Army: 'Nothing to see Here, Move Along'

[Nbadan]

Army Concludes Baghdad Diarist Accounts Untrue
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 8, 2007; Page C01


Army investigators have concluded that the private whose dispatches for the New Republic accused his fellow soldiers of petty cruelties in Iraq was not telling the truth.

The finding, disclosed yesterday, came days after the Washington-based magazine announced that it had corroborated the claims of the private, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, except for one significant error.

"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false," an Army statement said. "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

But New Republic Editor Franklin Foer is standing his ground. "We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account," Foer said. The magazine granted anonymity to the other soldiers it cited.

A military official, who asked not to be identified because the probe is confidential, said no charges were filed against Beauchamp. Instead, the official said, the matter is being handled administratively, with Beauchamp punished by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated for an undetermined period.

The Army probe provides ammunition to conservative critics who have accused the liberal magazine of publishing Beauchamp's "Baghdad Diarist" essays without adequate checking and being too quick to believe that American soldiers would engage in questionable conduct. It also revives fading memories of the magazine's 1998 fabrication scandal involving writer Stephen Glass.

Beauchamp, 23, who is married to New Republic reporter Elspeth Reeve, wrote last month that a soldier had used a Bradley Fighting Vehicle to run over stray dogs, and that others had found and played with the skulls of Iraqi
children. Beauchamp also wrote that he and other soldiers had openly mocked a woman whose face had been disfigured by an injury -- but later acknowledged the incident had taken place in Kuwait before his unit was deployed, not at a Baghdad base as he originally maintained.

Foer said last week that the Army investigation was "short-circuiting" the magazine's efforts, in part because it had become impossible to reach Beauchamp.

The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine that has led the charge against Beauchamp, cited an unnamed military source yesterday as saying that Beauchamp had signed an affidavit acknowledging that his three articles were filled with exaggerations and falsehoods. That could not be independently confirmed, but it is common practice for the subject of an investigation to sign a statement confirming or denying the conduct in question.

Foer said the New Republic had asked Maj. Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, about the allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, and that Lamb had replied: "I have no knowledge of that." Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp "told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic," Foer said.

"Thus far," he added, "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."

But Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb said: "We have full confidence in our reporting that Private Beauchamp recanted under oath."

It is not clear whether investigators might have pressured Beauchamp into disavowing the articles by indicating that charges might otherwise be filed against him under the military justice code. A military official said Beauchamp had committed two violations, making false statements and not obtaining permission to publish the articles, which were written under the name Scott Thomas.

The Army statement did not specify what were described as Beauchamp's falsehoods and does not plan to make its report public. "The matter is considered to be closed," said Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, an Army spokesman in Baghdad.

When Beauchamp went public last month, he said in a statement that it was "maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq." He said he had provided "one soldier's view of events in Iraq" that were "never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. military."

Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, called the Army's refusal to release its report "suspect," adding: "There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701922.html)

In a related story, anyone hear about Dr. Laura's son?


The soldier son of talk radio relationship counselor Laura Schlessinger is under investigation for a graphic personal Web page that one Army official has called "repulsive."

The MySpace page, publicly available until Friday when it disappeared from the Internet, included cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation; photographs of soldiers with guns in their mouths; a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee captioned "My Sweet Little Habib"; accounts of illicit drug use; and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

The site is credited to and includes many photographs of Deryk Schlessinger, the 21-year-old son of the talk radio personality known simply as Dr. Laura. Broadcast locally on 570 KNRS, "Family Values Talk Radio," the former family counselor spends three hours daily taking calls and offering advice on morals, ethics and values. She broadcast a show from Fort Douglas, in Salt Lake City, last week.

Military leaders have long grappled with how to balance positive publicity and operational security with technological opportunities for troops to tell their personal stories.

Link (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5934072)


That's some crazy ass-shit....

:hat

[Nbadan]

Uglier and Uglier


Earlier this month we brought you the on-going story of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a US Army private who published a series of 'Baghdad Diaries' in the New Republic under the name Scott Thomas.

Thomas told a dark story US soldiers in Iraq acting in various dishonorable and sadistic ways.

