Charles Krauthammer has a great syndicated column (h/t: Protein Wisdom) out that sums up the New Republic Scott Thomas Beauchamp scandal quite well:
For a month, the veracity of The New Republic’s Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the Army private who has been sending dispatches from the front in Iraq, has been in dispute. His latest “Baghdad Diarist” (July 13) recounted three incidents of American soldiers engaged in acts of unusual callousness. The stories were meant to shock. And they did.
In one, the driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle amused himself by running over dogs, crippling and killing them. In another, a fellow soldier wore on his head and under his helmet a part of a child’s skull dug from a grave. The most ghastly tale, however, was about the author himself mocking a woman that he said he saw “nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.” She was horribly disfigured, half her face melted by a roadside bomb. As she sat nearby, Beauchamp said loudly, “I love chicks that have been intimate — with IEDs. It really turns me on — melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses.” As his mess hall buddy doubled over in laughter, Beauchamp continued: “In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’” The woman fled. [...]
[Trouble is,] it all happened before Beauchamp arrived in Iraq. But the whole point of that story was to demonstrate how the war had turned an otherwise sensitive soul into a monster. Indeed, in the precious, highly self-conscious literary style of an aspiring writer trying out for a New Yorker gig, Beauchamp follows the terrible tale of his cruelty to the disfigured woman by asking, “Am I a monster?” And answering with satisfaction that the very fact that he could ask this question after (the reader has been led to believe) having been so hardened and brutalized by war, shows that there is a kernel of humanity left in him.
But oh, how much was lost. In the past, you see, he was a sensitive soul with “compassion for those with disabilities.” In a particularly treacly passage, he tells us he once worked in a summer camp with disabled children and in college helped a colleague with cerebral palsy. Then this delicate compassionate youth is transformed into an unfeeling animal by war.
Except that it is now revealed that the mess hall incident happened before he even got to the war. On which point, the whole story — and the whole morality tale it was meant to suggest — collapses.
And it makes the rest of the narrative banal and uninteresting. It’s the story of a disgusting human being, a mocker of the disfigured, who then goes to Iraq, and, as such human beings are wont to do, finds the company of other such human beings who kill dogs for sport, wear the bones of dead children on their heads, and find amusement in mocking the disfigured.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A contradiction in glory
August 11, 2007 - 02:02 ET by KC MulvilleBeauchamp admits he went into the army to write about a world of dehumanized violence, and to find soldiers corrupted by it. I guess he wanted to write (as Krauthammer eloquently put it) a "New Yorker version" of the Red Badge of Courage, where war is stripped of false glory. But in his desire to write about a higher truth, he threw away the truth in front of him. He corrupted himself.
War is, unfortunately, a part of our history. It's a dangerous world, and war is a threat that never goes away. You can't wish it away, or pretend that you're "above" it. The self-adoring critic who takes a seat "above" the battle owes his seat to the soldiers who fought to give him that seat. Beauchamp wrote articles to prove he is "above" war, but he had to lie to prove it. The honor of soldiers is not that they have triumphed over violence, but that they've endured through it. Writers who lecture us about the dehumanization of war miss the humanity of the soldiers who fight it.
The worse it is...
August 11, 2007 - 02:35 ET by Army Bratthe better it is. The truth never affected the views or agendas of the MSM. Happy Trails...
}}---> Beau Sham
August 11, 2007 - 02:47 ET by Cool ArrowSo he went to war with a bunch of anecdotes already fleshed out in his head?
Remind you of anyone? What else could he do but "go MSM" on his buddies?
Surprised he didn't reach way back to Junior High to relate the story of how he made a dead baby float. . .
Why did The New Republic
August 11, 2007 - 05:42 ET by motherbeltWhy did The New Republic run it?
Because it fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the antiwar Left. The Iraq war — “George Bush’s war,” - Krauthammer
If, instead of cruelty, he had chronicled incidents of charity such as this one, I wonder if TNR would have been interested?
