I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, sleazy shenanigans in the military are usually handled immediately by cohorts. As we are seeing, these incidents never even took place.
TNR is relying on Beuchamp’s buddies to back him up.
The military can’t confirm there was a disfigured woman in Kuwait, and she hasn’t come forward.
From TNR:
Beauchamp’s essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: “We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right.”
The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
In the second anecdote, soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit discovered what they believed were children’s bones. Publicly, the military has sought to refute this claim on the grounds that no such discovery was officially reported. But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp’s combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children’s cemetery near Beauchamp’s combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.)
More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp’s account. One wrote in an e-mail: “I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in ‘Shock Troopers.’ [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren’t freshly killed and thus the crime hadn’t been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations.” On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: “It fit like a yarmulke,” he said. A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece.
The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: “How you do this (I’ve seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline.” TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.
Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.
Why is it I find this difficult to believe?
I want to see a statement from the military and the manufacturer that the Bradley’s are capable of such manuevers. How could all the people who posted that the machines couldn’t kill dogs be so wrong?
True events, events that have actually occurred, share certain clear qualities. They take place in a specific place, a place whose GPS coordinates do not change absent massive tectonic plate shifts. They take place on a specific date, a date that is unique,, not Thursday, not Saturday, but Friday in a specific year. They take place at a specific time, a time that can be verified and that also, absent rips in the space-time continumn, does not change. They also involve specific people, people who are involved and/or people who are witnesses. These specific people have names, addresses, and can actually speak to the events, and when they do, their statements support the essential qualities of true events.
When such events occur, their very nature makes it possible, usually with relative ease and dispatch, to confirm the events or to debunk them. But when one or more of these simple qualities is missing from an alleged event, it becomes very hard to confirm or debunk the event, and when two or more or missing, virtually impossible.
Interesting, isn’t it, that in Private Beauchamp’s fables, at least two (I’m being very kind here) are missing from each individual tale. Also interesting is the fact that TNR’s painstaking “investigation” has not restored any of the missing qualities. Could it be that Beauchamp is a liar and the folks at TNR are either dupes or committed leftists, intent on slandering American soldiers and America? Could it be that TNR has learned nothing from Rathergate? According to the most recent fact dump from Beauchamp’s unit (August 3, 2007, afternoon), the stories are all lies. America breathlessly awaits a new version from TNR.
Can anyone with experience in the military predict what the Army’s next step will be? When this story first broke, numerous poster indicated that the author was describing doing illegal things which he would be punished for if a superior officer found out about it. Now we are told he is being held incommunicado. What does that mean? Is that preparatory to bringing him up on charges, or is the Army trying to figure out an easy way to discharge him and get rid of him, or are there other options that I’m not familiar with?
Can anyone with experience in the military predict what the Army’s next step will be? When this story first broke, numerous poster indicated that the author was describing doing illegal things which he would be punished for if a superior officer found out about it. Now we are told he is being held incommunicado. What does that mean? Is that preparatory to bringing him up on charges, or is the Army trying to figure out an easy way to discharge him and get rid of him, or are there other options that I’m not familiar with?
It’s detainment with no communication permitted with ANYONE.
True, one of his anecdotes happened in Kuwait and not in Iraq. How about the other ones?
And what is it with republicans and gay porn stars? Is there some sort of synergy there?
Howard Mortman at Extreme Mortman links to a piece that reports of Jenna Jameson’s enthusiastic support for a President Hillary. Jenna also loved the Clinton years because they were great for the porn industry. Gee, what a shocker.
BTW, the Republicans also have “synergy” with straight porn stars, as Mary Carey and her porn producer date attended a Bush fund raiser at the White House.
I want to see a statement from the military and the manufacturer that the Bradley’s are capable of such manuevers. How could all the people who posted that the machines couldn’t kill dogs be so wrong?