This brought forth a storm of charges from the right-wing blogs and the Weekly Standard claiming that the diaries were fabrications. Then TNR did its own reinvestigation of the diaries and found that with the exception of one error, the stories checked out.

Post media critic Howard Kurtz has been writing about these criticisms in his column. And tomorrow he reports that now the US Army has determined that Beauchamp's claims were "found to be false."

Kurtz got a few more statements from an unnamed "military official" who would not go on the record "because the probe is confidential." And he was told that the investigation into the truth of Beauchamp's article will not be released. The unnamed official further explained that the Army will not prosecute Beauchamp but rather deal with the matter administratively "by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated."

For reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the statement announcing the investigation and its verdict appears not to have been a public release but rather a statement released uniquely to the Weekly Standard. That's how the Kurtz article reads and some quick reporting on my part suggests this is in fact the case.

And it gets better.

The Weekly Standard, which has been leading the charge against Beauchamp, says another unnamed military official told the magazine that not only had the Army found Beauchamp's written accounts to be false but that Beauchamp himself has now signed a recantation of all his claims. So case closed; he fessed up. Yet when TNR contacted the Army public affairs a Maj. Steve Lamb told them: "I have no knowledge of that."

So what's up here?

Beauchamp makes his charges. The US Army allegedly investigates and finds the highly embarrassing charges to be false. But no information will be released about which of his charges were false, how they were false or how they were determined to be false.

They then punish Beauchamp by preventing him from having any communication with the civilian world. And if that's not enough, an unnamed military source tells the Standard that Beauchamp has undergone a successful self-criticism session and has recanted everything. But an Army spokesman tells TNR that he's not aware of any confession or recantation.

We can at least be thankful that the matter is being handled with such transparency.

Maybe Beauchamp was always a teller of tales. He wouldn't be the first nor even the first to have wormed his way into the pages of the New Republic. But it's hard not to have some suspicion that the Army has put itself in charge of investigating charges which, if true, would be deeply embarrassing to the Army; that it has provided itself a full exoneration through an investigation, the details of which it will not divulge; and it has chosen to use as its exclusive conduit for disseminating information about the case, The Weekly Standard, a publication which can at best be described as a charged partisan in the public controversy about the case in case.

This hardly inspires much confidence.

Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

Interesting, the military is using wing-nut media pundits to 'propel the...well...you know what....

[George Gervin's Afro]

what's wrong with the Weekly Standard? Other than them being a hyper-partisan organization who attacks anyone who doesn't tow the 'we love war ' party line? :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

what's wrong with the Weekly Standard? Other than them being a hyper-partisan organization who attacks anyone who doesn't tow the 'we love war ' party line? :rolleyes
So, are you saying the Beauchamp "Baghdad Diarist" articles were fake but accurate?

Is that your position?

[Oh, Gee!!]

maybe the army's report is inaccurate.

[Yonivore]

maybe the army's report is inaccurate.
Well, unless The New Republic or Beauchamp will start naming the names of witnesses so they can be put on record, I'm sticking with the military on this one.

After all Beauchamp has already moved one of the incidents from Iraq to Kuwait and, even after that, the military investigation found the story to be false.

But, Beauchamp could clear it all up by giving us some names.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, are you saying the Beauchamp "Baghdad Diarist" articles were fake but accurate?

Is that your position?

well considering the investigation is completed and know one know's exactly what was resolved so it's hard to take a position. beachamp wasn't punished or charged with anything so i am not going to make the leap that he made stuff up. we have 2 leaked stories to 2 partisan websites that contradict eachother. unlike you yoni i don't ignore one side of a story while selectively choosing what to believe. i do find it hard to believe that the army would keep the results of the investigation secret when it would be to their benefit to admit they verified the stories were untrue. I don't know what to believe..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, unless The New Republic or Beauchamp will start naming the names of witnesses so they can be put on record, I'm sticking with the military on this one.

After all Beauchamp has already moved one of the incidents from Iraq to Kuwait and, even after that, the military investigation found the story to be false.

But, Beauchamp could clear it all up by giving us some names.


so can we have you on record as saying the military has the ultimate credibility?

