November 30, 2009 • Vol. 15, No. 11 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
No Substitute for Victory
by William Kristol and Frederick W. Kagan

SCRAPBOOK
Media on Palin: 'War of the Worlds, II'

ARTICLES
Obamanomics 101
by Fred Barnes

Eric Holder's Horrible Hearing
by Mary Katharine Ham

Malign Neglect
by Stephen F. Hayes

Obama Blunders Through Asia
by Ross Terrill

German-Iranian Relations
by Benjamin Weinthal

Time for a Dose of Protectionism?
by Irwin M. Stelzer

Going Backwards in Beirut
by Peter Berkowitz

FEATURES
The Adventures of Low Impact Man
by Matt Labash

BOOKS & ARTS
Man with a Horn
by Ted Gioia

Prophet Disarmed
by Arch Puddington

Europe's Temblor
by Lawrence Klepp

The Yenta
by Joseph Epstein

Plus-Size Pathology
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
The Turkey Vanishes
by Claudia Anderson

PARODY
Obama Chooses a Turkey to Pardon


« Observations on Couric | Main

Col. Gibbs: Beauchamp Recanted, No He Didn't???

The Pentagon's Blogger's Roundtable series featured Col. Ricky Gibbs this morning. Gibbs is the commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Multi-National Division-Baghdad, and one of the 5,000 soldiers under his command is Scott Thomas Beauchamp. I asked Col. Gibbs whether the stories told by Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic were true, and whether his command was "stonewalling" and preventing Beauchamp from speaking to the media, as the New Republic claimed in its last statement on the case on August 10.

In response to the first question, Gibbs said that he had directed an investigation into Beauchamp's allegations and determined them to be false. "The incidents did not take place," Gibbs said. And Beauchamp "admitted that himself" to the investigating officer. For clarity, I asked Gibbs again, did Beauchamp admit the stories were false? "He did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place."

At the end of the call, Gibbs returned to the subject of Beauchamp's confession to say that "Beauchamp did not recant," but that "he does not stand by the story." This caused some puzzlement among the folks on the line. OnPoint's Andrew Luben asked the Colonel to clarify, does Beauchamp stand by the stories? The Colonel again answered that he does not, and that he is free to speak to the press but has chosen not to. If Beauchamp does not stand by the story, that might explain why he has no interest in talking to the press.

Still, if the investigation has concluded that the incidents did not take place, Beauchamp has signed a letter consenting to that conclusion, as we understand he has, and he no longer stands by the stories, one wonders how that doesn't amount to a recantation. I think it's probably just semantics.

That may be enough to keep him out of trouble with the Army, but how can the editors at the New Republic continue to stand by a story that their own author will not defend? At least we know when those editors say that they "refuse to rush to judgment" they are being honest.

Email the article Col. Gibbs: Beauchamp Recanted, No He Didn't??? to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Categories
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2