Army Plot
The New Republic makes more excuses for itself. You’ll want to read the part where TNR issues determinations on Army policy by leak:
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 …
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be impressed by that guy’s swearing, if grittiness makes adds verisimilitude and a little hard-nosed Perry Whiteness to this sordid tale, but what ever,
… 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.
The propsecution rests. Investigators didn’t speak to every last person in the platoon, therefore, result invalidated. I believe that invalidates … let’s see … 99 percent of all newspaper and magazine articles ever written.
Here’s the part that I like.
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.
According to this interpretation, anyone in uniform who leaks anything is “the Army,” and the effects of any leak by implication represent Army policy. That makes Beauchamp ”the Army.” And that means, as a matter of Army policy, this has all been a highly successful Army plot to make the New Republic editors look like rank amateurs.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:25 pm Comments (7) on Friday, October 26, 2007
7 Responses to “Army Plot”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
These scum are just desperate for something to slime our military with. Anything to assist the goals of the enemy in dividing our citizenry from support of their own soldiers.
Enemy is enemy. We are way past the time to stop playing nice nice with betrayers.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:27 am
They just look sillier and sillier. Beauchamp has played them well. They must like it because they are loath to give it up.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:42 am
When you have a large part of yourself vested in a desired outcome the message is the medium.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Every time I read about such idiot propagandists as these tards at TNR, I hear Don Henley’s song “Dirty Laundry” playing in my head.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:08 am
They’re actually getting away with it for the most part though. Lots of blog buzz, but not a lot of exposure in the mainstream media.
If subscriptions decline and ad revenue wanes, higher powers may intervene. Until then, stonewalling is really the only choice they have since this was allowed to fester for so long. To really come clean now would mean replacing all management and most of the BOD and that ain’t gonna happen.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I thought it was decided weeks ago that…
Scott Beauchamp was a self- promoting dweeb who monomaniacally envisioned himself some kind of “next Hemingway” ;
that would be next Hemingway person rather quickly married a woman employed at TNR who then proceeded not to “vet” his Iraq story too well;
that TNR editors agreed since it matched their own preferred view of “Iraq” and the planet.
Shameful what much of American journalism has descended to these days.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Yes, you were supposed to be impressed by his swearing. He swears because he means it! When the tape recorder’s on, at least.