Because denile isn’t just a river in Africa. The Iraq War has been an unmitigated disaster and those who support it, unable to admit their error, now lash out at any negative reporting regarding the situation they have helped create. After insinuating that TNR made up the story wholecloth, the conservative blogosphere is forced to backtrack when Pvt. Beauchamp reveals his identity. Suddenly, all the sanctimonious harping about “supporting the troops” goes out the window and a volley of vicious invective is hurled at a man who, despite his flaws, is serving his country in a theater of war. Still, they maintain, the incidents described could not have occurred. There were no children’s graves in the area—until there were. No soldiers would ever mock a disfigured woman—until several admit they did, albeit in an adjacent country. A Bradley fighting vehicle could not run over a dog—take Old Grouch’s world for it, he drove tracked-vehicles in the 1960’s—until the manufacturer confirms that it could. Skeptic, you’ve been on this forum long enought to know that amatuer forensics hour at Powerline is about as credible as the Weekly World News. The most infuriating aspect of these sordid affairs—and there have been many—is the fact that the conservative blogosphere appears incapable of admitting it was wrong. After profering at least a handful of inaccurate prognostications, Powerline has now seized on the fact that Pvt. Beauchamp was in Kuwait, not Iraq, when he and his compatriots mocked a disfigured woman. What a grand coup. You level numerous false chargers and then pat yourselves on the back when one minor detail of the story is shown to be inaccurate. And then you cite Matt Sanchez as a source. This Matt Sanchez:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_sanchez_investigation070330/
R.P. McMurphy, for those who haven’t read “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” was the anti-hero of the seminal counter-culture novel of a past, wasted generation, many of whom are now in their 50’s and 60’s, desperate to relive the glory days of Vietnam when they helped cause America to cut and run, thereby costing millions of Asians their lives. R.P. in the novel was a petty crook and con man who hated all authority. Interesting choice for a name, there R.P..
And the problem is not that critics of TNR/Beauchamp haven’t proven his fable incorrect in every particular detail, it’s that Beauchamp and TNR haven’t proven them accurate in every detail (vague though they are). That is their obligation. Critics are not obligated to prove otherwise. It’s called journalism.
But wait! Beauchamp’s unit has completed its investigation and Beauchamp’s stories have been proved conclusively false! Right wing consipracy? All powerful conservative bloggers? Or could it be possible that Beauchamp is what the Army has concluded he is: a liar?
So what do you think R.P? False but accurate? Unimpeachable sources? The facts aren’t true but the narratives are? Perhaps like your namesake, a shock treatment or two might help?
So,McMurphy - is your choice of a name supposed to show that you’re nuts, or that you’re the only sane one in the looney bin and we’re all a bunch lobotomized fools, or worse, mean Big Nurses?
Why am I suspicioning that you think you’re a singular hero and everyone else is crazy ...
"After profering [sic] at least a handful of inaccurate prognostications, Powerline has now seized on the fact that Pvt. Beauchamp was in Kuwait, not Iraq, when he and his compatriots mocked a disfigured woman. What a grand coup. You level numerous false chargers and then pat yourselves on the back when one minor detail of the story is shown to be inaccurate.” — R. P. McMurphy
Where to start:
* Beauchamp set out to describe how war morally degraded him and his fellow soldiers. But the incident reporting the disfigured woman allegedly occurred in Kuwait, not Iraq, and BEFORE Beauchamp got anywhere near the war. The entire thrust of the story is thus FALSE.
* NO ONE has been able to identify the disfigured woman, or even anyone who could recall her.
Those are NOT “minor details”. They go straight to the heart of Beauchamp’s integrity. He MADE UP a story that TNR now acknowledges was not true. You think a liberal magazine straining for journalistic credibility after having printed fantasies masquerading as falsehoods considers this a minor matter?
Beauchamp’s own comrades now say he’s full of #####. The Army says they found no evidence to back up his claims. Those are hardly “minor details”.
Interested readers should go over to Ace of Spades for a lot more information about TNR’s new Stephen Glass.
