Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Thomas Affair - The End of the Beginning
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 1:19 PM

Finally, we have reached the end of the beginning of the “Scott Thomas” affair. Of all the sad media misadventures we’ve seen over the past four years, this one will almost surely go down as the most pathetic.

Here’s one thing we know for sure about Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He went off to war to become a writer. Earlier today, I suggested that he might be this war’s John Kerry. But from reading Beauchamp’s blog, that’s clearly not what he had in mind. As a commenter in a previous post noted, he wanted to be this war’s Oliver Stone or Anthony Swofford – a guy who emerged from his time at war as an artiste in full flower.

I must note how much Beauchamp’s blogging confessionals differ from the comments of the many soldiers I interviewed for “The 9/11 Generation.” To a man, the men I interviewed joined the Armed Forces to serve their country. Beauchamp seems more like the poster-boy for the self-esteem generation as it heads off to war. It was all about him, and his simultaneous quests for legitimacy and artist-hood.

The war-bound artiste had a decided predisposition to what kind of stories he was going to tell. Following in Swofford’s and Stone’s footsteps, he was going to document the absurdity and barbarism of war. It’s a measure of Beauchamp’s immaturity that he decided what his autobiographical story would be before he actually lived it. This is one seriously pitiable individual.

Lest you think I’m going all mushy on you in terms of appraising Beauchamp, let’s be clear – Scott Thomas Beauchamp went to war with the specific goal of ridiculing and belittling the war effort. Yes, he wore the uniform. In virtually all cases, that’s praiseworthy. But in Beauchamp’s case, he wore the uniform as a means by which to make his artistic bones; he knew that in making those artistic bones, he would undermine the efforts of his brothers in arms. In short, he went to war with the specific purpose of weakening the war effort. I doubt he ever thought it through to that extent. In spite of his pretensions to the contrary, he doesn’t seem like a deep thinker who gets off on serious introspection. Nevertheless, there are words that describe his intentions in going to war – very serious words.

These are the acts of not only a pathetic individual, but a morally obtuse one as well. I don’t need to perform a semiotics-based analysis to predict with some confidence that Scott Thomas Beauchamp will turn out to be a sorry figure, albeit an unsympathetic one.

THE REAL VILLAIN OF THE PIECE so far is The New Republic. We still don’t know how TNR and Beauchamp hooked up, but we do know that TNR enabled Beauchamp’s descent into highly publicized pathos. The stuff TNR published will greatly complicate Beauchamp’s immediate future; they’ll probably detrimentally affect the rest of his life. TNR’s role here as regards Beauchamp could be compared to a full-grown adult giving a gun to suicidal grad student.

As for what happens with TNR from this point forward, there are two possible scenarios:

1) Beauchamp’s tales are proven; or

2) Beauchamp’s tales are disproven.

Either way, as I’ve been saying all along, TNR’s conduct here is reprehensible. As regards the potential veracity of Beauchamp’s Diarists, the people at TNR knew that they had a not-particularly-reliable narrator working for them in Baghdad. Or given their rigorous fact checking procedures, they should have known. The fact that they ran his stories with minimal if any corroboration, especially in light of TNR’s recent history with stories that were too delicious to check, can’t be chalked up as a coincidence.

TNR employed as its Baghdad correspondent a guy who was there specifically to mock the war effort while he hopefully advanced his own career as a writer by doing so. Beauchamp’s champions (not that I’m aware of any) have the potential defense that he was a young man who didn’t know any better. TNR’s editors do not. They gravitated to Scott Thomas Beauchamp because he would have the “moral authority” necessary to slander the troops with impunity, a moral authority that Franklin Foer and company of course lack.

One other note: Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s life will be a smoldering ruin when this affair has run its course. His partners in crime at The New Republic will still have jobs and careers. Will they see Scott Beauchamp in their nightmares? And will they see the 160,000 honorable and noble troops that together they conspired to malign?

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.





FEATURES FEATURES

Why It's Not Important to Bring Up Wright or Ayers During the Debate

Posted by: Matt Lewis
10/15/2008

Conservatives Win In Canada

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
10/15/2008

Christopher Buckley Bows Out of National Review

Posted by: Matt Lewis
10/14/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 5 Minutes 53 Seconds Ago
Last updated 8 Minutes 43 Seconds Ago
Last updated 11 Minutes 19 Seconds Ago
Last updated 14 Minutes 11 Seconds Ago
Last updated 18 Minutes 14 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
 May 2008
 April 2008
 March 2008
 February 2008
 January 2008
 December 2007
 November 2007
 October 2007
 September 2007
 August 2007
 July 2007
 June 2007
 May 2007
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Alright people . . .
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By marcmat
Joe the Plumber
 Re: Get Back Joe, Joe
  By RASHUM
Healthcare
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Rachel
Good Pro-Life Stance John
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Paula
Obama is being held to Account!
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By seansfm
Unbelievable...
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Chris
Joe the Plumber
 Re: Joe, Joe And More Joe
  By RASHUM
Obama LIED AGAIN
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Brittney
The best comment
 Re: Get Back Joe, Joe
  By Chad the Reagan Republican
Brittney
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By John
Obam-Uh Lies
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Van
Better guidance?!?
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Patrick
Senator Government!
 Re: Presidential Debate Scorecard
  By Kathy
Yeah, it's not true
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Nick Name
Born Alive...
 Re: Presidential Debate Scorecard
  By Babinich
.............
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By The Great Satan™
Infanticide
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Michael
equal pay
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By Susan
What is Obama Talking About?
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By seansfm
Will the court stand up...
 Re: Townhall On McCain-Obama III
  By KeyDesigns

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll