Tuesday, August 07, 2007

So, I guess TNR and Scott Thomas AREN'T going to go away

[Update] The NYT and Wapo, both, are reporting now that the TNR/Scott Thomas Beauchamp allegations are false. We might get lucky and this all might really be over with.

An Army investigation into the Baghdad Diarist, a soldier in Iraq who wrote anonymous columns for The New Republic, has concluded that the sometimes shockingly cruel reports were false.

“We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

Reactions from the blogosphere to these two articles can be found here.

[End Update]

Yesterday we showed you the Weekly Standard found out that Scott Thomas Beauchamp had recanted his stories to to the military.

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."


Today, the TNR is still claiming to stand by their original story. OH, except for the part about the burned women being in Iraq. THAT they still claim was an "error".

The Weekly Standard responds:

(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "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."

(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?

(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?

HEH. Looks like this is NEVER going away, doesn't it?

Anyone want some popcorn while I am up?

Reactions can be found here.

Others talking about this:

The Jawa Report, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Black Five, Op For, A Blog For All, Don Surber, LGF, Dean Barnett from Townhall.



Store.HBO.com