attacks with redoubled fury.

3.5) Developing: WingNet completely loses narrative; forms digital lynch mob; redefines success to mean utterly destroying the targeted person by any means available, short of leaving the safety of their heavily-farted computer chairs.

(Hey Gavin, I ran 3 miles this morning, starting at 0630 AM. How is your exercise regimen going?)



Steven Perez at "Empty Head":

Even when all of their [The TNR's critics] claims are proven to be dead wrong, they still twist themselves into hyperbolic pretzels in a vain attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they were correct all along.

Ryan at "flickertail":

So the whole affair is incredibly stupid and the right-wingers prove they don’t care about truth, especially in journalism.

Wolfgang at "statistical mechanic"

The story of brave right-wing bloggers sitting at home, trying to discredit a soldier serving in Iraq.

"Apostropher" wrote:

I really should set up an f-key to insert the text "you'd think they'd get tired of being 100% wrong about everything, but you'd be mistaken".

Now, since the Army's findings have been made known, Beauchamp's defenders have been rather quiet. Very quiet. For the few who mentioned the episode since then, there has been a bit of backpedaling and trying to change the subject. The theme now seems to be that now the truth/untruth really doesn't matter, because the article wasn't going to change the war anyway (although I couldn't find anyone who ever claimed that it would):

John Cole, at the "Balloon Juice" Blog:

My position on Beauchamp has been clear- who cares?

(This is after he has blogged about Beauchamp no less than 14 times. For comparison, I have done it only three times)

Really, while you all are trying to excuse your chest-thumping groupthink by claiming “TERRIBLE CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED” and whipping yourself into a lather screaming about how much this hurts the troops and it just can’t be true, the rest of us are looking at you and wondering what the hell is wrong with you. First, the enemy doesn’t read TNR. They really don’t. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not going to justify their next IED because Beauchamp reported that some GI’s made fun of a woman in a mess hall.
...
The funniest thing in all of this is that there is no way to prove one way or another Beauchamp is lying, but now, even if Beauchamp is lying, he comes out looking better than the asshole armchair commandos attacking him.

Matthew Yglesias:

The Beauchamp article, meanwhile, no matter how true or false it may be, has no implications whatsoever. "This dude killed some dogs, therefore we should leave Iraq" would be an absurd argument.

One common theme I saw through all these web sites was the claim that Beauchamp was being smeared, attacked, & dragged through the mud, even threatened. There were some anonymous comments like that (just like you see for all public figures), but I never saw any columnists take cheap shots or threaten him. They certainly treated him more nicely than Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert would have done...

Personally, I didn't call him anything other than a liar. But as far as I'm concerned, I have no beef with Beauchamp now. The Army officially handled the problem and it's finished. Now he's another ordinary soldier, just trying to get by in Iraq. For now, he needs to concentrate on that.


UPDATE 08/15/2007 10:35:00 PM:
Wow - Thanks to Little Green Footballs for linking here. The response is like an avalanche! I added a little more on John Cole above, and changed "Digby" to his/her (if that's really important).

And here are some more priceless web articles that the authors would now probably prefer to forget:

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Gun, and Money:

Showing how much my instincts can be trusted, the "Scott Thomas" story turns out to have been solid, with the only demonstrable error a trivial detail irrelevant to the main thrust to the story.

Kathy at "Shakespeare's Sister":

All of the behavior and incidents Beauchamp described were confirmed by other soldiers in Beauchamp's unit... Have you ever remembered an incident accurately, and you know it happened that way, but you just get the time or the place mixed up? Apparently that never happens to right-wingers who are blinded by their ideological hatred for anyone who implies that U.S. troops could ever be anything but blameless, noble heroes

John Quiggan at "Crooked Timber":

The Beauchamp case fits the general pattern pretty well. First, the wingers claimed that the Diary was a fabrication and that “Scott Thomas” was the creation of a writer who’d never been near Iraq. Then, when it became evident he was a real person, they rolled out the slime machine to discredit him. Then they engaged in amateur forensics to discredit particular items in his account

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News:

TNR reconfirms nearly all details of the formerly anonymous soldier's stories. Shamed right-wing nuts lead by Ace of Spades, among many others, spin more furiously. The one wrong detail is significant, the story is correct, the location is wrong, but overall by my count it is another swing and a foul ball by the usual collection of idiots. This ended up mainly demonstrated the right blogger's lack of military knowledge and experience and their ability to raise a hue and cry over nothing.

Jay Stevens at "Left in the West" wrote:

So...remember the brouhaha over Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the miliblogger for The New Republic? His anecdotes check out.
Case closed, right?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, not so fast! Hugh Hewitt, Michael Goldfarb, Michelle Malkin twist their panties in histrionics

UPDATE 08/16/2007 11:16:00 PM:
I'll make one thing clear. Some people claim that because the army botched the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman investigations, then they can't be trusted here. The problem is, the comparison is not apt, and the cases weren't "botched". In both these cases, the subject him/herself was not able to help investigators. Lynch remembers almost nothing, and Tillman was killed. So you can understand why it took a little while to get to the truth. Moreover, the rumors about Jessica Lynch, fueled by a hungry media, started before there was a real investigation. And her entire convoy was either killed or being held by the Iraqis, so they weren't much help either. Anyway, in both these cases, it was Army investigators who found out what happened, and released it to the public (although Tillman's investigators inexplicitly held their info for few days before telling the family). If the Army wanted to bury it, we still would think Lynch was a combat hero and Tillman was killed by the Taliban. In any case, I would like to see some evidence here before I would accuse them of a cover-up.

But even if you instinctively just can't trust the Army at all, that doesn't matter (But remember, Beauchamp is in the Army too). Just look at the hard evidence of the matter, the circumstantial evidence, and the fact that Beauchamp himself is refusing to comment on the matter any further. The fact that his supporters are very quiet now is pretty telling too.

And incidentally, if by some fluke, powerful evidence came up that said that Beauchamp was telling the truth, and the Army was involved in a big cover up, would I apologize? Damn straight I would, right on the front page of my blog. It's called honesty and integrity, and if I didn't make a real effort at it, then my blog would be pretty worthless wouldn't it?

Speaking of that, I still have yet to see any kind of apology from any one of the individuals I quoted above. I wonder how long I'll have to wait?





Interested in reading more? Click any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed