Or at least be forced to listen to the first few tracks of Smokin'.

Note: At the time of this writing, the TNR search feature was not returning any Beauchamp articles and appears to be related to the revamping of their website.

"The Editors" of TNR posted this statement on 10 August 2007. Besides calling a major location error in "Shock Troops" one key detail (the detail being that "the war" turned their writer into a "monster" but he was in Kuwait, before arriving in Iraq, at odds with the published story), they also give us this tidbit:

Scott Beauchamp is currently a 23-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.

Note that it was only 15 days. The thing is, nobody was keeping Private Beauchamp from contacting TNR or his family (his wife was working for TNR at the time) before his Operational Security (OPSEC) investigation began and nobody was keeping him from contacting anybody after the investigation concluded. The Private was not prevented from contacting anybody at all when this story was being investigated by The Weekly Standard and the gaping holes and Fairbanksings were being revealed. Nor was he prevented from contacting others after his most recent investigation was concluded.

Additionally, they did speak to a BAE Systems employee, as they claimed and as verified by Bob Owens. Problem is, TNR did not reveal the name of Mr. Doug Coffee, the name of the firm where he is employeed, nor their sloppy "fact checking" process. That process lacks a few basics, like giving the expert a copy of what you are verifying. Yes, if you did not know, the verifier at TNR just asked Mr. Coffee some general, leading questions and proclaimed the Shock Troops dog killing Bradley driver story complete and factual. When Mr. Bob Owens presented Mr. Coffee with the actual story, he changed his take on the possibility of Bradleys being dog and concrete smashers. TNR does not reveal any other experts questioned, but then again they did not reveal any experts at all to start with.

Enough old news, the transcript of a 6 September 2007 confrence call has surfaced. It appears to be authentic and part one can be found here, part two here. Whomever released this stuff outside of the regular Public Affairs process is in for trouble. Contrary to what Mr. Foer would like you to believe, this is NOT Army policy and PAO Major Kirk Luedeke, assigned to this issue, even told Mr. Foer so. TNR and Mr. Foer, who have had no problem at all with an publishing insider's fabrications about the antics of himself and his fellow troops, suddenly has a problem with some no-name leaking an official investigation that involves TNR. Go figure.

It really does not sound like Mr. Foer needs to be commenting on anything military, nor does he need to have any supervisory control over any articles related to the military. Actually, perhaps TNR should stay away from military articles completly and just stick with Beltway Babbling about big lofty policy.

In the transcripts we have this:

Transcript of Conversation
            Scott Thomas Beauchamp and The New Republic, 061945SEP07
Attendees: Pvt Scott Thomas Beauchamp, A/1-18 IN; Frank Foer, Editor The New Republic, Peter Scoblic, Executive Editor, The New Republic, SSG Preiszler, squad leader, Spc. Ben Washburn, 4th IBCT Public Affairs and "Gene" Lawyer for Scott Beauchamp, provided by The New Republic

(double check my typing accuracy, the .pdf I was reading was a picture not a text document)

See any commissioned officers in that header? I don't either, but Franklin Foer imagines one intimidating Private Beauchamp during the conversation, as he told Howard Kurtz shortly after the transcript and investigation were improperly released. It seems like Mr. Foer was not banking on the transcript getting out, as he never said a word about this conversation happening before it was unexpectedly released.

Of course, Mr. Foer is making a big fuss about the Army not giving TNR all sorts of documents, so that TNR can spin this story however they wish. Check the transcripts if you don't believe me. What is puzzling is how TNR had a confrence call with the Army and now expects the Army to be the only ones to provide a transcript. They could not record and transcribe this themselves? Granted, they would have missed the detail of Private Beauchamp sipping some water, but they could have included the full name of the lawyer that they retained for Private Beauchamp.

More about the transcript and Mr. Foers comments about it in a bit. Let's check something else that is important to this story.

Mr. Foer has tossed out the idea that the Army interviewed the wrong people in the Article 15-6 investigation and demands their sworn statements. He is pretty cagy about who TNR interviewed to investigate/re-report the Baghdad Diarist stories. Actually, he never has released the names of anybody interviewed other than Privat Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve. The Diarist stories are full of military violations, even serious crimes, but he does not turn over the evidence to complete an investigation into these crimes. He does not even bother to tell anybody if any of the soldiers listed in the AR 15-6 report are the ones his magazine interviewed:

CPT Eric Pribyla
SSG Skyler Preszler
PFC Tracy King
SSG Jonathan Duncan
SSG Kevin Reinhardt
PFC Brian Long
SPC Gregory Franz
PFC Randy Moon
SSG Scott Cunningham
SFC Martin Guiterrez
1LT Jamil Brown
SSG Robert Bauer
SSG Clifford Gabriel
CPT Lee Showman
SSG Jessee Martin
SSG Francis Hancock
SGT Craig McLaughlin
SPC William Whitmore
PV2 Jarrid Ilgenfriz

Every one of them signed a DA 2823. Did Mr. Foer send "Gene" the lawyer to Iraq and get sworn statements from his 'witnesses'? Not that I know of.

One portion of Shock Troops, that is somewhat refuted in the AR 15-6 report, is the inference that 'Scott Thomas' saw a Bradley running over dogs. Actually, he (or his editor) wrote that he did not see the third dog killing by the Bradley driver, implying that he saw the previous two. The 15-6 says he never saw a Bradley run over a dog. Also in Shock Troops, Private Beauchamp (or his editor) wrote that he saw his friends desecrate the remains of a child. The 15-6 says that he witnessed no such thing.

As you can see, squaring what Mr. Foer says with what is in the sworn record is going to be pretty difficult, unless you use imagenary English. So, let's try that.

Mr. Foer keeps telling anybody who will listen that Private Beauchamp has not "recanted" his stories. He tells all that Elspeth Reeve told him that PV1 Beauchamp told her that he never "recanted" and he says that the Private himself called Mr. Foer at home in a private, unrecorded, untranscribed conversation that he did not "recant". Fine, so Private Beauchamp never used the word "recant" or any of its variants in his sworn statements. He only made sworn statements that completly shreded what was printed under his name. There, happy Mr. Foer? I solved the puzzle without buying a vowel.

