TNR’s latest statement on its “Baghdad Diarist” has already been much discussed in the blogosphere, but there are a few points I wanted to collect and highlight here.
Begin here:
Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.
TNR presents this as though it’s a recap, which it isn’t. TNR’s July 26 statement not only does not mention that Beauchamp signed several statements, it leads the reader to believe that TNR learned of the investigation from Major Kirk Luedeke, the PAO at FOB Falcon. On August 8, Howie Kurtz’s story for the WaPo buried this nugget:
Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp “told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic,” Foer said.
So we have gone from not mentioning any statement to one statement to several statements. At this point, you can almost hear the sound of tap-dancing when Foer opens his mouth.
Moreover, TNR states that Beauchamp claims the statements were given “under what he described as pressure from the Army.”
Every blogger that has been following this story should be e-mailing their Army contacts for reaction to Beauchamp’s apparent claim of coercion. I’m sure they might like to question him about it. And I’m sure Beauchamp will be glad to see the questioners again.
Next, there is Beauchamp’s purported claim that the “statements did not contradict his articles.”ÂÂ
That seemingly conflicts with what a military source told Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard about Beauchamp recanting (which makes it all the more interesting that TNR did not report that Beauchamp stood by his story to the Army on July 26, which would have boosted Beauchamp’s credibility).ÂÂ
Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument that TNR and Beauchamp are both telling the truth on this point, it would mean that Beauchamp stood by the allegations of misconduct made in his TNR articles. Given that the Army investigation concluded the allegations were false, Beauchamp seemingly would have placed himself in much greater jeopardy by making what the investigators would have deemed to be a false statement statement.
Perhaps Beauchamp didn’t know his “buddies” were not going to back his stories? Of course, in the new TNR statement, the Editors proclaim:
we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke.
The first problem with that is that the soldiers with whom TNR supposedly spoke did not corroboarate Beauchamp’s stories in any meaningful sense, however much TNR would like to pretend otherwise. The second problem is, as noted in the link to Army Lawyer above, the punishment for lying in an Army investigation is far more severe than the punishment for lying to TNR (which is likely nothing for the non-corroborating witnesses). The third problem is that TNR’s purported “re-reporting” seems to be about as lax as its initial non-fact-checking.
But the real import of the latest TNR statement seems to be that — as I speculated before it was published  – TNR plans to blame the Army for somehow preventing TNR from doing the job it should have done in the first instance.  Bryan Preston points out the vacuousness of this tactic at HotAir, so I won’t repeat it. But there’s another whopper I will note in TNR’s developing martyrdom meme:
Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members.
There are at least three items of note here.ÂÂ
 First, another way of putting that statement might be that Beauchamp has had some of his communications privileges temporarily suspended as part of the punishment he received from the Army for falsely smearing his unit.
Second, if Beauchamp has been telling the truth all along, what does it matter that his phone calls to family members have been “closely monitored?”
Third, TNR carefully avoids mentioning who these family members are who are apparently still in contact with Beauchamp. It would be odd if those family members did not include his wife, Elspeth Reeve – a TNR reporter-researcher. Of course, if TNR had mentioned it, folks might raise the question of whether TNR really has no way of communicating with the martyred Private. Or TNR would have to claim that they have struck an arrangement to keep Reeve out of a very awkward position in this regard — which might cause more people to focus on the ethical problems raised by the Reeve-Beauchamp relationship.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 5:45 am #
Looked at another way, the damage to TNR of Beauchamp telling the truth is far greater to TNR than it would be to Beauchamp. TNR can count on the Army’s silence, but TNR needs to figure out how to get word to Scotty that he and Elspeth won’t have to worry about rent on a nice 2-bedroom in Georgetown if he’ll just keep his damn mouth shut. Put somewhat less conspiratorially, Elspeth’s value as an employee could increase substantially if Scotty plays ball.
Comment by Pablo on 8/11 @ 1:29 pm #
From an Army type lizardoid:
I’m guessing dear Elspeth will be discussing this over dinner with Scotty Galahad in relatively short order, assuming she hasn’t thrown his ass out.
tw: Act plundering
Comment by RiverC on 8/11 @ 3:17 pm #
That is, provided she isn’t dreaming of the glorious revolution, against which no demotions mean anything…
Someone else can imagine the twisted drama that ensues.
Pingback by Saturday quotidiana on 8/11 @ 5:54 pm #
[...] hot topic over there continues to be TNR’s self-serving defense of war (pre)war coarsened TNR [...]
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 6:05 pm #
TNR’s statement reflects their concerns here. The want some alone time with the Scottster. If the primary concern is confirming the story, it’s not the Scottster who can do that, they already have his take, he can only disconfirm the story.
