08/03/2007
Matt Sanchez Back as the Weekly Standard's 'Credible' Source
Max Blumenthal reported today for Media Matters that the Weekly Standard recently wrote an article attempting to debunk an article in The New Republic written by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
The TNR article, in the form of a "Baghdad Diary" and written under Beachamp's pseudonym "Scott Thomas", exposed atrocities committed by American soldiers.
According to Blumenthal, "Thomas alleged that while eating in the mess hall at Camp Falcon, he and several other members of his platoon mocked a woman disfigured by 'IEDs.' Thomas also told the tales of a fellow soldier who ran over dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle for entertainment and another who played with the skull of a dead Iraqi child."
Beauchamp revealed his true identity (and was disciplined for it — "the Army punished Beauchamp by revoking his cellphone and email privileges")in response to right-wing allegations that the claims of the atrocities were false, but not before the Weekly Standard published a hit article alleging that Beauchamp's claims were "looking more and more like fiction."
The Weekly Standard's was a story that relied solely on anonymous sources, except for one: Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez.
And if you're unfamiliar with that name, here's some background.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 2:55 PM EST by Andy in Iraq, Matthew Sanchez, Military, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
A gay friend of mine just bought a copy of Ann Coulter's book. Now, he is a very nice guy and all, but seems to believe what this cunt says. I am not a psychologist so can someone explain to me how it is possible that an otherwise well-adjusted intelligent, practicing homosexual can subscribe to an ideology so repulsive as that of Ann Couler?
Posted by: ReasonBased | Aug 3, 2007 3:14:04 PM
Sanchez is so sleezy and psychotic that it's kinda' sexy, don't y'all think so?
I mean, haven't you ever been with a man who was the scum of the earth? It can be thrilling! Then you put him out before dawn...if you can. Sometimes they aint easy to get rid of...like mice.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 3, 2007 3:16:15 PM
Poor Sanchez... he must have mistaken Camp Falcon for Falcon Studios...
Posted by: Roy | Aug 3, 2007 3:21:59 PM
Because, Reasonbased, the truth is not manifest, and those who do not agree with *your* political views are not necessarily psychologically deficient.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 3, 2007 3:31:09 PM
"Truth" and "Ann Coulter" do not belong in the same sentence. "Psychologically deficient," on the other hand...
Posted by: SeattleDan | Aug 3, 2007 3:33:41 PM
Everyone knows that gay people aren't credible witness's!! geez when will people learn.
I'd much rather believe a publication that changes it's confirmed story three times, by altering the country, the time it happened, and the military base it happened at. That's far more credible.
Posted by: tim | Aug 3, 2007 3:35:38 PM
The real question, Reasonbased, is why are you maintaining this "friendship"? Coulter's hardon, Bush, is right about ONE thing: "the friend of my enemy is my enemy."
As for "Mike," it's August! Wouldn't you be more comfortable back under that cool rock you slithered from?
Posted by: Leland | Aug 3, 2007 3:44:31 PM
Leland, don't you know? We don't call August "the dog days of summer" for no reason.
August is the month when rabid animals are prevalent.
Posted by: Tread | Aug 3, 2007 3:52:20 PM
Derrick -
I love that you said what I was thinking. The data clearly show that sex is hotter when coupled with tiny homeopathic amounts of shame and fear. Who hasn't hooked up with some hot (or grot) dude and hoped their friends wouldn't find out?
Mike -
You're right. However, when it comes to Coulter, I think it's pretty clear that she's not dealing with a full deck. Shunning her is not equal to unreasonable bias.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 3:55:00 PM
My question for Sanchez: who are you to question the validity of the soldier's statements when you aren't doing any of the fighting in Iraq (sorry, man, being "embedded" doesn't make you a soldier). All you seem to do is play hidey-hole while questioning the bravery of those brave soldiers who actually have to do the fighting.
Posted by: Tread | Aug 3, 2007 3:55:50 PM
just when sanchez's 15 min. have expired, he gets a 16th min. here. outta sight, outta mind.
Posted by: sean | Aug 3, 2007 4:00:26 PM
Sidney smeared Monica as a crazy stalker until the blue dress showed up - Max smeared Sanchez and Gracie as "gay = dishonest" until the Army said:
Update--All allegations were demonstrated to be false according to officials at Army Public Affairs. --
Max is just engaging in a time honored family tradition of falsely smearing people at the critical moment timed to embarrass themselves.
Darn, I know people keep 'splainin' it to me, but I keep forgettin' the left are the ones who are pro-gay rights, and the right are the ones who hate and despise the gays.
So why does it seem the other way around for the past some years...?
Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2007 4:13:54 PM
People have actually paid him for the chance to suck his dick? I dont get it.
By the way, who's the Latino guy he's with in the picture?
Posted by: mark m | Aug 3, 2007 4:30:42 PM
Here follows my latest theory inspired by the tantalizing trailers to Nicole Kidman's much-troubled new film [fantasies aside of experiencing an "invasion" with costar Daniel Craig — what was that line from Eartha's song? Oh, yeah: "I want to wake up in the morning with that dark brown taste."]
Cocksucking Coulterites, waterLOGged Republicans, et al., are not, as we've previously expounded simply driven by a combination of pedestrian greed and a pathological need for Massa's approval, but have been infected BY ALIENS! According to the film's synopsis: "it attacks its victims while they sleep, leaving them physically unchanged but strangely unfeeling and inhuman. As the infection spreads, more and more people are altered and it becomes impossible to know who can be trusted." So, Derrick, pork them if you must BUT DO NOT FALL ASLEEP!!!!!!!!
PS: Though makers of the film deny its debt to the classic "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," they even stole one of the actresses from the '78 remake: Veronica Cartwright, who, of course, played an alien abductee in some of the best "X-Files" episodes, and an alien-transformed character on last year's TV series "Invasion." Recycled plots, titles, casts.....who dares say Follywood has no fresh ideas?
Posted by: Leland | Aug 3, 2007 4:39:10 PM
What a joke this guy is. We've traded e-mail in the past. Here are a few verbatim quotes from Mr. Sanchez when I questioned his credentials:
* "Another supercilious comment from a guy who is probably very effeminate and has been teased your whole life."
* "Another homosexual who wants to try to kick me because you think I'm down.... I understand your arrogance is just a cover for your insecurity, but jeez, you people are annoying."
* "I never was an escort."
* "Clueless. Just a clueless fag. Try again."
* "Are you another self-hating homosexual who wants to lash out at everyone around you to make yourself feel better?"
* "Coming from a confirmed sodomite like you..."
I have the e-mails to confirm this if anyone is interested.
Posted by: Countervail | Aug 3, 2007 4:53:01 PM
Countervail, please publish them. Then post a link to where we can all see them.
Posted by: Jonathon | Aug 3, 2007 4:58:08 PM
Thanks, Countervail, the psycho piece of trade aint sexy no more.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 3, 2007 5:00:15 PM
Oh, and nothing screams "self-hating homosexual" than someone like Sanchez, who cozies up to the rabid right as they chip away at our basic rights. Many "Log Cabin Republicans" say that their party membership is based on their fiscal conservatism. Well, that's all fine and good. But who the fuck cares about fiscal matters when we lack basic rights? When our civil and human rights are secure, then we can debate fiscal policy, ok?
Posted by: Jonathon | Aug 3, 2007 5:00:23 PM
Let's get this straight:
Thomas Beauchamp/Scott Thomas wrote an article for TNR alleging atrocities committed by US Troops in Iraq (Abu Ghraib revisited I suppose).
Max Blumenthal wrote an article for Media Matters trying to debunk the TNR article.
Matt Sanchez was quoted for an article in the Weekly Standard also debunking the TNR article.
Ann Coulter is not involved yet.
Am I getting this right?
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 3, 2007 5:19:10 PM
I am a former journalist and the creator of a comprehensive website about Matt Sanchez. It brings together virtually everything that's been reported about his careers in gay porn, male prostitution, the Marine Corps, and right-wing media. It also details the ongoing effort (thus far successful) to censor any mention of his prostitution from Wikipedia's website.