Back to the transcript. When (softball) interviewed by Mr. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, Mr. Foer claims that PV1 Beauchamp was under duress from the Army during the call. He fails to mention that he and his Executive Editor were bringing up the future of PV1 Beauchamp's wife at the magazine in an attempt to prevent the Private from "recanting" his stories.

Something else that was odd in the transcript, they told PV1 Beauchamp that he was not going to be able to write again after this was all over. Why would they tell him that if the Private was telling the truth the whole time? They still let Eve Fairbanks make up stories over there as an editor (the Examiner prints her fiction too). Lee Seigel is still writing and plenty of other fabricators are fully employed making up stuff more often thatn PV1 Beauchamp. Pure speculation: Perhaps they were trying to warn him to keep quiet about how his articles were edited after he submitted them?

The call happened on 6 September 2007. A couple of weeks later, on 24 September 2007 it was reported that she PV1 Beauchamp's wife was gone from TNR and had moved on to Time.

As they say, stay tuned for more!

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California lit the match on this story, saying at a congressional hearing on Tuesday that the California National Guard was "down 50 percent in terms of our National Guard equipment, because they're all in Iraq" and that that had hampered fire fighting efforts. Local officials and frustrated first responders have been quoted beefing about the federal and military response: a lack of preparation, a lack of resources, bureaucratic red tape.

The rest of that article is pretty good in its criticism of the Democrat from California too.

One thing that struck me as being total bullshit in the Senator's statement is that California has around 20,000 National Guard members. A very small amount of that is fire fighting equipment and I doubt that 50% of that is in Iraq. Does the Honerable Senator have some information that tanks and Bradleys are good for fire fighting?

I have heard of other Democrats (a Lt. Governor perhaps?) saying that the California Guard is deployed too heavily in Iraq to fight fires in CA. Without checking too hard, I found out that around 1,500 CANG are deployed OCONUS and around an equal number are in other phases of deployment or redeployment. That leaves around 17,000 CANG still sitting around waiting for something to do. I did not hear anything about the Governor having any trouble mobilizing whatever he wanted, at least not from the Governor.

Can't these folks just cut the crap?

26.10.2007 A Scott Beauchamp Update

Will make my comments after reading, in a serious break with /. protocol.

Update: Will add links to the questionable portions below.

A Scott Beauchamp Update

Since our last statement on "Shock Troops," a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article's veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army's own investigation into Beauchamp's claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6--the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: "I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything," he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted "Shock Troops."

The answer is simple: 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. 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.

Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious gaps--as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp's accounts--The New Republic decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp, particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division, to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.

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.

We have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so. But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and promise to deliver a full account of our findings.

--The Editors

Related Links:

"Shock Troops," by Scott Thomas (Beauchamp), Issue date: July 23, 2007; Post date: July 13, 2007.

A Statement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp, July 26, 2007.

A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, August 2, 2007.

A Scott Beauchamp Update, August 10, 2007.

Kill the haters so we will have less hate in the world!

1. Drudge has the Beauchamp documents and story here, better copy it before it evaporates.

2. The other day TNR revamped their website, including the 'blogs like The Plank. Old links no longer work. No idea if they are planning to fix this, but some of the evidence in the sworn statements that Drudge has are no longer at the addresses as written in the documents.

Caution: This could be a hoax on Drudge. Careful qualifications apply.

Here is what is on Drudge's site:

SHOCK DOCS: THE NEW REPUBLIC 'SHOCK TROOPS' STORY COLLAPSES
WED Oct 24 2007 12:29:44 ET

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained internal documents from the investigation of THE NEW REPUBLIC'S "Baghdad Diarist", Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private turned war correspondent who reported tales of military malfeasance from the Iraq War front.

The documents appear to expose that once the veracity of Beauchamp's diaries were called into question, and an Army investigation ensued, THE NEW REPUBLIC has failed to publicly account for publishing slanderous falsehoods about the U.S. military in a time of war.

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)

THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of "stonewalling" their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks." The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to "Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations" (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed "Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales "Completely Fabricated," Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army's official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."

The report concludes that "Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption."

Developing...

But the following come up when trying to access the documents:
404 Not Found
The requested URL '/2.pdf' was not found on this server.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

custom ha-hosting.com server v1.1

And there is this at The Corner:

Baghdad Diarist [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

We're hearing from The New Republic that the Drudge story isn't the damning evidence it suggests to be ... stay tuned.

UPDATE: An editor there e-mails: "Go to the story and click on the link that he claims is to Beauchamp's confession. It's not there. The only Beauchamp document is one were he acknowledged receiving some other memo. Nothing even close to a confession there." At the moment I can't access any of the documents that are flagged in that "Developing" story....

10/24 03:47 PM

As Matt says, Developing . . .

Aliengate: The Coverup Continues:
  More from Eric Kleefield on the burgeoning scandal that threatens to throw the entire presidential race into disarray:

Dennis Kucinich's Congressional and campaign offices have not yet denied Shirley MacLaine's claim that Kucinich "heard directions in his mind" from a UFO while visiting her home in Washington state.

"I am not commenting on that," said Natalie Laber, press secretary for the candidate's Congressional office, when asked by Election Central.

The Truth is Out There.

--Christopher Orr

Mr. Kucinich speaking to UFOs is more important to them than PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp speaking to the TNR 'mothership' on 7 September 2007?

Wal-Mart Wars [Jonathan Adler]

Long-time Corner readers may remember my run-ins with Cleveland's anti-Wal-Mart crowd. Well, they're still at it. Thankfully for Cleveland they did not have much success. Tomorrow morning ,the first Wal-Mart in Cleveland, a new "Super-Center," will open for business at the Steelyard Commons development. No local government subsidies or eminent domain was required to attract the store, which is pretty remarkable for a city that subsidizes local supermarkets and is struggling to redevelop. Nonetheless, some local busybodies opposed it. While they did not see a need, it seems many other locals disagree. The store reportedly received some 5,000 applications for 350 jobs.

10/23 02:42 PM

Has Ezra Klein been informed that there is another Wal*Mart opening in the USA? Well, Cleveland anyway.

Looking forward to his "end times" post about this one.

So, where to begin with that "Baghdad Diarist" PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp? The "square backed" 9mm rounds from Glocks, used "exclusively" by the Iraqi police forces and the associated, unfounded, murder accusations? How about the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles that bust through concrete structures and can sneak up on sleeping dogs like a cat?

How about how courageously PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp "spoke out" against the military?

No, not going to begin with those. They will come later.

I shall start with recent events and The New Republic, along with the magazine's supporters.

Here is some phrasing to get used to. You will see it a lot in the future from the folks who support TNR's latest tack on the Global War on Terror. Mattew Yglasias coughs up PV1 Beauchamp as an example of someone who did nothing wrong, but gets attacked by the Right and Ezra Klein parrots the same notion. Plenty of other squawking parrots out there, like Andrew Sullivan, but I will stick to these two for the moment.

Mr. Klein, a fellow who is under the impression that Iran is really developing nuclear weapons for national pride, no matter how many times their officials say they are developing them to destroy Israel. He seems to apply this to the PV1 Beauchamp affair in the sense that it does not matter how much of this guy's stories are discredited, or what words the Private used, the problem is with the Right for pointing it out. He seems to do that a lot, like spreading the famous Vlasic pickle demise at the hands of 'evil' Wal*Mart. Word to Ezra: I spotted Vlasic pickles at the Harris Teeter in the Potomac Yards complex on Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA a week before posting this.

Oh, another word to Mr. Klein, PV1 Beauchamp never bothered to "speak out" against "the system", the Army, the war, or the military in general until he sent a statement for TNR to publish. At least nothing about his superiors was written under his name in the Diarist stories. He and his editor strictly stuck to fabricating stories about how "bad" he and his peers were.

The Leftist notion that PV1 Beauchamp is being somehow persecuted like Winston Smith from 1984 is taken to the absurd by one Mr. Thoma and one Mr. Schwartz here: The only thing "Orwellian" about their posts is their intentional misuse of the English language to cause alarm, something that Orwell complained about on more than one occasion.

They also toss out other names in the same context. Private Jessee MacBeth is one. A basic trainee, rejected after 44 days of training, who tried to defraud the VA of benefits money by forging documents. He was also forging his own life-story by making up stories of being a Ranger who committed atrocities. Remember this phrase: "mistaken key detail." No, I have not read anybody else say that in MacBeth's case, but it is important, so remember it. Pvt. MacBeth "was mistaken on a key detail" in his VA application and memory of his war experience.

Ann Coulter has a longer list in one of her columns about phony soldiers.

Senator John F. Kerry "made a was mistaken on a key detail" when he recalled, numerous times, that he was on a secret Navy mission in Cambodia, on Christmas 1968 while Richard Nixon "the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me". That "mistaken key detail" was that Mr. Nixon was correct and Mr. Kerry was wrong.

Senator Harkin, who spoke so eloquently about things that Rush Limbaugh never said might have been making a "key detail error" too. You see, when the Left speaks of people they do not agree with there is no such thing as a "mistaken key detail," but when they say they were shooting down MIGs over Vietnam, when they never did anything close to that, it is a "a mistaken key detail." In case anybody is keeping score, President George W. Bush shot down as many Migs as Sen. Harkin, but the Senator leads the category for phonieness.

Mayor Levy, (D) of Atlantic City "was mistaken on a key detail" by claiming to have been in Army Special Forces at some time during his actual 20 years of Active Army service. Go figure. Perhaps I am not one to criticize, since I have never claimed to have been in Special Forces in my 28+ years of service.

Every one of the uniformed "mistaken on a key detail" makers noted above have something in common with each other that PV1 Beauchamp does not have in common with any of them: an editor.

Now I do have some doubts that the Private was the source of all of the inaccuracies in the stories published under his name. Perhaps Klein and Yglasias have more direct knowledge about how these stories were phonied up than the mere speculation that I have? Perhaps they are buddies with the, as for now, unnamed editor at TNR?

Yep, PV1 Beauchamp has not been quoted, taped or filmed saying any of the things that were written under his name. No notes for his stories have been released. Nobody, outside the TNR staff and official Army investigators has revealed interviewing him on the details that HE submitted for the stories. Army officials have made statements that the "Baghdad Diarist" stories were not verified at all by any member of PV1 Beauchamp's unit and that his written statements refute his stories. BUT, PV1 Beauchamp has not tossed any medals at the Capitol, nor has he sat before a camera and told his story. TNR has been doing that for him.

That brings me to the suspicion that I have and it is based on my limited experience with how information goes into TNR vs. the way it appears in print. Well, that is not limited to TNR actually, just to several stories by one of their editors in various publications. Somehow, some way, whenever a particular TNR editor gets details they get mangled into something that does not resemble where they began. This might be common over there, but I have not seen it pointed out about their other editors or reporters.

Oh, and I will say that I am convinced that PV1 Beauchamp's wife, Elspeth Reeve, had nothing to do with the finished version of the "Baghdad Diarist" series, mostly because they do not sound like her writing. I have read a few of her articles in TNR and I was brought to one, about political/social biases in the DC rooms-to-rent market because, as described by Ezra Klein, it sounded a whole lot like an Examiner story, written by a New Republic editor. I was banned from posting to Mr. Klein's 'blog for pointing this out and I am not sure how what I said constituted an accusation of plagiarism, but it happened and I am still banned from commenting there, as far as I know.

The Reeve story was behind the TNR "pay wall," so it took a while to find a free copy and it was nothing like the Examiner article. The Reeve article read true and could be verified, if only indirectly (much of the data was from Craig's List and is purged weekly). The Examiner article sounded phony. Perhaps just "mistaken on a few key details?"

