Posted on 07/26/2007 4:26:20 AM PDT by TomB
A STATEMENT FROM SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
As we've noted in this space, some have questioned details that appeared in the Diarist "Shock Troops," published under the pseudonym Scott Thomas. According to Major Kirk Luedeke, a public affairs officer at Forward Operating Base Falcon, a formal military investigation has also been launched into the incidents described in the piece.
Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we've found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.
In the meantime, the author has requested that we publish the statement below. --The Editors
I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my 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.
--Private Scott Thomas BeauchampMy Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.
Let the investigation commence...
Seems to me, Scott, that you were the one calling your comrades character into question. There's a lot of questions of your own you are going to need to answer, to a lot of people.
Something tells me he isn't the most popular person in Iraq right now.
FYI
Interesting sentence. In fact, the plausibility is being questioned by a number of people who have served in Iraq and a number who are serving there right now.
Kind of makes you think that if there had been an internet in 1970, there may not have been a Senator Kerry. Or at least he wouldn’t have gotten away with his lies. But then there wouldn’t have been a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, either. Of course, they wouldn’t have been needed.
I’m sure the Libs will hold this guy up as a “true American hero” - - - just to show their support for the troops doncha know.
I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
Wow...wonder how long it took him to come up with that 'hard to figure out who this is' pseudonym?! Sheesh....
Real clever psuedonym you picked there, bro.
What a dumbass.
Plausible: 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth, acceptability, or reliability; specious: the plausible talk of a crafty salesperson. American Heritage.
Press 1 or 2?
A more confident word would have been chosen if everyone really believed. IMO.
“I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join.”
If he didn’t want to join an “ideological battle” why did he publish this in The New Republic? Why not in the Washington Post or Washington Times?
Future Senator from Massachusetts wannabee.
Oh, really, now...
Oh, Scott, dear...it was also questioned by many who are in Iraq...military and civilian alike.
Just sayin'...
i’m anxious to see the corroboration. surprised we haven’t seen it by now.
Scottie boy you in some deep doo doo now. I thought the military prevented such posting and blogging a while back
One has to wonder what his squad-mates think of this guy...do you suppose someone like Michael Yon will ask?
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.
Pvt. Beauchamp, while I'm happy to see that you have finally done the right thing, that statement is not correct and you know it.
Many of the people questioning your accounts are currently stationed in Iraq. They are your comrades, your fellow soldiers, sailors, and Marines, and they have major problems with quite a few of the details in your stories, like the idea that the driver of a Bradley has time to suddenly swerve to hit dogs, taking his eyes off the road (or possibly snipers) and placing his entire crew at vastly increased risk of running over an IED (the #1 killer of our troops over there). Such an act would be madness, and even if a driver were so inclined, no one else would let him get away with it more than once. It would be suicide.
But not according to you. Apparently drivers have time to hit dogs, write in notebooks, watch for snipers and civilians, and avoid running over IEDs all at the same time! And of all these vital tasks, hitting dogs is the #1 priority!
Yeah. That's plausible.
And then there's the idea that an entire mess hall (the one at FOB Falcon is not large) would overhear someone mocking an IED victim and NO ONE would say anything. Do any of the other readers have any idea how many of these people would have known someone killed by an IED? Do they really think such a "joke" would be amusing to them, that it wouldn't rub someone's nerves just a bit raw?
Yes, we (and I do mean "we" - my husband is a 26 year Marine Corps active duty officer currently stationed in Iraq) do have questions. We have that right. This is America - we have freedom of speech here. If you print something, especially anonymously, you'd best be prepared to defend it vigorously. No one ever said freedom was cheap, or the right to free speech itself came without a price tag.
Other people have the right to their own freedom of expression and that includes the right to question what you have said, if it does not seem right to them. In turn, you have the right to defend what you have said. Hopefully the truth falls out of this somewhere.
It is a sometimes messy, glorious, chaotic, often undignified brawl, but this is America and you are not going to find a whole lot of sympathy by crying 'foul' when people counter your accusations by asking you to back up the inconsistencies in your stories. In fact, having said you witnessed the desecration of a grave site, it is not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you did not report this crime to your command?
Either your story was untrue and should be retracted or you witnessed a crime and allowed the perpetrators to escape punishment and possibly commit more crimes against the Iraqi people. Which is it?
That I even have to ask this question raises serious questions in my mind about your motivation in writing this whole series, because if I had witnessed such an act, I would be talking to my command and wanting to stop things like that from going on, not shoppping the story to the New Republic under a pseudonym.
But that is just me.
- #4 -- posted by tavernel@erols on 2007-07-26 07:57:20
Of course, nothing said there is true; just ask Fat Jack Murtha!
He’s in deep doo-doo with his fellow soldiers.
There will be an investigation at his unit. His NCOs and chain of command will come under scrutiny. The fellow soldiers which he BLUE FALCONED are going to be hating on him in a big way.
Not saying these fellow soldiers didn’t necessarily deserved to be BLUE FALCONED, but not in a public forum. If you have a problem, you go to your chain of command first. He essentially BLUE FALCONED his entire chain of command.
This guy deserves to be prosecuted under every UCMJ rule he might have broken. The military does not need more soldiers like this. It causes unit cohesion to fall apart.
The military DOES need soldiers to keep other soldiers from doing stupid things (these soldiers are called NCOs), but they don’t need this crap.
Ooops! I was just going to ping you, but I see you are already on the case. Good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.