I've included a discussion board on the website, and comments are welcome. I will be updating the site this week to reflect Sanchez's activities in the Middle East and his involvement in the Beauchamp story. Please come to the site and check it out, and then post in the discussion forum and/or contact me. Thanks much.
http://www.cplsanchez.info
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 5:33:29 PM
"Max Blumenthal wrote an article for Media Matters trying to debunk the TNR article."
No, Blumenthal attacked The Weekly Standard's reporting of the Beauchamp allegations by reminding his readers that Matt Sanchez was allegedly a male escort.
Rather than arguing whether Beauchamp's reporting was true or not, he played the "smear the queer" card. In otherwords gay = unreliable.
But according to Sanchez, the army itself has corroborated his claims:
"After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been
"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"
Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2007 5:49:48 PM
No, Tom, spare us the fag Repug shell game. "Gay" is not = to "male escort" therefore Blumenthal was not equating gay with unreliable nor smearing the queer. While I support legalization of prostitution, the credibility of Sanchez is not just dubious because he's taken money to suck cock but because he's whored himself to the American Taliban.
Try harder next time, Tom. Cancel that. Just suck a razorblade instead.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 3, 2007 6:04:20 PM
Sanchez isn't unreliable because he's gay, he's unreliable because he's a mentallly unstable liar.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 6:09:41 PM
It's becoming clear that Beauchamp is a liar and has been exposed and no amount of redirecting attention to Matt Sanchez is going to change that fact.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2007 6:11:58 PM
First the 'wingers said that the New Republic's diarist was a faker. That smear collapsed quickly, when the "faker" revealed himself to be an actual soldier, serving in Iraq.
Then the wingers said he must be lying. That didn't work, because the magazine re-checked it a couple times and found corroboration. But the magazine also found an error: one incident took place in Kuwait rather than Iraq.
That gave the wingers an excuse to keep up their smear job, this time on two counts. First, that Beauchamp is a meanie, because he'd been willing to joke about a disfigured woman before undergoing any combat stress. Second, that placing that incident in Kuwait rather than Iraq means he lied about everything rather than getting a detail wrong.
That didn't work either, because not even the wingers can show it didn't happen. The person who sat at Beauchamp's table as they joked about the disfigured woman has confirmed the account.
Along the way, the wingers went after the New Republic for an "unscheduled vacation" by the entire staff, presumably to run away from withering scrutinty of the various wingnut websites. Oops, it turns out that it's early August, and the vacation was long planned.
So, at this late date, the right wing is reduced to, well, a lot of foaming at the mouth. My favorite is all the defending of Matt Sanchez from leftist anti-gay bias. Oh please! What we have is an anti-liar bias.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 6:26:34 PM
Well put, Charles. And you've given me an idea relative to one of the current fads in trendy restaurants. E.g.,
"Ballotine of smoked quail, rosemary oil, and Right Wing foam."
Posted by: Leland | Aug 3, 2007 7:17:15 PM
Is Cpl. Sanchez still a member of the Marine Corps? And if so, why? He is a documented cocksucker/suckee, a paid male prostitute and a pornographer. He has performed "unnatural acts" according to the UCMJ and judging from his penis size, the penetration would have been more than "slight" which is required to complete the offense.
Other military personal, providing greater service (legitimate as opposed to sexual) to our country have been discharged and courtmartialed under DADT with even less graphic evidence available. Some have been discharged on allegations of sexual misconduct alone.
Also, given the outspoken opinion of homosexuals and morality expressed by Peter Pace, The Commandant of the Corps, why does he allow Sanchez to continue to wear the uniform and represent the corps? Does Sanchez have pictures of important political or Pentagon officials servicing/being serviced by him? Why are some out or outed homosexuals discharged under DADT and others aren't. What happened to "equal protection under the law", the doctrine that brought GW to the White House?
Something really stinks here, either our military/civilian system of justice, DADT or the Marines.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 3, 2007 7:20:07 PM
Tom, if you go to my website (cplsanchez.info), I discuss Sanchez's USMC status in detail. The short answer is that, as of last spring, he was an inactive reservist. If the USMC separated him as the result of its investigation, federal privacy rules actually forbid them to say so.
