November 16, 2009 • Vol. 15, No. 9 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
The Future Is Bright
by Fred Barnes

SCRAPBOOK
Pelosi's Victory, and Other Election News

ARTICLES
Painting Virginia Red
by Jennifer Rubin

Barack Obama's Leading Indicator
by Jules Crittenden

Next, Locusts?
by Elliott Abrams

Dictatorships and Double Standards
by Stephen F. Hayes

The Swedish Way
by Mark P. Lagon

FEATURES
As We Stand Down, Can They Stand Up?
by Max Boot

France on the Hudson
by Fred Siegel and Harry Siegel

The Palin Persuasion
by Matthew Continetti

BOOKS & ARTS
The Ayn and Only
by Katherine Mangu-Ward

Closing Time
by Martin Morse Wooster

Paint By Numbers
by Martha Bayles

Ghost Patrol
by Andrew Nagorski

Unthriller
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
Keep Hope Alive
by Victorino Matus

PARODY
Headlines amid GOP victories


« 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