The Kicker

More Beauchamp! (sorry…)

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

This is great. The conservative blogosphere and it’s kissin’ cousin, the milblog community—who always criticize the left for not supporting the troops—is engaging in some troop hating of its own. Their target, of course, is Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, of TNR fame, and he’s taking a beating by critics who apparently have nothing better to do than furiously Google his name all night long and troll his MySpace page.

This childish game of name-calling, mostly led by the know-nothing Michelle Malkin’s of the world—anyone remember the Jamil Hussein embarassment—has been going on for the better part of a week. Now the Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb dug up some particularly damning evidence against the young soldier:

How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.) While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it’s worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn’t stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out. Andrew Sullivan captures the mood nicely:

[T]he conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face.

It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they’re true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we’re winning in Iraq. If you believe all this and face the mountains of evidence against you, you have to act ever more decisively and emphatically to refute any evidence that might undermine this worldview.

Matt Yglesias follows up with this:

What the right is trying to do is establish a precedent where if you say things the right doesn’t want to hear anonymously then you’ll be treated with a presumption of guilt. No matter how vindicated the article may be, it’s still the case that TNR expended a lot of person-hours on re-verifying things even though nobody on the right raised any serious reason to doubt the story other than that it wasn’t something they wanted to believe. It’s extremely difficult to operate that way, and people won’t want to. But suppose you do identify yourself. Then you get the full Michelle Malkin treatment — character slimed, all kinds of personal details splayed across the internet, don’t say you weren’t warned. Thus, we’ll have all our information coming from official sources, just as the right likes it (until, of course, there’s a Democratic administration).

CJR

Comments

padikiller

Fri 27 Jul 2007 01:40 PM

LOL!...

This is TOO funny!....

If some Bush campaign worker, whose wife was an editor, by the way (Mr. McLeary sneaks around this little slice of reality, curiously enough), had managed to pseudonymously sneak a dubious, uncorroborated, pro-military article into his wife's MSM outlet...

I'm SURE that Mr. McLeary would be tickled pink over the piece!.... NOT!...

This silly crybaby article is just another example of Reality offending Mr. McLeary's liberal sensitivities...

The FACT of the matter is that NOBODY has been able to independently corroborate Beauchamp's little anti-military fairy tales of mass graves or misogynist abuse...

PERIOD!..

The FACT is that the New Republic AND the military have opened investigations into the matter (Mr. McLeary similary let this little truth slip by his readers)...

The FACT that the "source" for this nonsense is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal activist is INDEED (despite Mr. McLeary's nonseniscal whining to the contrary) a REALITY that NEEDS to be explained to readers...

PERIOD.....

It's funny that McLeary turns to Jamil Hussein to "vindicate" the liberal press...

Hussein was quoted as an official source of information for DOZENS of AP stories.... But he mysteriously fell off the radar when it turned out that he was lying and that he was specifically UNAUTHORIZED to release information...

To hold Hussein up a some sort of talisman for the ethics of "professional journalism" is the biting end of absurdity...

Poppy

Fri 27 Jul 2007 05:52 PM

You really have to be kidding.

Do you want to compare the Milblog communities military service with the military service of the employees of TNR?

And, yes, much of what beachamp has said has been refuted and TNR has not addressed those questions. Let's include a couple here:

Beauchamp claims there are square Glock shell casings? Ever seen one? can you Google me a picture of one? No.

Beachamp claimed only Iraqi Police use Glocks? Care to Google that little gem and find out how easy it is to buy a Glock in Baghdad?

Beachamp claimed they had to change a Hunvee tire in knee deep sewage. Tow problems, Humvees have run flat tires and can go for miles on a flat to change the tire in safety (why change it in a sewer). In addition, it is impossible for broken sewage lines to create knee deep sewage, any plumber can tell you thats BS.

In addition, he claims a Bradley driver could see a dog at his right vehicle track. Sitting in the Bradley LEFT side driver hatch you can't see anywhere near the right track, its physically impossble.

Shall we go on, or have you asked TNR to at a minimum address those issues.

While your at it, Beachamp claimed on his blog that suicides feel the heat from the oven when they stick their head in. Any competent person would know suicides don't ignite the flame and die by the fumes. Did you fall for that little bit of stupidity as well??

TDC

Mon 30 Jul 2007 10:50 AM

Does it matter that Beauchamp's wife works for TNR? Does it matter that Beauchamp deployment record showed him to be in Germany when his blog said he was in Baghdad? Does it matter that he said his whole purpose in joining the Army was in order to give him credibility as a "progressive" writer? Does it matter that TNR fired the staffer that revealed Beauchamp's information and that his wife was a TNR staffer? Does it matter that the company NCO called Beauchamp's stories bullshit? Does it matter that none of Beauchamp's stories have yet to be confirmed by anyone, and anecdotal evidence shows them to be highly unlikely?

Of course it doesn't, not for the wise and great Paul McCleary. Because, you see, Beauchamp's tales fit nicely into the "fake but accurate" category. While the stories themselves may not be true, they fit into the standard narrative and stereotype of a war out of control and the savage actions of our soldiers, and we cannot let facts get in the way of our preconceptions, now can we Paul.

