Beauchamp Recants Stories New Republic Editor Still Holds Out

Private Scott Beauchamp has recanted his "fabulist" stories published in the July 23rd issue of The New Republic as well as the two previous issues of The New Republic according to The Weekly Standard. The "Baghdad Diarist" admitted in signed a sworn statement that he made up the stories he wrote for TNR. According to the Weekly Standard's source the statement Scott Thomas Beauchamp admitted that, all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth.

Beauchamp signed the statement admitting to the falsehoods during the first day of the official military investigation into events he wrote about while using the pseudonym "Scott Thomas". On the very day that Beauchamp came clean with investigators Franklin Foer the Editor of The New Republic published a statement from Beauchamp that read, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

How's that for being in touch with your unimpeachable sources Mr. Foer?

Indulging in a bit of after-the-fact cut and paste, the editors of The New Republic said Beauchamp later recalled one of the stories that he said he would stand by in its entirety occured not in a "mess hall" in Iraq after all but in Kuwait. Beauchamp says he and a comrade humiliated a woman disfigured by an IED. The story was meant to tell of the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war". Of course our soldiers were the antagonists while the war served as the backdrop for Beauchamp's melodrama.

The editors of The New Republic posted a terse response to their critics here. In their response they claim to have called Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his tales. The editors say that Major Lamb told them he had no knowledge of a sworn statement made by Private Beauchamp.

This stands in direct contradiction to what has been widely published about Beauchamp and the reliability of his stories as well as the reports about the official military inquiry into the "Baghdad Diarist's" articles.

Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard responds to The New Republic:

(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?

(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?

The Army initiated an official investigation into these purported events and came to the conclusion that Private Beauchamp is a liar! Can it get any clearer than that TNR? Is The New Republic now saying that the U.S. Army investigators who looked into this affair are liars? Are they now saying that their "Diarist" is still standing by his words even after signing a sworn statement that, all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth. ?

Who to believe? Who to believe? Let me see.......

Definitely I do not believe The New Republic. Based on their tersely worded defenses, rather obvious political leanings and their rush to print these distortions without performing their due diligence in advance of publication I find their version of events hard to believe at best. I'm speculating here but I think that to them a chance to publish Beauchamp's articles to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war" must have seemed too good to not be true. Maybe it was a Dan Rather-like moment for them, pouring over the "diarist's" manuscripts the way Rather thumbed through the Texas Air National Guard documents that had so conveniently materialized just weeks before the Presidential election of 2004. Rather thought he finally had the goods on George Bush and had "scooped" the other networks, instead he and four of his compatriots got caught in the snare they had so carefully laid for the President. After that event his credibility as a newsman never really recovered. Rather's own preconceived notions about the President and his zeal to get George Bush convinced him that the TANG documents must have been true. In fact Dan Rather still believes in the infamous TANG documents which were shown to be obvious fogeries.

Is The New Republic on the same track as Rather that they now adhere to a fake-but-true standard of journalistic reliabilty?

Maybe a summary of headlines we can expect to see featuring the "fabulistic" journalism pioneered by The New Republic would be:

Hillary to Barak, I'll have your baby!

Mitt Romney endorsed by Space Aliens for 2008 run!

Alberto Gonzales is really Elvis!

Lose weight fast with incredible Beer and Pizza diet!

World ended in 2004 says Historian!

Will be Franklin Foer's next line of defense for this new brand of "fabulistic" journalism be "Why do you think we call them stories?"