« Previous · Home · Next »
Defending Scott Thomas
By John
Since Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp willingly outed himself yesterday, the debate predictably changed to whether or not Private Beauchamp actually existed, not whether or not his claims were accurate.
I've had some thoughts swirling around my head...concerns really, about the stringent defense of Beauchamp on many left wing blogs. I suppose that I understand their basic desire to defend The New Republic, in the same way that right wing blogs would want to defend The Weekly Standard or the National Review. But the defense goes beyond just fighting for a much-loved magazine. It's as if certain liberals want to believe Beauchamp's allegations, even in the absence of formal investigative results from 1/18th and The New Republic.
What bothers me most about this is that there has been a grand absence of serious commentary about what Beauchamp wrote from liberal bloggers. Most of it consists of sarcasm and ad hominum attacks against conservative bloggers and milbloggers for even questioning the legitimacy of the private's diary entries.
Take the "somewhat popular blogger" Tbogg, for example. Tbogg harshly critiques Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt's questioning of the legitimacy of Beauchamp's claims of soldier-committed atrocities, while sharply criticizing Michael Yon's account of Al Qaeda in Iraq baking an Iraqi boy and "serving him" to his family, claiming that Yon's sourcing was sloppily done.
I'm not sure why Al-Qaeda gets the benefit of the doubt, where American soldiers do not. To say nothing of the fact that Yon has received bi-partisan praise for his even, professional dispatches, while Beauchamp has backed up nothing but his name and was originally published anonymously.
Further concerning is the elevation of Beauchamp as a heroic whistleblower by the same bloggers. From what I've read, Beauchamp apparently is a real American hero for exposing US soldiers for the heartless killbots that they are. I've tried to point out in more than one email that Beauchamp did not report up the proper channels so that the Army could take appropriate action, nor did he follow the traditional whistleblowing m.o. by seeking independent, outside help to bring his fellow soldiers to justice. He didn't want to do the right thing, he wanted to be published.
That makes him selfish, not a hero.
So in the same email exchanges, I've tried to explain things like this: Beauchamp either lied about his fellow soldiers, or he tolerated his fellow soldiers while they committed terrible crimes (and yes, desecrating graves and animal cruelty are crimes). That makes him unworthy of defense by anyone, left or right.
Unfortunately, it seems that once again the all-important narrative trumps facts, ethics, and common decency. Beauchamp is selling a story that certain people want to believe, and in the end, that's all that matters.
Update: Matt at Blackfive seems to feel the same way:
When the military bloggers get blamed for outing this piece of garbage, the left decides to defend a self-described war criminal.Almost unbelievable.
Yeah, almost. To be honest, nothing much surprises me anymore.
Anyway, I like Greyhawk's take. Simplicity resonates:
1. Scott Thomas Beauchamp's story is now in the hands of his superiors. They know him and his overall worth as a soldier and will decide his immediate future. If you are fortunate enough to be someone other than one of those superiors (or his wife) you are officially relieved of concern for this asshole and his future.2. In the meantime, something to bear in mind as his story is bandied about: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole. He either did what he said he did to a disfigured woman in a DFAC (which makes him an asshole) or he fabricated the story for reasons unknown (which makes him an asshole). This same methodology can be applied to his other war stories, too.
3. As for anything else he might have to say regarding past, present, or future events: nobody in their right mind cares what an asshole has to say.
4. Some people might somehow consider this a political issue. They are wrong. There are assholes in the Democrat and Republican Parties in the United States. There are probably assholes living on your street. There are assholes in the Army. Those who think no soldier could be an asshole are wrong. Those who think all soldiers are assholes are wrong. While some assholes aren't exposed prior to their military service, those who think the Army transforms good people into assholes are wrong. (Beer can do that, but that's another story.)
5. I hereby add "those with an obsessive attraction to assholes" to the list in paragraph one. By all means, if you find assholes irresistible, please continue to obsess over this particular model until the next one comes along. You won't have long to wait.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1124
Comments
Reading the commentary on other blogs, such as Ms. Althouse's and Blackfive's, the defense of Beauchamp really does seem to be strictly by rote. Perhaps this defense is more a product of venality than a serious attempt to explain away TNR's failures in it's editorial process(es).