The PV1 Beauchamp stories sounded like someone wrote them who was told a few things about events that may or may not have happened, but final versions were done in such a manner as to sound like a story idea was already in mind and PV1 Beauchamp's details were used to fill in the blanks and add some spice.

For example, if someone does not know jack about guns, is given the description of a square dent in the back of a spent 9mm shell I can easily see it getting twisted into "square backed" bullets. PV1: "We found shells with square dents in the primers." Editor: "Square what where?" PV1: "The primer, in the back of the shell" . . . with the detail of Glocks being used exclusively by the police being plucked out of thin air, or from some DC know-it-all.

Sort of like Shooter: "I am restoring a hydrogen powered 1972 Charger." Reporter: "You drive a hybrid?" Shooter: "NO!, okay, here, the tree huggers fall for this joke all the time, gasoline is hydrogen and carbon" . . . Print edition: Shooter told me he drives a hybrid.

Granted, PV1 Beauchamp started out behind the 8 ball anyway, stating in his own 'blog that he was only joining the Army to get street credibility for his writing. An interview with someone claiming to be an ex-faïence supports this and she certainly does not sound like a bitter woman. Also, during his short time in the Army his highest rank attained was Private First Class, pay grade E-3. He is now back at square one as a Private, E-1. He has held the ranks of Private E-1 and E-2 twice as many times as me or most other former Enlisted soldiers. He was reduced to Private E-2 some time before his identity was revealed to the Army, and the world, by TNR.

Back to the editor of these stories, if a TNR employee can take a fine New York Times article (fine articles happen there sometimes) and turn amoral cell phone thieves into victims of a mean webmaster for an Examiner story, they can certainly turn Bradley IFVs into dog killing, concrete smashing bulldozers. Somehow, I suspect that particular story started out a lot different in reality than when it was described to PV1 Beauchamp, and then fudged over in the equivalent of Room 101 with a TNR editor.

I am fully of the belief that PV1 Beauchamp did hear something over the radio and asked a crewmember about it. For all I know the reference to dog strikes could be slang for something unrelated to dogs. When PV1 Beauchamp quizzed the Bradley driver about it, out of the blue and, perhaps, clueless and awkward, the driver might have strung him along with a BS story. That was common in my day and I doubt it has changed. So, the Private wrote it all down, without telling anybody he spoke to that it was for publication, and sent it in.

The one that really stuck out from "Shock Troops", where it turns out he "was mistaken on a key detail" in location. See? I told you to remember that one, it is important now. The Editors of TNR, after their 'investigation' of the "Baghdad Diarist" stories, said that they only found that he "was mistaken on a key detail". That error, if you did not already know, was that the third, and now final, story in the series stated that the horrors of war had made the young soldiers so heartless that they had become "monsters" who could taunt a disfigured woman until she ran from a dining facility in tears. The story claimed that PV1 Beauchamp saw her "every day" at their base in Iraq. Well, the "mistaken key detail" was that the incident supposedly happened in Kuwait rather than Iraq and nobody at that base has been able to verify anybody of that description. Apparently the horrible experiences were in the form of premonitions?

Details of that story make me suspicious of an editor too. For one thing, Dining Facilities have not been called "chow halls" for decades. Well, maybe newbies still call them that if their whole view of the Army came from M*A*S*H, but I am thinking the probability is higher in an editing room. I would not be surprised if the whole thing were made up at TNR after nothing but a description of where the soldiers ate and how much turnover happened at that base was relayed to the TNR editor.

Something that made the whole thing sound phony quite early was PV1 Beauchamp describing himself changing a tire while knee deep in sewage, in a location called "Little Venice". Well, there is a "Little Venice" in the Iraq. It is called that because it has many canals! The rest of the description sounds made up, especially the part about changing an M998/HMMWV tire by himself in a street-sewer.

We do know that the TNR Editorial staff engages in full-out fabrication, all the way up to Editor-in-Chief Franklin Foer.

Mr. Foer came out shooting at The Weekly Standard and the Army, claiming that PV1 Beauchamp was being held incommunicado, when he was not, that every detail if all three stories checked out, when they obviously do not, failing to name any expert that they interviewed and failing to mention that they did indeed speak to PV1 Beauchamp on 7 September 2007. I have not seen where any information about that call was known to anybody outside of TNR, so I take the speculation that PV1 Beauchamp was given any instruction not to speak to others as nothing but speculation.

Behind the scenes, an intern at TNR was fired for "leaking" the relationship between TNR researcher/reporter Elspeth Reeve and her husband, PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp the same day that TNR itself revealed the relationship and the full name of the "Baghdad Diarist." Elspeth Reeve has now left the magazine for a position with Time.

The BAE Systems representative who spoke to TNR about the capabilities of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle was found and re-interviewed by "Confederate Yankee." Turns out that the sloppy 'verification process' at TNR failed to reveal that the Bradley maneuvers as described in "Shock Troops" were "highly unlikely." Of course, to the TNR apologists, "highly unlikely" means it probably happened just as described. Some use "evidence" that Privates move the vehicles around in the motor pool without NCOs manning the command position, which is probably true, but nothing like what was described in the article. Sounded more like a tall tale by a Bradley driver as told to a gullible Private who does not even know how to change oil while reading the manual. I also have the suspicion that since BAE is a large firm TNR was banking on the expert not being found.

I have stated online that, in my experience, dogs don't sleep in the sun on hot roads as described in "Shock Troops". Turns out that my ex-girlfriend in Illinois has one that does just that right now. Highly unlikely, but yes it is possible.

Now, let's take a different look at this and suspend disbelief for a bit, taking everything by the TNR Editors, including Mr. Foer, as fact. Well, that is impossible. Why? Because if Mr. Foer was stating facts he would not be griping at the Army for interfering in a TNR 'investigation,' he would be griping at the Army for failing to prosecute and for covering up war crimes. He would not be carping that the Army coerced PV1 Beauchamp into signing statements that "do not refute his stories," he would be complaining that his own 'reporter' is not FAXing those documents back to the DC TNR offices for publication, supporting the stories and the 'diarist.' Also, if what Mr. Foer says has any truth at all to it, he should be turning over his information to the Army for war crimes investigations and other violations.

