RSS
The Never-Ending Story
Oct 26th, 2007 by Bob Owens
Cross-posted at Confederate Yankee:
Franklin Foer, Peter Scoblic, Jason Zengerle and other senior editors at The New Republic can’t quite seem to get their hands on enough information to complete their investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp “Shock Troops” story published in mid-July.
As someone who has had a bit of success in separating the facts from the fiction in this and other instances of questionable media content, I can offer them some free consulting advice to expedite their final report.
In yesterday’s Washington Post interview with Howard Kurtz, Franklin Foer made the following claim:
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.”
We’ll overlook the fact that his commanding officer was not in the room. We’ll also overlook the fact that the enlisted squad leader actually sided with Foer and Scoblic in their argument that TNR should be allowed to control the narrative and cancel interviews with both Newsweek and the Post. And we’ll overlook that the only obvious duress in the transcript was Foer using the emotional blackmail regarding Beauchamp’s wife and the further strong-arm tactics of reminding Beauchamp that if he recanted, any future career of his as a writer would be over.
We’ll ignore all that for now, because we want to get to the truth.
So let’s focus on this part of the claim:
…reiterating that other soldiers whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.
There are 58 pages of sworn statements currently under legal review at Central Command’s FOIA Office in Tampa that seem to directly disagree with that assertion, so let’s get the facts as we know them out in the open.
To date, The New Republic has been very vague about the specific claims of these anonymous soldiers, including how many soldiers support each allegation, what their relative positions are within the company or incident that puts them in a position to support their allegations and what, precisely, they said in support of their allegations. I think that it is quite reasonable for the editors to release the full claims, if not the names of the claimant.
In addition, specific questions about each anecdote need to be answered for these claims to be regarded as truthful.
The Burned Woman Claim
In relation to the “burned woman” story, where Beauchamp claims to have verbally abused the apparent survivor of an IED attack in a dining facility that the author claims was especially crowded at that time, readers deserve to know: what was the date of the assault?
We don’t need the specific day, but a week-long range—say, the first week of May, or the last week of September—that we can then compare against the records of every known civilian contractor and military serviceperson on that base at the time, if nesessary.
The magazine cannot find asking for that detail of their sources to be objectionable, if they do still in fact maintain that she is real. The formal military investigation interviewed seven of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers and friends (and lists their names), and states they have never seen such a woman.
As a result the official report concluded that this story is “a tale completely fabricated by Private Beauchamp.” If Franklin Foer and the other editors of TNR wish to contend this story is in fact true, they need to provide specific evidence stating why they think it is true, starting with when this supposedly took place.
The Skull Story
The second anecdote in “Shock Troops,” was the one that triggered the formal military investigation as it involved the alleged desecration of human remains by U.S. soldiers. The author wrote:
…And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.
One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.
The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night. Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull. He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut–since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.
The formal investigation relates a different reality.
Upon initial reconnaissance of the area that would become Combat Outpost Ellis, Captain Erik Pribyla reported seeing a “skull and what appeared to be a human femur” at the site. PFC Tracy King recovered the skull (I’d further note that in the wording of the report, the skull seems to be referred to as an intact skull, not fragments) and buried the remains with as much dignity as possible. The other bones recovered were apparently animal bones mixed in with household trash, and were “commonly found on Iraqi farmsteads in trash piles where they are dumped after a meal.”
If Foer wishes to maintain that Beauchamp’s anecdote is true and that his “other soldiers” support the claim, he needs to provide us with some concrete evidence that there were human remains recovered during the digging process.
To date, the only verified human bones near COP Ellis were those two found on the surface. As only a skull and femur were recovered, it would seem to suggest that they may have come from a body located elsewhere, perhaps the victim of sectarian violence. According to the report Beauchamp’s sworn statement says he admits only seeing animal bones.
If The New Republic wants to continue insisting this story is accurate, perhaps they could start by having their soldiers explaining, in detail, how a soldier could wear “the top part of a human skull” under the form-fitting pads of MICH helmets while out on patrol without their squad leaders finding out.