I do have a Freedom of Information Act request in for the investigative file, but given the Bush administration's track record on FOIAs I'm not holding my breath.
Meantime, I think an even more interesting couple of questions are who has paid his expenses to the Middle East, and how has he managed to become "embedded" with American military personnel there?
My partner, who did 20 years in the Navy, thinks he must have friends in high places. I'm starting to wonder.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 8:05:26 PM
Can I take a moment to say thay I love Max Blumenthal?
Posted by: zabadak | Aug 3, 2007 9:12:26 PM
Charles, I do believe he's in the Jeff Gannon School of Journamalism. He's probably poking someone high-up in the White House, just like Guckert was.
I'm just so astounded that he has been given the boot when much more qualified and credible gays were. It's incredible that someone who *still* has a profile floating around here and there promoting his prostitution is still in the military.
Posted by: Tread | Aug 3, 2007 9:39:28 PM
I'm just so astounded he *hasn't* been given the boot...
PS. Never type comments while you're Manhunting. That's a lesson you'll never learn, is it, Sanchez?
Posted by: Tread | Aug 3, 2007 9:41:20 PM
Charles, I do believe he's in the Jeff Gannon School of Journamalism. He's probably poking someone high-up in the White House, just like Guckert was.
It's tempting to entertain the possibility, but I kinda doubt it. If you look at the trajectory of Sanchez's careers -- first porn, then whoring, then the Marine Corps while he was whoring, now embedded blogger -- it doesn't say "well-connected D.C. manwhore" like the Gannon thing did.
That said, his presence in U.S. military units surprises me very much. I know that the USMC investigator in his case this past spring was appalled by Sanchez and his behavior, and that the investigator's point of view went well beyond the sexual stuff.
So, the idea that this guy is over there with U.S. military units strikes me as very strange. Even at the string-pulling level, it's weird. Someone is going awfully far out on a limb for Matthew A. Sanchez, or it sure seems that way.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 9:58:30 PM
Oops: The first paragraph in the preceding post was intended to be an italicized quote from TREAD's prior message. I've got to learn to use the Preview button.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 3, 2007 10:00:08 PM
Oh boy! The Weekly Standard's Wingnut Cruise is sailing in March 2008! Book your ticket now!!
Cpl. Sanchez has to be "embedded" with/in somebody higher up. Maybe he's porking Michael Savage, though it's an image I'd rather not get in my head...
Posted by: Sacanagem | Aug 3, 2007 10:53:38 PM
I'm still confused. Beauchamp is being smeared by Sanchez because Beauchamp is gay? Help me out here.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 3, 2007 11:31:39 PM
A buddy of ours, who escorts, has worked with Matt in a tag team client scene. Matt is one hundred percent faggot, folks. He loves to fuck male ass and apparently is willing to flip to btm when the money is right. This man is one big ole homahseckshul. And apparently very fucked up playing with the likes of Annie Coulter.
Posted by: Bostonian Queer in Dallas | Aug 4, 2007 5:33:54 AM
BQID, tell your friend to visit my website and then contact me. I am very interested in his story. Thanks much.
http://www.cplsanchez.info
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 4, 2007 6:00:52 AM
Matt Sanchez and Alberto Gonzales are two Hispanics that make me, as a Latino, deeply ashamed.
The "Weekly Standard" has lost all credibility. This rag was working hand in glove with the neo-cons in the White House and their (Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz) descredited pie-in-the-sky, middle-east domino theory.
We are now faced with a massive expenditure in Iraq totaling almost 2 trillion dollars (including what we have already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan) through 2017. Meanwhile, our own infrastructure is deteriorating.
To be discussing this peice-of-shit Repug spokesman (Sanchez, gay latino) is just as counterpreductive as talking about Mann Coulter (feMale), Michelle Malkin (female and Asian), Star Parker (female and Black), and whichever else self-loating minority they can embrace.
Posted by: nic | Aug 4, 2007 6:32:03 AM
sorry, that's "self-loathing"
Posted by: nic | Aug 4, 2007 8:11:16 AM
It is so easy to judge people. We as the gay community need to see this. Ann is loud spoken, but she speaks truth. Why do we think as a community that democrats are doing anything for us.
Eight years of cliton and I still can't marry and more importantly
i can not die in war for my country. All Dems want to do is tax me for my start up bussiness, to give it to illegal emmigrants. Why the hell do we care who recognizes our marraige. I live with and do everything with my (partner, husband, mate,...) What the government says dosn't really matter.
As long as they do not tax us out of buiness.
Posted by: Bruce Kahl | Aug 5, 2007 12:37:01 AM
"bruce kahl," are you really that stupid? why did your keeper (trainer, caretaker, govt. provider) let you play on the computer?
Posted by: nic | Aug 5, 2007 1:50:16 AM
Mr. Kahl,
Please share what you're smoking because it must be mighty fine!
Posted by: Tread | Aug 5, 2007 10:23:05 AM
Geez, Bruce, that's quite a string of rationalizations you've got going there. But what does any of it have to do with Matt Sanchez? He's a liar. That's not a judgment, it's a fact.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 5, 2007 4:44:35 PM
This is falling apart like a house of cards. Fake but accurate:
TNR wrote:
In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers...
Well the Kuwait PAO gave them (specifically, editor Jason Zingerle) "assistance" -- telling them that the burned woman did not exist as far as they could tell, and seemed to be an "urban legend or myth" --
Posted by: Tom | Aug 6, 2007 1:14:34 AM
Not that this will matter to TOM, whose mind is made up, but a dispassionate observer would need to weigh the credibility of TNR against that of the Army in light of self-interest.
The soldiers in Beauchamp's unit have every reason to deny the story. To do anything else would expose them to prosecution and/or public scorn. The Army, as an organization (the PIOs) also have reason to deny it, because to acknowledge it would expose the Army to public scorn.
TNR's editors, on the other hand, have relatively little incentive to insist that Beauchamp told the truth. It would be easy for them to cut him loose without damaging the magazine's image.
In fact, if anything, TNR has an incentive to lie in the other direction, i.e., to say or imply that Beauchamp's story was false. If TNR had done so, then it would have earned the approval of its wingnut detractors.
Given that TNR and the Army are both sticking to their respective stories, how should a dispassionate observer regard them?
On the one hand, there is the often-observed tendency of writers in general to embellish their stories, all the more so when it comes to war stories. Beauchamp wouldn't be the first to add a few floors to the building.
Moreover, given that TNR is a war critic and Beauchamp's story reflects badly on the Army, there's reason to think he could have been telling his editors and readers what they wanted to hear, truth aside.
This isn't only a left-wing tendency. For example, the wingnuts said nothing when their darling, a blogger known as Michael Yon, told the tale of al-Qaeda soldiers butchering and eating a young girl. No demands for independent verification. In fact, when Beauchamp himself wrote a story about enemy brutality, the wingnuts stayed silent.
On the Army side of things, we have an organization that has every self-interested motive to deny Beauchamp's story, and which has been observed telling lie after lie during the Iraq War.
There was the Jessica Lynch concoction, the denials of torture, and the Pat Tillman coverup that continues to this hour.
The bottom line is that no one can know who's telling the truth, but the balance tilts somewhat in favor of TNR. The wingnuts ask us to accept Army denials as proof that Beauchamp lied, but that's absurd.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 6, 2007 1:45:36 AM
osted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 6, 2007 1:45:36 AM
What a great post. As you've mentioned, the military has summarily denied almost every negative story once it broke, only to change their tune when facts couldn't be forged into propaganda.
Posted by: Marco | Aug 6, 2007 1:01:54 PM
NIve spin, but the truth came out:
Beauchamp Recants
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.
Now who at TNR will be first to resign?
Posted by: Tom | Aug 6, 2007 11:06:49 PM
TOM, apparently you didn't see TNR's response to the Weekly Standard's report. Turns out that anonymous source's information (hmm, I wonder if Sanchez was involved) is denied by the Army.
In any case, I think it's safe to say two things. First, this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. If Beauchamp's war stories are is photographically accurate, or if they're entirely phony, they amount to little.