"How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)"

For the record Paul, Millbloggers are bloggers that are/were in the military, so I don't quite understand the "chickenhawk" comparison. I noticed that you discretely edited this line out of the entry without citing your correction, but what else would I expect from the "pinnacle of journalistic ethics and integrity" that is the CJR.

Schratboy

Mon 30 Jul 2007 11:58 AM

Typical arrogant, sanctimonious screed.

TDC

Mon 30 Jul 2007 12:03 PM

My bad, you didnt edit it out.

sharinlite

Mon 30 Jul 2007 12:11 PM

Just about the time I think I, a 64 year old grandmother, has read just
about every chickensh*t thing written by guys who are homo sapien, but
not human beings, along comes you, Paul, and proves me wrong!! There
just are so many males in this world who actually believe the stuff they
sling from their comfortable positions in their ivory towers! Just so
you get a clue, I cannot volunteer, my husband, daughter, sons cannot ,
nor can my grandchildren: too old, too young, some sort of disability.
However, how old are you? Why aren't you in this fight physically
instead of just verbally? My family, however, does have something
going for it that yours doesn't, I bet, P.O.W.'s of WWII, Viet Nam; members
of the military now out or active. One no longer "active" with mind and body
still does light years with his mind for this country.

Homo sapiens like yourself demonstrate my thesis: 98% are homo sapiens;
2% are evolved to human beings status. You are not one of the 2%ers.

stew

Mon 30 Jul 2007 12:15 PM

Poor Scott Thomas Beauchamp is taking a beating by critics for making Kerry-like statements. Remember the Genghis Khan slander of Vietnam vets? Sorry Paul, but your 60s narratives never held up whether Vietnam or Iraq. Scott slanders US troops in Iraq and you think he should get a free pass. If your so concerned about the behavior of the military and want to refrom it then lets start with the group who drove the ROTC off campuses - antimilitary leftists. The ROTC was a source for high quality officer candidates.

NLihach

Mon 30 Jul 2007 12:25 PM

Mr McLeary,

You may want to retract the bit about military Bloggers not serving... all the Bloggers on MilBlogs are in fact military service-members.

It is a slap in the face to call their service or patriotism into question.

Secondly, I would direct you to Mr. Beauchamp's Blog, his shameful reasons for joining the military, and his yet to be verified version of the facts.

However, you will only find Beauchamp's work scrutinized on conservative Blogs... the Left has given him a free pass to slander the troops.

padikiller

Mon 30 Jul 2007 12:35 PM

TDC Makes an Important Point

Does it matter that TNR fired the staffer that revealed Beauchamp's information and that his wife was a TNR staffer? Does it matter that the company NCO called Beauchamp's stories bullshit? Does it matter that none of Beauchamp's stories have yet to be confirmed by anyone, and anecdotal evidence shows them to be highly unlikely?

Of course it doesn't, not for the wise and great Paul McCleary.
Because, you see, Beauchamp's tales fit nicely into the "fake but accurate" category...

padikiller concurs

Indeed, Mr. McLeary's argument rings loudly of the "fake but accurate" schtick...

McLeary wrote: "While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it's worthy of note, has been proved false yet."

So THERE is CJR-certified standard of "professional journalism"... The claims of liberals are to be taken as true, and sheltered from criticism, unless they are positively refuted...

The reverse is true of conservatives in McLearyland, of course... Mr. McLeary is quick to dismiss any statement made by the "almost criminally inept" (his words) President of the United States... Conservatives are presumed to be liars...

jcrue

Mon 30 Jul 2007 01:35 PM

Wow, I'm a MilBlogger and you claim I didn't serve in the military? Somehow I'm a chickenhawk because you say I am? That's beautiful! I guess I'll just return my dress blues with awards and medals from my combat tour, my pretty black marching boots (most likely known to people at Columbia as "jackboots"), my USMC PT gear, my EGA car decal, my memories of boot camp (remember boot camp, Mr. McLeary?), and my love of this nation over all else and just shut up about a single little piss ant in the entire military that you have selected as your standard for what the military man should be.

Right.

Beauchamp is apparently a liar and a sad excuse for a soldier, and he will reap what he has sown. Only those who want to believe him and his fantasies will defend him.

Why is it that support for the troops from people like you amounts to having a positive effect for the individual but a sum negative effect on the larger population of our military and veterans?

Support for the troops is not about your intent, it is about your effect.

What you describe as support or hatred for our troops is a cynical, ignorant point of view based on political and cultural preconceptions and a lack of knowledge - not a supply of it.

It is funny how one side of the political/cultural spectrum argues from such a weak position so easily refuted by those of us who have experience with these kinds of things. It is as if you expect your audience to actually believe you have something to offer to them without doing your homework or having anything that resembles first hand knowledge.

I guess that's what "journalism" amounts to these days - nothing more than a spectator sport.

And in this world, if you are going to play the game you better realize you can't just take your ball and go home. The world many of us live in is life and death unlike anything I imagine happens at Columbia on a daily basis, so we take this stuff very seriously and we tend not to assign the same level of seriousness to the concerns or values of people like Andrew or Matt who sit on the sidelines.