For every Beauchamp exposed as a fraud, there are a thousand more awaiting the chance or the price to write creatively in defense of the fraud of passing pamphleteering as sober journalism.
Beauchamp is toast. At best he'll always be compared to Jayson Blair. Time to return to keeping the heat on those that enable Beauchamp and Blair. The NYT dismissed Blair and contemptuously dismissed its critics. Like the NYT in Blair's case, The New Republic will base its defense on being a 1st Amendment Martyr - shedding both the last of its credibility and the majority of its money-paying customers.
Well said John.
Consider what would happen if two frat boys openly made fun of a woman with severe facial scars in a college dining call, upsetting her to the point that she ran out?
Could it happen? Oh, absolutely. But would any respected magazine publish, without any other context, an article by one of the frat boys describing the incident in the first person? I don't think so...
Bang. On.
John, the biggest problem I see is the American people can not get their heads around this situation. But you have written a very powerful piece. I would like to focus on your last 2 sentences. Yes, when do we get back to the FACTS AND ETHICS! THIS IS FOR ALL OF OUR ELECTED LEADERS AND THEIR APPOINTEES!
Thank you,
Grumpy
Tbogg - or tboring as I call him - is an ass.
He has a hard on for Mike Yon -- uses his name to draw attention to his blog - while calling him a dead ender. And tbogg who has never uttered one word of support about anyone in the Military - now supports a lying sad agenda ridden, wanna be writer who is a sad excuse for a human being let alone a soldier, whose stories have been refuted by everyone.
Yet Mike managed to quote the name of the person who told him the story about Al Q and not once indicated it was verifiable, - but honestly admitted in light of the atrocity he has witnessed at the hands of Al Q - that the story could not be discounted.
What turdbogg fails to understand is that the devil is in the details and Scott Thomas details were wrong.And that Mike made it clear this story was unverifiable, while Pvt Beaushit insisted his BS was the truth and was verifiable. Both claims of which have never come to pass.
Ive been reading all the posts on beauchump on the milblogs.This piece of dung seems to have joined the military to get the scoop!Him and his dora the explorer could not get anything published in their civilian life,so they decided to set up the military which seems to be the norm these days.So the whole plan is based on beauchump surviving the army until he can get a tour into Iraq.They must of figured after getting to Iraq he could write what ever and she could publish through TNR..After being exposed by the milblogs and the disgusting story hitting the front page on the blogs he had to come forward.They must of figured the exposure would do them good but as we slowly see it unwind he will probably be lucky to stay out of jail or the hospital..This whole thing was premeditated and they both should be held legally accountable,freedom of speach does not give you the right to print false b/s.. A shout out to the rest of the 1/18 infantry you guys are doing a great job and keep up the good work! Semper Fi
I have to agree with Huntress. Tbogg is a dick. He's ego and sarcasm, nothing more.
I've always thought less of the blog-reading left for reading him. If that's what they're looking for in political commentary, then their opinions are about as informed and mature as a junior high schooler's.
I don't know too much about Tbogg, but he's the only blogger that I've read who actually has a problem with Mike Yon's reporting.
Which, to be honest, just tells me that Tbogg doesn't read Yon. Anyone who does knows that Mike reports the good, the bad, and the ugly without acknowledging any particular ideology.
He's a pro, Tbogg is not.
Oh, also....Tbogg is a big proponent of the chickenhawk argument. Which is similiar to wearing a sign that blasts "I'm kind of an idiot."
"I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war..." - Pvt Scott Thomas Beauchamp
Anyone who could read that statement and not be convulsing with laughter would probably have accepted a story about a uniformed woman the military writer could not ID as to branch of service or rank, or who claimed they killed dogs who apparantly did not have the life left in them to get out of the street and who found an as yet undisclosed killing field to acquire a skull. My opinion is that The New Republic was not even clever about presenting a fraud. They printed illogical garbage and did so at the risk of making fools of themselves. It has come to pass.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
I don't think that the various defenders want to get it.
It doesn't serve their narrative, their understanding (or opinion?) of the situation.