Betsy's Page

Friday, August 10, 2007

Krauthammer on Scott Beauchamp and the New Republic

Charles Krauthammer takes up the story of the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, Scott Beauchamp. After recounting the three appalling details that Beauchamp used to characterize how the war in Iraq had made him into a callous beast, particularly the story of his cruelly mocking a woman who ad been disfigured by an IED, Krauthammer lowers the boom on the New Republic and their chosen soldier journalist as he reminds us that Beaucham and TNR have admitted now that the event of the purported cruelty to this poor woman happened in Kuwait before Beauchamp's company had even entered the war zone.
That means 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.

We will soon learn if there actually was a dog killer or a bone wearer. But The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait “detail” undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why 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,” as even Hillary Clinton, along with countless others who had actually endorsed the war, now calls it — has not only caused the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage — now made visible by the soul-searching of one brave and gifted private: It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined. Young soldiers like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.
Boom! That last line is perfect.

So why does this sorry tale matter? It matters because of why the New Republic chose to run this man's stories in the first place - their own view of what war, particularly this war has done to otherwise honorable men. And that view is a pernicious one and should be exposed to the derision that it has so fairly merited.

UPDATE: The New Republic has issued another statement today. First they say that they are still trying to research the veracity of the original stories, but say that they have been stymied by the Army's having blocked Beauchamp from communicating with the outside world and their refusal to release any of the details of their investigation. With regard to the reported recanting of his original story, they say that Beauchamp has denied this to them.
Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.
The military could clear this up if they revealed the details of their investigation. They are saying that, because this is a personnel matter, they cannot make the details public. That is probably true. It is similar to when a student makes claims about what has happened to him at school. The student can say whatever he wants but the school is blocked from revealing any personal details about that student. Perhaps, Beauchamp could give some sort of waiver to allow them to reveal their details, but I don't know if that would be enough. Or if he would be willing to have those details made public.
Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:40 AM 0 comments

Comments:

Charles Krauthammer takes up the story of the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, Scott Beauchamp. After recounting the three appalling details that Beauchamp used to characterize how the war in Iraq had made him into a callous beast, particularly the story of his cruelly mocking a woman who ad been disfigured by an IED, Krauthammer lowers the boom on the New Republic and their chosen soldier journalist as he reminds us that Beaucham and TNR have admitted now that the event of the purported cruelty to this poor woman happened in Kuwait before Beauchamp's company had even entered the war zone.

That means 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.

We will soon learn if there actually was a dog killer or a bone wearer. But The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait “detail” undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why 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,” as even Hillary Clinton, along with countless others who had actually endorsed the war, now calls it — has not only caused the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage — now made visible by the soul-searching of one brave and gifted private: It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined. Young soldiers like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.

Boom! That last line is perfect.

So why does this sorry tale matter? It matters because of why the New Republic chose to run this man's stories in the first place - their own view of what war, particularly this war has done to otherwise honorable men. And that view is a pernicious one and should be exposed to the derision that it has so fairly merited.

UPDATE: The New Republic has issued another statement today. First they say that they are still trying to research the veracity of the original stories, but say that they have been stymied by the Army's having blocked Beauchamp from communicating with the outside world and their refusal to release any of the details of their investigation. With regard to the reported recanting of his original story, they say that Beauchamp has denied this to them.

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

The military could clear this up if they revealed the details of their investigation. They are saying that, because this is a personnel matter, they cannot make the details public. That is probably true. It is similar to when a student makes claims about what has happened to him at school. The student can say whatever he wants but the school is blocked from revealing any personal details about that student. Perhaps, Beauchamp could give some sort of waiver to allow them to reveal their details, but I don't know if that would be enough. Or if he would be willing to have those details made public.

Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:40 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, August 10, 2007

Krauthammer on Scott Beauchamp and the New Republic

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, August 10, 2007 Krauthammer on Scott Beauchamp and the New Republic Charles Krauthammer takes up the story of the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, Scott Beauchamp. After recounting the three appalling details that Beauchamp used to characterize how the war in Iraq had made him into a callous beast, particularly the story of his cruelly mocking a woman who ad been disfigured by an IED, Krauthammer lowers the boom on the New Republic and their chosen soldier journalist as he reminds us that Beaucham and TNR have admitted now that the event of the purported cruelty to this poor woman happened in Kuwait before Beauchamp's company had even entered the war zone. That means 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. We will soon learn if there actually was a dog killer or a bone wearer. But The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait “detail” undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why 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,” as even Hillary Clinton, along with countless others who had actually endorsed the war, now calls it — has not only caused the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage — now made visible by the soul-searching of one brave and gifted private: It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined. Young soldiers like Scott Thomas Beauchamp. We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say. Boom! That last line is perfect. So why does this sorry tale matter? It matters because of why the New Republic chose to run this man's stories in the first place - their own view of what war, particularly this war has done to otherwise honorable men. And that view is a pernicious one and should be exposed to the derision that it has so fairly merited. UPDATE: The New Republic has issued another statement today. First they say that they are still trying to research the veracity of the original stories, but say that they have been stymied by the Army's having blocked Beauchamp from communicating with the outside world and their refusal to release any of the details of their investigation. With regard to the reported recanting of his original story, they say that Beauchamp has denied this to them. Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist. Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.) Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves. The military could clear this up if they revealed the details of their investigation. They are saying that, because this is a personnel matter, they cannot make the details public. That is probably true. It is similar to when a student makes claims about what has happened to him at school. The student can say whatever he wants but the school is blocked from revealing any personal details about that student. Perhaps, Beauchamp could give some sort of waiver to allow them to reveal their details, but I don't know if that would be enough. Or if he would be willing to have those details made public. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:40 AM 0 comments Comments: Charles Krauthammer takes up the story of the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, Scott Beauchamp. After recounting the three appalling details that Beauchamp used to characterize how the war in Iraq had made him into a callous beast, particularly the story of his cruelly mocking a woman who ad been disfigured by an IED, Krauthammer lowers the boom on the New Republic and their chosen soldier journalist as he reminds us that Beaucham and TNR have admitted now that the event of the purported cruelty to this poor woman happened in Kuwait before Beauchamp's company had even entered the war zone. That means 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. We will soon learn if there actually was a dog killer or a bone wearer. But The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait “detail” undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why 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,” as even Hillary Clinton, along with countless others who had actually endorsed the war, now calls it — has not only caused the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage — now made visible by the soul-searching of one brave and gifted private: It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined. Young soldiers like Scott Thomas Beauchamp. We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say. Boom! That last line is perfect. So why does this sorry tale matter? It matters because of why the New Republic chose to run this man's stories in the first place - their own view of what war, particularly this war has done to otherwise honorable men. And that view is a pernicious one and should be exposed to the derision that it has so fairly merited. UPDATE: The New Republic has issued another statement today. First they say that they are still trying to research the veracity of the original stories, but say that they have been stymied by the Army's having blocked Beauchamp from communicating with the outside world and their refusal to release any of the details of their investigation. With regard to the reported recanting of his original story, they say that Beauchamp has denied this to them. Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist. Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.) Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves. The military could clear this up if they revealed the details of their investigation. They are saying that, because this is a personnel matter, they cannot make the details public. That is probably true. It is similar to when a student makes claims about what has happened to him at school. The student can say whatever he wants but the school is blocked from revealing any personal details about that student. Perhaps, Beauchamp could give some sort of waiver to allow them to reveal their details, but I don't know if that would be enough. Or if he would be willing to have those details made public. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:40 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment