Just posted on their response, thanks word.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Latest from TNR:

Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,” a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”

The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during the September 6 conversation: “[A]ll we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it’s—if it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we’ll end that way. If it’s proven to be true, it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth.” The September 6 exchange was extremely frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.

The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

On September 14, we also spoke at length with Major John Cross, who led the Army’s investigation into the Beauchamp case. Contrary to reports in The Weekly Standard and other outlets, Cross explicitly said that Beauchamp “did not recant” his article in the sworn statements he had given the Army. Moreover, although the Army’s investigation—which declared that the claims in “Shock Troops” were false—purported to be conclusive, Cross conceded that there were at least a dozen soldiers in Beauchamp’s platoon whom he had not interviewed. TNR pressed for clarification:

Scoblic: So you didn’t get statements from everyone in his platoon, then?

Cross: We got statements from everyone in his platoon that was available that day we were conducting the investigation.

Scoblic: At a later point did you follow up with any of the people that weren’t available that day?

Cross: No.

Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious gaps—as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp’s accounts—The New Republic decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp, particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division, to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.

It was as we were awaiting the documentary record of the Army’s investigation that the Army leaked several documents, including the September 6 transcript, to The Drudge Report, which incorrectly reported that the documents show that Beauchamp had recanted. In fact, they show no such thing, and Drudge soon removed the supporting documents from its website, and later its entire report.

The New Republic is deeply frustrated by the Army’s behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover whether Beauchamp’s article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked selective parts of the record—including a conversation that Beauchamp had with his lawyer—continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.

We have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so. But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and promise to deliver a full account of our findings.

–The Editors

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Especially when those of us back home and doing are effing damndest to fight all these lies and propaganda BS from the left.”

That would be “…back home are doing our…”

This is why I shouldn’t post when I am emotionally charged up about something.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

suek – What it comes down to for me is this. I am tired of these leftist a-holes undermining the war effort and getting away with it. Maybe he got the crap beat out of him. So what? Do you really believe that will set an example for others to not attempt to do the same thing (Lie about war crimes to smear the military and undermine the war?) in the future? Especially when his so-called punishment was not even made public? So no leftist soldier who aspires to be the next DailyKos hero and undermine the war has anything to make him think twice about doing it. As it is, Scott Thomas Beauchamp is now a household name. He is also now being sold as some great soldier, who learned his lesson, is seeking redemption and we are all to support him.

Well that’s just brilliant.

Reminds me of athletes in High School and college who could get away with anything and were protected, because they were athletes who were valuable to the school. Yeah, that set a great example for other athletes. Just taught them that since they were athletes, they could do whatever the eff they wanted.

Same thing here. Undermine the entire war and smear your fellow soldiers, because you are a lefty prick? Ah, no problem. You’re a soldier and valuable to the war. We’ll beat the shiite out of ya for a day or two and then all is forgiven.

I’m sorry, this disgusts me and makes me have a lot less respect for the military. Especially when those of us back home and doing are effing damndest to fight all these lies and propaganda BS from the left. Only to see the military tell me to lay off him, he’s a swell guy in our book now.

Well, great. Then they can fight their own propaganda battles from now on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

>>So, for that, we are supposed to give him major kudos.>>

No…just stop giving him major whacks.

>>Well, with regards to the dishonorable discharge, do military members who are dishonorably discharged from the military still get the military benefits of someone who fulfilled their committment to the military?>>

Generally, no. I say “generally” because I don’t know what would happen if a man was seriously injured with permanent disabilities in the service, and then dishonorably discharged for other reasons. I’d think medical care might continue, but I don’t know. Usually – no military disabilities involved – dishonorable discharge means no benefits.

>>But somehow, if a scumbag leftist soldier does it to the military, the mission and his country, we are to accept his apology.>>

I’ve always had a problem with people who “forgive” murderers some time during that person’s lifetime…church ministers who say we should forgive them their sins. I don’t think it’s _my_ place to forgive someone who has done someone _else_ harm. On the other hand, this person has done harm to those in the military. If _they_ are willing to allow him to earn forgiveness – and believe me, don’t think he won’t have to earn it, but they _are_ giving him a chance to do so – are you justified in holding onto that grievance? Don’t mistake me – I don’t think it’s enough for him to just say “I’m sorry”, but I do think his actions speak louder than words. He’s not finished yet – will he be able to? What kind of a man will he be when he completes his service? The same self-centered person he was before? Leopards rarely change their spots. What about his marriage? Have you thought about that? If he _really_ changes, his wife will find herself married to a person who’s entirely different from the person she _thought_ she was married to. And…if he _really_ changes, will he want to be married to that same person he was in love with before – the one who wanted to harm the military? If I were a writer….!!!

>>Sorry, not gonna happen.>>

What would it take? He can’t undo what he’s done…so what would it take for you to forgive?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt – I have reading many people around the blogs and milblogs urging people to cut Beauchamp some slack, because he supposedly has learned his lesson and instead of agreeing to a dishonorable discharge, is being a man and staying in Iraq. So, for that, we are supposed to give him major kudos.

Well, with regards to the dishonorable discharge, do military members who are dishonorably discharged from the military still get the military benefits of someone who fulfilled their committment to the military? I ask this, because I wonder if he decided to stay in and fulfill his military contract so he could make sure to get his military benefits.

If the military benefits are still given even with a dishonorable discharge, then nevermind.

Regardless, I still think he is getting off easy. Were anyone else in any other profession (save journalism) to do this to their employer, they would be fired, no questions asked. But somehow, if a scumbag leftist soldier does it to the military, the mission and his country, we are to accept his apology. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve changed the comments a bit since people were having a hard time commenting. Now you may need to input your name and info instead of signing in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt – It says I am signed in, but then when I post it shows me as anonymous. I didn’t have that issue at work or on my Mozilla here at home. It happened though when I was posting through my AOL internet connection. So that was probably it. No big deal. Thanks for fixing that though.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve changed your “posted by” to Michael in MI. Are you filling out the name, email addy and url when you post?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Michael in MI again here (not sure why I show up Anonymous)

I’m still baffled by this. If I wrote some bullshiite stories about my company, smearing my fellow coworkers and the company for which I work, I would be FIRED. My arse would be GONE. No apology would save my hide.

Why the different standard here? Me writing stories about my company is a lot less harmful to the world than what Scott Thomas Beauchamp did. Yet he keeps his job and we are supposed to all be ‘awwwwww it’s okay, he’s finding redemption now.’

I’m sorry. I call bullshiite. And the military is setting a HORRIBLE precedent and standard for the punishment of soldiers who do this. And Michael Yon and others forget it was bloggers back here in the United States, who support the military, who debunked this arsehole on his bullshiite. Without them, the military would have a huge scandal on their hands. And this is the thanks they get? Thanks bloggers for finding a scumbag among us, but hey, cut him some slack, he’s finding redemption now. WTF? Why bother helping the military with their propaganda problems then if they don’t get a rats rear end?

Like or Dislike: 0  0