January 21, 2008
The Scott Thomas Beauchamp " Shock Troops" Military Investigation, Statements 1-6, 8-12.
Documents released by the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base Florida, in relation to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests files for documents relating to the military investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" article in The New Republic magazine.
The following are the never-before published statements of soldiers interviewed in the course of the investigation. Names are redacted per federal privacy laws.
Statement 1 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 2 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 3 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 3, Page 2 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 4 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 4, Page 2 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 5
Statement 6
Statement 6, Page 2
Statement 8
Statement 9 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 10 (click image to enlarge)
Statement 11
Statement 12
More documents follow. Check back in later.
Where have you gone New Republic, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...woo, woo, woo.
What's that you say, Andrew Sullivan, Franlin Foer's left and gone away? Hey, Hey, Hey. Hey, Hey, Hey.
Do I need to send in some more crow recipies?
Posted by: Joe at January 21, 2008 04:35 PMNext time, please increase the contrast in the images.
Posted by: ForNow at January 21, 2008 05:05 PMCY, you know, according to The Narrative, all these people have to be liars, because Scott Thomas Beauchamp simply cannot be wrong. It is imperative to The Narrative (rhyme unintentional) that Beauchamp's stories be The Trooth!
Posted by: C-C-G at January 21, 2008 07:09 PMI couldn't read them, even with the one click. Too bad I couldn't enlarge.
Posted by: Kathianne at January 21, 2008 07:37 PMI increased the brightness, decreased the contrast, converted to 256-color bmp then to 16-color bmp, then to gif, brought into googlepages and much enlarged. All very readable. But your program won't let me include the googlepages URL. http://vrwcrwdb.googlepages .com/home (remove the space between "googlepages" and ".com")
Posted by: ForNow at January 21, 2008 07:40 PMBob, do you have any guess if any of these are from Beauchamp? Which? If none of them are, is it because of the wording of the FOIA request?
Another topic: It would have been nice if they had been asked directly whether they saw a skull being worn as a hat.
Posted by: mockmook at January 21, 2008 08:44 PMMock,
I do indeed have Beauchamp's two statements, and they'll be going out in what I hope is my final post on this affair.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2008 09:15 PMAm I reading statement 4 correctly? It seems to say Beauchamp was a Bradley driver. That's odd, considering how outrageous his claims regarding the Bradley seemed. You'd think he wouldn't exaggerate the capabilities of a vehicle he knew. On the other hand, maybe he himself aimed for dogs; whether he ever hit any is another matter the Bradley driver wouldn't be able to see that (as many commenters have pointed out). Likewise everything else in the stories--perhaps they all describe his own scummy behavior, but spiced up to seem interesting, rather than merely pathetic.
Posted by: clazy at January 21, 2008 09:52 PMThanks Bob; great work.
That is an excellent teaser!!!! I can't wait :-)
Posted by: mockmook at January 21, 2008 11:02 PM...[A]ccording to The Narrative, all these people have to be liars, because Scott Thomas Beauchamp simply cannot be wrong.
Well, no. At least at the lefty sites I visit, the whole Beauchamp thing was conceded long, long ago. In fact, it was a subject of mirth that this and a few other sites kept pounding away at it as if there were some organized opposition--playing a ferocious game of tug-of-war when there was nobody pulling against them at the other end of the rope.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 22, 2008 09:18 AMDoc, please provide links to those lefty sites where they conceded that Beauchamp was wrong.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 09:42 AM
