Skip to comments.
Army Says Soldier’s Articles for Magazine Were False
The New York Times ^
| August 8, 2007
| PATRICIA COHEN
Posted on 08/07/2007 6:42:31 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Michael Goldfarb, the online editor at The Weekly Standard who had initially raised doubt about the columns, wrote yesterday that The Standard had learned from a source close to the Army investigation that Private Beauchamp signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in The New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods fabrications containing only a smidgen of truth, in the words of our source.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The brief statement, however, left many questions unanswered.Yeah, keep hoping.
2
posted on
08/07/2007 6:43:46 PM PDT
by
dighton
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Someone who does this ought to be prosecuted for treason.
3
posted on
08/07/2007 6:44:47 PM PDT
by
pnh102
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Private Beauchamp is married to a reporter-researcher at the magazine, Elspeth Reeve. For now. He's no longer useful, so my money says she dumps him.
4
posted on
08/07/2007 6:44:47 PM PDT
by
Doctor Raoul
(What's the difference between the CIA and the Free Clinic? The Free Clinic knows how to stop leaks.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
6
posted on
08/07/2007 6:46:22 PM PDT
by
NewHampshireDuo
(Earth - Taking care of itself since 4.6 billion BC)
To: West Coast Conservative; Marine_Uncle; PajamaTruthMafia; Allegra; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; ...
sorry for the double pings
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
“five members of the same company”
Let me guess...five e-mail identities of Pvt. Beauchamp himself.
Dibs on that one!
8
posted on
08/07/2007 6:47:51 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Beauchamp and TNR both caught in the act of Anonymous Sedition.
9
posted on
08/07/2007 6:48:03 PM PDT
by
Shqipo
(We win now or darkness reigns.)
To: pnh102
criminal libel is Article 134, UCMJ
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Foer said, ...We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy.All he has to do is read the first line of this article. The Army found the claims were false. Period.
11
posted on
08/07/2007 6:51:11 PM PDT
by
hsalaw
To: Vn_survivor_67-68
criminal libel is Article 134, UCMJ Thanks for pointing this out. Now if only the misguided higher-ups in the military would stop wasting time persecuting good soldiers for doing their jobs, and instead go after these scumbags who defame our troops and the USA in general, we might make some headway.
12
posted on
08/07/2007 6:52:54 PM PDT
by
pnh102
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
IMAGINE THIS WERE A FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT!Oh, my God...the coverage would be non-stop on the networks.
13
posted on
08/07/2007 6:53:21 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: Doctor Raoul
One has to question why this so-called new media did not mention, up front that the supposed soldier was married to one of their employees. The answer is quite simple. In there hysterical zeal to give a negative story, little did they think about sane people questioning their idiotic sounding report and publication. TNR needs to be shut down as a crack-pot and reckless source of disinformation. It appears TNR wants to take this one to the grave, which is fine by me. The sooner this piece of garbage takes a dirt-nap, the better off America will be
To: Doctor Raoul
Now that is just cruel ,,,, /s
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The New York Slimes is bending over so far to believe this lying POS — they’ve finally exposed their own lying ass as disinterested in the truth and despising the military and it mission.
The defense of the Republic...
16
posted on
08/07/2007 6:58:18 PM PDT
by
river rat
(Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made. Never mind the fact that a lot of the sewage he was supposedly recording in his journal was written while he was waiting for his deployment to Iraq.
Yeah, the war turned him into a monster alright. Apparently he can't even think about Iraq without imagining all sorts of atrocities he could witness.
What a sick individual.
17
posted on
08/07/2007 6:58:47 PM PDT
by
Shelayne
(I will continue to pray for President Bush and my country, as I am commanded to do by my Lord.)
To: dighton
The New York Times Lies, again.
Here is the quote directly from The New Republic:
—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.”—
Here is the Times Version:
==Yesterday, The New Republic posted another note on its Web site saying
its editors had spoken to Major Lamb and asked whether Private Beauchamp
had indeed signed a statement admitting to fabrications. He told us,
I have no knowledge of that.—
18
posted on
08/07/2007 7:01:03 PM PDT
by
plangent
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What are the idiots in The New Republic going to do now? I bet they will circle the wagons the way liberals do when they get caught in lies and they are now used to it because they are caught lying 24/7.
19
posted on
08/07/2007 7:04:11 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(God bless our brave troops and President Bush.)
To: Vn_survivor_67-68
UCMJ - Article 134934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Sounds like that'll work!
However - I'd bet even money the guy will escape Leavenworth.
20
posted on
08/07/2007 7:07:39 PM PDT
by
river rat
(Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson