UPDATED: Lies to hurt the military
Updated.
What the heck is going on here? The New Republic responds by saying:
Someone explain to me what's going on here? Is this more of the dangers of the internet? A TNR's blog has posted something that is false just because they can? Or is USA Today lying? Or ... is Maj. Lamb telling two stories to two different publications?
Or is TNR knowingly misrepresentating an innocuous statement to meet their agenda? Such garbage.
I don't know if you've heard about this story.
The New Republic published three articles by Scott Thomas, a psuedonym. He was also known as the "Baghdad Diarist." His credentials were listed as a freelance writer and soldier serving in Baghdad.
He told horrible stories. Including this HERE about him and his fellow troops humiliating a wounded female contractor, who had severe burns from some attack. The link above is only to a few paragraphs of the story, as you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing.
His other stories included troops descemating a mass grave and wearing the bones of children around their heads for periods of time.
Awful, awful stories.
If they are true, they needed to be investigated heavily. And they were. The military came back and said that they found no corroborating evidence. They discovered that his story had gaping holes in them ... like the actual base he was at at the time of the "burn victim" story. His story said he was in Iraq at the time, when the description he provided didn't allow for such a thing. Burn victims would not have been kept at this base. So either he made it up, or the horrible incident happened in Kuwait, prior to his even arriving. Which would change things only a little ... it would mean he was an SOB before he arrived in Iraq, not after.
Which ruins his whole premise. He contends that these stories of horror are what young men do after being exposed to war. I'm not going to stand here and say these bad things don't happen. If they do, they need to be investigated, stopped, and the men that committed the acts taken out of the conflict and discharged with medical treatment.
But if these things did not happen, as it now appears that they did not, and that Scott Thomas (now known to be Scott Beauchamp) was writing fiction in order to fit his agenda (and the agenda of The New Republic) well than that's just awful.
While our military is not full of angels that do no wrong ... there are a great number of them that live to the letter of the law and treat others with respect. They take their jobs seriously, understand the consequences, and have a somber outlook on the things they have seen.
All military men do not come home from battle and beat their wives. All military men do not rape women while at war.
But these stories that Scott told helped perpetuate that stereotype. He put his fellow soldiers at risk, put himself at risk, and hurt so many people.
I know that bad things happen, and it's awful. Good people do bad things some times. And they should be punished. But what Scott did was tell horrible stories that have been proven false ... but there will be some that say ... "It's just a cover up, I bet those things really happened." Because in their mind, the military is full of baby killers and murderers, with no redeeming value.
He signed a statement admitting his stories were false ... but that won't be enough. The damage is done. At the same time he signed the statement, the National Review was touting his sincerity and honesty. He signed a piece of paper for TNR swearing the stories were true.
The truth is lost now, because Scott Beauchamp is duplicitious. Which "sworn statement" is the truth? It doesn't matter. Those who want to believe him will say the military coerced him into signing. Those who do not want to believe him will say he lied to TNR and told the truth when his superiors came down on him. And they are already saying his sworn statement to his superiors was "under oath," and the other was not. As I said ... the truth is lost.
And the only ones who will suffer are the innocents who's reputation he has so willingly tarnished. He has allowed himself to become part of the machine to slander the military. He will be standing next to Cindy Sheehan at her next photo op.
What the heck is going on here? The New Republic responds by saying:
We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that ScottBut the same source is quoted in USAToday:
Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."
This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation
is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Maj. Steven Lamb,
a spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad, says in an e-mail to On
Deadline. "Anything that may or may not happen from his actions are personnel
related and we don't share that publicly."
Someone explain to me what's going on here? Is this more of the dangers of the internet? A TNR's blog has posted something that is false just because they can? Or is USA Today lying? Or ... is Maj. Lamb telling two stories to two different publications?
Or is TNR knowingly misrepresentating an innocuous statement to meet their agenda? Such garbage.
I don't know if you've heard about this story.
The New Republic published three articles by Scott Thomas, a psuedonym. He was also known as the "Baghdad Diarist." His credentials were listed as a freelance writer and soldier serving in Baghdad.
He told horrible stories. Including this HERE about him and his fellow troops humiliating a wounded female contractor, who had severe burns from some attack. The link above is only to a few paragraphs of the story, as you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing.
His other stories included troops descemating a mass grave and wearing the bones of children around their heads for periods of time.
Awful, awful stories.
If they are true, they needed to be investigated heavily. And they were. The military came back and said that they found no corroborating evidence. They discovered that his story had gaping holes in them ... like the actual base he was at at the time of the "burn victim" story. His story said he was in Iraq at the time, when the description he provided didn't allow for such a thing. Burn victims would not have been kept at this base. So either he made it up, or the horrible incident happened in Kuwait, prior to his even arriving. Which would change things only a little ... it would mean he was an SOB before he arrived in Iraq, not after.
Which ruins his whole premise. He contends that these stories of horror are what young men do after being exposed to war. I'm not going to stand here and say these bad things don't happen. If they do, they need to be investigated, stopped, and the men that committed the acts taken out of the conflict and discharged with medical treatment.
But if these things did not happen, as it now appears that they did not, and that Scott Thomas (now known to be Scott Beauchamp) was writing fiction in order to fit his agenda (and the agenda of The New Republic) well than that's just awful.
While our military is not full of angels that do no wrong ... there are a great number of them that live to the letter of the law and treat others with respect. They take their jobs seriously, understand the consequences, and have a somber outlook on the things they have seen.
All military men do not come home from battle and beat their wives. All military men do not rape women while at war.
But these stories that Scott told helped perpetuate that stereotype. He put his fellow soldiers at risk, put himself at risk, and hurt so many people.
I know that bad things happen, and it's awful. Good people do bad things some times. And they should be punished. But what Scott did was tell horrible stories that have been proven false ... but there will be some that say ... "It's just a cover up, I bet those things really happened." Because in their mind, the military is full of baby killers and murderers, with no redeeming value.
He signed a statement admitting his stories were false ... but that won't be enough. The damage is done. At the same time he signed the statement, the National Review was touting his sincerity and honesty. He signed a piece of paper for TNR swearing the stories were true.
The truth is lost now, because Scott Beauchamp is duplicitious. Which "sworn statement" is the truth? It doesn't matter. Those who want to believe him will say the military coerced him into signing. Those who do not want to believe him will say he lied to TNR and told the truth when his superiors came down on him. And they are already saying his sworn statement to his superiors was "under oath," and the other was not. As I said ... the truth is lost.
And the only ones who will suffer are the innocents who's reputation he has so willingly tarnished. He has allowed himself to become part of the machine to slander the military. He will be standing next to Cindy Sheehan at her next photo op.
Comments