UPDATE: Op-For has another e-mail from Col. Steven Boylan regarding the findings of the military investigation. Yes. It is a “He said, she said” sort of thing, because it is now all internal.
Michael Goldfarb responds to the TNR excuse with questions that still beg to be answered. Come on TNR. He only asks for three points to be clarified. You can do it.
The U.S. Army is disputing all of the claims made by former University of Missouri-Columbia student Scott Beauchamp in essays for The New Republic about his experiences in the Iraq war, according to the results of the military’s internal investigation.
Now, Dan, why wouldn’t TNR want to let the Chicago Tribune article “stand as the definitive mainstream media record on the Scott Beauchamp affair”? It’s not like they have anything to hide after their rigorous “fact-checking”. Or, is it that they don’t have anything to lose now that they have ridden this into the ground? Hmmmm?
UPDATE: Well, TNR has responded to the news, in typical TNR fashion. I would expect no less.
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
And, that’s that – hold on until the bitter end and go down with the ship.
Hot Air has a Fox News video on the news on Scott Beauchamp.
Bob Owens has some parting thoughts on TNR’s excuses.
UPDATE: Click over an d read Black Five.
Ross Douthat holds a different view than others looking over the Beauchamp controversy. I don’t really agree with much he is saying. But, it is a different perspective, I guess.
Anybody heard from the Leftosphere, yet, like DU, DK, HuffiPo, FDL, etc.?
UPDATE: Is it just me or is everyone else having a hard time finding a response from the Leftosphere on Scottie’s recantation? I’ve looked at the DKos, HuffiPo, DU, FDL, etc. Is it taking them that long to carefully word their story. Well, maybe it will be more plausible than Scottie’s was, when they get finished. I’m not holding out too much hope for that. But, they could surprise me.
Cool PhotoShop via Suitability Flip. I suspect, quantities may be limited.
While TNR folks are still on a sabatical, possibly contemplating how they could save some face on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga, the wannabe-author has recanted his stories.
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.” more…
Michael Goldfarb leaves us with parting questions…
Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?
Yes. Now, let’s think about this. Did Scottie lie to TNR, who likely paid him a token amount for his creative writing and cannot prosecute him for lying to them? Or, did he lie to the United States Army, by whom he is employed and can jail his sorry butt, if he does not tell them the truth?
I wonder if Phoenix Woman and the rest of her cohorts at FDL are reading up on Scottie’s admissions. Strangely enough, I bet they smell a conspiracy and have convinced themselves that he was coerced into making a damning admission. It would be right down their leftist alley.
The “ludicrous” Goldfarb/Michelle Malkin/Ace of Spades front ludicrously blundered into the ludicrous truth of the ludicrous matter.
Yep. I bet more than just that skull will be smoking in the Leftosphere for a bit.
Baldilocks weighs in:
May we who doubted Scott Beauchamp’s stories be allowed a snarky “we told you so?” Yes, I think so.
Allahpundit is still not satisfied with the status of this issue.
According to Goldfarb. No independent evidence is offered aside from the recantation itself so we’re where I thought we’d be two days ago — with a confirmed liar and no way of proving which side he’s lying to.
Non-Party Politics offers a quote from Al Franken (How ironic is it that Franken’s words come back on a fellow Lefty?).
“Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them.”
An Army Lawyer weighs in with the legal aspects of it, or lack thereof for Scottie.
Here’s the thing, if he was lying, there’s not much that he can be charged with. At most it would be some variant of an Article 92 violation for publication without permission or something similar (presuming such a prohibition existed within his command). At most, that’ll get him 2 years if it’s a general order, more than likely it’d be violation of an “other lawful order” which is 6 months max confinement.
Now some may argue that he’s lying to investigators but he told TNR the truth. Problem there is that the penalties for a False Official Statement are far harsher (
75 yrs and a dishonorable discharge). Lying to investigators is often worse than the misconduct itself. So even if Beauchamp IS lying, he sure can’t ever say so while in uniform, as that subjects him to the more serious Article 107 charge.
And since the PAO has said that it found no evidence of criminal conduct (again, fakey stories about misconduct is harder to quantify as criminal than is a failure to report ACTUAL misconduct), that whatever happens will be administrative in nature. more…
What will eventually happen to Beauchamp? Your guess may be as good as mine. But, I would like to hear the Leftosphere’s spin on Scottie’s recantation. Maybe they will surprise me. I doubt it. But, maybe they will.
Others posting on this topic: Bill’s Bites / Protein Wisdom / The Fighting GOP / The Fighting GOP / Cao’s Blog / Getting Paid to Watch / Instapundit / Mark Steyn / John Podhertz / Bill Quick / Cadillac Tight / Confederate Yankee / Lifelike Pundits / Flopping Aces / Power Line / Law Hawk / Patterico / Little Green Footbals / Gay Patriot / Ross Douthat / Rick Moran / Ann Althouse / Don Surber