[Yonivore]

so can we have you on record as saying the military has the ultimate credibility?
I can say this Beauchamp guy has been discredited on every story; by the military and by a dedicated band of military bloggers and experts that ferreted out the truth -- or, at the very least, showed where Beauchamp's stories couldn't be anything but lies.

Will you answer the question? Do you believe his stories are true? Or, are they fake but accurate (euphemism for the truthiness the left has had to adopt because they can't find real stories that support their narrative).

[George Gervin's Afro]

I can say this Beauchamp guy has been discredited on every story; by the military and by a dedicated band of military bloggers and experts that ferreted out the truth -- or, at the very least, showed where Beauchamp's stories couldn't be anything but lies.

Will you answer the question? Do you believe his stories are true? Or, are they fake but accurate (euphemism for the truthiness the left has had to adopt because they can't find real stories that support their narrative).


I can't answer yes or no. I don't blindly believe bloggers with agendas. sorry yoni. In other words Yoni I will wait until more information comes out before I believe either of the two biased news organizations.

[Yonivore]

I can't answer yes or no. I don't blindly believe bloggers with agendas. sorry yoni. In other words Yoni I will wait until more information comes out before I believe either of the two biased news organizations.
Where is the "more information" going to come from in order to satisfy you? You don't believe the military. You don't believe the only bloggers [most of whom have an extensive military background -- some in Iraq -- who know abou the specifics of Beauchamp's claims and debunked them, point-by-point] talking about it...by the way, why isn't this being discussed by the left? So, just who do you believe?

[Yonivore]

I can't answer yes or no. I don't blindly believe bloggers with agendas. sorry yoni. In other words Yoni I will wait until more information comes out before I believe either of the two biased news organizations.
And, so, if you have no opinion on the veracity of the stories, you'd just as soon attack the military and milblogs than Beauchamp.

So, why are you attacking the messengers if you have no opinion?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where is the "more information" going to come from in order to satisfy you? You don't believe the military. You don't believe the only bloggers [most of whom have an extensive military background -- some in Iraq -- who know abou the specifics of Beauchamp's claims and debunked them, point-by-point] talking about it...by the way, why isn't this being discussed by the left? So, just who do you believe?

well considering the New Republic has unidentified sources, who were invloved in the specific instances mentioned , that coraborate the orignal stories? what about that? let's assume they do have these sources? you would look like a dumb ass for sticking your neck out on something that you shouldn't have. I have no doubt that more information will be forthcoming so I will wait before I call him a liar.

[Yonivore]

well considering the New Republic has unidentified sources, who were invloved in the specific instances mentioned , that coraborate the orignal stories? what about that? let's assume they do have these sources? you would look like a dumb ass for sticking your neck out on something that you shouldn't have. I have no doubt that more information will be forthcoming so I will wait before I call him a liar.
Well, Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee has tracked down at least one of the military experts The New Republic did not identify and he claims The New Republic lied about his "corroboration."

We're waiting on TNR to respond.


When Hidden Experts Are Found

Exactly one week ago today on August 2nd, the editors of the magazine The New Republic posted A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207), in which they claimed:


All of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)
What is most interesting about the The New Republic's statement is that while they state they spoke to "dozens of people" in fact-checking their stories, they refused to cite the names of their experts, or explain their qualifications—those qualities that make them experts.

The reasoning behind that purposeful obfuscation is becoming ever more clear with each passing day.

In addition to avoiding the statements made by Army PAOs that Beauchamp's claims were "false" in their totality, and that one claim in particular was the stuff of "urban myth or legend," it appears that one of the experts cited by The New Republic's editors was not fully appraised of what TNR was trying to justify in one claim in particular.

The New Republic stated:


The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.
Once again, no sources were named. That TNR would not reveal who these sources are who was a decision many interpreted as an attempt by TNR to keep others from interviewing these same experts. In the paragraph above, TNR mentions that they spoke to a spokesman of the company that manufacturers the Bradley.

Guess what? I did, too.

Doug Coffey (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/MediaContacts/index.htm) is the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, the Bradley IFV's manufacturer that TNR wouldn't name.

He was indeed contacted by a TNR staffer, but that the questions asked by the researcher were couched in generalities.


Bob, I received your earlier email and wanted to talk to some others about the specific questions you asked. To answer your last question first, yes, I did talk to a young researcher with TNR who only asked general questions about "whether a Bradley could drive through a wall" and "if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks" and general questions about vehicle specifications.
In short, the TNR researcher did not provide the text of "Shock Troops" for Mr. Coffery to review, and only asked the vaguest possible questions. It seems rather obvious that this was not an attempt to actually verify Beauchamp's claims, but was instead designed to help The New Republic manufacturer a whitewash of an investigation.

Feeling that a little context was in order, I provided Mr. Coffey with Beauchamp's text from "Shock Troops" related to his company's Bradley IFV:


I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America—providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch.

One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all. I didn't see the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.

"So, you killed a few dogs today," I said skeptically.

"Hell yeah, I did. It's like hunting in Iraq!" he said, shaking with laughter.

"Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" I asked him.

"No," he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.
Along with the context the TNR researcher didn't provide, I'd asked a set of questions, including these:


Would a Bradley driver who "took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market," run a significant risk of damaging the vehicle's track systems? Would such actions also possibly damage the vehicle's armor? Could it have an adverse affect on other crucial vehicle components? Please elaborate as much as possible. I'd also like to ask you about the claims made by the author as he describes the process of killing three dogs using the tracks of the Bradley IFV. I recognize this is more speculative in nature, but would ask that you comment about the possibility that a Bradley's driver could "jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road."
I don't pretend to be the most mechanically-minded person, but I think that a tracked vehicle such as a Bradley turning "hard to the right" would have a right tread that is either stationary, or nearly so. Is this a correct statement?

If this is a true statement, then it seems the possibility of any animal being run over by a stationary or near stationary track is quite slim. Would you agree with that assessment?

What is the likelihood that a Bradley's track system would "drag a dog for a little while?
Mr. Coffey's response:


I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a "driver" can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.
The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.

Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn't move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.

The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.

It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander's independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can't imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.
In other words, BAE System's Head of Communications over the division than manufactures the Bradley IFV was never specifically asked to comment on the claims made in "Shock Troops" by TNR's legion of fact-checkers.

When he saw the claims made in "Shock Troops," he stated, by citing the physical properties of his company's vehicle, that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Bradley story told in "Shock Troops" to have been correct.

Once more, we have to question the accuracy and the integrity of The New Republic's editors, who ran an investigation apparently designed to provide merely cover instead of facts.
Bob Owens has similarly decimated every other ridiculous lie told by Beauchamp in his "Shock Troops" Baghdad Diarist drivel.

Add to this the fact that TNR has done damn near the same fucking thing, in the past, with a guy by the name of Stephen Glass (google it), and I think it is more than reasonable to call Beauchamp a fucking liar and The New Republic and piece of trash.

But hey, you may have different standards. I'd like to hear about them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee has tracked down at least one of the military experts The New Republic did not identify and he claims The New Republic lied about his "corroboration."

We're waiting on TNR to respond.


Bob Owens has similarly decimated every other ridiculous lie told by Beauchamp in his "Shock Troops" Baghdad Diarist drivel.

Add to this the fact that TNR has done damn near the same fucking thing, in the past, with a guy by the name of Stephen Glass (google it), and I think it is more than reasonable to call Beauchamp a fucking liar and The New Republic and piece of trash.

But hey, you may have different standards. I'd like to hear about them.


Was bob owens with beauchamp when this happened?

[Yonivore]

Was bob owens with beauchamp when this happened?
Did you read his post?

[Yonivore]

Was bob owens with beauchamp when this happened?
Oh yeah, apparently, no one with a name was with Beauchamp when this happened.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh yeah, apparently, no one with a name was with Beauchamp when this happened.


I'll asnwer for you. no he wasn't so he doesn't know if it happened or not.

[Yonivore]

I'll asnwer for you. no he wasn't so he doesn't know if it happened or not.
So, you're saying an expert on the piece of equipment Beauchamp writes about says it virtually impossible that it was used in the manner Beauchamp claims and, because he wasn't there, you'll stand by Beauchamp?

