Baghdad Diarist full of crap.

[Calabrio]

Beauchamp Recants

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."

The magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.

Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "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."

Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on August 6, 2007 09:52 PM

 

[Calabrio]

ABSOLUTELY FABULIST
by Ann Coulter
August 8, 2007

In their latest demonstration of how much they love the troops, liberals have produced yet another anti-war hoax.

The New Republic has been running "true war" stories from a brave, anonymous liberal penning dispatches from Iraq. The famed "Baghdad Diarist" described his comrades joyfully using Bradley fighting vehicles to crush stray dogs, mocking a female whose face had been blown off by an IED, and defacing Iraqi corpses by wearing skull parts on their own heads.

Various conservatives began questioning the plausibility of the anonymous diarist's account — noting, for example, that Bradley vehicles don't "swerve," as the diarist claimed. The editor of The New Republic responded by attacking the skeptics' motives, complaining that some conservatives make "a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq."

But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the "Baghdad Diarist" to be ... John Kerry! Actually it was Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Democratic candidate for president circa 2028. (That gives him 20 years to learn to pronounce "Genghis.")

In revealing himself two weeks ago, Beauchamp lashed out at "people who have never served in Iraq." He said he was too busy fighting "an actual war" to participate in "an ideological battle that I never wanted to join."

He had tried to stay out of ideological battles by writing made-up articles in a national magazine claiming soldiers in Iraq had become callous beasts because of George Bush's war, killing to "secure the riches of the empire." Alas, this proved an ineffective method of keeping his head low. Beauchamp's next bid for privacy will be an attempt to host "The Price Is Right."

In response to Beauchamp's revelation that he was the "Baghdad Diarist," the military opened an investigation into his allegations. There was no corroboration for his stories, and Beauchamp promptly signed an affidavit admitting that every single thing he wrote in The New Republic was a lie.

According to The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb — who has led the charge of those who "make a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq" — Maj. Steven F. Lamb, the deputy public affairs officer for Multi-National Division-Baghdad, said this of the Baghdad diarist:

"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."

In response, The New Republic went into full Dan Rather loon mode. This astonishing post showed up on The New Republic Web site on Tuesday afternoon:

"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 Maj. 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"

It's good to see Mary Mapes is working again.

What on earth is going on? Either the military investigation found that Beauchamp lied or it didn't. Either military personnel corroborated stories of soldiers wearing skulls as crowns or they didn't. Either Army spokesman Maj. Steven Lamb gave a statement to The Weekly Standard or he didn't.

At the same time as The New Republic was posting the above statement, which completely contradicted The Weekly Standard's update, renowned right-wing news outlet ABC News confirmed that the military has concluded that Beauchamp was writing "fiction." ABC also quoted Goldfarb's account and said that Maj. Lamb reiterated his statement that Beauchamp's stories were false to ABC. The New York Times had the same story on Wednesday.

The New Republic has gone mad. Perhaps the magazine brought its former employee, fantasist Steven Glass, out of retirement. It's long past time for The New Republic to file for intellectual Chapter 7. Arthur Andersen was implicated in fewer frauds.

And we wonder how Democratic congressmen can lie about a vote they lost on the floor of the House — captured on CSPAN for all the world to see — changing the vote so that they win.

America's imminent victory in Iraq and safety from terrorist attacks at home is driving them all crazy.

 

[MonsterMark]

MSM is still defending him.

 

[fossten]

I'm going to play the "even if the allegations were true" game, but only to make a point. Let me stress before I start that I do believe that his writings were fiction.

So here we go:

Even if the allegations were true, I would not have a significant issue with most of them. Running over dogs with Bradleys? Okay, not good, probably cruel, but certainly there could be two sides to this story. Ever seen a dog get hit by a car? Yep. What was going on? Dog chases car, dog catches car, dog gets hit by car. It's likely that the dogs run over by the Bradleys were, oh, I don't know, RUNNING ALONGSIDE THEM IN THE STREET? WTH do you think is going to happen to a dog who runs in front of a Bradley? The same thing that happens to any lifeform that runs in front of a Bradley - it gets squashed. And knowing that Bradleys CAN'T swerve out of the way, should we expect the soldiers to stop the APC, get out, and shoo the dog away in full battle armor? Ridiculous.

As far as cracking jokes and wearing bones on their gear, that's nothing but military hardcore attitude IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR. We've become such a soft society that we use the military for social experiments like integration of women and sexual harassment training. Then we're surprised when so many females each year have to resign because of pregnancy. I saw this firsthand many times in my own unit when I was in the military. So instead of training killers and allowing them freedom to act like killers in the defense of our country, we send the confusing message that yes, they must be able to kill without suffering from PTSD but still be sensitive toward women and children, and not ever crack jokes or say the F word. Ever. This is also ridiculous and dangerous.

My final point is that even Beauchamp's accusations pale in comparison to Jean Francois Kerry's debunked accusations. You read this stuff and you say, so what? It's no different than Abu Ghraib, which didn't amount to more than a series of college frat initiation rituals.

Get off the soldiers and let them do their job - killing people and breaking things.