Was this denial they're discussing faxed to them by Lucy Ramirez from a Kinko's location in Texas?

It seems that my initial thoughts on the case are echoed by the dear Captain:

Second and more important, it seemed to me that the pushback on this story was out of proportion to Beauchamp's significance (and for that matter, TNR's as well).

Still, there is something of an overkill about this story that bothers me. It's not as if we can argue that cruelty doesn't occur in war. Of course it does; when it happens, our military investigates and punishes it. Baldilocks talked about this at length earlier in the story, and she's right. That's what separates us from our enemies. We prosecute cruelty, while they encourage it.

TNR doesn't have the influence it once had, and the stories that Beauchamp told really amounted to petty mischief more than war crimes. The Nation had a much more damaging piece regarding the experiences of fifty Iraq War veterans who now oppose the effort. While I don't believe those anecdotes can be extrapolated to make the argument that our military has gone off the rails, they are more substantial than anything published by Beauchamp and TNR.

Captain Ed

Maybe dhoggs and marc and the rest should tell the Captain how wrong he is.

Overheard at TNR:

Yes I Did! No You Di'int! Yes I Did! No You Di'int!

Brandon, lol!

Barney: Can you please use the Blockquote HTML styling when quoting someone else's material? It was hard to tell *intially* where Captain Ed's words ended and yours began.

No Barney. It is not a big deal. Right. The left got caught AGAIN making up stories to show the military in a negative light. That's right, the same left that always starts with the mantra "I support the troops but..." before they start ripping. So, when they get caught doing what we conservatives know happens all the time, we will talk about it. It is validation for the MSM and liberal rags that don't care what happens as long as it hits republicans. Of course, you and your ilk will defend the rag. Also, USA Today said the stories were false. What would be appropriate is for you liberals to just hush up on this OR just say they were very wrong and blinded by the bias. ww

Interesting...

TNR is either right or they are big time going down in a blaze of shame.

I suspect the latter but then I continually overestimate the ability of the media to pull their asses out of a fire.

The Weekly Standard sure as hell better have their facts right or they will look like the biggest media fools yet.

Especially considering Bob Owens' work, my money in on the Weekly Standard.

But one of them is going down.

As usual, cooler heads are refreshing compared to the fevered lunacy driving around in circles on this blog. Bill sums it up nicely for those who aren't so quick to jump:

Apparently the veracity or fabulism of the TNR pieces remains contested. This sets up a massive plate of crow for either the Weekly Standard or the New Republic.

Indeed. For those who have already made up their minds (on both sides), keep em moving, boys!

TNR quotes PAO Lamb as not confirming the recantation yet have never cited his statement that all allegations were investigated and determined to be false. Also the PAO has previously stated that Beauchamp is free to discuss anything about the matter he wants. TNR is obfuscating and playing at semantics.

>compared to the fevered lunacy driving around in circles on this blog.

Can you point me to an example mantis?

The Silence of the Lamb?

I wonder if Major Lamb is so pissed at TNR that he gave them this carefully worded non-committal quote hoping (knowing) they would play it up only to have more egg on their face.

I doubt a professional member of the military would play games with TNR... but then I don't. lol

Can you point me to an example mantis?

This post's thread is full of it, including the post itself, even though you temper it with

"Unless the Weekly Standard's source is way off base, it looks like the New Republic has egg on its face - again."

This allowance doesn't exactly jibe with the rest of your post, specifically:

The score stands at Weekly Standard 1, New Republic 0

The whole time he's telling the New Republic the story is true, he's telling the Army it ain't.

It's probably just as well for the New Republic that the gig is up

Though on this thread you sound less sure of things (giving odds - 5:2 for WS, perhaps?).

But Barney, JFO, Yo, WildWillie, and others are much more certain, and don't leave themselves an out the way you do. It's a wonder their knees don't hit them in the face.

FWIW, considering that FOX has apparently confirmed the results of the DOD investigation, I would agree that things don't look good for TNR. I'll still wait and see if TNR can produce a verifiable confirmation, though. Btw, my second link above didn't work. Here it is.

Hello gang - I'm new to this site. Would someone be kind enough to explain

"please use the Blockquote HTML styling when quoting someone else's material"

Thanks

Mantis is going down with TNR. Sweet to watch. ww

Mantis,

honestly, if it looks like a steaming pile of sh*t, smells like one and has the same basic chemical make-up ..., well then, I'm calling it out.

Even if Beauchamp's articles are 100% accurate, he's either guilty of complicity in those reports, or he's guilty of not following the military's code of conduct.

My complaint about him is that he's a buddy f**ker. And ask anyone who's spent any time in the military and they'll tell you exactly what they think of guys like that.

Mantis, go find me a square back 9mm shell casing. Next, figure out a way to make part of a childs skull fit on a standard issue U.S. Military helmet. I refer you to Kerry's Ghengis Khan speech. Sucker.

As to sources, OpFor has one, and this source has a name.....and rank. For the doubters, I just don't believe this colonel is going to put his career on the line for an E-1 who has pissed so much on his unit.

http://op-for.com/2007/08/he_said_she_said.html

Bias is one thing.

But when news agencies make things up or pass things made up without due scrutiny, it deserves to be railed against.

And these articles weren't a direct assault on the conduct in Iraq. They were an assault against the character of the men (and women) serving there. So although there may have been no broad accusation of serious war crimes, it was an attempt to make such claims easier for you to believe.