John Gebhardt
This is why I am glad to
August 11, 2007 - 07:53 ET by rob6677This is why I am glad to have found a great source for my Iraq news
With the exeption of a few, most "journalists" either aren't there or just recycle what the rest say.
Normally I would make the comment "If you don't have anything nice to say..." but If MSM would follow that NB wouldn't exist!
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
The New Republic? The Old
August 11, 2007 - 07:59 ET by jonathanandersonThe New Republic? The Old Liberal ... that rag-azine has been leaning Left for more than 5 years now - hell, it's fallen completely over.
Now, if you cut it up into little 4" x 4" squares, then it begins to have a practical use.
When you say "leaning left"
August 11, 2007 - 08:10 ET by rob6677I'm pretty sure there was a movie made about a "reportor" that worked there, I don't remember his name but I think the movie was titled "Shattered Glass".
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
Whatever IS is
August 11, 2007 - 10:26 ET by stratmanGood memory. Shattered Glass is about the fabrication of news by The New Republic's Associate Editor Stephen Glass. You can read more about the movie here.
From Wikipedia:
What has this lying Slick Willie of journalism been doing since being busted? Wikipedia offers this:
So he's an attorney, touts pot and lives in LaLa Land. Anyone else see the symmetry?
For a concise listing of Glass' phony articles, the response by others in the media and a list of recently exposed plagiarists and liars in the media see http://www.rickmcginnis.com/articles/Glassindex.htm.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Same old same old
August 11, 2007 - 08:10 ET by ConservativeRexI wonder if Beauchamp will learn how to pronounce Ghengis? Just askin'....
The New Republic has been in
August 11, 2007 - 10:06 ET by Del DolemonteThe New Republic has been in existence for almost 100 years. Yet it's only been in the past few years that the majority of their scandals have occured. Same with CBS News. They had maybe one scandal in 60 years, until Dan Rather's "fake yet accurate" memos came along.
It's obvious that those on the left in "journalism" have lost their collective minds. And it's all Bush's fault, of course!
I think it's a bit like the
August 11, 2007 - 16:58 ET by fitzfongI think it's a bit like the priest sex scandal. There was always an element of it in the Church. It's only recently that the volume of abuses over the years became exposed.
Media corruption has been ongoing from the beginning. It's only in the last 20 years or so that it's received enough scrutiny to bring the corruption to light.
I know there has always been
August 11, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Del DolemonteI know there has always been media corruption, as I used to be in that business myself (both newspaper and radio news). CBS News always had a biased slant, but they had never been hit with a scandal like Dan Rather's. The worst thing they ever did previous to that was to bankroll an invasion of Haiti solely to make a TV special in 1966.
Likewise, the New Republic pretty much kept themselves out of trouble until 1995.
What I am getting at is that the lefties who make up something like 90 percent of the national media had a massive brain seizure that day in December of 2000 when the Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote said Gore was the loser of the election. Ever since that day, they have lost all sanity.
...What I am getting at is
August 11, 2007 - 19:41 ET by bigtimer...What I am getting at is that the lefties who make up something like 90 percent of the national media had a massive brain seizure that day in December of 2000 when the Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote said Gore was the loser of the election. Ever since that day, they have lost all sanity.
Couldn't agree more Del.
I think there always has
August 11, 2007 - 19:44 ET by fitzfongI think there always has been a fair amount of corruption in the media, it's just easier to smoke out now.
In the tradition of Jason Blair
August 11, 2007 - 08:23 ET by c5thenApparently the left live and breath the philosophy that the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter if the article is true or a fleshed out version of a third hand annecdote, as long as it gets their message accross.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Truth Detector
August 11, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's not whether the allegations are true are not, it's the seriousness of the charges. Or, something like that. Who said that? I forget. That, this, fits the liberal agenda.
Here's the latest from the
August 11, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Del DolemonteHere's the latest from the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklysta...