Scott Thomas Beauchamps Interview With TNR


Drudge had up the transcript of the phone interview between Scott Beauchamp and TNR’s Foer and Scoblic.  It’s since been pulled for reasons that are unknown but many sources are saying its because Drudge called it a confession by Scott, which it is not.  He basically gives “no comment” type statements throughout. Jeff Emmanuel at Redstate says he is pretty certain the transcript is real. 

Kathryn at The Corner put up the PDF’s and I’ve combined them here and made them searchable (26 page PDF).

Some of the interesting parts:

Scoblic: I think Scott, what this is, you know, is that we’re going to have to come out to say that…because you know, you’re not going to talk to us anymore about the piece we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend it. And so the way it ends is that there’s going to be another round of stories and the story is going to be that an author lied to his editors. And they decided that they can’t trust him anymorc.

Beauchamp: Well. .. J mean, J understand it could be spun that way, but it could be interpreted in any way, and it’s going to be interpretcd in any way that it was going to be interpreted … I mean, that’s … that’s …

Scoblic: It’s not going to be, Scott. It’s going to be interpreted (unintelligible)

Foer: Most people think (unintelligible)… most people have an assumption that goes against you. And the few people that … there are a few people view to the extent that I view only do so because of the decency to stand by you. So, if we’re not able to stand by you because you aren’t able to answcr our questions, urn I think it kind of…you wouldn’t have much credibility left in the public eye.


Scoblic: What are you going to do after this job? Are you staying in the Army?

Beauchamp: Urn, I don’t know what I want to do. Urn I haven’t made up my mind yet what I want to do.

Scoblic:’re not going to be able to write anymore after this … you know that, right?

Beauchamp: 1…1 mean, I don’t really care at this point. That’s not…that’s not. .. basically what I’m saying is that’s not what is important to me…

Foer: (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: What’s important to me…

Foer: (Unintelligible) You could have told us this a month ago and ah… you know saved us… basically a lot of heartache and pain.

And even funnier is the findings of the Army:

6. Findings:

a. That “Scott Thomas,” author of “Shock Troops,” is PYT Scott Thomas Beauchamp, assigned to 1st Platoon. A Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment.  See Exhibit B, also found at www.tnr.comibloglthe plank?pid-128957 and Exhibit E.

b. That the incident of blatant disrespect for a disfigured woman in the FOB Falcon DFAC is a tale completely fabricated by Private Beauchamp. See Exhibits T-Y.

c. That the desecration of human remains and the discovery ofa “Saddam~era dumping ground” is false. CPT Erik Pribyla reports of seeing a “skull and what appeared to be a human femur” during the reconnaissance of Combat Outpost Ellis. He gave orders for the skull and femur to be buried with as much dignity as possible during the initial occupation of Combat Outpost Ellis (Exhibit G). PFC King reports that he buried the skull (Exhibit I). Other Soldiers report that there were several animal bones discovered during the initial occupation as well (Exhibits G, H. M. R & S). I find that the second set of bones were probably those of chicken. goat, or sheep remains. commonly found on Iraqi farmsteads in trash piles where they are dumped after a meal. The bones were collected and interred in a discreet manner. At no time did a Soldier place the cranial bones on his bead or wear them on patrol (Exhibits J, K, & N).

d. That the deliberate targeting of wild dogs is completely unfounded. See Exhibits H, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, & S. Combat Outpost Ellis is located in rura1 farmlands that are laced with canals and narrow roads. Driving erratically to hit dogs would greatly increase the level of unnecessary risk and be detrimental to the success of the patrol.

e. That Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway (Exhibits C-4 & D).

But we all know what is going to happen here.  The left has never met a loser they didn’t love and make excuses for and it wont be any different for this guy.  He will leave the Army, come home and tell everyone that the Army made him retract the story, that its all real and one big coverup, and he will be put up on a pedestal once again.

But the big story right now is the fact that TNR cover this whole conversation up, as Michelle Malkin notes:

I repeat Ace’s distillation for those who have only superficial knowledge of
this scandal: Remember: TNR Hid The Existence Of This Phone Call From
The World.

To paraphrase the Clintons: It’s the cover-up, stupid.

And TNR’s sliming of The Weekly Standard.

And TNR’s false allegations that the military was censoring Beauchamp.

And TNR’s pathetic attempts to wrest control of the story from Beauchamp as
he attempted to tell other media outlets that he was not being gagged, use
Beauchamp’s wife as a wedge, and refusal to acknowledge the truth of their
journalistic malpractice.

I mean check out this section of the transcript:

Scoblic: We were told you are setting up interviews with the Times and the Post?

Beauchamp: With the Newsweek and the Washington Post and it’s basically to let the media know that I’m not being censored. I can talk to the media, but I don’t want to.

