Skip to comments.A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS (TNR Editors Respond)
Posted on 08/07/2007 11:29:17 AM PDT by SeafoodGumbo
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."
posted 2:12 p.m.
“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.”
Somebody’s lying and considering NRs past predilection toward misrepresentation we have a pretty good idea who it is.
The TNR ‘corroboration’ is based on anonymous sources, and so is the NRO’s report from ‘someone close to the investigation.’ Sooner or later, all of the laundry is going to get washed in public.
I’m gonna make some more popcorn.
Usually when they use someone's middle name - that's a sign the guy is in a heap o' trubble.
so the guy with the skull on his head was scott and a friend? they need to be put in the brig.
Beauchamp Recants: Update
The editors of the New Republic have responded here. Three points:
(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?
“Priceless! The truth is the Major will not talk until this wannabe Gonzo Journalist is safely in Leavenworth or dishonorably on the street to practice his mendacious craft alone.”
At first I wasn’t sure whether you were talking about Beauchamp or the TNR editor! After all, they both deserve the same fate.
But, fear not... this will soon become about “what did Major Lamb know and when did he know it???” Because, obviously, Major Lamb knows more than he is letting on and it is up to the fearless PRESS to expose his LIES!
Pelosi and Reid are calling for an investigation!
Thru the Glass darkly....BAAAAWAAA...TNR needs to FIRE the lyin’ FOER!
Cute. NR is suggesting that Lamb has no knowledge that Beauchamp recanted - but that is NOT what Lamb is saying. Lamb is merely saying he doesn't know about an "anonymous source".
Oh, NR is soooo busted!
We should be thankful it isn’t “Wayne”...
Latest from the Weekly Standard:
“Oh, gosh the WS blog is RICH:
His command’s investigation is complete. At this time, there is no formal what we call Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions being taken. However, there are other Administrative actions or what we call Non-Judicial Punishment that can be taken if the command deems appropriate. These are again administrative in nature and as such are not releasable to the public by law.
We are not stonewalling anyone. There are official statements that are out there are on the record from several of us and nothing has changed.
We are not preventing him from speaking to TNR or anyone. He has full access to the Morale Welfare and Recreation phones that all the other members of the unit are free to use. It is my understanding that he has been informed of the requests to speak to various members of the media, both traditional and non-traditional and has declined. That is his right.
We will not nor can we force a Soldier to talk to the media or his family or anyone really for that matter in these types of issues.
We fully understand the issues on this. What everyone must understand is that we will not breach the rights of the Soldier and this is where this is at this point.”
I have Foer out the door Monday morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.