In PV1 Beauchamp's own statement, printed at The Plank on TNR on 26 July 2007, he says that he did not want to get into this sort of a debate. This was also the point where PV1 Beauchamp decided to "speak out" against people who are not fighting in a real war, as if being a Private in Iraq gives one some sort of immunity. Oh yea, it is "absolute moreal authority." Ann Coulter gives him some advice on how better to stay under the radar. However, we do not even know if this statement is complete or if the editors have chopped it up. I doubt it is the latter, but with that magazine you never know. I will bet that everybody he spoke with, whom he knew was going to be jammed into his 'diary,' never counted on being in something like this either. Something that I am certainly familiar with from TNR.

This article deserves even more linking and I hope to come back and do that soon.
    Corrected "mess hall" to "chow hall" as written in "Shock Troops".

Back in May I had a discussion with some fellow who thought it was just horrible that "Coke pourers" at KBR and Haliburton make $100/hour in Iraq. He went on about how demoralizing it must be for soldiers to find out that people doing KP make so much more money than them, tax free. He also went on to say that he was told this by a female service member who had just returned from Iraq.

Interesting story. It would be more interesting if it were true.

While this fellow was telling me this story I pointed out a few holes in it, which was pretty easy because I had recently seen the author of "Blackwater" on C-SPAN and this fellow, through much of his story, was reciting the BS that the author was saying.

Details like contractors in Iraq being "tax free" but soldiers are not. Well, that is about as backwards as one can get that point. Just google-up the "expatriate tax exemption" and you will find that the ONLY tax that Americans working abroad are "exempt" from is income tax withholding on the first $82,400 of income earned abroad. They also must meet the "330 day rule", meaning that they must stay out of the USA for 330 days in a 365 day period to get the tax break. They do pay all other taxes, like FICA. IF they were being paid $100/hr. then they would still be paying a hefty chunk of income taxes.

Uniformed members of the military have a much larger income tax break (but not from any other taxes either) and it does not matter how long they are in the war zone. One day gets a tax-reduced whole month.

I was curious about the $100/hr. figure, because I have worked with contract labor numbers before as a Financial Analyst supporting both DISA and MDA. I am also a contractor and fully understand that my employer gets a large check for my labor and pays me salary and benefits out of that. Sorry Socialistas, the latter MUST be smaller than the former in any calculation of "fair" that one can think of.

Anyway, I asked the guy if he truly thought that soda servers were being paid $200,000/year ANYPLACE in Iraq. Of course, he backed up and said he stated $100/hr. and, of course, I pointed out that a 2000 hour work year makes that $200,000/yr. Of course, he did not back off on this article of faith, so I added some more facts. For one, I knew from having applied for a couple of Iraq and Afghanistan jobs that the work week (in EVERY instance that I encountered) was 84 hours. Usually there was a provision for 10 days of leave per quarter that did not go against your regular company leave, depending on company and contract.

So, according to this fellow, the soda servers make a whole lot more than $200,000/yr. and it is all tax free?

Instead of dismissing him I attempted to fill him in on that job I was slotted for a the beginning of the year. Much harder job to fill than pouring Cokes and, if I worked 3 man-years rather than the required 2 and change (84 hours/week), I might have made something close to what the Coke servers are supposed to make. I forgot his specific response but it had something to do with the sweet deal that Cheney gave to KBR. Yes, more fiction in support of his "faith".

About a week later I interviewed with KBR. It was kind of strange, but I will stick with the basics. The VP in charge of foreign operations used to work for the firm I was (and am still) with. He decided that I needed to be in Logistics wiht KBR and contacted the VP in charge of Logistics in Houston, TX and we did a speakerphone interview right there. The VP in VA (right down the street from my condo, same side of street even), asked me what my salary requirements were. Told him and amount plus the standard "plus-ups" for hazard/hardship/etc. For some reason he asked me what those were and I told him that they usually come in at around 75% of base wage.

Before I had walked 2 blocks Monica, a recruiter from KBR, called to set up a phone interview for that evening and it sounded good, Logistics Manager for one of the camps by the Baghdad Airport. Looked forward to it all day, even though I had just started a new job at the Pentagon that was (and still is) quite interesting and pays pretty well. Salaried position with 5 hours of "paid overtime" possible every week, all hours over that are "comp time".

When Monica called and went over all of the particulars about working for KBR, like you don't start getting paid until you start working on-site, in this case, Iraq and there is no pay check for about 2 months after training begins, etc. By the time she got through all of the salary particulars the total hourly wages were around $30.87/hour, for the position that is responsible for every load and convoy going in and out of the camp, by air, wheel or rail. About 75% lower than the bare minimum I was willing to accept. A whole lot lower than what that other fellow was saying too, so I wrote it down and kept it with me. I also declined the position.

So, the next time I saw that guy I made sure to fill him in on the reality of KBR. Not as a smartass, just letting him know that he was spreading a false rumor and here are the facts. At this point he reminds me that his information came from a woman and she said that she was told the $100/hr. by one of the Coke-pourers in Iraq. On hearing this detail for the first time (I thought the woman actually had salary information) I asked this guy why on earth he based this speech/monologue on some guy trying to impress a chick with a BS salary and walked off. Oh, and the thing was, the very beginning of the whole thing was him bringing up this BS story to try to demoralize me about a war I support.

Read in any motivation you like on his part.

Amazingly, those folks in Europe have stumbled upon a fool-proof solution to reduce combustion emmissions effortlessly. Also, it seems, that nobody in Europe has realized this.

Now, I am prepared to make this revolutionary discovery available to all, very soon, at a reasonable price (well under $1000 per kit!) for a grass-roots movement to save the planet! Canadians can save even more!

Quite simply, the answer is Standard/Imperial to Metric Conversion.

A little known fact is that when hydrocarbons are consumed in metric units, they emit far fewer pollutants and greenhouse gasses (including DHMO) than when consumed in US Standard units and even less than when consumed in Imperial units.

FACT: When gasoline is burned in Litre units, it creates 1/3.7854118 as much emmissions than if it were burned as a gallon.

Want to learn how to do this in your own vehicle? The kit will be available very soon!

ATTENTION CANADIANS: Realize greater reductions when you convert from Imperial to Metric!

Coming soon: gasoline to organic hydrogen conversion secrets revealed.

I made some updates to the meeting Mr. Hitchens JE. I am sure I will remember a few more bits later.

Funny, I thought everybody knew about fake soldiers. Seems to not be so.

Perhaps it has something to do with so many people being so unfamiliar with the military that they will believe anybody (sometimes anybody except a real soldier) saying anything about the military?

One would think that Senator Harry Reid would know better. Apparently not.

The whole thing in this flap is, well, the usual. Rush Limbaugh spoke about "phony soldiers", i.e., soldiers and civilians making up military experience. They keep getting caught and others keep following with the same stupid lies and schemes. So, certain Leftists have decided to call this "soldiers speaking out against the war". Aren't there enough real soldiers who have not lied about their records speaking out against the war? Why does the Left insist on this fiction for the proven liars in their ranks?

Apparently Senator Harry Reid can not tell the difference between honest service members and fake war heroes by sending Senator Harkin out to attack Rush Limbaugh. There must be Democrats in the Senate who have not lied about their military records, arent there?

2007

Note: Made more updates on 2 October 2007. Can't believe I left this stuff out, but we did cover a lot of ground in an hour.

It is no secret to anybody who knows me in person, or reads any of my online journals, that I am a big fan of writer and public speaker Christopher Hitchens. Other than Richard Petty, there is no public figure that I would prefer to chat with over a beer and I got my chance yesterday afternoon.

The setting was at King Street Blues, at the bar, in the Crystal City Underground around 3:00 PM. I was having a Yuengling, wearing jeans, a button-up shirt and a Richard Petty #43 ball cap waiting for the Kansas Motor Speedway Busch race to start. A fellow in jeans and an open-collar dress shirt sat down on a stool to my immediate right with an open magazine. First glance was that he was yet another person I had never met there before, but he bore a resemblance to Christopher Hitchens. Then he ordered a drink from Mike the bartender and I recognized the voice. Quickly I asked, "excuse me, Mr. Hitchens?" He replied "yes?" And I asked if he would be there for a few moments, he said yes and I added that I had to go across the street to get a book I would like him to autograph. I dashed down the hallway, which slowed to a brisk walk when my back reminded me that I am not a teenager any more.

I was trying to remember where my copy of "Why Orwell Matters" was stashed. The condo is decorated in modern twelve-year-old-boy, so everything is where it is, not exactly where I would expect or remember. Pulling out an under-bed storage tub, I was close. Found a copy of "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" next to a copy of Ann Coulter's "Slander". Searched a bit more but still no joy, so I trotted back across the street with the Kissinger book, a notebook for an autograph for my son and a Sharpie.

When I got to the bar Mr. Hitchens had stepped away and Mike asked me who the man was. I told him he was a famous author and speaker, he is on MSNBC frequently as a guest, other stuff, but Mike was not familiar with him.

When Mr. Hitchens returned I explained to him that I was looking for my copy of "Why Orwell Matters" and all I found was the Kissinger book, which I did not like quite as much as the Orwell book. He said he did not like it very much either and really did not like writing it. "Imagine having to spend months on end with a sort such as him (ed. something like that), it was dreadful." He prefers to autograph with his own pen and has a unique date notation.

"So, are you here for the conference?" he asked. "What conference, this is my neighborhood, I have a condo across the street?" I replied.

"Really? You bought these books some time ago?"

"Well, yes Sir, I have been a fan of yours for quite a few years." Forgot to mention that he was the only writer I could stand at "The Nation" when he was writing there. Anyway, this seemed to bring some surprise to him that a random fan spotted him in a neighborhood bar and already owned a book to get autographed.

Mentioned that I met Brina Lamb once and told a bit of the linked story and he nodded like he already knew how it would turn out. He did seem a bit surprized at Mr. Lamb being accompanied by a tall woman. Not sure why.

"When I was living in Reston, VA I saw you and David Reiff on C-SPAN when you were both speaking at the Miami Book Festival. After the segment was over I went strait to Barnes & Noble and got your Orwell book and one by Mr. Reiff."

CH: "Wow, you have a very good memory. What did you get of David's?"

Me: "A Bed for the Night" I think is the title.

CH: "Yes, that is quite good."

Me: "Yea, I liked the way he got all over Noam Chomsky right away." Mr. Hitchens kind of giggled at that. "I did find a copy of one of Ann Coulter's books when I was looking for your books. You guys are pals or something aren't you?"

CH: "No, but we were on the stage together for something when we were both on the same side of an issue. But, no, I don't particularly like her." So much for my good memory, lol. There were a few more like that.

Somewhere around this point I made a quip like "Who are you rooting for in this Mynmar/Burma thing?" and he covered most of the first paragraph from his Slate story, published a few days later. He also mentioned the illegality of the name change, where I asked about the particulars of changing a country name, leading to the Sri Lanka portion at the link. I finally confessed that I was just getting used to Campuchia becoming Cambodia again and my only original objection was that if one of those Beatles was for Campuchia then I was against it since the only Beatle I liked was George Harrison. He brough ought a pretty good laugh at that and we both prefer to say Burma.

CH: "Oh, well at the Crown Plaza, at the convention, they have several of my books for sale and I will be autographing at 5:30."

Me: "What convention is it?"

CH: "The Atheist's Convention."

[laughing] "OH! Okay, well I am on the opposite side of that issue from you, but that's okay. If I get a chance to stop over there I will, I doubt that I will burst into flames or anything. But there is an event at the WW II Memorial that I wanted to see at 5:30."

