By John Tabin on 8.8.07 @ 1:07AM
So did young Pvt. Beauchamp lie to the Army, or to his editors? Someone is not being told the truth.
Our story so far:
On July 13, the New Republic printed an article called
"Shock Troops" under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas." The article's
startling claims about the behavior of U.S. soldiers led many to
raise
questions about both "Shock Troops" and the two previous pieces
run under the Thomas byline.
On July 26, TNR announced that it would investigate the
story, and meanwhile revealed that the author was Scott Thomas
Beauchamp, and that he wished to stand by his work under his own
name. Some investigation into Beauchamp's background revealed what
a very
strange guy he is.
Last Thursday, August 2, TNR announced the results of
its investigation. It had determined that one (rather important)
detail was incorrect, but decided that the rest of the story was
still plausible. Many found TNR's statement unconvincing,
but clearly they thought that it was the end of the matter.
On Friday, TNR editor Franklin Foer appeared on
Left, Right and Center, a weekly radio show on KCRW in Los
Angeles. He accused TNR's critics of smearing the
magazine, saying that they "move from one reckless
allegation to another reckless allegation" and should "for once
apologize when they get something wrong."
Even as Foer was speaking, though, it was being
reported that the Army's investigation had concluded that
all of Beauchamp's claims were false.
On Saturday, this was officially
confirmed by Col. Steven Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer for
Gen. David Petraeus. "An investigation of the allegations were
conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of
Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could
substantiate his claims," Col. Boylan told blogger Bob Owens.
TNR, according to its statement, "spoke with five other
members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's
anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider,
heard about contemporaneously." Clearly, Beauchamp and these five
soldiers lied to someone.
On Monday night, Michael Goldfarb reported at the Weekly
Standard that, according to a military source familiar with
the Army's investigation, Beauchamp has "signed a sworn statement
admitting that all three articles he published in the New
Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods."
Thus far, TNR's only response to this has been to quote Maj. Steven F. Lamb,
deputy PAO for Multi National Division-Baghdad, to the effect that
he doesn't know whether Beauchamp signed a sworn statement. Maj.
Lamb has been quoted on this matter by several news outlets,
including the Weekly Standard, USA Today (on a house blog), and the
Columbia Tribune (which has covered
this story because Beauchamp went to college in Columbia,
Missouri). Each of these outlets has quoted Lamb saying that
Beauchamp's allegations are "false"; Lamb reiterated that
Beauchamp's platoon and company were interviewed, and that no one
could substantiate his claims, to both the Standard and
the Tribune. Yet TNR has yet to mention (except
obliquely, through a link to the Weekly Standard) the
results of the Army's investigation.
It is conceivable, of course, that Beauchamp and five other
soldiers in his company lied to Army investigators but told
TNR the truth. Perhaps six people successfully kept their
stories straight while lying to investigators talking to them in
person (though it seems a bit more likely that they successfully
misled journalists on another continent by email). Lying to Army
investigators is much more perilous than lying to journalists,
though, and if TNR's editors continue to stand by
Beauchamp's work, they're implicitly making some pretty serious
accusations against their sources. If we credit Goldfarb's
reporting -- and I'm inclined to do so -- they are actually
accusing a contributor of perjuring himself.
Some might call that a reckless allegation.
topics:
Military
