BIG: Drudge Posts Transcripts of Beauchamp's Call With Franklin Foer, In Which He All But Tells Foer His Stories Are False

Drudge only is interested in alternative media stories when he himself has a piece of them, eh?

Oh well. He does some good work here.

Beauchamp declined to stand by the stories and told Foer he wanted "it to end."

And Foer knew this, obviously, and yet lied about this call ever since by failing to disclose what was said. And TNR stood by the story since then, even having been told by Beauchamp himself he would not re-affirm the stories' truthfulness.

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

...

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."

Can Anyone Cut and Copy The Transcript of Document One? I want to quote it but my Adobe reader doesn't seem to want to let me do so.

Until then, go to Beauchamp's lines on Page 2 and read TNR repeatedly say they can't continue defending the stories unless Beauchamp re-affirms the truth of them. And Beauchamp flat-out refuses to do so.

Foer and Scoblis (?) also inform Beauchamp that he can't write for the magazine anymore without such an affirmation -- and still Beauchamp refuses to re-affirm his fictions.

So, TNR decided then that Beauchamp could no longer be trusted as a reporter/"diarist" for any future writing -- but did not inform its readership of that fact, and indeed continued to claim his previous stories were true.

More: Beauchamp signed a document allowing a TNR lawyer to receive all relevant documents about his case from the Army. So TNR has had this stuff for a while.

And yet no mention of it.

Allah Asks... How Drudge got the documents.

Eh... I know but I don't think I can say. More interesting is how whoever gave the documents to Drudge got the documents from TNR.

Someone, I think, at TNR leaked these documents to a Hostile Party. The question is who. Our Man At TNR, "Throbert," was already long fired when these came into TNR's hands.

So who is it at TNR who is either so disgusted by the magazine's stonewalling -- or perhaps so covetous of Franklin Foer's soon-to-be-ended job -- that he leaked them to decidedly unfriendly hands?

That's not a teaser. I don't know that. Wish I did.

Maybe I'll ask, but I doubt I'll get the answer.

The Good Stuff: Dave at Garfield-Ridge converted this into a copiable doc for me.

Scoblic: Scott ... I’ve reviewed the reporting that Frank and Ryan did, and I’ve got to tell you- I understand why there are questions being raised about the piece. And, the one factual error that we have in the piece is fairly disturbing. And that’s the first anecdote that you recounted about the disfigured woman took place in Kuwait and not in Iraq. And I wanted to ask you how you got that wrong? Because I was listening to an NPR show the other day or the other week I guess it was and the way they put it ts, “How do you forget a country?” Let’s start there. How did it become Kuwait or rather, how did it become Iraq, rather than Kuwait?

Beauchamp: Urn I. I really should probably have said this before you began asking questioiis. I soda had an idea of things I wanted to say first. And one was- the whole reason I decided to like formally take the interviews you know, let the media know that the Army wasn’t censoring me. That I could have interviews. But at the same time, this whole thing. it’s.. .it’s.. .spun out of control and mutated into something that’s it’s just like.. .it’s not something that.. .it’s just insane. And really ridiculous. So, I sort of decided personally that I’m not really going to discuss with any media outlet at all my military experiences past, present or future. And like, that would include anything I’ve written. I’m basically saying, like, I basically want it to end. I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really. I just really...I know that...

Scoblic: (unintelligible) Are you standing by your story then?

Beauchamp: I’m not talking about it all. I’m not commenting on it at all anymore. On any of my military experiences.

Scoblic: Look, Scott- I need... We are not another media outlet. You can’t look at the New Republic which, you know, published these stories as ‘lust another set of reporters” that’s beating down your door. The editor has placed a great deal of trust in you. You know, I’ve watched this over the last month. I've been part of it myself to some extent. They’ve displayed a considerable integrity in standing by you and supporting you publicly. I know that things have been insane there, certainly with regard to this. They’ve been pretty insane here, too. And, among other things, you know, Frank has been... Frank and his reputation have been dragged through the mud. In a lot of ways, the magazi:ie’s reputation has been dragged through the mud. And, all through that, we have sort of... we have said: We are not going to throw an author overboard just because someone has raised questions. I mean, we have. ..we have defended you. And, all 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 it that way. If it’s proven to be true it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth. And so there are two things at work here, I’m saying: the one is that I think that just from the standpoint of personal responsibilty and, and... you know, respect for the respect we have shown to you, we need you to answer a few more questions. And also from the standpoint of your self-interest, if you want this to end, the way it ends is, you know, is with us at one point saying: this is what weve discovered one way or another.

Beauchamp: Well, I mean I.. appreciate that you’ve defended me and, and I know that you guys have been through a lot too and I’ve been through a lot, but at the same time, I’m still going to. - .1 don’t want any part of discussing anything with anyone anymore, really I’m sorry if it’s disappointing on a personal level, but it’s not something I want to do. I don’t want to discuss anything with anyone. And, urn- that’s basically what I’m going to be putting out. I’m not talking about it all anymore I’m concentrating purely on my job over here. Uh, and, that's it. That’s basically going to be it.

Foer: Okay- we’re going to have to discuss the implications of this of this last column. But (unintelligible) I think this raises the possibility that if you’re not able to talk about this and able to stand by your story. I’m not sure we’ll be able to stand by it. So.. -

Scoblic: I think Scott, what this is. you know, is that we’re going to have to come out to say that... because you know, you’re not going to talk to us anymore about the piece we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend it. And so the way it ends is that there’s going to be another round of stories and the story is going to be that an author lied to his editors. And they decided that they can’t trust him anymore.

Bcauchamp: Well.. A mean, I understand it could be spun that way, but it could be interpreted in any way, and it’s going to be interpreted in any way that it was going to be interpreted... I mean, that’s...that’s...

Scoblic: It’s not going to be, Scott. It’s going to be interpreted (unintelligible)

Foer: Most people think (unintelligible). . .most people have an assumption that goes against you. And the few people that. . .there are a few people view to the extent that I view only do so because of the decency to stand by you. So, if we’re not able to stand by you because you aren’t able to answer our questions, urn I think it kind of.. you wouldn’t have much credibility left in the public eye.

Bcauchanip: I really. . .1 mean, at this point I really don’t care what the public thinks. I just want to not think about this anymore and just basically do my job. And that’s all I really want to do.

Scoblic: What are you going to do after this job? Are you staying in the Army?

Beauchamp: Um, I don’t know what I want to do. Umi haven’t made up my mind yet what I want to do.

Scoblic: Ah. You’re not going to be able to write anymore after this ---you know that, right?

Beauchamp: I. . .1 mean, I don’t really care at this point. That’s not... that’s not,. .basically what I’m saying is that’s not what is important to me...

Foer; (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: What’s important to me...

Foer: (Unintelligible) You could have told us this a month ago and ah -- you know-- saved us basically a lot of heartache and pain.

Scoblic: I mean.. .that’s how we could've ended this, Scott is... I mean, what you’re saying basically is that you’ve been hiding from us for the last month, right?

Beauchamp: No. No.

Sc?blic: (Unintelligible) We’ve been told that...

Beauchamp: Whenever I talk to a public outlet it has to be officially approved.

Scoblic: (Unintelligible)

Beauchamp: I didn’t know that beforehand. And so that’s basically why...

Scoblic: Say again?

Beauchamp: Whenever I discuss anything with a media outlet, it has to be officially approved and go through the proper channels, and I wasn’t aware of that before. And so I wasn’t hiding out, I was just basically following regulations and I mean...

"Say what?" Beauchamp's obviously lying. How could he not know he has to go through "channels" when he writes for the media?

Scoblic: You (untelligible) . . .our conversation. You had been able to.

Beauchamp: What?

Foer; You said at the beginning of the conversation that the Army wasn’t censoring you.

Beauchamp: No, they’re not censoring me. lt’sj ust that you have to go through the proper channels.. - it has to be done correctly so that it’s everything’s documented. It has to be set up.

Foer: (Unintelligble) speak through official channels?

Beauchamp: What’s that?

Foer: When did you get a request to speak to me through official channels?

Beauchantp; The first time that I knew it was going to be set up. or I got the option to set it up officially was a few days ago. I heard about it that I could do interviews and they could be set up once I was contacted probably like a week or so before that even. But I didn’t know who wanted official interviews until a few days ago.

Scciblic: Scott, have you been trying to get the statements for us? [The statements he signed recanting the story -- Ace.]

Beauchamp: Um.. .actually, I haven’t been trying to do anything except my job. ..basicatly my job over here.

Scoblic: You told Ellie (TNR staff member Elspeth Reeve and Beauchamp’s wife) that you were trying to get the statements.

Beauchamp: I was going to and I talked to.. .I did talk to my lawyer. And I can still get those. I’m working on getting those. And I have one statement. Um.. .it’s basically a counseling statement from my colonel. And that’s what I have so far...

Foer: (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: I can get copies of any legal documents that pertain to me. I can get copies for me.

Scoblic: And can you share those with us?

Beauchamp: Um.. .probably.

SSG Preiszler: Yes, you can share it with them.

Beauehamp: Yeah, I can.

Scoblic: Scott, I mean we’ve been asking for those statements for weeks. And you told us you were trying to get them and you told your lawyer you were trying to get them. You told Ellie that you were trying to get them. And, now you’re saying that you haven’t tried to get them.

Beauchamp: No, I.. I was trying to get them, but it’s really hard to try and get them when you’re working 20 hours a day. Um.. And, it’s. .trying to get something done.. .time here is different from time where you are. So when I say I’m trying to get something, it could take months to get something. It’s not a matter of hours or days. And...

Not huge, but again he seems to have lied about trying to get these documents into TNR's hands.

Scoblic: Can you tell us what was in those statements?

Beauchamp: The... there were two sworn statements and urn.. since you... since you’re the magazine I was published in, I will try to get you copies of those. Um.

Foer: Okay. I (unintelligible) Basically, we need some sort of sign in good faith on your part and that would be the bare minimum at this point to prevent us from fully retracting.

Foer did not get that sign of good faith, but also didn't bother to retract at all.

Sorry for the crappiness of this conversion. I tried to edit out the bugs but there are a lot of them.

posted by Ace at 01:20 PM

| Access Comments