The New Republic issued this today, A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP
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.”
Yet Mikey Goldfarb ( he of the “anonymous sources” or sources that were under investigation ) at the increasingly unhinged Weekly Standard claims that Major Lamb vindicates him – to date none has produced this written recantation by Beauchamp and the WS has not produced its anonymous sources and any other documentation. They Goldfarb and the WS have staked out the he said she said territory hoping that the little gold statue of veracity lands in their court. Since they’ve used sources of dubious credibility, said that a document exists that apparently does not they’re a few points down on the believability meter. All over a story that continues to be more ado about not much.
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?
Posted by Michael Goldfarb on August 7, 2007 04:06 PM
He links to the same statement at TNR that I’ve posted. Beauchamp was reported by the WS as having recanted, Lamb says he hasn’t. Not much to parse here. WS and Goldfarb apparently lied or hedged the truth and now it is incumbent on the denizens of this right-wing excuse for journalism to produce some evidence to back up their claims. We’re back almost to square one, Army Says Soldier’s Articles for Magazine Were False
Yesterday, The New Republic posted another note on its Web site saying its editors had spoken to Major Lamb and asked whether Private Beauchamp had indeed signed a statement admitting to fabrications. “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.’
At this point questions remain. Why did TNR’s investigation turn up several people that verified Scott’s version of events then the military does an investigation and suddenly no one knows nut’n. Sure sounds like some guys covering for one of their own. As Scott’s kinda busy dodging real bullets one can understand him saying what it takes for the whole thing to blow over, but the proxy warriors at WS have plenty of time to produce some evidence of this written statement from Scott. Again this whole story isn’t all that important in the scheme of things and probably serves some other purpose. For instance, G.I. Gets 110 Years for Rape and Killing in Iraq
A 23-year-old Army private was sentenced last night to 110 years in prison, a day after a military jury convicted him of rape and four counts of murder for his role in the attack last year on an Iraqi family in Mahmudiya, a hostile Sunni Arab town south of Baghdad.
The private, Jesse Spielman, was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit rape and housebreaking with the intent to commit rape, said a spokesman at Fort Campbell, Ky., where the hearing was held. The jury consisted mostly of Army officers from the fort.
There hasn’t been any raging blog or AM radio right-wing shock jock controversy over this story. Scott made fun of a scared woman, saw a dog killed. Things that are not nice, but hardly news worthy in a war zone where in July of this year 80 U.S. military were killed. Who are these people that according to the right-wing blogs read Beachamp’s story or about Spielman’s conviction for an especially gruesome crime and rushes to the juvenile judgment that the entire military in Iraq are awful terrible people. The only people that think in such a closed minded bizarre manner are the Righties flogging the Beauchamp story. If you drop a penny off a rooftop it will fall to earth, if you send a large contingent of troops into a war zone atrocities will happen. I can’t speak for every moderate American, but I think our concern is not with nailing every soldier’s hide to the wall for any little wrong doing, its holding that minority of soldiers accountable for their crimes. The ones like Spielman who used the war as an excuse to go on rape and killing rampage. These are not particularly fine distinctions. So far there have been over 200 military prosecutions for war crimes, but the Right gets shrill out of proportion over Beauchamp. It says something about their priorities if nothing else.
The troop escalation was intended to calm down Baghdad and to give the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki breathing room to pursue a political reconciliation, especially with the Sunni Arab population. But the political goals of the surge are simply not being accomplished — and indeed, the political situation has deteriorated substantially.
Maliki has lost even the few Sunni Arab allies he began with; the Sunni Arab coalition, called the Iraqi Accord Front, that had actually been in his government has now had its cabinet ministers tender their resignations. He has not held further reconciliation talks with dissident Sunni Arab groups. The Sunni Arab guerrilla groups are thinking of forming an opposition political party in hopes of extending their efforts to topple his government into the political sphere. His relations with Sunni Arab neighbors are so bad that Saudi Arabia declined his request to visit Riyadh.
[ ]…And as a tally noted on Foreign Policy magazine’s blog, the number of U.S. troop deaths in July, compared with previous years of the war, is anything but a turn for the better:
July 2003: 48
July 2004: 54
July 2005: 54
July 2006: 43
July 2007: 80
Whether its Beauchamp or Jamal Hussein one tends to think theese stories serve as a diversionary tactic in the Right’s dominate the narrative game. Conservatives and only conservatives will define what reality is. Doesn’t work that way. Far too many times at this point the Right has sold the American public a bill of goods, a spit and glue version of the truth and when that hasn’t worked they invent controversies as a distraction – don’t look at Bush dismantling the Constitution look at what Scott wrote, don’t look another yet another Republican involved in a prostitution scandal look at Hillary’s cleavage, don’t pay attention to the monthly death tolls in Iraq just believe what dear leader says. Its campy tired magic show that tries to pass itself off as informed news breaking information.
” In fact, as Greenwald explained, the law now allows the government to “listen to our conversations, read our e-mails, with no connection to terrorism, with no proof that anyone has ever done anything wrong” — without judicial oversight.
“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” Edward R. Murrow
“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” -Clarence Darrow