The U.S. Army vs. The New Republic
WORLDWIDE STANDARD BLOG
By Michael Goldfarb
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. |
