Beauchamp
Posted at 8:59am on Feb. 23, 2008 The "Jamil Hussein" Maneuver Rearing It's Ugly Head
By Martin A. Knight
Here's how it works;
Liberal reporter or politician makes a multi-part claim of some atrocity or some other happening that can be be laid at the feet of the nearest Republican e.g. a soldier who is a Private by the name of John reports that his platoon regularly wore children's skulls as headgear, used armored cars to saw dogs in half all the while being forced to go out on missions/patrols without ammunition thanks to profits for Halliburton!
Conservatives and Republicans question the story because it sounds (and is) incredible. Liberal reporter/politician produce a Private whose first name is John and who once came across a grave yard where he saw some bones. They then declare themselves "vindicated" and then attempt to blow past the fact that no other person in the Private's unit or command line can verify a single one of his claims.
Ace puts it in his own distinct style here.
More below ...
Posted in Archived | Beauchamp | jamil hussein | lies | Media Bias | Obama — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:24pm on Oct. 26, 2007 Yep, I still stand by it. Yep, I could be bitten in the backside by it, but I'm not changing.
By Jeff Emanuel
TNR claims that the Army is the main bad guy in all of this (along, of course, with the Weekly Standard and Drudge, and also claims that Beauchamp contacted them without military supervision to say that actually stands by his fiction as fact after all, but is simply being forced not to say that by the Army (by the way, if that is in any part true, then Scoblus and Foer have again tried to throw him under the bus in their stead, as it's pretty obvious that STB's higher-ups are following TNR's version of the story to see what they'll say next).
TNR is pathetic. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. That's about all I have to say to and about them. As far as Beauchamp goes, I'm still 100% willing to stand by what I said yesterday, and to proceed in good faith with the belief that he is learning from his mistakes. He can easily prove me wrong, but as a young (and formerly younger) man who has made more than his share of "Oh S**t!"s, and has learned from them to become who he is today, I will give STB that benefit of the doubt, and trust that he is doing the same.
That is all.
Posted at 11:25pm on Oct. 24, 2007 The Drudge Report finishes the job of sending TNR down by the mast
Who will go down with the ship??
By Jeff Emanuel
[Update:] Hot Air has been following the drama of today's document release, including what looked like it would be a claim that the documents Drudge posted were fake. I've got some notes on that here, as well.
The Drudge Report today drove what should be the final stake in the heart of the seemingly un-killable Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair this week, publishing on its website official documents from the U.S. Army investigation of the formerly pseudonymous “Baghdad Diarist’s” claims of reprehensible behavior on the part of himself and his fellow soldiers while living and working in Iraq. Also published was the transcript of a September 6 conference call between Beauchamp and TNR’s editorial staff.
The investigation, over now for nearly three months, began on Thursday, July 26 – the same day that Beauchamp “outed” himself on The New Republic’s (TNR) website, giving his full name and unit affiliation, and stating that he stood by his stories 100%. “It's been maddening, to say the least,” he wrote, “to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. ...[M]y character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.”
Read on for more info, analysis, and links to the documents.
Posted in Beauchamp | Fake-but-Inaccurate | Know when to retire | Media | TNR | War — Comments (11)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:16pm on Oct. 24, 2007 Drudge may have pulled the Beauchamp story, but the phone transcript is real
By Jeff Emanuel
Here's simply how I know that: In the list atop the first page, call participants are listed. Foer, Scoblic, Beauchamp, etc. are up there -- the obvious participants -- and then there's a Specialist (E-4, or low-ranking enlisted man) from FOB Falcon's 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office, a little no-name by the name of Ben Washburn.
I know Ben Washburn, from my embed with the 4th IBCT's 1-4 CAV out of FOB Falcon back in April/May of this year. Nobody who hasn't worked very closely with 4th IBCT's media folks, though, would know who he is -- especially since he's the 3rd or 4th lowest-ranking guy in the PAO shop, and you'd actually have to want to know who he is (especially with regard to first name, which I always ask when around military folks -- due to my informal nature and special ops background -- but which, as most familiar with the Army know, is not something that is usually shared or used).
Posted at 7:47am on Aug. 25, 2007 THE WEEK Magazine features yours truly vs. an exceptionally insipid (I know, I know) Andrew Sullivan
By Jeff Emanuel
Charles Krauthammer, Howard Kurtz, and I (among others) were quoted in THE WEEK Magazine's "Scandal of the Week" segment this last issue. The topic? Beauchamp.
Of course, Andrew Sullivan was quoted right there with TNR's still-dug-in editorial staff, making the absurd statement (as only he can do) that, rather than refuting the Beauchamp fairy tales, the "right wing echo chamber" should "acknowledge the undeniable cases of torture and abuse by U.S. soldiers" like "the Marine massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha."
Never mind that the charges -- trumped up and inflated by instigators like Sully himself -- have been dropped left and right against the Haditha Marines. And never mind that none of those issues is the point here. As is Sully's wont, the facts are far less important than his need to dig in against the hated military and the despised "right wing."
The argument here is as inane and insipid as a Republican responding to insults of Alberto Gonzalez with the refrain, "why don't you acknowledge that Janet Reno was a man?" The lack of intellect required to make such a rebuttal is beyond juvenile, and must make one wonder why it was that any ever considered Sullivan the least bit intellectual in the past. Ever.
Of course, when you don't allow comments on your own site, you can sound as stupid as you like and be perfectly insulated within your very own one-man echo chamber. How is it in there, Sully?
Sully?
Never mind.
Posted in Beauchamp | Inanity | Liberals | TNR — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