Check out this post by Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard. (my emphasis)

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?

Beauchamp's stories were either made up or he has no credibility. Either way, he's not to be believed.

from the Weekly Standard:

" 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?

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on August 7, 2007 04:06 PM | "

mantis

From your Cole link:

There is nothing official, yet, but I think I speak for everyone when I state that I think this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels, there never have been any jerks in the military, and we can all expect a decrease in violence in theatre now that the Jihadi's who were worked up into an America hating-frenzy after reading Beauchamp's pieces in the TNR read that the Weekly Standard has debunked them. Hallelujah.

Cole's comments stink for this reason: instead of expressing dismay he piles on snark and sarcasm about our troops. Actually, he sounds like a teeneager...."everyone else is an angel, right? Never been any jerks out there but me, right? Now (Mom and Dad) that you've pissed off all my friends .....Hallelujah"

Agree with HughS...

And all it takes is a single jihadi to get worked up from Beauchump's fiction to have very dire consequences.

This is not a victimless crime.

Offtopic, Tomcat, but consider this text:

foo

Now consider this text:

foo

The difference is that in the second case, I typed:

<blockquote>foo</blockquote>

That is a blockquote.

The point to my previous post was Scott Thomas wrote some things that anyone with knowledge of military items and firearms would know Mr. Beauchamp was full of it from the very start. The fact The New Republic did not have anyone on their staff with knowledge in any of the areas Beauchamp made reference to is disturbing. I am suprised J.K. Rowling has not sent them a novel they publish as fact.

Jeff Medcalf,

Thanks for blockquote explain. I didn't know either. And you can

quote me

barneyGRUBBLE:

"Maybe dhoggs and marc and the rest should tell the Captain how wrong he is."

Would that before or after pointing our your a disingenuous fool.

Ed isn't "wrong" he has just place a lower emphasis on this story than others have.

That aside, your only reason from quoting him (which you actually didn't due to lack of quote marks) is a grade school type of gottcha game. "see... seee... seee barney says, Capt Ed disagrees with you"

Asshat!

Jeff,

Look what you started. What are you going to do next, show them how to do tables ¿

 Weekly Standard New Republic Score10

Screw tables. CSS, divs and spans.

As long as it's XHTML compliant mantis.

Mantis, you call

The score stands at Weekly Standard 1, New Republic 0

The whole time he's telling the New Republic the story is true, he's telling the Army it ain't.

It's probably just as well for the New Republic that the gig is up

"fevered lunacy driving around in circles"

Surely you jest.

btw mantis...

You did link John Cole as an example of "fevered lunacy driving around in circles" right? right?

To go back to Barney's original snark... er... comment...

One of the biggest reasons that this has become a big thing is because TNR is digging its heels in and getting highly defensive.

If they'd posted even a half-hearted explanation or apology, it probably would have blown over and gone away.

But because they're insisting that they are right and the Army is wrong, they've got a fight on their hands.

By the way, TNR is the one taking the big risk here, not The Weekly Standard (TWS). If it turns out the "recanted" story is wrong, TWS can just say their unnamed source was wrong. If it turns out Beauchamp did recant, tho, TNR is in a world of hurt for getting so defensive.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft
I agree with your point and will add this: TNR probably didn't have anyone on staff with the experience to vet the articles by whatshisname.

The shame of this whole mess is that that TNR knew where to find people who could vouch for the articles but, as with the CBS fake memo scandal, they chose not to. This predisposition to paint the millitary in a bad way goes back to Vietnam and will not end for generations thereafter.

The Watergate/Vietnam template thrives in our universities today. The good news is that a new template is now being engraved by the blogosphere. Thousands of small voices are quieting the ABCNBCCBSWAPONYT monolith.

I love Golfarb's point #1

(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."

heh- game over

heh game over II

Hi Richard,

An investigation of the allegations was conducted by the military and found the allegations were false. In addition, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate
his claims.

The rest of will or won't happen is to be handled internally within the unit and are not discussed publicly.

Best,

Steve

Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
MNF-I CG, PAO

Sorry for the lunacy mantis.

The Watergate/Vietnam template thrives in our universities today.

The sad thing is, is that democrats consider those two events their twin shining examples of success in the last forty years.

Just the latest installment, Paul. It's easy to detail what I'm talking about, though. This has been bouncing back and forth on blogs for what, about two weeks now? It's been an absurd cycle of breathless accusations. You've been bouncing between certainty and hedging yourself. I don't see anything from you prior to Beauchamp's identity being disclosed, but at that time you claim that "the right has known from the beginning that the stories where bullshit."

Yet over the past two days you've bounced around from to "unless the source is bad" to "lies" "either one or the other is wrong." I'm sure you'll soon be certain again that it's bullshit, and then if TNR comes up with something it will be "someone is lying, maybe I'll lean this way now." The circular lunacy I was referring to is primarily in the comments, but you're having fun with it too. The absurd part of all this is the damned thing didn't get any attention until the right decided to blow it up. If it's fake then it was justified on one level, but the way I see it TNR never should have run the diaries in the first place, and it's unfortunate that you all decided to make it your cause célèbre of the week, elevating to a level where it will do far more damage to everyone, especially the military. You've succeeding in pulling attention to The Nation's piece that probably otherwise would have gone largely ignored outside certain circles; how's that for a feather in your cap?

I for one would rather see our levels in Iraq decrease soon, w