Can't say we haven't seen this before: Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a writer for the New Republic, has recanted his tales of American military savagery according to the Weekly Standard (h/t Powerline):
The Weekly Standard has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--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.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
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.
According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unlike some people who talk
August 7, 2007 - 01:52 ET by sarcasmoUnlike some people who talk out of school (coughArmitagecough!) I'm pretty sure this guy will actually be punished, but I still don't get it. Whether he's against the Iraq war or for it, and whether he wants to be there or wants to get sent home, I can't understand or imagine any motive behind doing something like this. The truth of war is generally bad enough without lies, anyway. His fellow soldiers were certain to find out it was him, and then certain to immediately think he's a liar. I'm trying to imagine any up-side for him to this, and I can't come up with anything...Did The New Republic pay him??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Molotov Mob
August 7, 2007 - 02:26 ET by Lame CherryLast year I had very interesting email from someone who was being impersonated by Jason Leopold, the infamous liar creating bogus stories in the press. From that time I coined the phrase Molotov Mob for sick people seeking attention who run around in the media spreading made up stories just so they can be a star for the hour.
These creatures are pathological and like Anna Nichole do not weigh the consequences. They simply will do anything like an addict for the fix of being popular.
Beauchamp psychologically wanted attention. He turned on his military and took up the Cindy Sheehan syndrome to feed his psychopathy. It does not matter if one is caught as the needle of ink has already given them countless highs as they sit like a serial killer reliving their name up in lights.
To a sane person none of it is logical, but like any criminal Beauchamp did what he did knowing others would be harmed for his own selfish reasons.
None of that can be an excuse as even a pedophile has a reason for preying on children as much as Saddam had for slaughtering hundreds of thousands. Beauchamp is no different than Saddam as mass murder occurred from what he initiated.
This Judas has gotten his 30 pieces of silver so let him find a potter's field and a willing hemp rope after a speedy trial. The reason he did it does not matter.......what matters are murdered Iraqi and Americans which Beauchamp is responsible for.
The Molotov Mob must be stopped by the rule of law.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Even if he wanted
August 7, 2007 - 03:03 ET by sarcasmoEven if he wanted attention, it seems strange to me that he'd go about getting it in this way, of all possible ways. I suppose thinking this way possibly makes me sane. ;)
My understanding of how military units work psychologically is that they grow very close to eachother as individuals over time. Why he'd want to do this thing -- endangering his (now former) buddies and himself for no reason besides publicity and with a high chance of getting caught anyway -- is beyond me. I hope the magazine paid him, as that will at least make it make more sense.
I wonder if people like this guy or Cindy Sheehan understand that regardless of their personal feelings about the war, many others interpret their actions in vastly different ways than they might imagine? Even though I've remained opposed to this war, I've also tried on occasion (in my own small ways) to help US soldiers who are there, and I see no conflict in those 2 seemingly contradictory things.
These grandstanding types are so monumentally ineffective and unpopular that I sometimes wonder whose side they're on and whether they're secretly pro-war. I have no proof of it and could well be wrong, but I've been suspicious of Sheehan since she embraced Hugo Chavez...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I guess this guy might be
August 7, 2007 - 03:23 ET by sarcasmoI guess this guy might be like the now-infamous "pedophile blogger" Jack Mclellan, who proclaims his sick desires & snaps photos of children, yet has never been caught hurting any kids.
At first, I kept thinking that he must be some sort of amateur actor trying to prove his skills by pulling a media-prank akin to Yale students' old letters to Ann Landers, but I guess by now he's for-real. It's hard to say, as an admitted free speech absolutist, what should become of such people in a free society. I wish he'd quit, and say that it's all an elaborate, creepy joke.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I'm glad you recognize
August 7, 2007 - 07:40 ET by dscottI'm glad you recognize there are limits even to free speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Lying is not a free speech issue, slander is not a free speech issue, propagandizing for the enemy indirectly (like this guy did and I contend the MSM also) is not a free speech issue, just like exposing State secrets (NSA wiretap, CIA prison locations, etc.) is not a free speech issue, they are instead irresponsible actions that abuse and inherently weaken the right of free speech. This is no different than lawfully owning a gun under the 2nd Amendment, but then turning around to abuse that right by robbing a store or threatening someone with it. It is what you do with your Rights that is at issue, not the Right itself.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Even if he wanted
August 7, 2007 - 04:40 ET by motherbeltEven if he wanted attention, it seems strange to me that he'd go about getting it in this way, of all possible ways. sarcasmo
Women with "Munchausen's syndrome by proxy" (debate on whether it's real deferred) actually make and keep their own kids sick, in order to bask in all the sympathy and attention that comes their way because of it. So why does this guy getting attention in this way surprise you?
I'm not saying hes' sick; only that right now bashing the troops is a good way to get attention in the liberal media. And people like this often don't think beyond the initial glory, to the consequences.
The Muchhausen women shock
August 7, 2007 - 05:08 ET by sarcasmoThe Muchhausen women shock me, too. I try to understand how others can do certain things, but as a person for whom "attention" is often akin to torture, it's hard to imagine wanting to do certain kinds of things. And since he wasn't telling the truth, anyway, where's the "glory" in being found a liar? He might as well make it a novel and admit it's not true if he wants to sell a story. I guess I am saying he's sick, or at least nuts, but now I'm curious about the feelings of his fellow soldiers -- about him, this incident, and the media.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
And since he wasn't telling
August 7, 2007 - 08:39 ET by motherbeltAnd since he wasn't telling the truth, anyway, where's the "glory" in being found a liar?-sarcasmo
He took a chance that he wouldn't be found out, and enjoyed the "glory" of the attention (while it lasted).
Like the Munchausen women, they don't think about being caught. Or maybe in their "altered" state, whatever that is, (the MBP's, anyway) maybe they really can't tell right from wrong. I don't know.
It's still weird, though
August 7, 2007 - 08:47 ET by sarcasmoYeah, but if he used his first & middle names, it's hard to even think he was all that anonymous because someone HAD to eventually catch on, so maybe he must secretly WANT to be caught? For me, now the story is what do the other guys say, if they're even willing to talk.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
X-File
August 7, 2007 - 14:17 ET by stratman"I try to understand how others can do certain things, but as a person for whom "attention" is often akin to torture, it's hard to imagine wanting to do certain kinds of things."
Sarc, I've never thought of you as a shrinking violet.
I agree the perpetrator is looking for attention. That is the core issue. Because he decided on this particular manner to obtain his "fix", I assume he also is against the Iraq invasion/occupation and has a grudge against the military and/or Bush & Co..
His pornographic seditious libels should garner him an investigation into potential criminal activity. If indeed guilty of a crime(s), he should be punished to the full extent to the law. I also think the New Republic who published this dung should be investigated for collusion as they stated they did vet the story and were satisfied with its "truthful" content.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Sarc: You are forgetting
August 7, 2007 - 09:33 ET by BDSarc:
You are forgetting the example set for this guy by John F Kerry. That being, find a way to position yourself on both ends for any potential political future.
1.) Get the glory of actually having served for those who value such (Getting a write up for a Silver Star helps)
2.) Then somehow find a way to not alienate the Anti-war left by standing in front of congress and castigate your former comrades. (Alluding to ones comrades as war criminals helps.)
Then when the time comes to run for office, play whichever card is more beneficial to your polling needs.
See, for libs it is simple.
}}---> Kerry was different
August 7, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Cool ArrowJohn Kerry carried his "I am a baby killer" story for as long as the war movement needed him.
Beauchump folded like a cheap suit as soon as he was discovered as the author of the lies.
The Dems were just dying to go front and center in defense of this "voice crying in the wilderness" at his Court Martial. He chickened out too soon and his story is too tainted for Dems to resurrect.
The difference is that
August 7, 2007 - 10:21 ET by BDThe difference is that unlike the 1970's, today we have an organized resistance to the left that is willing to fight back.
Unlike the conservatives of the 1970's we now have a backbone. There was only one guy who took on Kerry in the 1970's and he was not given the kind of support that is available today.
What's Leopold been up to
August 7, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Del DolemonteWhat's Leopold been up to lately? I refuse to give truthout.org any page hits. Is he still claiming Karl Rove is about to be indicted?
Stephen Glass lives!
August 7, 2007 - 02:06 ET by GatorgradSTEPHEN GLASS LIVES!!!!!
What is it with the New Republic? Didn't they learn their lesson already about lying to be popular idiots? You would think that after the credibility of that magazine was nearly destroyed by Stephen Glass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass ) that this would never happen again.
Oh yeah..... he wrote things that made the war in Iraq and GW look bad. No need to fact check those.
I will wait patiently for the retraction of that fools articles. And it better damn well be something other than a "We're sorry" sentence at the bottom of page 52.
I do not think an apology
August 7, 2007 - 07:27 ET by Roger the ShrubberI do not think an apology was even issued.
So sayeth the New Reopublic:
Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.
The damn Army is to blame for our non-apology! Damn you for stopping us from finding the truth, baby-killers!
Hang Beauchamp
August 7, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Lame CherryBeauchamp should not be let off signing plea deals admitting he lied which I pointed out in his skull crown story.
His words inflamed, emboldened and convinced terrorists to shoot, blow up and murder real people. One can not yell fire in a crowded building and when people die they are guilty of homocide.
Beauchamp is not just a murderer, he is traitor to the United States aiding terrorists and IS a mass murderer. He has had a hand in every dead Iraqi and US soldier since his fiction was created. He is guilty in the planning of new mass murder attacks on the west.
That means he must be tried in a military court and when found guilty to his already admitted lying be sentenced to death by hanging.
As a member of the American corp, I do not want this trash hung in America, but let him be hung in Iraq and his carcase left to decompose there as he is unfit for American soil and the Iraqi people he helped slaughter deserve to see the monument of his grave as payment for his Saddam impersonation slaughter.
Furthermore as this is a military matter let the New Republic from publisher to editors who made money off this filth be held as accomplices and serve their life sentences out in Abu Gharib to experience real torture at the hands of Iraqi inmates as the NR has shown just how much they hate Americans, the US military and the Iraqi people.
The JAG has a job. Let justice be accomplished with no more of this coddling of mass murder traitors.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Charge him with aiding the enemy
August 7, 2007 - 07:22 ET by GalvanicI agree, LC. He should not be handled like some psychologically damaged victim. This soldier's deliberate lies and exaggerations have aided the enemy's propaganda campaign, and he ought to be brought up on the appropriate charges under the UCMJ. If the Defense Department fails to do so, it will only encourage more miscreant behavior.
Don't hold your breath
August 7, 2007 - 13:39 ET by mvfreemanIf these guys didn't get the death penalty for their crimes and instigation of jihadists you can forget about Beachamp getting hanged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080500145.html
Scott Thomas Beau-chump?
August 7, 2007 - 05:35 ET by P.J. GladnickScott Thomas Beau-chump?
Reality based community strikes again
August 7, 2007 - 06:03 ET by bulbasaurYou know, for a reality based community they sure aren't one.
Winter Soldier
August 7, 2007 - 06:16 ET by Sergeant ROCKSounds like a John Kerry wannabe. Slandering the 'troops' is very popular among liberals. That's how they support the troops and not the war.
Exactly Sgt ROCK, This
August 7, 2007 - 07:02 ET by VT Con ManExactly Sgt ROCK, This conflicted, (another word for COWARDLY) routine played by Kerry and other such ilk disgusts me. They play both sides, because they know, deep down, that they are so wrong to trash our great enlisted men and women, and their mission.
These types are nothing but a pathetic bunch of sniveling wimps, who should never have the luxury of not paying dearly for their dispicable acts of treasonous lies.
I was going to make the
August 7, 2007 - 07:07 ET by dscottI was going to make the same observation regarding Kerry. The jerk wanted his Ghengis Khan accusation moment in the public lime light, but unlike Kerry at least he had the decency to recant, Kerry has not to my knowledge.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Attention Seeker
August 7, 2007 - 07:07 ET by kdoliverI don't know this kid, but I have served with many like him. They simply want attention. He is a young private that has absolutely no authority and he craves it. All of us in uniform know that the media runs with bad news stories out of Iraq. So as some one mentioned above, he did not consider his actions, and made up some great stories that were published in a national magazine.
Kids today think nothing of consequences and the media plays a large part in that mentality. Those of us in our 30s typically want to be our childrens friend and not a parent. So we have mommy and daddy not teaching consequences (it may hurt Jr's self-esteem) and that is re-enforced by the popular culture. So having a private in the Army who has NO IDEA of the big picture who makes up stories, gets them published and then they turn out to be false does not surprise me.
I wish his chain of command would try him for treason, but thats not gonna happen.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
No sense of responsibility
August 7, 2007 - 07:30 ET by Galvanic"Kids today think nothing of consequences and the media plays a large part in that mentality. Those of us in our 30s typically want to be our childrens friend and not a parent. So we have mommy and daddy not teaching consequences (it may hurt Jr's self-esteem) and that is re-enforced by the popular culture."
An excellent point, kdoliver. We have too many young folks who's yearning for celebrity is unchecked by a moral sense of responsibility for the consequences. I'm sure that this soldier will ultimately blame his Army training or PTSD for his misbehavior, and he will find empathy amongst the Cindy Sheehans of the world, who will insist that his lies reflect relative Truth, and hoist him up on the pedestal he seeks.
His squadmates ought to beat the crap out of him.
I'm sure that this soldier
August 7, 2007 - 09:47 ET by kdoliverI'm sure that this soldier will ultimately blame his Army training or PTSD for his misbehavior
My brother (the smart one in the family) is a clinical pychologist in the Army and did his doctoral thesis on PTSD. We were having a debate over PTSD, which find way over used as a crutch and truly demeans the individual who has suffered and has the disease, he said something that really hit home to the weakness of Generation Y. He said they "Needed" the attention. That if you a person was happy with the love of his family and was well adjusted prior to the war, then he would turn out fine in the end. The late teen/early 20s people needed "everyone" to validate their experience. Most were not well adjusted people prior to their war and would probably use the war a crutch the rest of their lives.
One a personal note, every soldier that I saw that needed help for "stress" did not travel outside the wire very frequently.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Of course.
August 7, 2007 - 07:16 ET by MRNCall up Hayden Christensen, I smell sequel.
I'm sure the Kos Kiddies,
August 7, 2007 - 08:02 ET by Del DolemonteI'm sure the Kos Kiddies, HuffPosters and DU nuts will now claim Beauchamp was SWIFTBOATED.
And I'm sure we'll see Beau show up on Larry King for a sympathetic hour later this week...
Beauchump
August 7, 2007 - 08:08 ET by Cool ArrowIt's going to be hard to put lipstick on that pig after his speedy retraction. I don't think the left will bother with him any more than they have time for Cindy Sheehan. He, like Sheehan has been chewed up and spit out. Since the Dems didn't swallow them, as the proverb goes, they won't return to it.
I just put on my radiation
August 7, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Del DolemonteI just put on my radiation suit and visited Democrat Underground. Deathly silence on this story. But I'm sure they'll post it within 12 "business hours".
Beauchamp, Smeauchamp...Who needs him?
August 7, 2007 - 08:24 ET by coffee260Even though Pvt. Beauchamps (by his own admission) three stories in TNR have been proven to be false with only "a smidgen of truth," that doesn't take away from his larger point. That war creates monsters. By everything we've seen since this war has started, the evidence is overwhelming. You want examples? Ok, I'll give you examples.
Want more? Here's a doozy!
Had enough? Not yet? Ok!
And there's this: troop-bashing rant by Saturday Night Live has-been A. Whitney Brown, also published on the Daily Kos.
So you see, with these examples I've given you, which are only a few of many, Pvt. Scott Beauchamp's theory that war creates monsters out of an otherwise morally balanced person is more than substanciated. (Although I take issue with the above quotes being made by otherwise morally balanced people, I at least have to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Franklin Foer should go
August 7, 2007 - 08:50 ET by daveinbocaFranklin Foer should go because of this Steven Glass follow-up. Someone called the Beauchamp folderol "pre-traumatic stress disorder," and it went right into Foer's left-wing frontal-lobe circuitry without a single limbic fact-check. TNR rivals the New Yorker for its witless commentary & lack of fact-checking. Serial hack Hendrick Hertzberg mis-spelled "Saudia Arabia[sic]" and got away with it in TNY. Maybe it's the fever-swamp Kool-Ade that Foer inherited from his Commie daddy, a "historian" noted for fake analyses of American policy.
"New Republic Freelancer Recants Tales"
August 7, 2007 - 09:38 ET by Dave PierreAnd the MSM ignores this story in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
Remember how much the MSM hyperventilated over the WaPo/Ben Domenech/blogger story? This is far more serious and troubling.
Has the LAT or the NYT reported on this? (I'm asking.)
+_+_+_+
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken; Al debunked ...
According to Little Green
August 7, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Del DolemonteAccording to Little Green Footballs, Beauchamp's piece has mysteriously vanished from the TNR website. No explanation given.
If you read the update on LGF
August 7, 2007 - 13:53 ET by mvfreemanThe story is still at TNR.
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307
The TNR website does seem to be having some problems.
Before you reach for the rope
August 7, 2007 - 13:30 ET by mvfreemanThis is the latest statement by TNR and and army spokesman.
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."
--The Editors
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739
Well, let's see here...TNR
August 7, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Del DolemonteWell, let's see here... TNR doesn't name the military personnel whose "accounts" they claim were true. Why not?
Then, Major Lamb says he doesn't know anything about the anonymously sourced allegation. That doesn't mean the allegation is a lie.
If I had to pick between believing the New Republic, which has a sordid history of journalistic malpractice, or believing a military spokesman who never denied that Beauchamp recanted, I'm going with Door Number 2.
And as I correctly predicted this morning, one of the talking points is this, from a comment left at TNR blog:
"Wonder if Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted when the military used their now legal means of "interrogation"?"
Concur with that. Hard
August 7, 2007 - 14:41 ET by BDConcur with that. Hard for an army spokesperson to refute an allegation from an unnamed source. Sorta like, "We have an unnamed source that says that an unnamed soldier kicked an unnamed dog this morning in the Fort Benning area."
Now, we can obviously look up a specific soldier, such as PV2 Snuffy and find out that he was NOT in the Fort Benning area at the required time if HE is named, or we can find out other specifics, but allegations by unnamed sources about unnamed miscreants of an event with no coorobrating info is HARDLY believeable.
How about door number 3?
August 7, 2007 - 14:53 ET by mvfreemanWaiting for the official results from the army. We're always blasting the liberal media for using unnamed sources so let's wait for the army to release a statement.
By the way, if you notice,
August 7, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Del DolemonteBy the way, if you notice, TNR themselves in their response do NOT deny that Beauchamp had recanted the story. The Clintons taught them to parse very well.
Here's a great comment I saw on Hot Air:
"What that statement is saying is “we dont care if Scott Thomas has recanted. We have secret sources that verify what he said is true. but we wont tell you who they are”
That is almost as good as
August 7, 2007 - 15:06 ET by BDThat is almost as good as Dan Rathers false but accurate "Texas Air National Guard " Story. It was proven false, but they decided to stand by it for reasons that it was otherswise true for unmentionable reasons.....
How can they deny something
August 7, 2007 - 15:06 ET by mvfreemanHow can they deny something they have no knowledge of? When the army officially says he recanted then they can deny it. At this point they are being asked to deny hearsay. Which is kind of ironic.
"An investigation has been
August 7, 2007 - 15:04 ET by BD"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."
According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."
So either Beauchamp has
August 7, 2007 - 15:49 ET by dscottSo either Beauchamp has commited perjury to the Army officials in giving his recant or New Republic has colluded with Beauchamp to lie to the public or the New Republic has lied claiming Beauchamp stands by his statements. Any way you slice it, someone lied.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Let us just say that lying
August 7, 2007 - 15:59 ET by BDLet us just say that lying to the Army has a higher penalty than lying to The New Republic.
In fact, lying to the TNR gets you bennies....
Here's a July 27 story from
August 7, 2007 - 17:12 ET by Del DolemonteHere's a July 27 story from Real Clear Politics, with some of Beauchamp's background:
"That he is Pvt. Beauchamp suggests this is not his first brush with the UCMJ. He called himself PFC Beauchamp on his Web site last September, which indicates he's been busted a stripe. He's been in the Army long enough to be a Spec 4.
On his blog (Sir Real Scott Thomas), Pvt. Beauchamp indicates he's an aspiring writer who joined the Army to establish credentials for voicing his liberal political opinions.
"I know that NOT participating in a war (and such a misguided one at that) should be considered better than wanting to be in one just to write a book," he wrote May 18, 2006. "But...maybe I'd rather be both."
But is Pvt. Beauchamp telling the truth about what he sees in Iraq?
In a blog entry for May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp describes an atrocity: "'Put a 556 in his head.' (The caliber of an M-16 rifle is 5.56 millimeters.) On the street below, the man's brown face dissolves in a thick red mist. The lights in the city's houses shut off in unison. Electricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in 120 degree weather?"
On May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp was in Germany, where temperatures rarely reach 120 degrees, and the electricity and water work just fine."
To further break it down,
August 7, 2007 - 17:34 ET by BDTo further break it down, in May of this year, electricity production had reached an all time high in Iraq as well as transmission. As a minor aside, electricity USE was also at an all time high as previously unheard of activities such as purchasing computers, air conditioners, and refrigerators was occuring.
Water production and use is also at an all time high as neigherhoods that previously were not allowed on the system have begun to install piping. Water sanitation efforts are liewise at an all time high.
Have i ever tried to survive in 120 degrees for more than a few hours? Actually I have, both in Iraq and at the NTC in Fort Irwin California as well as Saudi Arabia.
Beauchamp is the ultimate Poseur.....
The Weekly Standard fired
August 7, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Del DolemonteThe Weekly Standard fired back late this afternoon on TNR's "non-rebuttal"
http://www.weeklysta...
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?