I’m not sure of the exact chain of events from Mr. Beauchamp’s blog, so I don’t know how it got from him typing on a blog to us discussing it, but I got the impression that he “confirmed” the story with TNR.

Mabye I’m confusing different definitions of “officially.”

If he had OFFICIALLY falsely accused someone of a crime he’d be in big trouble.

Just writing fiction doesn’t get you 10 years in Leavenworth.

If he had falsely accused someone of a crime he’d be in big trouble.

Writing fiction isn’t against the law even in the military.

“What I am saying is that propaganda is most definitely part of the war (I’m going to take for granted that this isn’t in dispute). Part of AQ’s propaganda is that US troops are committing atrocities, that they are a crusader army running amok and raping, pillaging and burning.

This (false) story by TNR plays into AQ propaganda.

Since this story plays into AQ propaganda TNR (or any other media player doing something like this) should be damn careful fact check to ensure it is true before publishing it. They weren’t and they didn’t.”

I agree 100 percent. As I said before, the MSM has gone comatose with their duties, on BOTH sides of the propaganda (again, the “yellowcake uranium” is an example of the US propaganda IMO). Its gone to “print whatever anybody tells you,” and I firmly believe that its a prime reason our country is where it is now.

“We don’t need to speculate about whether he lied or not or how we know. The proof he lied is that TNR says he retracted the part about the woman in Iraq.

His first sentence says he saw her every day at chow in Iraq. Unless you think he just made an error about what he saw and did every day in Iraq he’s a liar by TNR’s admission.

A multiple liar in his first sentence.”

Again, true. Even Mr. Beauchamp’s supporters on the Left acknowledge that the part about mocking the injured woman is not correct. Does that establish the rest of the allegations (playing with children’s skulls, running over dogs, etc.) are also false? Certainly suspect to an extreme degree, but discounted out of hand?

My concern is that the WS article (I’ve been told) says that he wrote an admission that ALL of it is a flat lie, and that seems to be what the Right Blogosphere is screaming about. To completely discount the entire narrative, for me, requires more than anonymous assurances from the Admin that nobody can verify.

As I said before, I haven’t been following the Beauchamp story, so I’m late to the party. While I have never served in the military (two deficiencies: I don’t wake up before 7am and I react violently to people giving me orders) I have several friends in, and some over in the sandpit. Statistically, when you get 100,000+ people together, you’re gonna have at least one problem child (as Haditha demonstrates). An atrocity is GOING to happen during a large, protracted war — I don’t see any possibility of avoiding it.

My concern with this story echoes Mr. Moran’s: The Right will make too much of this. The language flying about the Intertubes seems to be reaching for “Beauchamp proves any questioning of military personnel is Treason,” and thats the leap I’m worried about. As you said, if it were true, then it should be reported. As the Tillman case demonstrates, people will lie to protect themselves (thats a natural human reaction IMO, not a sign of evil). The Wingnut approach (again, IMO) seems to be
“don’t ask, don’t tell, and America keeps her virginity.” This cognitive position is too weak for our country, and will end allowing problems to occur in the future.

Decrying Beauchamp (Man, I’d love some verification on that confession) is appropriate (I hate liars) and pointing out TNR didn’t take Journalism 101 is almost a civic duty. But I don’t think logically the story can be taken anywhere beyond that (by either side).

Military question: The reports I’m seeing say that Beauchamp is being punished by taking away his cell phone and laptop, and thats it. I’m not familiar with Military Justice (I worked civilian justice for years, and I know Military Conduct rules are different), but that seems extraordinarily lenient for falsely calling your squadmates War Criminals. I assume you don’t have direct experience with Military Courts, but does this “jibe” with your experience in the service? I’d have thought at least a transfer (to the North Pole) and a rank penalty of some kind. That’s like “teenage son broke curfew” penalty.

Again, thank you for the input and opinions.

We don’t need to speculate about whether he lied or not or how we know. The proof he lied is that TNR says he retracted the part about the woman in Iraq.

His *first sentence* says he saw her every day at chow in Iraq. Unless you think he just made an error about what he saw and did *every day in Iraq* he’s a liar by TNR’s admission.

A multiple liar in his first sentence.

If people then choose to believe anything else the guy says I obviously can’t do anything more than say it isn’t true and let those folks go on about their business. But their choosing to believe a guy that admits he told (by my count) 2 lies in the first sentence of that story over a mountain of other evidence.

I’m not trying to start a flame war, but I have a serious question: if the Beauchamp story were true, would it still be propaganda to publish it?

No. It would not be propaganda if it were true. I tried to be clear and careful in my wording but obviously I wasn’t careful enough.

The original blog says (paraphrasing here) this isn’t the war, its not like we won a battle in the war, you guys are getting sidetracked’.

What I am saying is that propaganda is most definitely part of the war (I’m going to take for granted that this isn’t in dispute). Part of AQ’s propaganda is that US troops are committing atrocities, that they are a crusader army running amok and raping, pillaging and burning.

This (false) story by TNR plays into AQ propaganda.

Since this story plays into AQ propaganda TNR (or any other media player doing something like this) should be damn careful fact check to ensure it is true before publishing it. They weren’t and they didn’t.

You can speculate on what their motives were as you wish. I am trying to be generous by assigning the motive as money. I could have decided I think it is a flat, deliberate lie to perpeptuate a false narrative that the magazine believes. Frankly I doubt the only other motive I can think of, that TNR is deliberately trying to aid AQ in its propaganda effort, is true (seems pretty dumb to me).

They are careless and stupid. At BEST.

I am saying that the OB, posturing as being thoughtfully focused on the war, and saying others are sort of gleefully dancing around pointing at their new Dan Rather target, and that they are getting distracted from the war, misses the point that this propaganda is, in fact, part of the war. Refuting propaganda is legitimate, and part of the war.

Or alternatively we could all sit back and let TNR and anyone else publish all manner of BS that discredits and slanders the US military *as a group* and that some of us readily *KNOW* to be untrue - even knowing that is part of AQ’s propaganda.

For me, as an former Marine, I am willing - actually I consider it a duty of sorts - to call BS when I see people slandering the troops.

I apologize for the length.♦

“Here’s the way I read it: as “equating people who LIE about the military (and the war itself?) as being ‘pawns’ of AQ.”

I think thats my concern. “Lie” implies that TNR knew, beforehand, that the story was BS, and printed it anyway, as opposed to simply rushing in without checking facts.

I’m not saying that they did or didn’t lie, but the fact that Mr. Beauchamp’s stories may not be true does not automatically make TNR liars, only embarassingly poor journalists. The NYTimes printed the “anonymous administration source”’s story that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium. Turned out to be a lie. The source lied, sure, but did the Times lie or just fail to fact check? And is there a difference? To me, there is. Mabye there isn’t.

I’m reading your post as equating people who speak in a negative way about the military (and the war itself?) as being “pawns” (my word, not yours) of AQ.

Here’s the way I read it: as “equating people who LIE about the military (and the war itself?) as being “pawns” of AQ.”

re: the proof that he’s lying.

Is it really all coming down to the Weekly Standard claiming that an unnamed military person told them it didn’t check out? I don’t read the WS, so I haven’t seen the article, but the MSM is noting that nobody independent has, so far, verified the alleged written admission (calls to the military have been met with “no idea what you’re talking about” by several reporters), and the report is private.

Not saying Mr. Beauchamp was telling the truth, but if the proof he lied is “government said so” I’m EXTREMELY suspect.

Any Weekly Standard readers in the thread? Did they actually cite to anything except an unnamed, anonymous source?