The Bradley Story
Frankly, there is nothing at all that Foer’s batch of anonymous corroborating soldiers could do to provide any credibility to the dog-killing Bradley driver story. The geography of the land around COP Ellis, the handling characteristics of tracked vehicles, and the physics of the driver’s visibility make this claim all but impossible. The editors of The New Republic even made a deceptive attempt to use an armored vehicle company expert to spin this claim, but that didn’t turn out very well when he found out about the whole story, which leads me to another point.
What About TNR’s Other Hidden Experts?
In addition to the anonymous soldiers Franklin Foer claims still support the allegations made in “Shock Troops,” TNR has still refused to name the civilian experts which the magazine claims provide technical arguments supporting the possibility that these allegations are true. As we found when we interviewed the Bradley Vehicle company spokesmen, it appears TNR asked purposefully vague questions, which led to predictably vague answers, which the New Republic then claimed as proof the stories were real.
As their civilian experts face no possible penalty from the military, it is incumbent upon Franklin Foer to reveal specifically what questions were asked of them, provide specifically what their answers are, and of course, tell us who these experts are.
And Yet…
Remarkably, even after the release of a formal, thoroughly-documented U.S. Army investigation two days ago which concludes the stories published in “Shock Troops” were false, and the release at the same time of a transcript that shows the author of the piece will not stand behind his story and wished to simply walk away from it seven weeks ago, the editors of The New Republic have not retracted the story, nor have they yet resigned.
What Could They Be Waiting On?
The answer is revealed in the transcript of the September 7 call, where Franklin Foer and Peter Scoblic repeatedly focus on getting the two sworn statements signed by Scott Beauchamp—to the point of conferencing in his TNR-appointed lawyer—to try to get Beauchamp to release them.
I’m not sure what Foer thinks he will find in those two sworn statements by Beauchamp that will carry more weight than the sworn statements of every other soldier interviewed during the course of the investigation that refute the allegations in “Shock Troops.”
There is nothing in those statements that can vindicate The New Republic’s utter lack of fact-checking this story prior to publication, and then deceiving their readership about this failure even as they are forced to shift a key “fact” to another country and time. Nor is there anything in Beauchcamp’s statement that can justify the attempt of TNR to unethically spin the testimony of experts that they apparently keep in the dark about the nature of the work for which they were being consulted.
Beauchamp’s fiction was long ago superseded by the duplicity and unethical behavior of the senior editors of The New Republic.
Two sworn statements cannot erase that stain to the credibility of The New Republic that has been created by editors who refused to concede the reality that they uncritically allowed the publication of obvious fiction. Nor can these documents excuse the editorial failures and ethical breaches of the magazine’s senior editors that seem rooted in their inability to face valid questions brought about by some of their most vocal critics over differences of political ideology.
On September 7, Executive Editor Peter Scoblic asked Scott Beauchamp if he would object to The New Republic fully retracting not only “Shock Troops,” but also his previous articles, “War Bonds,” and “Dead of Night.” Beauchamp did not object.
Exactly seven weeks later, the deceptions of the editors and author still remain unaddressed.
[…] UPDATE: Here’s what I was waiting for. Bob Owens, who has followed this story with incredible tenacity, takes on TNR’s “vast right wing/military conspiracy” defense. […]
The MSM is very quiet about this story. Funny, isn’t it? Can’t help but wonder if THE WEEKLY STANDARD or the NATIONAL REVIEW were being called liars how quiet the MSM would be?
Always, always, a different standard for liberals.
[…] From Media Mythbusters: […]
There are rules in boxing. To start. You go on a scale. And, you get weighed.
As the army has been doing this PR job … claiming it has 58-pages of sworn statements. From Beauchamp and others in his unit. Do you know what’s missing?
Foer, and TNR did nothing else but say (practically waving the US Constitution around so it rattles). They’re not the Army! And, the army’s weight is one thing. Investigative reporting is not “another branch!”
And, TNR is NOT Baghdad Bob! Too bad. They’d have gotten a better article if they just opened their pages to this muse; and let Baghdad Bob just run wild.
Most Americans think of Baghdad as the armpit of the world.
Most people, in America, think of war as hell.
And, most people would bet, if they had a loaded gun. And, were young, they’d shoot at rabbits. Long before they’d unload on an enemy.
