August 06, 2007
No More Beating Around The Bush
I'm probably wrong, and I'm probably breaking some kind of netiquette and it's probably rude, and my mom certainly tried to raise a gentleman and most of the time I am, and well, damn folks I've just about had it... so, here goes!
Scott Thomas Beauchamp, you sir are a damned liar.
There, now I feel better.
The reason:
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.
Filed under: Stuffed Shirts and Scoundrels
Posted by GM Roper at August 6, 2007 07:24 PM | TrackBackWho?
Posted by Ogre at August 6, 2007 07:55 PM
Simple, straightforward, and no obfuscation...
Works for me, GMan!!!
hughughughughughug
-- Kat
www.CatHouseChat.com
Posted by Kat at August 6, 2007 07:57 PM
G.M., I'm a little lost, even though I'm catching up. Has Beauchamp done something else since your post on him a few days ago?
Anyway, here is a link to The New Republic taking up for him.
A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp - by the Editors
The first of the comments under the article is:
I won't hold my breath for apologies from the conservative blogosphere.
I should say not.
Posted by Woody at August 6, 2007 08:56 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp
Posted by Raven at August 6, 2007 09:06 PM
I bet it has something to do with him recanting what he wrote...
Recants story
I wonder if we will get any apologies from The New Republic
Posted by Big Dog at August 6, 2007 09:08 PM
And a cur!
Posted by Jeremayakovka at August 6, 2007 09:33 PM
We'll likely get the same kind of apology from The New Republic that CBS and Dan Rather gave us - The reports are false but authentic.
But, the stories are out there and people like the commenter in the post of August 5th about Viet Nam will one day recount these tales as his personal experiences back in Iraq.
Posted by Woody at August 7, 2007 06:16 AM
But how often do these Lefty propaganda stories ever contain much truth?
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs at August 7, 2007 10:21 AM
What an odd series of events. I have no particular dog in this fight, but I really do find it odd that some people have been certain that this guy is lying from the very beginning. Maybe, maybe not. Bad stuff happens in war. Just because the Weekly Standard has a secret source that tells us this guy is lying doesn't mean he is. The only organization with more reputation hanging on the premise that Beauchamp is lying than the Weekly Standard is the US Military. At a minimum I'd like to see if a military official is willing to take a public position or the Weekly Standard has some evidence (though I recognize that it's difficult to prove the absence of an event) before calling this young soldier a liar. The New Republic has worked hard to confirm his story and made some very public claims about his veracity. This could get very interesting.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at August 7, 2007 02:55 PM
Mavis Beacon: I have no particular dog in this fight....
Are you sure that you're not Michael Vick?
Posted by Woody at August 7, 2007 03:11 PM
Mavis Beacon:
1. He's now stated he was lying.
2. His platoon mates concur that none of what he said was true.
Different Tack:
1. If he was telling the truth, he is personally guilty of a slug of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Naw, he was just another jerk attempting to get attention by dressing up things. Not factual.
Bottom Line: His IS a pinhead and the Army will throw him out. They do not need any lads like that.
Posted by tad at August 7, 2007 05:16 PM
I think you reveal yourself here, Tad. You don't like what he said and want him to be punished. End of story.
If you want to take the anonymous word of an unnamed military official as reported by the Weekly Standard as gospel, be my guest. But Army Public Affairs' Maj. Steve Lamb has said he doesn't know about any recantation. It's certainly possible that he's lying, I don't have any idea as I've never met Beauchamp, wasn't in Iraq with him, and haven't heard from any investigating officials. But whether or not you want his story to be true, we ought to wait until the facts are known before passing judgement.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at August 8, 2007 10:52 AM
Mavis Beacon:
Possibly you haven't been keeping up with the news. Pvt Beauchamp has recanted his stories.
No, of course, I don't like what he has written (said), heck, he even said that he personally was more than rude and without compassion towards a woman that had suffered severe burns to her face as a result of terrorist IEDs. Is this a guy you want to defend?
Further, this is a blog, not an official investigation. Be assured that has already been done.
Having spent eight years in the enlisted ranks and and twenty four in the commission ranks, I have plenty of personal experience with persons of this ilk.
The vast majority of service personnel are more than great. They are heroic, bright, compassionate and the ones that really do the heavy lifting in defending our country....and other peoples also. Real knowledge of the facts on the ground underline this.
This gent will, be sure, receive ALL his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Then, following sanctions, he will be shown the door.
Posted by Tad at August 8, 2007 02:25 PM
