Michelle Malkin » Beauchamp Chronicles: Keeping the vacationing New Republic editors up to date

Beauchamp Chronicles: Keeping the vacationing New Republic editors up to date

By Michelle Malkin • August 9, 2007 03:42 PM

Matt Sanchez interviews a soldier about driving HUMVEEs and Bradleys into dogs. Watch the video:

Bob Owens talked to Doug Coffey, the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, the Bradley IFV’s manufacturer that TNR wouldn’t name. You won’t read this in the MSM..and certainly not in TNR:

Bob, I received your earlier email and wanted to talk to some others about the specific questions you asked. To answer your last question first, yes, I did talk to a young researcher with TNR who only asked general questions about “whether a Bradley could drive through a wall” and “if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks” and general questions about vehicle specifications…

…I can’t pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a “driver” can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.

The driver’s vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to “suddenly swerve to the right” and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.

Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn’t move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.

The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.

It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander’s independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can’t imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.

Read the whole thing.

Ace wonders why TNR wouldn’t identify Coffey:

How the Bradley can “lurch” to the side and yet maintain enough forward speed to catch a dog in its tracks isn’t really clear.

But what’s more damning is this: There was absolutely no reason I can see for TNR not to have offered the name of its expert here.

Coffery seems to have no reservations about Confederate Yankee using his name; are we to believe he for some reason wouldn’t permit TNR to use his name but allows a blogger to do so?

So why was this expert’s name withheld from the public? He’s not serving in Iraq. He’s not forbidden by military codes to make unauthorized statements while in the field. He has no superior officers to chew him out.

What reason, then? When a claiming corroboration on a dubious and widely challenged story, why not offer up all the names possible so that skeptics can contact one’s experts themselves and talk to them?

I think the reason is pretty obvious. TNR asked very vague questions they were reasonably confident they’d get an affirmative response to, and thus could characterize those responses as “confirmation.”

Also must-read: Delving into TNR’s anonymous sources and the elusive Corporal Quotey McQuoterton.

And here’s the AP’s coverage of the saga that has garnered some buzz. A little of pot and kettle here. AP knows whereof it speaks.

Posted in: Scott Thomas Beauchamp, They don't support the troops

Regular View

comments (19)

trackbacks (8)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#114873

On August 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, Regulus said:

I’d agree with Bob Owens’ conclusion regarding why TNR was so coy about revealing Coffery’s name: it’s because the “confirmation” TNR sought wasn’t aimed so much at confirming Beauchamp’s story as much as it sought to give the appearance of confirmation.

Liberal mental laziness … again. And lazy-minded liberals expecting that everyone else will be just as lazy as they are when it comes to learning the truth … again.

There is such thing as a foolish consistency.
#114874

On August 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, NeoConNews said:

Well, there goes another claim. It should be obvious that you can’t just go chasing down dogs in a warzone for sh#*%! and giggles but it’s nice to see someone in uniform state it too.
#114884

On August 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm, swj719AWG said:

Wait…

You mean it didn’t happen the way TNR said it did?

Why is this the first I’m hearing of this??
#114886

On August 9th, 2007 at 4:06 pm, Laree said:

That was cool, I enjoyed this video. I am dog lover is the TNR also writing about the Michael Vick alledged dogfighting fiasco? I mean they gave Beauchamp’s dog story, over in Iraq so much coverage, they must be all over the Michael Vick story.
#114891

On August 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

All moot. You are presenting facts.
#114896

On August 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm, pressto said:

The more I think about this issue with TNR, I don’t think it is really going to hurt them or matter. The people who subscribe to them really don’t care about the truth or facts.
#114914

On August 9th, 2007 at 5:50 pm, mattsanchez said:

I’ll keep posting the videos as we go through Sadr City.

My goal is to really just let the soldiers, airmen and Marines talk for themselves. I asked Staff Sergeant Toby Hansen to comment after a pack of wild dogs chased after the convoy in Sadr City.

Sadr is densely populated, much more so than most of Baghdad and it made me think of Beauchamp’s story.

Sorry about the wind, it lowered the temperature in Baghdad today, but it made noise over the mic.
#114916

On August 9th, 2007 at 6:03 pm, Brian72 said:

Great job, Matt! The more the troops speak for themselves, the more the leftist tools get exposed. Why doesn’t MSM do this sort of thing every day? Oh, nevermind. They don’t want the impression of the military out there that this provides. If it ain’t Abu Graib, it ain’t news to them.

Tell all those guys you’re with that most of us here are keeping them in our prayers, and we hope they kick a$$ and take hyphenated names!
#114926

On August 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm, SirGregor said:

When a claiming corroboration on a dubious and widely challenged story, why not offer up all the names possible so that skeptics can contact one’s experts themselves and talk to them?

Because they don’t exist
#114927

On August 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pm, Yashmak said:

Because they don’t exist

Or because they didn’t give the answer TNR wanted, the answer TNR put in their article anyway.
#114928

On August 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pm, MikeOK said:

Matt Sanchez? Hey wait a minute — I thought that none of the “rethuglicans” ever wanted to see or hear from him again. Hmmmm…must be yet another bit of incorrect information I read somewhere on a liberal blog.