In WW2, I think there was statistical data collected, that maybe 5% or 10% of the soldiers NEVER fired at anybody. Rabbits, however, were not as safe.
Beauchamp?
All Foer has been saying is that he wanted to “check for himself.” And, not depend on the Army’s PR machinery, which is formidable.
Heck, even Michael Yon came out swinging for the Army. Saying, yesterday, that “by chance” he happened to meet Beauchamp’s commander. And, Beauchamp, now, instead of coming home, discharged; has decided to stay and fight with others in his unit. Risky business. Soon, I”m sure Beauchamp will get promoted to “whatever.”
Foer, meanwhile, never changed his tune. The story gets retracted only after the magazine can interview their reporter; without anyone from the army being present. Taking notes. Or doing other “stuff” that would interfere with journalism.
Since TNR’s Asper Family is letting Foer remain on the job. Since there’s no charges of plagiarism, here, either.
Yeah. The blogosphere has picked the Army’s side. And, there have been rewards with leaked information.
But it’s still just a PR machine. Against a magazine fully aware of what PR is. And, it isn’t news.
Knockout? Not by the rules. Foer is still standing. And, he hasn’t changed a word of what he said. The magazine retracts its story ONLY AFTER IT CAN INTERVIEW BEAUCHAMP.
Well? Beauchamp either doesn’t want the interview, OR he prefers getting a few medals on his chest, courtesy of the army. Before he toodles out the door.
And, while Foer stands outside the army PR aparatus. You’ve got Beauchamp laughing his head off. He’s still the story. And, he’ still more famous than ever before. Where’s his downside?
TNR was purchased not too long ago by a Canadian media company. I suspect that the editors at TNR are trying to string out the story as long as possible and hope they get canned with severance packages. I suspect that if the editors came clean on the story, they would be fired for just cause and hence no severance. It’s every man for himself at TNR.
Gee, I just wish ordinary people, who have no vested interests in this thing, would just sit back … and try to judge this as a duel between the media. And, the PR machinery of the army.
You might come to the same conclusions.
Given that it’s obvious TNR “got had.”
But Beauchamp?
How did the PR machinery of the army get to Michael Yon?
And, who has the axe that’s getting ground so that it’s weapon is very, very sharp?
It’s true. The standard media has avoided the military PR machinery; avoided it with silence.
Foer?
Did he ever say he “trusted” Beauchamp?
How come he couldn’t just get to the interview … without army handlers … that TNR was asking for?
Ah. Beauchamp blew threw the barn doors. Doesn’t want to talk to “them.” WHile he’s in line now for chest medals. Doing “risky business” in the streets of Baghdad.
While Laura Bush; goes to Saudi Arabia, and comes home with pictures of herself, donning a burka!
The whole media, not just TNR, has been looking at our Irak Adventure; as not so wise.
Sure. We took out Saddam. Did you know it cost $3-trillion dollars? We should have hired the Mossad. Paid under the table for a team of sharp-shooters. And, done better work on our American-Israeli “diplomacy” … where the Israelis weren’t just taking care of business, alone. WHile Bush is out of his league.
Foer? There’s been a business decision; where he’s allowed to function by just standing there. You think the Army’s PR machine has the advantage? Then, nothing about Irak smells to you? Huh?
Me? I think Bush is the Realtor to the Saud’s.
And, most of the story, sans PR, doesn’t look so good.
Beauchamp? One day you’ll see him, because the tabloids will give chase. See if you like what you see; when this appears. He might become as entertaining as Plame. Remember her?
Sid Knowles. You are right. Mark Steyn knows the Apser Family, the new owners of TNR.
He also wrote about Foer. Who is 31 years old.
Came to work for TNR out of college. 8 years ago. Never worked for another employer. And, he’s considered, within TNR, as being a genius in whatever it is he does.
Genius, and journalism, doesn’t exactly work for me.
But I do see Foer is still standing. And, repeating what he’s said from day one’s exposure: He wants to talk to Beauchamp, without any heavy breathing being done by other military personnel in the room.
He’s never gotten this. Except ONCE. On a weekend day, in October. (Recently). Beauchamp called Foer at home. And, basically “stuck to his story.”