Scoblic: Scott, all that does is trigger another round of stories. I mean, (unintelligible)

Foer: (Unintelligible) You owe it to us ah to just ah … you owe it to us to basically kind of report on ourselves and be able to put out whatever next thing… 1think you ought to basically talk to us, and let us control the way this story proceeds. I think that’s the least you could do for us. I think it would be further evidence, further sign to us that you’re just sticking it to us if you went and talked to these other guys before we could put anything out further.

Beauchamp: So. urn … so what are you saying?

Foer: I’m saying that I’d rather you not talk to the Washington Post. Newsweek or whoever else until we put out our final judgment on your pieces.

Not too mention Foer’s attempt to use Scott’s wife to force the guy to not recant.

Something tells me TNR is not going to come out of this looking too good.

Ya think?


Drudge may have gotten the docs from the Army since Bob Owens was about to get the documents from his FOIA request which, if tru,e sucks ass.  Bob has done much of the legwork on this story and while in the bigger picture the only thing that matters is getting the truth out, Bob should have seen some of the kudo’s for his work.  Drudge scooped it but you can still leave some thank you’s to Bob over at Confederate Yankee.  Job well done.


Michael Goldfarb was the other one who has done a ton of legwork and he writes a good synopsis of these documents:

It is now clear that somewhere along the way, TNR stopped acting in good
faith and started doing damage control. They cited a Bradley expert who
purportedly confirmed that the vehicle could be operated as Beauchamp described.
But when Bob Owens tracked down said expert, BAE spokesmen Doug Coffey, he
denied making any such statement, saying that TNR had mischaracterized his
comments and that the editors had never shown him Beauchamp’s stories. He added
that having read the stories, they were indeed “suspicious,” and that he did not
believe the Bradley could be operated as described. TNR never acknowledged
Coffey’s later statements or its apparent misrepresentation of his earlier

And then came our report that Scott Beauchamp was no longer standing by his
stories. The editors at TNR responded to this report by insinuating that THE
WEEKLY STANDARD was not a credible source. They also accused the Army of
“stonewalling” and preventing them from speaking with their author. That was on
August 10. Bob Owens subsequently reported that TNR spoke to Beauchamp on
September 7–the transcript now posted on Drudge–but TNR never returned to the
subject, despite their claims of a “commitment to the truth” in that August 10

The documents posted by Drudge reveal that the New Republic’s editors
have known for several weeks that the central anecdote of the story was untrue,
that the other anecdotes were deeply suspect, and that the author was no longer
standing by his work. And yet they remained publicly silent even though they had
long ago promised to be open and forthcoming on the matter. Worse still, they
asked Beauchamp to cancel pending interviews with the Washington Post and
Newsweek, lest their complicity in Beauchamp’s slanders come to light.

Foer attacked his magazine’s critics as “reckless” and “ideologically
motivated,” at one point even demanding an apology from the bloggers who did so
much to advance this story and find out the truth of the matter. He now has more
than a little ‘splaining to do.

Oh, he has much more then just some ‘splaining to do.  The use of Scott’s wife to goad him into not recanting is just plain disgusting and wrong, wrong, wrong.

Foer: I think, I don’t wanna… You’re obviously in a very uncomfortable position in that your wife is involved in this, and I wish she wasn’t involved because I, I… trust her, I care for her, I don’t want her to get hurt in all of this. But she just, she sent me a note to tell you that it’s the most important thing to her that you say that you didn’t recant. And I don’t…1 feel that (unintelligible) in saying that to you because it puts me in an awkward position, but it’s what she wanted me to convey to you.


Via Michelle comes news that Foer has responded.  Get this, he whines that he could not get access to a transcript of his own phone call:

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things
that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act
requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has
leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the
documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.

Is this guy for real?

Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Here is a real song for real soldiers:

I Wanna Go Home

The author has given permission to those currently serving in the military who buy the song to share it with nine of their best buddies, wives, husbands, parents, or children.

If you like it, pass it on.

Foer had every chance in the world in the Observer interview to call the docs bogus if he had any hint they were.

My guess is TNR pointed their attack dog lawyers at Drudge.

Seriously, don’t you guys on the right wing blogs have anything better to spend your time on? The world has a lot of problems, some of which you could do something about – whether or not STB made the whole thing up, made parts of it up, or only got the FOB’s location wrong isn’t one of them.

OK, you could reply: ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than try to argue with people on right wing blogs?’ That’d be a fair point – I guess I do.


1. Yes, debunking lies which threaten the safety of me and my fellow Soldiers IS important as is blocking the left’s nightmarish socialism and encroaching Sharia.

2. This is ONE story of dozens posted on this blog. Please read more.