Nevermind the revelation that TNR didn't really contact Coffey in order to confirm as much as to be able to quote an unnamed expert in their whitewashing of the story.

Why didn't TNR ask the same questions as Owen? Why didn't TNR reveal to Coffey the context of how the Bradley was used so he could make a definitive statement about the veracity of Beauchamp's claims?

You're an idiot. Or, just being obstinent over the fact you've lost this argument, just like The New Republic. Nobody reasonably believe Beauchamp was telling the truth anymore...except, apparently, for you and TNR.

[Yonivore]

Oh, and another thing, Beauchamp wasn't there either. His "Shock Troop" Baghdad Diary story about the Bradley was a telling of what was said to him by, you guessed it, an unnamed private that supposedly drives Bradleys.

Does that make Beauchamp any less believable to you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, you're saying an expert on the piece of equipment Beauchamp writes about says it virtually impossible that it was used in the manner Beauchamp claims and, because he wasn't there, you'll stand by Beauchamp?

Nevermind the revelation that TNR didn't really contact Coffey in order to confirm as much as to be able to quote an unnamed expert in their whitewashing of the story.

Why didn't TNR ask the same questions as Owen? Why didn't TNR reveal to Coffey the context of how the Bradley was used so he could make a definitive statement about the veracity of Beauchamp's claims?

You're an idiot. Or, just being obstinent over the fact you've lost this argument, just like The New Republic. Nobody reasonably believe Beauchamp was telling the truth anymore...except, apparently, for you and TNR.


so you think.. :lol your opinion is just that yoni .. I guess you won the argument with yourself..congratulations.. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, and another thing, Beauchamp wasn't there either. His "Shock Troop" Baghdad Diary story about the Bradley was a telling of what was said to him by, you guessed it, an unnamed private that supposedly drives Bradleys.

Does that make Beauchamp any less believable to you?


So you believe the unnamed source for the Weekly standard.. yet not the one's who back beauchamp.. I get that... you selectively choose who to believe.. that's par for the course.. -

[Yonivore]

So you believe the unnamed source for the Weekly standard.. yet not the one's who back beauchamp.. I get that... you selectively choose who to believe.. that's par for the course.. -
I believe Bob Owen and Doug Coffey.

But, beyond who I believe is the behavior of Beauchamp and TNR. They've already moved the setting of one of the stories from Iraq to Kuwait because those who were at the Iraq location called bullshit on his story.

Add to the fact that named experts have refuted the credibility of some of the physical acts that supposed occurred with military equipment and the fact that TNR has engaged in such chicanery in the past; I think it is highly likely that both TNR and Beauchamp are fucking liars.

Hey, you believe them if you want. But, There are a whole host of named individuals, experts and members of the military -- in Iraq -- that say these stories are bullshit.

You've obviously not acquainted yourself with either the stories or the refutations so, I guess you'll stay stuck on stupid in this case.

Have fun with that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believe Bob Owen and Doug Coffey.

But, beyond who I believe is the behavior of Beauchamp and TNR. They've already moved the setting of one of the stories from Iraq to Kuwait because those who were at the Iraq location called bullshit on his story.

Add to the fact that named experts have refuted the credibility of some of the physical acts that supposed occurred with military equipment and the fact that TNR has engaged in such chicanery in the past; I think it is highly likely that both TNR and Beauchamp are fucking liars.

Hey, you believe them if you want. But, There are a whole host of named individuals, experts and members of the military -- in Iraq -- that say these stories are bullshit.

You've obviously not acquainted yourself with either the stories or the refutations so, I guess you'll stay stuck on stupid in this case.

Have fun with that.


And beauchamp got away with it... without as much as a slap on the wrist.. i guess I'll stick with the military on this one. he obviously did nothing wrong becasue he wasn't punished.

[Yonivore]

And beauchamp got away with it... without as much as a slap on the wrist.. i guess I'll stick with the military on this one. he obviously did nothing wrong becasue he wasn't punished.
Yet.

If the military determines he did not participate in any of the abuses he described in his "Shock Troops" articles, they won't court martial for those offenses. However, bringing dishonor and shame on the military -- dishonestly -- while active can carry a punishment.

I doubt that investigation is complete.