At long last, The New Republic’s editors have released a statement regarding the Beauchamp affair. It is a maddening piece of work – evasive, misleading, self-pitying and deliberately distortive. By all means, read the whole thing. But do so critically and carefully. The youngsters at TNR obviously studied well the moves of politicians caught in tight binds. Below is a guide to some key points in The New Republic’s statement:

1) TNR by its own admission hired Scott Beauchamp “to provide our readers with a sense of Iraq as it is seen by the troops.” As I’ve written several times, this is The New Republic’s original sin in this matter. Scott Beauchamp didn’t give TNR’s readers a sense of Iraq as it is seen by the troops but rather a sense of Iraq as seen by a spouse of a TNR writer with an ideological axe to grind. His purported experiences, and his attitude, are far from typical. The fact that at this late date, TNR is insisting that he was a fitting tour guide of Iraq for TNR’s readership is appalling, and continues TNR’s ongoing slander of the 160,000 men and women who are serving nobly in Iraq.

2) REGARDING THE INCIDENT WITH THE DEFORMED WOMAN, WHOOPS! TNR’s editors write,

“The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.”

This “error” is especially inexplicable because “all of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication.”

TNR’s usage of the word “error” is charmingly precious. For those of you with short memories, Beauchamp wrote, “I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.” Sounds more like a lie than an error, no? I guess for TNR it’s a to-may-to/to-mah-to thing.

Besides, I thought Beauchamp was supposed to communicate to TNR’s audience of urban sophisticates what things are like in Iraq, not Kuwait.

3) REGARDING THE INCIDENT WITH THE CHILD’S SKULL – TNR writes:

“Two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: ‘I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations.’ On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: ‘It fit like a yarmulke,’ he said. A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece.”

As we learned in discussing the first incident, we have to parse the language of TNR’s editors. Forthright honesty will not be the order of the day, contrary to Andrew Sullivan’s prediction. TNR apparently has one anonymous soldier who confirms that a soldier in the unit slipped on the “skull like a yarmulke.” Forget for the moment that the curious have no way of confirming this soldier’s bona fides and just have to take TNR’s word for them. Beauchamp wrote, “The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night. Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull.” The difference between what Beauchamp reported and what the soldier in the unit allegedly confirms is the difference between a moment of foolishness and an entire day of a unit clearly out of control. Which is it?

4) THIRD VERSE, SAME AS THE SECOND – TNR stands by the dog killing Bradley story while once again hiding the ball. The editors write,

On this topic, one soldier, who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

Once again, that’s not exactly what the Beauchamp piece reported. Beauchamp reported, “I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs… (The dog’s) front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.”

This is far from what TNR confirmed with its anonymous source. Beauchamp painted the picture of a unit out of control, deliriously joy-riding in a Bradley, taking out many objects both animate and inanimate. TNR’s editors in their statement boil this down to “the incident.”

Given that this term is the product of professional writers practicing their craft with unusual care, the vagueness can’t be an accident. What “incident” exactly did the anonymous source confirm? The taking out of curbs, stands in the market, etc.? The killing of multiple dogs? Or the sawing in half of one dog?

TNR’s deliberately vague and obfuscating editorial begs the inescapable conclusion that Scott Beauchamp is a fabulist, one that the editors of TNR have inexplicably decided to stand by. TNR has clambered into its hole, and bizarrely kept digging.

BY ITS OWN FANCIFUL SCOREKEEPING, TNR got two out of three right, and I guess two of three ain’t bad by TNR’s reckoning. TNR also allows itself a little wiggle room, writing, “Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.” That’s the Army for you – clamping down on atrocities like the fascists that they are and keeping well-intentioned press allies like TNR out of the loop.

Once again, let me restate the obvious – TNR ran Scott Beauchamp’s rubbish with obviously minimal (if any) fact checking. Their purpose to do so was to provide a “Troop’s Eye” view of the war. The “troop” in question was a sociopath who mocks disfigured women and who is now a known fabulist.

Two other questions linger while we await the Army’s more definitive report on the Beauchamp Diarists: First, the Army shut down FOB Falcon for media purposes about a week ago. Why did it take TNR so long to get this little editorial out there? Did it really take an extra week to get the Bradley expert and the forensic pathologist to express their opinions? Or was the delay a means to buy time for The New Republic to determine whether it can brass its way out of this mess?

Second, TNR now admits that they hired as their man in Baghdad a liar and uncritically published at least one of his lies, a lie that slandered every decent soldier in Iraq. Does anyone at TNR feel that such a misstep is grounds for tendering a resignation?