"Really? What is the occasion?" he asked. "I can't remember, I got an e-mail at work and it sounded interesting enough to remember, so I am going to check it out." I said.

Neither of us could remember what would be commemorated on 29 September and I had even forgotten that FDR had declared open warfare at sea with Germany on 11 September, 1941. I just tried to look it up as I write this, will have to give an update when I review my e-mail at work tomorrow.

He said he did not really like that memorial very much; sharing my impression that is has such a "cold" feel and presence.

I mentioned reason magazine, that I read frequently, and thought that they did not really like his work that much. This would be the second big "senior moment" for me. He asked if I know Nick Gillespie and he knows Nick, that he gets along great with the reason staff. Loves the magazine and he is very much libertarian, or libertarian leaning anyway. (I e-mailed an earlier version of this to Nick and he liked it too)

I must have been thinking of one or two of their writers who does not appreciate Mr. Hitchens that much, or the commentators in the 'blog, and said as much. I think that I added that I fuss with their staff about their anti-war stance and I think he gave a nod of agreement.

There was also some mention of unions, but I keep forgetting how it came up. I mentioned my position of not caring what 'club' someone joined, they just were not going to use it as a bargaining item with me as a manager, but I am not even a people manager so it really does not matter. He mentioned having a differing opinion but we took off on another tangent at that point.

Mentioning the recent defacement of the Vietnam Memorial, he turned and asked me with surprise what had happened. It was the only bit of the conversation that I detected "alarm" in his voice. "Someone squirted brake fluid across the panels."

CH: "What does that do to the marble?"

Me: "It soaks in and stains the stone. It is also very bad on paint. If you want to ruin someone's paint job, just squirt brake fluid on it and it will be ruined soon."

CH: "Who would do something like that?"

Me:"Idunno, but I saw about half of the likely suspects marching down Pennsylvania Avenue a couple of weeks ago."

CH: [I forgot exactly what he said here, but we went off on the tangent of teenage boys He told of an incident in California where Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated with Swastikas, but the little delinquents had no idea of the connotation. They just knew it would draw attention. Also, some young man who burned down an important building in the 2nd century BC because he wanted his name remembered forever.]

Me: "I am guessing it was an English or Journalism major." [trying not to reviel my inner evil grin]

CH: "Or it could be like that fellow at Virginia Tech."

Me: "Exactly! He was an English Major!"

CH: "Really?"

Me: "Oh yes, those people need to be watched!" [I think I detected a bit of a smile then when he caugh me going over-the-top]

We talked a little bit about the PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp thing at "The New Republic" and he asked what was going on with that. I filled him in about the Private being busted again, to PV1, I think for revealing his deployment dates and location on his online journal and his wife leaving TNR for Time. I also mentioned that experience I had with Eve Fairbanks, fake date and all, and that the Private Beauchamp tales sounded like they had the same editor as Fairbanks. Could not let that go without mentioning how I became a 'hybrid driver', of course ;)

I also mentioned Fairbanks's story from Yale where she said she met Mr. Hitchens at a speaking event and said he was "really drunk" as I rolled my eyes. He rolled his too and I mentioned that her using a typical Leftist slam against him should have alerted me that this reporter was up to something, but I still thought we were on a date rather than on an article interview.

Somewhere in there the french and irish infected the conversation. I mentioned the thing I said to Eve Fairbanks when she brought up the irish and I said: "You speak of them as if they were human." Then we exchanged a few irish jokes and had a good laugh.

We chatted about our sons a bit too. His is one year younger than mine and he is considering military service. He is in graduate school now. I mentioned my son's defense contracting background and desire to enter ROTC during law school to become a JAG officer. I should have mentioned that business about people saying folks like us don't "send our sons to war", even though they are too old to send to their rooms, but I do recall Mr. Hitchens writing as much around the same time I was saying it. He did say that we don't look old enough to have boys that old. That got a chuckle from me.

He ran over to the Starbucks and grabbed a short cup of something and returned, commenting on how pretty Ethiopian women are. I said: "Yea, they are hot and they stay hot even after you feed them, as opposed to so many other women." He giggled at that.

We talked about travel, he asked me if I had a passport. I did not go into the detail of how I have had one for ages because I keep thinking I am going to work overseas, but he noted that Americans have a very low rate of passport possession. I did mention that I had not yet used mine for travel, but there is so much of my own country I have not seen yet that it was not a big deal to me. He did reveal something then, that i will keep secret until he writes about it. As soon as he reveals the item I will point it out and edit this.

He also expressed admiration for George Stephanopolis for getting President Clinton to greet Salmon Rushdie at the White House. Hitchens still does not like Clinton any better than I do and he has more reason to dislike the man.

[Now, almost a week later, I add the James Carville part.] We got to Stephanopolis by my mention of having seen James Carville a couple of times in Crystal City and how he looks more lik a space creature in person than on TV. I got loud laughing agreement on that one. The Mr. Hitchens mentioned how Carville is such a big fake, but his wife seems to be such a good person. That brought us to the PV1 Beauchamp discussion about how he seems to be such a big faker and his wife, by all accounts, is the sweetest young lady in the beltway. Damn, I wish I could quote his great quip to that about great women having crappy guys at their side, but I don't remember it exactly. That also spun off into the Fairbanks discussion.

Turns out that he has seen more of my country than I have! 44 States and I forgot the other details. I don't think that I have flown over 44 States yet, much less visited that many. He did say that he might have been to Alabama riding on a bus, but never visited anyplace there. From my experience, there is not much worth visiting there. but I did mention a cool visit to a jazz bar, in the sub basement of some building in an industrial area in Birmingham.

I guess the most important issue we agreed on was the things that will be remembered from our time: the Moon landing and the Global War on Terror. The rest of the events that we keep finding important, but fleeting, will be forgotten after we are gone.

I am sure we talked about other things that I am forgetting and it was a great experience. He had to get going at 4:00 and almost forgot his shades. The whole time he was there he kept putting my beer on his check and no amount of protest on my part was going to stop him. He was having red wine. Neither of us got drunk at all, well maybe I was getting there as I had started a few drinks before he did and he knocked back a nice steak and potatoes something while we chatted. He also gave me his copy of "Secular Nation."

The race lasted longer than I expected, but a buddy of mine walked in who is also a Hitchens fan, so I had to spend two hours telling him what happened during the hour with Mr. Hitchens, plus we spent more time catching up on things as we had not seen each other in a while. I finally got home around 9:30.

I can't believe that I forgot this creepy bit. I woke up around 0345 and turned on the radio to hear some nut calling in to "Coast to Coast" or one of those other UFO/Ghost/Trilateral Commission shows who was using "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" as evidence for his crackpot theory of something I could not remember in the morning.

Karl Rove Resigning as WH Chief of Staff

That is all for now.

The MacGuffin is on The Plank.

(linking this up later, sorry)

So, since I began posting about PV2 Beauchamp on 28 July 2007 there has been a new "investigation" and "re-reporting" by The New Republic, that can only be classified as more fairbanksing. There has also been a US Army investigation, that concluded that PV2 Beauchamp's stories were false and they probably have the DD2824s to prove it.

The following US Army spokespeople have gone on record verifying that the investigation concluded that PV2 Beauchamp fabricated his stories and there was no criminal violation: Col. Steve Boylan [filling in others later] ONE was anonymously reported as saying PV2 Beauchamp recanted his stories. What the big difference between "he recanted" and "his stories are false" is, I really do not know, but apparently an anonymous comment on the investigation is enough to 'prove' the investigation 'false' when The New Republic is the one tossing about the accusations.

Speaking of 'investigations', TNR conducted one of their own. The sources involved in the investigation, including the members of their staff that re-researched every detail and the experts and witnesses that they used for verification are known as "The Editors."

The New Republic is not bound by any law to reveal who they spoke to or the details of their investigation. So, in true "look-over-there" form, they demanded that the US Army investigators turn over their information, to assist TNR verify their story, of course. Slight problem that the English majors at TNR is keeping from it's readers, the Army investigators are prohibited by law from releasing investigation details that only result in administrative action. However, there are people who can release DD2824s: The people who signed them under oath. One of those people is TNR 'Diarist' PV2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He is married to a reporter for TNR and is not prohibited from contacting her either. By-the-by, if he releases doctored copies, that is a felony violation. Releasing nothing is not a problem, just ask Senator John F. Kerry.

So, TNR does have constructive possession of the document, but they are demanding copies from the Army, who they are accusing of a "coverup," because the Army is not giving TNR copies of documents that their employee already possesses and can send to them whenever he likes. Of course that does not make any sense to you, but the Leftist on The Plank and in weblogs are eating it up. They apparently expect the Army to order PV2 Beauchamp to call home just because Franklin Foer demands it.

We do know the name of one of the experts that TNR contacted to 'verify' one tiny bit of one story: Doug Coffey. Turns out, he did not verify the story, he "verified" some disjointed questions so that TNR can claim that Bradley Fighting Vehicles do not violate the laws of physics when performing feats that would violate the good sense of any vehicle commander. However, they did not re-report it that way, they fairbanksed about it again and got caught.

Has anybody at TNR done that recently? If you were reading my Slashdot journal this time last year, yes you know they were. That is where the verb fairbanksing came from. So, TNR, how about that list of who worked on these stories and what they worked on?

The list of items that were debunked in the stories before the Army investigation include: "square backed" 9mm shells that are only used by Iraqi police, changing HMMWV tires in 2' of sewage, Bradley Fighting Vehicles cutting dogs in half, the 'horrors of war creating monsters' of young men when they are sitting in Kuwait and I am sure I missed some.

Cathy Young at Reason debunked the PV2 Beauchamp story of a kid calling himself 'James Bond' getting his tongue cut out.

Now, with all of this having transpired and reading the carefully worded statements by "The Editors" of TNR it stands to reason that the stories by 'Baghdad Diarist' PV2 Beauchamp, as edited by TNR, should be read with care too.

In the 'James Bond' passages, PV2 Beauchamp does not claim to have seen the boy with his tongue cut out, he 'heard' about it from a buddy. Same thing with the Bradley running over dogs. He claimed to hear about that on the radio and then spoke to the driver who told stories of how to run over dogs, bust through concrete walls, along with other unlikely feats. No doubt that PV2 Beauchamp was 'that know-it-all who will believe anything' and the guys liked to feed him crazy stories.

[edit: 13 AUG 07]
One of the folks who has done a lot of work on debunking The New Republic in this matter has been The Confederate Yankee, but in this case I must disagree. Although PV2 Beauchamp is being crass and tasteless, I really do think he recalling (or just making up) a tasteless joke. The 'zombie dogs' passage from "Dark of Night":

As we slowly started moving back toward the Humvee, we could hear the dogs filling in the space behind us. I turned around and saw their green eyes flashing in the deep shadow where we'd left the body. Part of me thought we should have shot the dogs or done something to keep them from eating the body, but what good would it have done? We only would have been exposing ourselves to danger longer than we needed to.
Back in the Humvee, Hernandez started talking to me without looking in my direction. "Man, I've never seen anything like that before," he said.

"What? A guy killed by a cop?" I asked.

"No, man, zombie dogs. That shit was wild," he said, laughing.

Something inside of me fought for expression and then died. He was right. What else was there to do now but laugh?

"I took his driver's license," I said.

"You did?" questioned Hernandez.

"Yeah. It said he was an organ donor."

We chuckled in the dark for a moment, and then looked out the window into the night. We didn't talk again until we were back at our base.

I don't believe for a moment that he actually took a driver's license, nor do I read that as a serious comment.

In his last article, it sounds like he decided to make up some crazy stories of his own and found one confederate to talk to his bosses back at TNR 1331 Street, NW Washington, DC. The same bosses who say that PV2 Beauchamp was pressured into signing documents (DD2824) that do not refute his published stories. Yes, puzzle that one out. Only The Editors could come up with something like that.