I can only imagine you would defend the CJR if attacked with baseless accusations. In this case we are talking about the United States military.

This country can live without the CJR, it can't live without its military and that is why we are determined to defend it.

The military has done far more good for the world at large than the collective efforts of the CJR, Andrew Sullivan, or Matt Yglesias ever will.

Poppy

Mon 30 Jul 2007 07:33 PM

Let's see, I post on Milblogger sites. 27 years with the Air Force (Enlisted, AF Reserve and Government Civilian). Worked every major Air Force operation since Grenada.

Perhaps you could provide us the CJR folks military backgrounds, including yourself. You must have served in Afghanistan? Pakistan maybe??

ex journalist

Mon 30 Jul 2007 08:38 PM

Good God!
What an amazing exercise in butt-covering and point missing.

It's the sort of thing one might expect from TNR, but, silly me, I thought the Columbia Journalism Review was concerned with, oh, I dunno, maybe ... journalism?

I was 4F during the Vietnam War, so I can't add much on military matters. But during that time I was a journalism student, cub, reporter, wire service reporter and managing editor on a local daily. I think I can comment with some authority on journalistic standards and practices.

And as an example of journalistic standards and practices, your piece sucks dead green bunnies through a straw. In other words, almost as badly as TNR's original articles.

I don't know how they do it in exalted venues such as Columbia, but I was taught in J school that the first principle of journalism is accuracy. This is a point that the bloggers you excoriate grasp and you seem to miss utterly.

The central criticism in every single blog I have read on the subject was that Beauchamp's stories appeared to be fabrications. The initial postings, especially in the milblogs you dislike so, was that the incidents simply didn't ring true and contained some things which were flat out wrong. (Square cartridge cases? Come on. Even I know better.)

While a lot of people have flamed Beauchamp's tone, the criticism overwhelmingly focused on the truth of the stories.

Beauchamp's defenders, such as yourself, have tried very hard to ignore the truth of his reports and concentrated on peripheral issues.

Frankly your performance (and I mean you specifically) reminds me of nothing so much as the Nixon White House defense of Watergate. "They're out to get Nixon because they've hated him for years." Ignore the inconvenient facts. It was pathetic then and it's pathetic now.

"But," you say, "we don't know if the stories are true or not."

No we don't -- yet. However saying, in effect, 'well we haven't conclusively proven it's not true, so we'll assume there's nothing wrong with it' is not the standard that is supposed to apply to journalism when the truth of an account is in question.

If the veracity of a story is seriously questioned, then the person who wrote it and the publication that carried it have a duty to establish its truth. It's put up or shut up time -- or more correctly put up or publicly apologize.

This neither Beauchamp or The New Republic are doing. (Saying 'we're investigating' doesn't cut it in this context. Many of the incidents are far to easy to confirm.)

But assuming, arguendo, that the story is in fact under investigation, why in the world would a publication supposedly dedicated to improving journalism feel compelled to weigh in a bunch of politically motivated snark before the facts are established? The logical time for you to vent your spleen on the evil bloggers and their right-wing ways was after the story was conclusively proven. Then it would be obvious to everyone how wrong they were.

As it is, all you have managed to do is to damage your publication and your own reputation with this bit of politically inspired premature ejaculation.

If you have surmised that I'm angry over your piece, you're absolutely right. I am at heart a newspaperman and I always have been. For me journalism fills a vital role in society and newspapering is about the most fun you can have with your clothes on. I could have happily made a career in it instead of magazine writing.

To see journalistic standards reduced to the level represented by your article makes me very, very sad.

krothering

Mon 30 Jul 2007 08:54 PM

From your piece:

"While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it's worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn't stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out."

How silly can you get? You concede that TNR's critics make legitimate points but then denounce the critics for making those points.

Ever wonder why so many people hold journalism in such low regard? Well, here you go.

TDC

Mon 30 Jul 2007 09:57 PM

In all fairness to McLeary, he did clarify his comments in some emails to some MilBloggers and it looks like he made an honest slip and hsi comments do not reflect his real thoughts, as he was imbeded for several months.

Trochilus

Mon 3 Dec 2007 07:58 PM

Say, did you happen to catch this over at TNR?

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

So, what is it exactly that you folks want journalists to do?

Tell a story that is essentially truthful and carefully fact-checked, especially since this one related serious charges against members of the United States military during wartime, charges that almost immediately seem questionable, if not dubious? Apparently not!

You seem to want journalists to tell a completely vicious whopper, one that was at least partially fact-checked by the guy's wife, for crying out loud, and that unfairly demeaned his fellow soldiers, don't you?

The post above tells me you want that.

I suppose that next you'll invite Scott Beauchamp to speak at Columbia the moment he rotates out of the service, maybe to come speak on the many pitfalls of fabulism? Or, you could offer the liar an ethics post, no?

Here's betting you will not start with an apology to Michelle Malkin, or Bob Owens or any of the other bloggers that pointed out how bad that story was.

Seems that there is truly "a degree of difference" between their ability to dig out the real story, and yours!