Sure Beauchamp is a piece of work.
And, making sausage? More attractive than making PR.
Has Foer been beaten up? Yup. But how fair is the fight? Americans are known to root for underdogs.
And, Foer hasn’t fallen down on the mat.
I think that had been the army’s goal.
That would mean? The army didn’t score. Will they? By me, I think Bush went and spent way too much treasure on a bunch of arabs; where he thought it was gonna be slam dunk. Saddam loses his head. And, the Saud’s pick up Irak, and put those oil reserves into their pockets.
Stupid is as stupid does.
While Bush may not be doing the republican party any favors.
Even though the Apser’s are a Canadian media family; they’re probably not stupid.
Gaaah! Be quiet!
Of course Foer isn’t done. He’s on the right side of the isle so he can do no wrong. It’s fake but accurate.
Beauchamp has admitted manipulating or flat out lying about where one event occured that was critical to the story being written (the burnt girl in Iraq then Kuwait). The idea that Beauchamp was turned into a heartless b****** by war is kind of ruined if he was one before getting to war in the first place. This isn’t being argued. Beauchamp was writing for the story not to tell people the truth. He doesn’t have any credibility left.
And did you read the transcript Carol? The only people twisting arms are the editors. They tell Scott that his wife works for them and is really worried about him. You don’t think this was a threat? What was it? The editors at TNR have managed to turn this into a story of how the Army is oppressing Scott when the cat is already out of the bag. It’s just misdirection from the obvious fact we already know. Scott’s a liar, he made up stories for shock value, TNR printed them with limited fact-checking because it was their wet dream anti-war piece.
The reason the big bad Army PR leaked this is because TNR still hasn’t retracted the story even though they said they’d have to after that interview and the Army PR is probably shocked at how TNR can get away with that.
The editors now argue that since it hasn’t been proven that every single thing Scott said was a lie means the story shouldn’t be retracted. TNR has no credibility left and now can only play the victum card. Whatever, people want to believe Scott’s stories, no matter what.
Spent about nine and a half years in the Army. Both EM and Commissioned status. Often see reports in papers etc that strike me as odd viz: Why would a disfigured/burned soldier still be in the combat zone. A burn/burns are serious wounds and require evacuation to higher elchelon care: crude jokes aside, I never met a GI who bragged about killing/maiming/abusing the enemy or civilians. Did see NVA disregard of humanity. Are we (and me as a vet) being put in the same category as our opponents that have intentionally slaugthered thousands? Yes, there was a My Lai, yes there was an abuse of detainees but these are not typical (even if you are not an avid reader of military history, this should be apparrent). All first person, “I was there etc”, narratives should be checked carefully as most of these tales would be a violation of the UCMJ as well as civilian law.
You know, and this might be a reach, but the key to this thing might be the actual editor of the stories. Might be a reach and perhaps I should have dropped this thought when the September 6 transcript came out. I was expecting something in the transcript to say “I told you what I heard and your editor added too much BS” or something.
Eve Fairbanks does that on a regular basis at TNR, the Examiner and in the NYT. Would not surprise me if she was the editor here, or another in the same mold.
It’s Rather deja ju all over again. The story is true even if unsupported by facts.
The Army does not need to disprove a negative nor should it try to do so. They could accumulate mounds of evidence to refute every one of Beauchamp’s claims but for those who want to believe in the original lies none of that evidence will be compelling. All they have to do for my satisfaction is show that Beauchamp lied one time in his writings. One lie shows me that I cannot trust anything else that he says and from then on I will pay no attention to his musings.
Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice . . . shame on me!!! If it’s fake, surely it must be true, correct?
[…] score one for Bob Owens and the Media Myth Busters. TNR is run by morons too dumb to […]
“…reiterating that other soldiers whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.”
There is no sort of mythical “journalist-source” privilege for TNR to hide behind. They are flat out stating that soldiers are telling them about UCMJ violations. Either put up, or shut up - and if it is found that they’re knowingly fabricating propaganda to aid the enemy in a time of war, PROSECUTE THEM AND THROW THEIR ASSES IN JAIL. Enough is enough.
Jaysus…moonbats can’t admit the truth when it smacks them between the eyes.