Report: “Scott Thomas” Beauchamp Recants,The Manchurian Columnist Falls
Sorry I didn’t get this up earlier. You know, work…sleep….walking dogs….
Beauchamp Recants – The Weekly Standard
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety–meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”–took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been “melted” by an IED.
Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic’s editors complained that the military investigation was “short-circuiting” TNR’s own fact-checking efforts. “Beauchamp,” they said, “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.”
Just remember, we told you here first folks that this guy was a fraud and a liar. Now when, oh when, will The New Republic admit they goofed and apologize to the US military for this libelous liar who lied?
Oh yeah, and it would be nice if there were any liberal bloggers with any principle who would go after The New Republic. But I guess they are too busy looking for more fake stories to peddle to the masses.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Countdown till “they waterboarded him into confessing”?
Comment by DoDoGuRu — August 7, 2007 @ 8:45 am - August 7, 2007
DDGR, I was expecting gil to posit that very theory. And then, Ian can back him up with his ready-to-post links about how our soldiers are criminals and murders.
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 8:57 am - August 7, 2007
Towelroad is strangely quiet.
Waterboarding? Naw. Just some outtakes of Rosie O’Donnell in her leather bustier had him sobbing.
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2007 @ 9:52 am - August 7, 2007
Waiting for the apologies. From Beauchamp, the NR, leftist bloggers, liberal polititians. Not an apology to me for lying in a once proud publication but to the service people he smeared.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 7, 2007 @ 9:59 am - August 7, 2007
I love TNR’s earlier claim, “If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.”
Further substantive information has come to light. (If nothing else, Major Lamb’s official statement.) Umm, will TNR be sharing it with us?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 10:19 am - August 7, 2007
Meanwhile, Democrat mayor’s goons rough up reporter. Ian should start working on his “It’s OK because he’s a Democrat” talking points.
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 10:25 am - August 7, 2007
[…] / Lifelike Pundits / Flopping Aces / Power Line / Law Hawk / Patterico / Little Green Footbals / Gay Patriot / Don […]
Pingback by Beauchamp: No! I was lying to TNR, not to the U.S. Army, really! « Volunteer Opinion Journal — August 7, 2007 @ 10:29 am - August 7, 2007
Here’s the antidote for Soulpatterns Beauchamp: an interview with an Iraqi interpreter who works with US Troops. Note: This is one of the people Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Chase and Ian want to throw to the wolves so their party can gloat.
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 11:27 am - August 7, 2007
I’m reading HotAir’s commentary (hat tip DoDoGuRu, in the other thread). Bryan makes a good point: We know Beauchamp has lied to someone; we don’t absolutely know who.
We already knew Beauchamp had to have lied to TNR / the public on some points. But the idea that he lied to TNR / the public on every point – rather than lying to the Army on certain points as well – is still conjecture.
Beauchamp would want to tell the truth to Army investigators, since they can prove/disprove every one of his physical statements, then jail him for up to seven years if he lied to their investigators. On the other hand, that threat didn’t Clinton and other famous liars. Beauchamp would want to tell the Army what he thought they wanted to hear.
Allah and Bryan’s whole debate is worth skimming.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 12:09 pm - August 7, 2007
correction – armylawyer says Beachamp’s possible sentence if he did try to lie to Army investigators, is five years.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - August 7, 2007
TNR buries the evidence. The “Shock Troops” articles have been deleted from the TNR website.
Really odd that they would do that considering they had “corroboration” from five other soldiers, huh, gil?
I’ve got some crow in the fridge if you’re hungry.
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - August 7, 2007
What I want to know is what else GayPatriot-friend and gay-hater Matt Sanchez is saying about this.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 7, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - August 7, 2007
Gay hater? Why not go to Matt Sanchez’s blog and read what he has to say:
“My approach to reporting on “Baghdad Diarist” has been to concentrate on Private Beauchamp’s claims, rather than speculate on who he is or even how he has portrayed himself.
Having spent the past three months in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would much prefer to to show you, with examples, how and why I believe the “Baghdad Diarist” allegations were wrong rather than resort to personal attacks.”
Pretty classy if you ask me.
You and the others who tried to smear him when this story broke should be ashamed of yourself.
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - August 7, 2007
Ashamed for what?
For not bending over and lubing up for the latest liberal incarnation of Dan Blather’s Memo-gate, flushing Korans, “civil war”, “quagmire!”, “we’ve lost” etc. etc. etc.
A liberal turns out to be a lying SOB (surprise, surprise) and we’re supposed to be ashamed? FCUK THAT!!!
BTW, if a soldier turns out to be a lying team killing fcuktard (like Kerry, Murtha and that other clown who duped the anti-war crowd, I and many others will say so.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2007 @ 6:56 pm - August 7, 2007
He’ll get the Josef Goebbels Award 2007. Amazing, the clarity of mind he has now that the story has run around the world in relays. It’s pretty much part of the Anti-US Catechism. Sure, we can read the correction, but the material is as out as toothpaste from a tube. But, he’ll do OK, (Look at Al Sharpton.)
Comment by Shawmut — August 7, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - August 7, 2007
Beauchamps defense.
Army prosecutor: is you a liar?
Beauchamp: depends on what the definition of “is……………is.”
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 7, 2007 @ 9:15 pm - August 7, 2007
Humm seems to be a lack of leftist comments during this thread. Odd.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 7, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - August 7, 2007
On a similar note, Ion Mihai Pacepa’s piece in the WSJ today is plain brilliant. Some excerpts to note:
A page?? Seems to me that the liberals of today aren’t too far removed from the old Soviets. Just listen to their candidates.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 8, 2007 @ 3:20 am - August 8, 2007
“Gen. Ed.” Said,
“You missed his repeated violation of our community terms of conduct and my repeated warnings to him. Not surprising you missed it since you have done the same thing from time to time. Luckily for you… you are still here. This isn’t DailyKos here… we try to maintain respect and dignity in our comments, arturo. ” (Army Investigation On Beauchamp Over…Aug 3, 07, #37)
Glad to know “fcuktard” (#14 above) falls within the rules of respect and dignity in this gay website about gay patriotism.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 8, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - August 8, 2007
#19
What? I was being respectful.
As respectful as they deserve anyway.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 9, 2007 @ 2:06 am - August 9, 2007
Right. That’s what respect means on this gay website about gay patriotism: “fcuktard”.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 9, 2007 @ 2:38 am - August 9, 2007
I think that a perfectly apt and descriptive word for a person who deliberately slanders US soldiers by making up stories about them committing atrocities, then publishes them as fact.
Which is, arturo, what you are trying to avoid dealing with by this diversion.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 8:44 pm - August 9, 2007
Is that, Gay Patriot North Dallas Thirty, along with ThatGayConservative’s preferred name (VarinalTorrent) for torrentprime, and the regular refererences to “tits”…is that what makes this website gay?
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 11, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - August 11, 2007
typo…should be “VaginalTorrent” (Top Democrats Reluctancy, Aug 9, #11).
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 11, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - August 11, 2007
It seems to me the definition of ‘patriot’ is ‘One who hopes for the best, condemns the worst, and gives our troops the benefit of the doubt.’
Our fellows on the left seem to ‘Hope for the worst, celebrate the abberations as the norm, and deny the actions of the best.’
Oh, and LGF is running a report saying that Beauchamps can contact anyone on the morale phones, he’s just not talking. Sulking and hoping it goes away?
Comment by The Livewire — August 13, 2007 @ 7:41 am - August 13, 2007