With regard to the Bradley, I’m no armament expert but some quick internet searches turned up a wealth of information in a short time. As far as I am concerned, only an idiot would believe that military allows its personnel to take a vehicle like this out for “joy rides” — especially activities that use the vehicle purposefully to demolish buildings and such, which could seriously injure someone or damage the onboard missile systems.
#114931

On August 9th, 2007 at 7:13 pm, zorro said:

On August 9th, 2007 at 5:50 pm, mattsanchez said:

Good work Matt. Stay safe, looking forward to your next report. Let the troops know we’re all praying for them, the success of their mission and for a safe return of all.
#114941

On August 9th, 2007 at 8:14 pm, CommentGuy said:

TNR confirmation

Is a Bradley big?

Does it have tracks?

Are any in Iraq?

Hey boss we have a three way confirmation, your secretary owes me big time or if someone tied with me can we double park?
#115225

On August 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm, Yashmak said:

Matt Sanchez? Hey wait a minute — I thought that none of the “rethuglicans” ever wanted to see or hear from him again.

I’ve often wondered exactly how a smear attack on someone changes the facts they have presented. I’ve also wondered what, if I came up with some political bombshell that screwed with the liberal narrative, I’d be smeared with.
#115294

On August 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm, swj719AWG said:

I’ve also wondered what, if I came up with some political bombshell that screwed with the liberal narrative, I’d be smeared with.

Well, there’s that puppy-killing spree you wenton back in ‘98…
#115332

On August 10th, 2007 at 3:05 pm, corona said:

The rag formerly known as the New Republic is the gift that keeps on giving.
#115353

On August 10th, 2007 at 3:51 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

I recommend that everybody check out RealClearPolitics today and read the non-apology apology from TNR.

They blame right wing ideologues.

Memo to TNR: Verify your sources! Double and triple fact check. Being first is meaningless if you are wrong. Admit your biases. Do not attack the attackers, that is what children such as the Clintons do.

Who the heck works at TNR, Dan Rather and Jayson Blair?

TNR should get a megaphone, and loudly say the following:

“We screwed up. We apologize.”

That would be the end of it. Instead, we get “Fake but accurate, part 27.”

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/dan-rather-and-katie-couric-partners-in-crime/

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/the-collapse-of-the-jayson-blair-times-palestinian-style/

Respectfully,

eric
#115562

On August 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am, Brian72 said:

On August 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pm, MikeOK said:

That’s a great picture of a Bradley on the other end of that link. One great example of mechanical badassery. I wonder how many terrorists were sent to their 72 goats with that last sight on this earth…..it warms my heart.

Damaging a critical combat system like the Bradley by horsing around like 3rd graders wouldn’t set well with the officers at all. Soldiers depend on that thing for their lives.

I love seeing that 25mm “bushmaster” cannon in action. I wonder if Karl Rove named that gun for political purposes…..
#115564

On August 11th, 2007 at 11:13 am, Brian72 said:

The Bradley is able to close with and destroy enemy forces in support of mounted and dismounted Infantry and Cavalry combat operations. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle family currently consists of two vehicles: the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. Just as with its predecessor, the M113 family, the Bradley will eventually be the platform for a wide range of support vehicles.

Unlike the M113 family of vehicles the Bradley replaces, this is not simply a “battle taxi”. The Bradley is a sophisticated weapons platform capable of providing tremendous firepower in direct support of the Infantry it carries. The role of the Bradley is to

* Safely transport Infantry to critical locations on the battlefield;
* Provide fire support to cover their dismounted operations, and
* Destroy enemy tanks and other vehicles that may threaten the Infantry it carries

The Bradley’s main armament is the M242 25mm “Bushmaster” Chain Gun, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The M242 has a single barrel with an integrated dual-feed mechanism and remote ammunition selection. Either armor piercing (AP) or high explosive (HE) ammunition may be selected with the flick of a switch. The Gunner may select from single or multiple shot modes. The standard rate of fire is 200 rounds per minute, and has a range of 2,000 meters (depending on the ammunition used). A wide range of ammunition has been developed for this weapon, making it capable of defeating the majority of armored vehicles it is likely to encounter, up to and including some main battle tanks. The M240C machine gun, mounted to right of the Bushmaster, fires 7.62mm rounds.

When facing heavier enemy armor the Bradley relies on the TOW Anti-Tank Missile, manufactured by the Hughes Aircraft. Launched from a smooth tube launcher, the missile’s wings and tail fins are folded inside its body until launch. Two of these missiles are carried ready to fire in a collapsible, armored launch rack on the left of the turret. The Bradley must stop in order to fire these missiles, which are them reloaded by the Infantrymen in the back of the vehicle, using a special hatch which provides armor protection during the reload operation. The missile is equipped with a massive shaped charge, high explosive warhead and is propelled by a two-stage solid propellant motor. The range of the TOW missile is nearly 4 kilometers and the missile will reach a speed of almost Mach 1 on its way to the target. This weapon is capable of destroying any armored vehicle in existence today and is deadly accurate.

Does this information lead anyone to believe that the U.S. Army would tolerate for one second any soldier using this expensive and powerful weapon system as a toy, or improv smash-up derby car?

From Globalsecurity.org