Beauchamp: Game Over

...well at least for the veracity of his allegations in Shock Troops.

From Confederate Yankee in email:

Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus, just emailed me the following in response to my request to confirm an earlier report that the U.S. Army's investigation into the claims made by PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp made in The New Republic had been completed.

[Boylan:] 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. [SNIP]

Presumably thorough, in-person interviews of all of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, and Beauchamp's platoon within Alpha Company by military investigators, and not one of those soldiers could confirm Beauchamp's stories as told in The New Republic. [SNIP]

It appears that the proverbial ball is now in The New Republic's court.

Comments

[Charles Wilson]

This proves nothing at all. Of COURSE the people in his unit will deny the truth of his stories. To admit them would be to expose themselves to prosecution.

TNR already investigated the claims, and found corroboration for all of them. The one error they found was in the location of one incident, but they nevertheless found that it occurred.

So, what we have is the Army saying one thing and the writer and his magazine saying something else. You want to believe the Army, because to do so would make Beauchamp look bad.

As for me, I don't have a real investment in the Army being right or wrong. If the soldier made it all up, it would be a passing blip. If it was true, it would be a passing blip. Nothing in the report itself was especially surprising given the context.

The most interesting aspect of the whole thing is the shifting lines of attack from the right wing, and the person you've been relying on to convey the Army's official denials.

The shifting lines of attack started with accusing TNR of not having an actual solider writing the column in question, and wound up with wild tales of psychosis and mystery staff vacations. It's all quite silly on your part.

And your choice of conduits -- Matt Sanchez, a gay Republican porn actor and prostitute -- is nothing short of hilarious.

[Walter E. Wallis]

The original attack, that it seemed not to be a real soldier was based on the opinions of - tada! - real soldiers. The intentional running down of dogs changed, in the editorial cover up, to dogs chasing tracked vehicles not knowing that the rear end sluwed around on a turn. Eyes in back of the driver's head to intentionally whack a dog.
Did I ever tell you about the night Yeti jumped into my foxhole? Or was it Betty? That's right, Betty Davis. Shared a C ration and a smoke. The rest of the story will cost you.

[buzz]

In other words there is no proof that possibly could be presented to Charles Wilson that none of this happened. Everyone in his unit denies it vs TNR anonymous soldier who claims a different country for one story, a dog got ran over once and there is a cemetery in Iraq. And everyone knows that if a gay porn actor and prostitute reports something that can easily be verified by anyone, it must be false. Plus there is no redemption in Mr Wilson's world. No matter how much time passes and no matter what Sanchez accomplishes he will always be a porn actor/prostitute. The face of todays tolerant left.

[baldilocks]

Glad to entertain you Charles. And, thanks, Walter and Buzz for responding to Charles. He has admitted to not caring about the Army's honor. We know what (whom) he really cares about: Matt Sanchez.

I'd say Charles has been scorned by MS--if not personally, by the fact that MS abandoned the type of lifestyle that Charles,for whatever reason, wants him to wallow in.

And because of that, Charles behaves like every scorned "lover" I've ever had the "pleasure" of meeting. Not pretty.

[Charles Wilson]

Quite the Christian attack machine you're running here, Baldy.

Your friend Matt Sanchez was a star in gay porn films. He was a male prostitute. He has consistently lied about those things, and more. I am gay, but never a porn "actor," never a prostitute, and not a liar. Yet you feel free to imply that I am.

Similarly, you're willing to write that I am a "scorned lover" because I have told the truth about your friend, Matthew Sanchez. You have no evidence of it, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

Read your bible, especially the part about bearing false witness. Or do "Christians" figure that the commandments apply onto to the heathens? After all, you've declared your allegiance to ol' Jesus H., so you figure you've bought your ticket to heaven no matter what the hell you do, correct?

[Charles Wilson]

In other words there is no proof that possibly could be presented to Charles Wilson that none of this happened.

Proving a negative is enormously difficult. If TNR were to disavow the story at a future date, I'd regard it as definitive.

But I can't imagine how the Army could disprove it. The denials from his squadmates are self-serving, legally and otherwise. The denials from the public affairs officers are non-credible, in light of the Army's track record of lying about various details of the war. (See Aesop, The Boy Who Cried Wolf)

He has admitted to not caring about the Army's honor.

That's a Baldy-faced lie. I've never made such an admission. In fact, I care a great deal about the Army's honor. I wish the Army cared as much as it should.

[Charles Wilson]

How do we know that the Army's PIO isn't lying, or passing along someone else's lies?

[Pablo]

Quite the Christian attack machine you're running here, Baldy.

My, aren't you just ever so charming.

He has consistently lied about those things, and more.

When did he do that?

In fact, I care a great deal about the Army's honor. I wish the Army cared as much as it should.

"I care deeply about the Army's honor, the dirty bastards."

[Charles Wilson]

My, aren't you just ever so charming.

I've never viewed myself as charming, but if you want to think of me that way I guess I won't argue the point.

When did he do that?

Last spring. Check it out for yourself. If you have the courage, that is.

http://tinyurl.com/ynlx7z

"I care deeply about the Army's honor, the dirty bastards."

More than whoever made up phony hero stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman; more than whoever covered up Pat Tillman's murder and continues to do it up to the present; more than whoever carried out White House orders to use torture on enemy combatants.

[Pablo]

Holy sh*t, Charles! You have a website devoted to him? And chock full of mighty thin gruel, too.

And Tillman was murdered, now? With his brother on scene? And this is being covered up? But yet, you know it to be true.

You're a sick man, Charles. Why so much hate?

[Charles Wilson]

Holy sh*t, Charles! You have a website devoted to him? And chock full of mighty thin gruel, too.

You've read the site, then?

And Tillman was murdered, now? With his brother on scene? And this is being covered up? But yet, you know it to be true.

Three bullet holes in a 3-inch circle in his forehead. No enemy fire at the time. Medical examiners recommended a murder investigation, request ignored. Later e-mail messages congratulating each other for covering it up.

Yup, Tillman was murdered and it was covered up. While his brother was there.

You're a sick man, Charles. Why so much hate?

Good question. Why so much hatred from you?

[Pablo]

I've seen enough of your site to recognize the rantings of an obsessive which get pretty old pretty quick for anyone who doesn't share the obsession.

Why so much hatred from you?

Where do you see hatred, Charles?

[Charles Wilson]

I've seen enough of your site to recognize the rantings of an obsessive which get pretty old pretty quick for anyone who doesn't share the obsession.

So, it was "thin gruel" because you didn't read much of it. As for "obsession," you are obsessed enough to argue with me.

Where do you see hatred, Charles?

Well, Pablo, you called me a "sick man," and Baldy puked forth several lies about me. I think that qualifies as hatred. Christians seem to be full of hatred these days.

[Pablo]

Stating the obvious isn't hatred, and I don't see where baldilocks has lied to you. But then, we weren't talking about her, we were talking about your comment regarding my hate, weren't we?

Frankly, I'm concerned about you. One of these days, you're liable to snap.

G'nite!

[Charles Wilson]

You don't see where Baldy puked out lies because you don't want to see. And your justification of your own hatred is dishonest. Of course, what else can expect from good Christians like you? Nite-nite, Pablo. Tell Mateo goodnite, too.

[Brian H]

Boobchump will go down in history as another exposed petty fabulist, and he's taken TNR with him. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot.

[Pablo]

Are you saying you're not obsessed with Sanchez, Charles? Or that noticing your obvious obsession is evidence of hate?

What makes you think I'm a Christian? And why do you hate Christians so?

[Charles Wilson]

Pablo, I'm interested in Sanchez's case, but I am not "obsessed." I don't hate him, nor you. I don't hate Christians, either.

[Charles Wilson]

What makes you think I'm a Christian?

Call it intuition. Pablo, are you a Christian?

[Pablo]

Charles, someone who is simply interested looks into a thing. You've got a cyber hate shrine devoted to smearing him, and your interest doesn't include acknowledging positive facts. And here you are chasing down the emntion of him so that you can spend an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking him. That is not mere interest. Then there's your concern that there's some vast conspiracy in which baldilocks knows him and is somehow shilling for him, and his friends in high places are covering up for him, when there's no evidence of anything that needs covering up. What is your deal with him?

I don't hate him, nor you.

You sure fooled me. You've clearly got a major league axe to grind with him. Any fool can see that. Why? And if you don't hate Christians, why do you do so much Christian bashing?

Call it intuition. Pablo, are you a Christian?

Brought up catholic and lapsed at the earliest opportunity. I've been nonreligious for decades.

[baldilocks]

You don't see where Baldy puked out lies because you don't want to see.

So you refuse to apologize and insult me again, eh? Nice knowing you Mr. Wilson. Well it wasn't that nice, actually.

I would go to read as you whine about being banned here, except that---I'm just not that interested. I will, however, keep praying for you. You obviously need it.

BTW, instead of freaking out here so publicly, why don't you talk to Matt himself, since that's who you're really angry at?

Later.

[Charles Wilson]

Charles, someone who is simply interested looks into a thing. You've got a cyber hate shrine devoted to smearing him, and your interest doesn't include acknowledging positive facts.

There's no smearing. A lively discussion board, but no smearing. As for positive facts, well, let's see. Okay, it looks like he finally quit whoring. Good for him.

Then there's your concern that there's some vast conspiracy in which baldilocks knows him and is somehow shilling for him, and his friends in high places are covering up for him, when there's no evidence of anything that needs covering up. What is your deal with him?

There's no "conspiracy," nor have I alleged one. I do wonder how in hell a lowlife like Sanchez oozed his way into an embedded press position, but "conspiracy" isn't the word I'd use.

My "deal" is explained on the site. You have the link. See the "About This Site (Why?!)" page.

You sure fooled me. You've clearly got a major league axe to grind with him. Any fool can see that. Why? And if you don't hate Christians, why do you do so much Christian bashing?

I really don't hate him. As for an "axe," it's only a matter of telling the truth. Nothing more. If Sanchez would just tell the truth about himself, I'd move on. I'm no more interested in him than I am in any other ant on the sidewalk, but it just so happens that he's the one I'm looking at right now.

I "bash" Christians because so many evangelicals are lying hypocrites. Someone has to tell them. Might as well be me.

[baldilocks]

BTW, Charles, you don't even know what service the guy was in. I hope that you aren't making that same mistake at your shrine.

[C Wilson]

Baldy, you Christian coward, I know what service he WAS is, emphasis on WAS. Too bad you're such a lying coward, but it's so evangelical of you.

[baldilocks]

Scream, child! Have A Cow! Holler!

[baldilocks]

Fall on the floor and throw a tantrum!

Sheesh. And they say women are hysterical.

[Pablo]

Oooooh...Fauxchamp recants.

[baldilocks]

Thanks, Pablo!

[Pablo]

My pleasure, m'lady!