To: longnshort who wrote (346488 ) 8/16/2007 1:00:36 AM From: tejek Respond to of 1574177 It appears either the New Republic or the Weekly Standard is lying. I am 99% sure its the Weekly Standard:On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators. [13] On August 7, The New Republic reported “ "We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, 'I have no knowledge of that.' He added, 'If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.' When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, 'We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.'" [6] ” Michael Goldfarb and the Weekly Standard are standing by the story. [14] [15] The Weekly Standard is reporting that one of the military experts consulted by TNR is refuting Beauchamp's allegations regarding Bradley Fighting Vehicles. [16] “We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, [Beauchamp's] platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.” [17] The Associated Press is accusing TNR of poor fact checking. [18]ABC News reported on August 8 that Maj. Lamb reiterated his statement that Beauchamp's stories were false to ABC, and The New York Times had the same story on August 9. [19] Charles Krauthammer questioned the veracity of the story and criticized this error by TNR in undermining the rationale or running the story in the first place. [20]