December 8, 2008 • Vol. 14, No. 12 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
Before He Goes
by William Kristol

SCRAPBOOK
Sally Quinn, Media Bias, etc.

ARTICLES
Obama's Good Students
by Joseph Epstein

To the Shores of Tripoli . . .
by Seth Cropsey

The Obama Jolt
by Fred Barnes

Wrinklies at Work
by Irwin M. Stelzer

The Marriage Juggernaut
by Kevin Vance

Remember the Holodomor
by Cathy Young

FEATURES
Columbia University, Slumlord
by Jonathan V. Last

BOOKS & ARTS
Friendly Persuasion
by Claudia Anderson

America's Teams
by Max Boot

Does She, or . . . ?
by Pia Catton

Over There
by Andrew Nagorski

Pigs Without Blankets
by Terry Eastland

Tania Unleashed
by Peter Collier

It's Killing Time
by James Grant

Biomorality
by Steven Lenzner

Vulture Culture
by Judy Bachrach

Tin Lizzie Tales
by Richard Striner

Taken on Faith
by Joseph Loconte

Tunnel Revision
by Stephen Schwartz

Just One More
by Charlotte Hays

CASUAL
Fried Bread Lines
by Christopher Caldwell

PARODY
Tax tips from Charlie


« 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