You would think they would be more concerned with talking to the other guys, about which all they’ve said is, “His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters.” Keep in mind, only one of the anonymously corroborating soldiers evinces that he has even read the article, and he gets the title wrong (‘Shock Troopers.’)
Comment by commander0 on 8/11 @ 8:35 pm #
I’ve been following this all over the place and reading loads of comments but I have yet to see this one made; Scotty can at any time disclose exactly what statements he signed in the investigation. Exactly and fully. The Army can’t but he can. Surely there can be no privacy issue, can there, since he proudly hung his cock and balls on the wall for all to see with his diary? So, Scotty, let’s see ‘em, razor burns and all.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 8:43 pm #
What would Scotty and Elspeth have to gain by keeping quiet?
Comment by commander0 on 8/11 @ 9:20 pm #
What indeed? Any way I have found a few places since with that question. I cannot imagine either Foer or TNR surviving this.
Comment by Great Mencken's Ghost on 8/11 @ 9:41 pm #
So where is TNR’s FOIA demand for the results of the investigation? Where is TNR pressuring sympathetic Congressmen to demand the reports be released? For that matter, where are the Dem congressmen leaping to TNR’s defense and trumpeting their outrage?
Not gonna happen. Because TNR is lying through its institutional teeth and doesn’t want to be put in a position where it has to admit it’s seen contradictory information…
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 10:02 pm #
I looked up the FOIA regs – no dice there – to confirm I looked up a real-world corollary:
If these peeps couldn’t make it happen, it’s not gonna happen here. There’s some chance ELSPETH could get the records, if Scotty signed a release. Maybe he would have to not be breathing though. It’s a lawyer thing. Either way, the records are still in the field, so it would take a lot of time to go the FOIA route.
Comment by maggie katzen on 8/11 @ 10:35 pm #
happyfeet, I’m told that the only way the Army can release the records is if Beauchamp gives them permission. Although, one can guess at what happened thanks to the wee bit of info Pablo posted above.
Comment by Karl on 8/11 @ 11:08 pm #
Col. Steve Boylan tells the Weekly Standard:
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 11:15 pm #
Oh – I hadn’t caught the dates on P’s comment cause I had thought I had read that he had been demoted awhile ago. That would mean less money, no? Which would mean it would be super-cool for our Scotty if Elspeth got a raise or something. Nothing wrong if a conscientious employer wants to do what they can to help out an employee whose household is suffering cause of their editorial, um, decisions. As long as said husband continues to handle his misfortune with such, er, grace. Very quiet grace.
Comment by Karl on 8/11 @ 11:34 pm #
STB listed himself as a PFC on his blog, so it seems he’s been busted twice. From what I’ve read, he probably lost 2-4 weeks’ pay for the latest bust.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 11:39 pm #
So his regular paycheck stays the same even if he lost a rank, or is the 2-4 weeks the differential between what an E2 and an E1 make?
Comment by commander0 on 8/11 @ 11:56 pm #
Scotty “Privates on Parade” Beauchamp himself can release them. Probably nobody else. Like Kerry’s records. This is more fun than dynamiting fish in a barrel. The whole barrel blows up.
TW abuse first. Well when I wake up I have something else in mind but I like to make Scotty second. He can be my sloppy second, as it were.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/12 @ 12:22 am #
This is a comment by an AaronBBrown at tnr.com...
Interesting. If anything happens to the guy who did all he could to make the Army look very very bad, the Army will look very very bad.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/12 @ 1:40 am #
link
Comment by mojo on 8/12 @ 1:47 am #
Yo, “slick”…
Comment by maggie katzen on 8/12 @ 1:59 am #
He will be making whatever an E1 with his time in service makes. the 2-4 week loss of pay would be in addition to that… if that’s the punishment he received. RTO gave a very long winded answer to this, it depends upon who is meting out the punishment. He also noted that commanders generally tend to avoid docking a month’s pay. I may have mangled this. I tend to zone out after a while.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 8/12 @ 2:20 am #
They also tend to avoid busting in rank, especially while deployed.
That they did indicates the seriousness with which this is viewed and probably was intended as an example to others as well.
Details here. Scroll down to Article 15.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 8/12 @ 2:27 am #
Pay chart. (pdf format)
It’s about $150.00 a month.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/12 @ 2:40 am #
I’m guessing Elspeth can cover that. She might have to bag a couple lunches, but they’ll make it without, you know, compromising their dignity or anything.
Comment by The Editors on 8/12 @ 5:00 am #
Boochie, Phone home!
Comment by happyfeet on 8/12 @ 5:05 am #
Don’t do it Boochie. For the love of God, DON’T DO IT.
Comment by Pablo on 8/12 @ 10:24 am #
If he’s not talking to TNR, is he not talking to Elspeth?