Asymmetrical Information

Next time, take one of those Chinatown buses.

Megan,

You weren't sticking your head out very far, so I don't think you have much to retract. Also, if you go over the new TNR piece, I think you will find it unsatisfactory. One soldier (unnamed) says this, one soldier (unnamed) says that, etc. Moreover, the claims that the unnamed soldiers are supposed to be confirming are not as broad as in Beauchamp's original article. TNR is also revising Beauchamp's version of the ridicule-of-maimed-woman story. Previously, he was mocking her in the DFAC (sp?) in Iraq, whereas now Beauchamp is supposed to have mocked her in Kuwait, before going into Iraq. So, as many people have already pointed out, the revision makes the story much less serviceable--instead of being the act of a soldier brutalized by war, the mockery is the act of a young man who hasn't been to Iraq yet. And let us not forget that the young man is Beauchamp himself.

The bottom line is that TNR is still not providing names, dates, and places, and is still hiding behind anonymous sources who may turn out to be close associates of Beauchamp. There probably won't be much movement on this story until the military inquiry picks up steam.

Welcome home, Megan.

Those kind of trips can be harrowing. I hope you're sleeping well tonight.

A strong person can make a retraction and do it very simply and classy. the weak person whines about it and sticks on qualifiers.

You're impressive.

They're also backing off on the Dog Killing Bradly story. They say they've confirmed that the vehicle is capable of maneuvering sharply enough to kill a dog, and that stray dogs come to the sound of mechanized vehicles (I'd like to know why.)

But the story was that one particular Bradly driver routinely destroyed buildings and curbs in his quest to run over dogs. They haven't confirmed that.

I'm guessing here, but I'll bet part of the military investigation is to find if there is a driver that so mistreated his Bradly - and if so, charge him.

They haven’t confirmed anything about using a Bradley track to drag a dog for several feet and sever the leg leaving it “twitching.” I seem to recall a lot of people who questioned the original piece making the point that it would likely either just crush the leg (or the dog) and that it wouldn’t “drag” the dog but rather bring the dog up into the tracks and crush him. Even in TNR’s latest version of events they say that the dog would be a “chalk outline” which is quite different from how Beauchamp described the events he claimed to have witnessed.

Also there’s the matter of people saying that army helmets are so close-fitting that there wouldn’t be enough room to wear one with an extra layer of skull on the top of your head.

I’d be curious to see what happens when we hear from people who were stationed at the Kuwaiti base where Beauchamp claims to have loudly mocked an IED-injured woman in the mess hall. I suspect that we may hear a different story from people who are willing to go on the record as opposed to the one TNR claims is being supported by its three “anonymous” sources.

47858734875
Hi Friends,

I Find Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & Penthouse:

http://www.oxpe.net/playboy/

If I find something else I'll inform you.

Best Regards,
Vera

Ignoring TNR's answers to questions that weren't asked, their defense is that one soldier confirmed each of the three stories. They did not say if it was the same soldier in each case. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.

Thorley,

While I understand the GOP pays quite a bit of ransom for people who are willing to stave off dignity in the effort to make even the most absurd distinctions and arguments, I don't think the benefits flow to you when you are, you know, anonymous.

I am still skeptical about TNR's fact checking: Quote:

Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

In other words, Beauchamp is truthful because other anonymous sources say so.

Sorry, this isn't enough.

Kevin, I doubt that any level of effort would be enough. As far as I can tell, nobody clamoring for verification is actually seeking proof. The endless whinging about proof is an end in itself.

The whole point of the "I'm so shell-shocked by Iraq that I end up making fun of injured comrades" story is flipped if it takes place in Kuwait before he goes to Iraq.

Then it is: "I've never been to Iraq and I'm just a huge jerk."

So the question I have is: was his stop in Kuwait before assignment in Iraq his first rotation through Iraq or a subsequent rotation? If his first, the whole thrust of the story is false.

Sebastian, it has been reported in the conservative blogosphere that this was Beauchamp's first time in Iraq. If true, that means that his article about the degrading effect of war is nonsense. He didn't become desensitized to atrocity because of his time in Iraq. Apparently, he started that way.

Foer has shown that he is just as much of a liar as Beauchamp. If he had actually fact checked this the first or second time, he wouldn't have stood by FOB Falcon.

This is looking more and more like Shattered Glass, TNR's editors engaging in self deception so that they don't lose the story.

AemJeff: some very serious crimes happened. Either as according to STB's allegations, and so many of his fellow troops and his commanders need to be going to jail and serious reconstruction needs to be done to his chain of command, or he needs to go to jail for his actions. Given his reluctance to name names, and TNR's continued reliance on anonymous sources, I know which seems more likely. TNR omplaining that the Army took their allegations seriously and is pursuing criminal investigations that interfere with their fact-checking is just so much BS.

I think it's interesting to compare Stephen Glass and Beauchamp. Glass got away with creating fake people, fake quotes, fake companies, and fake events set in the U.S. because the internet was still in its infancy. Nowadays, we expect that just about everyone (including the Riding High Cowboy Church--which is real, by the way) has an extensive web presence.

How to get around these strictures? Well, let's rely on anonymous sources and pseudonymous characters. And better yet, let's set our stories in a dangerous country far away, in a military culture that editors and readers are unfamiliar with and unfriendly to.

Beauchamp almost got away with it. And why didn't he? I would suggest that he failed because he was not as smart as he thought, not as observant, and not as knowledgeable.

One more thing: I think Beauchamp failed because he is a bad, unimaginative writer who automatically reaches for cliches.

Beauchamp's story was supposed to be a day-in-the-life account of a typical soldier. The primary criticism of his story was that what he described was anything but typical, not that these kinds of things never occur. TNR's defense did nothing to address this primary criticism. Instead, we learn that it's possible for a Bradley to hit a dog (no duh!); not that Bradley drivers routinely make a practice of hitting dogs, buildings, and curbs, just for the fun of it (all without being disciplined by their superiors). We learn that it's possible to put a fragment of a child's scull on your head (another big duh) and that one soldier might have done that for a moment or two (not a day a night and a day). And, of course, we learn that his story about insulting a wounded, disfigured, women may have never taken place, but if it did, it took place in Kuwait, not Iraq.

None of this defense answers the major objection: What Beauchamp described as normal is anything but. That's why the TNR piece slandered the honorable men and women in the military. As a rule, they don't behave in the manner TNR tried to pass off as typical.

Beauchamp found a way to get paid for "No shit, there I was..." stories, and TNR found a way to establish street cred with the rest of the anti-war media.

The fact that 95% of the story content was made up of whole cloth is a minor detail.

YOu have nothing to retract.

There is some information out of Iraq that the Army has completed its investigation (http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/08/beachamp-invest.html). Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that that is correct, and let's further assume all of the following:

a) The Army's investigation has shown that all of the events Beauchamp reported actually occurred just as he reported them (with the first of them in Kuwait rather than in Iraq);

(b) The Army has publicly released a full report of its investigation, including the identities of others who participated in or witnessed the events; and

(c) Someone other than TNR -- let's say, hypothetically, the Weekly Standard -- has followed up with the other people identified in the Army's report, and has likewise found that those people verify Beauchamp's accounts.

Thought experiment: assuming that (a), (b) and (c) have occurred, what will your personal reaction be? Will those of you who, like bud ("95% of the story content was made up of whole cloth"), disbelieve Beauchamp's accounts, continue to deny the possibility that he has told the truth? If so, what will be the basis for that denial? Or will you shift to the position presented by David Walser, i.e., that even though Beauchamp's accounts are true, they are so anomalous as to be meaningless and can only be read as " slander[ing] the honorable men and women in the military"? Or will there be some other, as-yet-unstated fallback position?

Remember, this is a thought experiment. Please think over the hypothetical facts carefully, assume them to be true, and respond with rigorous intellectual honesty.

Another thought experiment: assume that Beauchamp's tales are shown to be total fabrications, i.e., no corroboration from any source. What will be the reactions from Beauchamp's defenders? Will they continue to believe Beauchamp's accounts, continue to deny the possibility that he has told only lies? If so, what will be the basis for that denial? Or will you shift to the position that even though Beauchamp's accounts are false, they are "false, but accurate" and if the soldiers didn't commit such offenses, they surely wanted to. Or will there be some other, as-yet-unstated fallback position?

Wow, these experiments are fun and useful!

Bob,

That sounds very open and shut, and I think just about everyone of good will would accept Beauchamp's honesty at that point. Then, of course, he and the people he describes would need to be prosecuted by military courts for their various crimes. And I think we could be happy with that.

Of course, now that TNR has moved the site of the mocking of the maimed woman from Iraq to Kuwait, we already know that we are in no danger of your hypothetical panning out. It might seem like a very small error, but it really isn't. Beauchamp said that he had seen this woman practically every day at the DFAC before the incident he describes, so it seems quite unlikely that he could innocently mix up which country the incident happened in. Also, a number of military bloggers have noted that his uncertainty over her being military or a contractor is odd, since contractors do not wear uniforms in Iraq.

Some of the oddities in his articles may be the result of editorial butchery on the part of TNR. However, unless that is the case, Beauchamp seems to have acquired precious little information about Iraq and military life there despite being posted there. He seems not to really have been paying a whole lot of attention, hence those doubts early on as to whether he were really in Iraq at all.

Chuck: Thought experiments can be useful if taken seriously. At this point I neither believe nor disbelieve Beauchamp's accounts, because there is insufficient information (as opposed to speculation) on which to base belief or disbelief. That being the case, it's not possible for me to participate in either your thought experiment or my own: yours is aimed at "Beauchamp's defenders," mine is aimed at "those of you who ... disbelieve Beauchamp's accounts," and I fall into neither of those groups. From the tone of your comment, however, I gather -- and I could be wrong -- that you fall into the the second group, i.e., that you disbelieve Beauchamp's accounts. If that is correct, perhaps you would like to exercise your intellectual honesty and respond seriously to the thought experiment I've hypothesized.

Amy P: I agree completely with the first paragraph of your response, though I don't know enough about the UCMJ to have a view on whether Beauchamp and the people he describes could be prosecuted by for the acts he describes.

More generally, it seems to me that (thought experiments aside) everybody who believs he has a dog in this fight should sit back, take a deep breath, and wait for the Army's own investigation to be completed and reported. Until then, anybody who says "Beauchamp is telling the truth" or "Beauchamp is lying" is simply pissing in the wind, because THERE ARE NO FACTS.

Bob,

Your thought experiment is interesting. If every part of Beauchamp's account were true (including it's tone), it would be and should be a major scandal al la Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was a major scandal, in large part, because it appeared the immediate chain of command condoned the mistreatment of prisoners. If Beauchamp's stories were correct, dozens of soldier heard him belittle an injured women and did nothing about it. If his stories were true, dozens of soldiers saw a Bradley driver routinely abuse his equipment, risk the lives of his crew, and abuse Iraqi sensibilities and property, without doing anything about it. If his stories were true, dozens of soldiers condoned desecration of a corpse and did nothing about it. All of that would bespeak of a serious cancer in the character of the men and women in our military. It would merit our serious attention.

That's how I would react if everything Beauchamp said were true. However(per the post you linked to), the official Army investigation did not substantiate his stories, instead, the report says his account was "proven untrue". If that proves to be the case, what would be your reaction? Your turn for the thought experiment.

Hah

You weren't, by any chance, on Acela 2025 were you? Because I was on that particular train when it caught fire and stalled out in the middle of frakking NJ for 2 hours with no AC.

David Walser: Thank you for your thoughtful response.

First, if Beauchamp's accounts are "proven untrue" then there is no further story about HIM, except that he will have been shown to be a liar. If he is a liar, and if the UCMJ permits prosecution for lying (which I don't know), then he should be prosecuted.

Second, if his accounts are "proven untrue" then (a) TNR and its editor deserve every bit of scorn that has been heaped upon them by the folks who have, up to this point, ASSUMED that his accounts are untrue, and (b) any serious-minded reader will thenceforth have to take any ostensible facts that TNR publishes with a mine of salt. The other side of the same coin is that if his accounts are "proven untrue", the folks who have up to this point ASSUMED that his accounts are true will of course have a very large helping of crow to eat.

I note, however, that the post I linked to provided no details about the Army's investigation; it merely asserted that that investigation said that Beauchamp's accounts were "proven untrue." Since an assertion does not constitute proof, I am still waiting to see the Army's report itself. Until then, I stress that we continue to have no facts on which to base anything except thought experiments.

Bob: if STB is telling the truth, a very large number of people have committed crimes, not the least himself. Not reporting a crime is itself a crime under the UCMJ, as is filing a false report. Abusing the remains of a dead child would be a crime under UCMJ as would not reporting it and allowing the activity. Insulting a civilian would be conduct bringing the Army into disrepute, a crime. The wild Bradley driving would have created huge amounts of restitution, and would have been investigated, or else would have been covered by reports claiming hostile attacks or that no damage to property had occurred. Since no investigation or punishment had occurred, false reports had to have been filed and many crimes committed.

If STB is right, lots of people need to go to jail because there is a rogue unit running around that could do serious damage to US forces' ability to accomplish their war aims. If he isn't, he need to go to jail for bringing the army into disrepute. Either way, STB needs to go to jail, which is why he's being evasive. We just don't know exactly which type of criminal that he is.

Spaz: I was! How funny . . . so was it the most miserable experience of *your* life too?

AemJeff:

Kevin, I doubt that any level of effort would be enough. As far as I can tell, nobody clamoring for verification is actually seeking proof. The endless whinging about proof is an end in itself.

On the contrary, there are plenty of things that would come much closer to proof than TNR's anonymous sources:
* Video footage of a Bradley swerving to drive over a dog for no reason.
* A photograph of a Bradley driver posing with his kill.
* A written statement by the Bradley driver that he used his armored vehicle to destroy Iraqi dogs, buildings and property without any reason. (Incidentally, the new TNR statement talks only about dogs. It says nothing about destroying buildings and property, while Beauchamp claimed that the Bradleys demolished buildings and walls).
* A routine patrol report filed by the commander (not driver) of the Bradley stating that the vehicle destroyed Iraqi buildings and property, and the stated reason for doing so.
* A US government receipt for compensating the Iraqis whose property we destroyed. It is our practice to compensate them even when it was destroyed in a firefight caused by insurgents or terrorists.
* An disciplinary report recommending the prosecution of the Bradley commander for filing a false patrol report that did not mention damage caused to Iraqi buildings and property.
* Considering that a Bradley has a crew of three but can carry an additional six soldiers, and that a routine patrol would likely involve more than one Bradley, a written statement or complaint from any one of 18 or more soldiers that they saw a Bradley in their patrol swerve to destroy Iraqi dogs, buildings and property without any reason.

And this is just for the Bradley behavior. The other scenarios have similar evidence problems.

Remember: At least some of the behavior that Beauchamp described was a crime at the time that it was committed. At least some of the NCOs would be punished if it were found that they condoned this behavior by their subordinates. Beauchamp represents this misconduct not as a solitary incident (which few would doubt could happen) but as a routine, unregulated and unpunished part of military life. This is what has so many people up in arms - this representation of soldiers as sociopaths.

As a point of comparison: Clinton was accused of participating in smuggling drugs into Arkansas when he was governor. Some people have sworn that this is the case, so it must be true, right?

As a point of comparison: Clinton was accused of participating in smuggling drugs into Arkansas when he was governor. Some people have sworn that this is the case, so it must be true, right?

To carry this point further, showing that SOME drugs were smuggled into Arkansas by SOMEBODY while Clinton was governor would not defend the allegation that Clinton, himself, smuggled drugs. Yet, that's the kind of defense TNR is making of it's article. "See? A Bradley can run over a dog!" Thanks for telling us the obvious. My car can run over a dog, too. That doesn't mean I routinely go out of my way to run over dogs, cats, or squirrels. The fact a Bradley can run over a dog tells us nothing about whether or not Beauchamp's claim that Bradley drivers routinely ran over dogs -- on purpose -- is accurate.

Megan

I would have to say it was rather unenjoyable, and it didn't get any better when I hopped on the already-sold-out regional that pulled into Trenton and spent the rest of the trip to Philly stuffed in the luggage closet. Needless to say I wasn't very cordial to the conductor who asked to see my ticket.

You should have come up to business class. I got to sit on the floor next to the door to the loo.

Kevin, I read your complete, helpfully bulleted list twice. There isn't a single serious entry on it. I think you've validated my premise.

Your Clinton bon mot is a first-class non-sequitur. Congratulations.

Kevin, I read your complete, helpfully bulleted list twice. There isn't a single serious entry on it. I think you've validated my premise.

*sigh*...just like the previous thread. Lots of handwaving dismissals from you, and a thinly-veiled presumption of STB's honesty while demanding that his opponents supply all the proof contrary.

Bob is shooting closer to the target here. There are precious few facts as yet. Just STB's incredible claims and his opponents' rejoinder that the claims are incredible. It's like watching badly-scripted television drama.

There is another piece of clear internal evidence pointing to Beauchamp's untrustworthiness, namely the Glock episode. He tells us that ONLY the Iraqi police use Glocks, and uses this "fact" to demonstrate that a murdered man must have been killed by the police. Even if Beauchamp himself believed this to be true, it shows him to be poorly informed and prone to overgeneralize. And if he wrote it knowing it was false...

It seems hasty to accept The New Republic's follow-up at face value, since they're the ones accused in this case.

Let's say the Bush Administration claimed that Syria was stockpiling chemical weapons, and an invasion was necessary to prevent an upcoming terrorist attack. Critics point to how unlikely that is to be true. In response, the Bush Administration says "we have contacted people in Syria, and they confirm that Syria is about to attack us with chemical weapons. No, we can't say who we contacted, they don't want to go on the record".

Show of hands. Who, here, would accept that as sufficient evidence? I'm guessing very few people.

Well, that's exactly the same stunt TNR is pulling here -- in response to allegations that bias and bad reporting led them to publish false reports, they're coming back with "we did some more reporting and, trust us, we're totally right".

After reading the relevant materials, I suggest you consider finding more reliable friends, Megan.

AemJeff:

Kevin, I read your complete, helpfully bulleted list twice. There isn't a single serious entry on it. I think you've validated my premise.

Your Clinton bon mot is a first-class non-sequitur. Congratulations.

LOL. Congratulations on your admission that your mind is closed and that there is nothing that will convince you that Beauchamp's story is not verified yet.

Perhaps you can come up with a way to phrase that in Sanskrit.

What a bunch of crazy wingnuts! Where do you guys get this high-powered kool-aid?

Conrad,

Beauchamp's TNR pieces and his blogging is available online, along with line by line commentary by many former military. I suggest you have a look, particularly at his blogging, and then come back and join the conversation.

Confederate Yankee says that the Army has conducted its investigation and has debunked Beauchamp's claims.

Of course, as surely as the sun sets on the left, we can expect the smearing to start that this investigation was a cover up.

Good morning. I'd like to say that the level of discourse here is refreshing, and I wish more blogs had comment sections where the arguments were as refined.

I also wanted to add that TNR seems to have added to the credibility problems of their reinvestigation. As I was looking into their claims, I stumbled across one of the people they contacted during the course of their investigation, and discovered that they chose not to publish her statements, apparently because that information contradicted what TNR wanted to say.

I interpret this as a rather clear attempt at a cover-up, but would ask the readership here for their options.

My post is here.

What a bunch of crazy wingnuts! Where do you guys get this high-powered kool-aid?

Second door on the left, just past the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" sign. Happy Hour specials end at six. If you say the code phrase "TNR eats babies", they'll give you a free CCW permit, too.

Second door on the left, just past the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" sign. Happy Hour specials end at six. If you say the code phrase "TNR eats babies", they'll give you a free CCW permit, too.

Giving the devil his due. You can be a funny man.

Wow, y'all continue to embarass yourself. Still continue to impugn a writer's veracity with no evidence whatsoever, because his stories do not fit your notions of what Iraq is supposed to be.

Here's a good reason the corroborating sources are anonymous: the unconscionable harassment that Beauchamp has been subjected to since posting a story that wingnuts don't like.

From Confederate Yankee's blog, we get the following update:

An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims. - U.S. Army Col. Steven Bolyan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus

Can we put a fork in this thing? Despite the TNR's attempts to confirm Beauchamp's stories, the official investigation found the stories had no basis in fact.

Why no! "Why," you ask? You mean the fact that nobody could be found who was willing to testify against their own interest isn't dispositive?

Well golly!

Well then, can we put a fork in it now?

Beauchamp Recants

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp...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.You will accept Beauchamp's sworn statement, won't you?

That gets a hell of a lot closer to what would convince me, but... I googled the term "Beauchamp Recants" amd got hits on the Standard, Free Republic, and a couple of right wing blogs, both of the latter referring to the article in the Standard. Kristol's rag, as far as I can tell is still claiming "WE'VE FOUND THE MISSING WMD IN IRAQ!!".

Mind you, despite the claims made by some of my interlocutors here, for me this is about the evidence, not the partisan point. I can be convinced; but, all I see, so far, is wishful thinking on the part of people who don't like the story Beauchamp is telling.

Mind you, despite the claims made by some of my interlocutors here, for me this is about the evidence, not the partisan point. I can be convinced; but, all I see, so far, is wishful thinking on the part of people who don't like the story Beauchamp is telling.

And if God shouted to 300 million Americans that it is false, that would be a bit closer to convincing you, but God still has motives to lie and didn't move first and so shouldn't be considered dispositive. Keep going, AemJeff! 'Tis but a flesh wound! That, or a really good troll.

for me this is about the evidence

There being no evidence to support Beauchamp other than his own assertions, I'd think you'd have made up your mind by now.

AT, you're swinging at a straw man.

There being no evidence to support Beauchamp other than his own assertions, I'd think you'd have made up your mind by now.

No: I don't take what Beauchamp says to be proven. I have no opinion about the truth of his claims. I do have an opinion about whether assertions about the truth of his clams are true. There is a wide gap between "not obviously true," and "obviously false."

Giving the devil his due. You can be a funny man.

I Aem to please.

Jeff, my friend, at this point I think you need to reevaluate your commitment to intellectual honesty.

Beauchamp recants, the Army investigation finds nothing, TNR asserts some guy told them that Lucy Ramirez backs up Beauchamp 100%...face it. We're well into Rather country here. Beauchamp and his supporters have not met their burden of proof - which is theirs, by right, since they were making the allegations - and thus must be dismissed.

No parsing of words a la "not obviously true," "obviously false," whatever. "Unsubstantiated allegations subsequently debunked" fits the bill nicely.

Further proof that simply being in DC can rot your brain and that there is no such thing as a "trustworthy Liberal friend". Megs you really need to re-evaluate how much you trust people like Ezra. They're not helping!

The New Republic just issued a statement on STB:

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."

Source:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank

Thoughts?

My thought is, I don't like anonymous sources.

Me either. I hadn't realized that the recantation story was not official. So scratch the "Beauchamp recants" bit above, at least for the time being.

Look, all that I've said, all along, is hold your fire. (Granted I've put it pretty strongly.) If there's actual evidence the guy is telling lies, it'll quite likely come out. So far, all of the attacks have been based on supposition and rumor.

I've no doubt that you could find liberals saying the Beauchamp's word is Gospel, if you try hard enough. If they were making a lot of noise about it I'd likely give them some hell, too.

I hadn't realized that the recantation story was not official. So scratch the "Beauchamp recants" bit above, at least for the time being.

I think the explanation is that the Army is treating this as "personnel related and we don't [release] that publicly." (Quote from Maj. Steven Lamb, in statement to USAToday.) That is, the Army may view the sworn statement as part of his personnel file and not subject to release since the matter will not be part of any public proceedings.

They also may be doing Pv2 Beauchamp a favor by NOT releasing his sworn statement. The Major did confirm that the investigation found Beauchamp's stories were false. Why embarrass the poor boy more by releasing the statement?

Thanks, David, and good point. The Army unequivocally stating that Beauchamp's allegations were false makes a Beauchamp recantation highly likely, even if not (as yet) officially confirmed.

The Weekly Standard responds to TNR:

The editors of the New Republic have responded here. Three points: (1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "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."

(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?

(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?

Source
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants_update.asp

As a founding member of the "Beauchamp was a bad-*ss wannabe BS artist telling tall tales" club, I'd nonetheless recommend caution about relying on the Weekly Standard's claims.

Unless they have a hot-line to the JAG or IG investigating, they can get snookered as easily as TNR did. I have no faith in TNR's 'anonymous corroborators' and I can't allow myself to have faith in TWS, either. I have no doubt TWS thinks its true, but I don't have any particular reason to believe it is, either.

Mind you, I had a dozen reasons to doubt Beauchamp from the beginnning. And that's why I was (and still am) convinced he was full of it. But in the case of "anonymous sources," I cannot judge their veracity either way.

The difficulty lies in the Army's apparent decision to handle this administratively. I think that changes (considerably) how they will handle any statements, sworn or otherwise.

Which is really frustrating to me. I really want "the smoking gun."

But sadly, I have only my own suppositions to go on.

I do note, however, one key fact: TNR has already acknowledged that Beauchamp's account was a lie in a critical aspect -- the incident with the alleged disfigured female is now supposed to have happened in Camp Buering (Kuwait) where Beauchamp was before he went to Iraq.

This is not trivial. Indeed, it changes the whole tenor from "War made me into an unfeeling brute" to "I was a complete *sshole even before my first day of combat."

Not that I have a high confidence in even that: I also note that Buering (formerly Camp Udairi) is the staging area for Kuwait. It's essentially Grand Central Station. Beauchamp could claim he met the Swedish Bikini Volleyball Team there and it would be very hard to refute.

But at this point, it's moot: Beauchamp's mocking, if it happened at all, was not a result of his horrible war experiences, but a product of his character.

I think the phrase is "goes to the credibility of the witness."

Which is where we began, come to think of it. . .

Comments are Closed.