Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

ę Sense of the Senate Vote On Cloture In Trouble?
Motion Fails: 52-44, The DREAM Is Dead
| Main | October Casualties, Coalition and Civilian, Continue to Plunge Ľ
October 24, 2007

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 ... Iíve reviewed the reporting that Frank and Ryan did, and Iíve 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 thatís 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, ďHow do you forget a country?Ē Letís 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 wasnít censoring me. That I could have interviews. But at the same time, this whole thing. itís.. .itís.. .spun out of control and mutated into something thatís itís just like.. .itís not something that.. .itís just insane. And really ridiculous. So, I sort of decided personally that Iím not really going to discuss with any media outlet at all my military experiences past, present or future. And like, that would include anything Iíve written. Iím basically saying, like, I basically want it to end. Iím 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: Iím not talking about it all. Iím 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 canít look at the New Republic which, you know, published these stories as Ďlust another set of reportersĒ thatís beating down your door. The editor has placed a great deal of trust in you. You know, Iíve watched this over the last month. I've been part of it myself to some extent. Theyíve 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. Theyíve 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:ieís 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 itís.. .if itís certain parts of the story are bullshit. then weíll end it that way. If itís proven to be true it will end that way. But itís only going to end with the truth. And so there are two things at work here, Iím 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 youíve defended me and, and I know that you guys have been through a lot too and Iíve been through a lot, but at the same time, Iím still going to. - .1 donít want any part of discussing anything with anyone anymore, really Iím sorry if itís disappointing on a personal level, but itís not something I want to do. I donít want to discuss anything with anyone. And, urn- thatís basically what Iím going to be putting out. Iím not talking about it all anymore Iím concentrating purely on my job over here. Uh, and, that's it. Thatís basically going to be it.

Foer: Okay- weíre going to have to discuss the implications of this of this last column. But (unintelligible) I think this raises the possibility that if youíre not able to talk about this and able to stand by your story. Iím not sure weíll be able to stand by it. So.. -

Scoblic: I think Scott, what this is. you know, is that weíre going to have to come out to say that... because you know, youíre not going to talk to us anymore about the piece we just canít, in good conscience, continue to defend it. And so the way it ends is that thereís 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 canít trust him anymore.

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

Scoblic: Itís not going to be, Scott. Itís 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 weíre not able to stand by you because you arenít able to answer our questions, urn I think it kind of.. you wouldnít have much credibility left in the public eye.

Bcauchanip: I really. . .1 mean, at this point I really donít care what the public thinks. I just want to not think about this anymore and just basically do my job. And thatís 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 donít know what I want to do. Umi havenít made up my mind yet what I want to do.

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

Beauchamp: I. . .1 mean, I donít really care at this point. Thatís not... thatís not,. .basically what Iím saying is thatís not what is important to me...

Foer; (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: Whatís 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.. .thatís how we could've ended this, Scott is... I mean, what youíre saying basically is that youíve been hiding from us for the last month, right?

Beauchamp: No. No.

Sc?blic: (Unintelligible) Weíve been told that...

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

Scoblic: (Unintelligible)

Beauchamp: I didnít know that beforehand. And so thatís 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 wasnít aware of that before.
And so I wasnít 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 wasnít censoring you.

Beauchamp: No, theyíre not censoring me. ltísj ust that you have to go through the proper channels.. - it has to be done correctly so that itís everythingís documented. It has to be set up.

Foer: (Unintelligble) speak through official channels?

Beauchamp: Whatís 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 didnít 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 havenít been trying to do anything except my job. ..basicatly my job over here.

Scoblic: You told Ellie (TNR staff member Elspeth Reeve and Beauchampís 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. Iím working on getting those. And I have one statement.
Um.. .itís basically a counseling statement from my colonel. And thatís 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 weíve 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 youíre saying that you havenít tried to get them.

Beauchamp: No, I.. I was trying to get them, but itís really hard to try and get them when youíre working 20 hours a day. Um.. And, itís. .trying to get something done.. .time here is different from time where you are. So when I say Iím trying to get something, it could take months to get something. Itís 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 youíre 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.

digg this
posted by Ace at 01:20 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Thomas Bender: "There are two morals to the story... Moral 1: W ..."

Commissar Hrothgar (hOUT3) ~ [b]This[/b] year in Corsicana - [i]again[/i]! ~ [/i][/b][/u][/s]: "[i]But the people holding his strings aren't stupi ..."

JackStraw: ">>That is my fear as well. The Idiots In Charge do ..."

Anna Puma: "Joey didn't promise enough bomb belts in each cook ..."

Commissar Hrothgar (hOUT3) ~ [b]This[/b] year in Corsicana - [i]again[/i]! ~ [/i][/b][/u][/s]: "[i]But I fear bigger things are coming. The number ..."

JackStraw: ">>JackStraw @ 294- What level of hell do these t ..."

NaCly Dog: "Have a great night, everyone. May you all thriv ..."

Alizarin Crimson: "80,000 miles are worth about $1400. Do the mat ..."

[/i][/b]andycanuck (2yu8s)[/s][/u]: "There's no such thing as a Biden rally... Posted ..."

NaCly Dog: "Anna Puma That would be a great Rant. Wedding ..."

Angzarr the Cromulent: "That Babylon Bee story about Mr. P. and Mr. Z. at ..."

mnw: ""Uncommitted" is getting 15% in the MI DEM primary ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64