October 20, 2008 • Vol. 14, No. 6 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
Viva McCain!
by William Kristol

SCRAPBOOK
Varieties of Anti-Palinism

ARTICLES
Twits on Parade
by Andrew Ferguson

Manhattan Project as Metaphor
by Ari Rabkin

To Attack, or Not to Attack?
by Stephen F. Hayes

Will It Be a Blue Bluegrass State?
by John David Dyche

No Shore Thing
by Whitney Blake

A Faltering Big Red Machine
by David Wolfford

FEATURES
The Fog
by Frederick W. Kagan

The Cabinet of Dr. Obama
by Yuval Levin

Invasion of the Wallet Snatchers
by Matthew Continetti

Night of the Living Constitution
by Terry Eastland

BOOKS & ARTS
She's Come Undone
by Katherine Mangu-Ward

Game Over
by Joe Queenan

Red Aussie
by Paul Hollander

Safety First
by Susanne Klingenstein

Village Vanguard
by Ronald Radosh

The Joke's on Him
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
Bedtime Stories
by Matt Labash

PARODY
Trump Buys Iceland


« Fact, Fiction, or "Proven to be False"? | Main | Sunday Show Wrap-Up »

The U.S. Army vs. The New Republic

The Confederate Yankee has posted an email from Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General David Petraeus, announcing the results of the Army's investigation into the allegations made by Scott Thomas Beauchamp:

To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas?

Answer: 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.

As to what will happen to him?

Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.

In the absence of a single shred of corroborating evidence from the New Republic--names, dates, locations, etc.--and in the face of this strongly worded statement from the Army that the allegations were found to be false, there is no reason to believe any of Beauchamp’s claims are true. Even the New Republic has conceded that the central claim of the story is false, that the incident with the burned woman did not happen in Iraq, as Beauchamp had initially and repeatedly claimed, casting great doubt on the private’s credibility. But the New Republic stood by the rest of Beauchamp’s story, and yet produced nothing but their own assurances to support what remains of the soldier’s account. The military’s fact-checking process has produced a much different result. The New Republic promised that if “further substantive information” information came to light, they would share it with their readers--we wonder if the results of a military investigation will qualify.

Email the article The U.S. Army vs. The New Republic to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor:
Michael Goldfarb

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Samantha Sault
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2