Cross-posted at Confederate Yankee.
After the article "Shock Troops" in The New Republic had been challenged by critics , a documentary filmmaker/blogger by the name of JD Johannes narrowed down the search of the author to Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division on July21.
Three days after that on July 24, the military began a formal investigation, which included taking statements from soldiers in Alpha/1-18IN.
Scott Beauchamp gave his initial statement on July 26, published here for the first time.
Later, Beauchamp returned and filed another statement. For reasons as yet unexplained, he backdated the time of the second statement to 1700, an hour an 40 minutes before his original statement at 1840, and yet he directly refers to his statement made at 1840. [Update: perhaps the original statement was made at 15:40 and his penmanship is just bad? That would make a lot more sense...]

At no point during these two statements does Beauchamp directly recant.
He does not provide any support to the claims made in his article, "Shock Troops." There does not appear to ever have been any documentary evidence to support this story, nor the author's two previous stories.
Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, penned a retraction of these stories five months later. Foer has yet to issue an apology to his critics or the military he maligned during the course of this story.
Update: Thanks to Jon Ham at The John Locke Foundation for enhancing the contrast of these images.
—Bob Owens is an investigative blogger who writes at Confederate Yankee.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Absolutely outrageous that
January 22, 2008 - 13:28 ET by bigtimerAbsolutely outrageous that nothing has been done about any of this...let alone an apology from Foer or The New Republic to the military or the critics....
Don't hold your breath.
Btw...thanks for the update.
What a slimy and cowardly creature this Beauchamp must be.
January 22, 2008 - 13:34 ET by c5thenHis stories, written about his unit while he was serving on active duty, but in a pseudonym, were all lies and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Perhaps the Army needs to bring treason charges against him to make him understand what it is exactly that he has done?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Lives at risk
January 22, 2008 - 13:43 ET by dronetekThis story has definitely contributed to the danger faced by our troops everyday. Someone needs to be brought up on charges. This crap has got to end!
Cowardly?
January 22, 2008 - 13:58 ET by hawkrock60Dishonest to be sure, and his writings certainly made life a lot harder for his unit, but he did volunteer to stay with his unit in Iraq despite the hostility he may face from his comrades. Cowardly? Hardly.
Cowardly for writting a piece of fiction
January 22, 2008 - 15:31 ET by c5thenand trying to pass it off as non-fiction. Cowardly because his writting was what he wanted and expected to be the case, not what the truth actually was. Cowardly because he officially denied that any of the events in his stories actually happened, but has never appologized in public for what he wrote and therefore the accusations and slander that he has perpetrated.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
All of those offenses
January 23, 2008 - 11:50 ET by hawkrock60fall under "dishonesty," not cowardice. If you're calling him a coward, you better be able to tell us about your experiences in war zones.
I Believe...
January 22, 2008 - 14:15 ET by Wildcatter1980the first report from Beauchamp indeed preceded the second. What I did was compare the time (1840 or 1540) to the 1/18 he wrote in the Organization or Address box a little below and to the left. The digit he wrote in Time is distinctly different in appearance from the one in Organization or Address.
Just my $0.02