Second, no one is ever going to agree about it. Beauchamp's detractors will be satisfied with nothing less than a complete retraction, and he and his editors insist that the incidents happened, albeit that one happened in Kuwait rather than Iraq.
All of this leaves the question of why the far right wing has its collective panties in such a bind. On that score, I think an article on a blog maintained by Andrew Sullivan (who I usually loathe) put it best:
But mainly, it seems to me, the conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face.
It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they're true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we're winning in Iraq. If you believe all this and face the mountains of evidence against you, you have to act ever more decisively and emphatically to refute any evidence that might undermine this worldview.
If you can't win the actual war, then you start looking for an easier target. TOM, your desperation is showing.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 7, 2007 7:59:09 PM
and one for you:
As a veteran who also happens to have nearly two decades as a cop, many of those years in investigations, perhaps I can offer some useful background. What remains to be seen is how TNR handles these facts. My guess is they will not recant and admit that they were so anxous to have a story too good to check that they didn't check. More likely, they'll claim that Beauchamp, noble soul that he is, lied to the Army to selflessly protect other soldiers who did as much or more than he did, or to avoid more serious punishment, and as such, they'll say to the public, as Monty Python once did: 'I fart in your general direction." Here's why they shouldn't take that approach.
When the Army investigators spoke with Beauchamp, they almost certainly had already interviewed at least those troops close to Beauchamp most likely to have direct knowledge of what did or did not happen. They may have already interviewed everyone else to find out what they knew or had heard. Good investigators never go into an interview cold, with no real knowledge that they can use to trip up a suspect. Bluffing a suspect is deadly. If he calls your bluff on anything, your credibility is shot, and you're dead in the water. Oh yes, and they would have isolated Beauchamp from the rest of the troops, and the troops from each other, before they began talking to anyone.
Unlike civilian police work, the military investigator does have certain advantages because of the substantial degree of control the military has over each soldier, however, even under the UCMJ, soldiers have rights, including 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. No doubt, the investigators informed Beauchamp of the relevant portions of the UCMJ and the relavant punishments he would likely suffer for the various potential offenses up front. They would not have yelled, jumped up and down, or in any way abused him, just calmly laid things out. Then they would have asked specific questions ("Where, exactly is the mass grave? Who was driving the Bradley? Who was with you when you abused the disfigured woman?"), and if they sensed any hesitation or evasion, reminded him, perhaps a bit more forcefully, of what he had to lose if he failed to tell the truth.
Remember that even in the military, Beauchamp could exercise his right to an attorney and refuse to answer any questions. Obviously, he did not, and the investigators got the truth.
How do we know it's the truth and not just Beauchamp trying to avoid punishment, or limit its severity? As other bloggers have pointed out, the punishment for lying to the investigators would have been far more severe than admitting to the misconduct Beauchamp alleged in his stories. His self interest lay in telling the truth, not continuing to lie. Also, he gave just enough details in his fables to make central facts, places, times, etc. in the stories checkable.
If the mass grave story was true, Beauchamp would have been able to lead investigators to the grave. He would have been able to name the skull-wearing troop and all of the others who witnessed his antics over many hours. If it was true, it would be impossible for all of those involved to engage in a successful coverup, even if they were of a mind to do that, which seems unlikely in this case.
The disfigured woman story was likewise checkable. If Beauchamp continued to claim that it occurred in Kuwait, that narrows things down, and the Army would have all the time and resources necessary to narrow it down as to date, time, and the roster of personnel present on that date and time. But what about Franklin Foer and the several anonymous sources who told him that it did occur and that it occurred in Kuwait? No doubt the investigators spoke with them and they quickly admitted that they were just trying to help out a buddy, a buddy who gave them a story to tell Foer to help muddy the waters a bit, and Beauchamp then confirmed their story--Beauchamp's lapse of memory--when asked by Foer. Foer, of course, was only too glad to accept it as a minor lapse of memory, easily explained, easily forgiven. Army investigators would not have been so forgiving.
Keep in mind that the investigators would have assured Beauchamp that if the stories were true, he would give them every detail, down to the millisecond, and they would check each and every detail. Knowing that, and the investigators would have been very convincing, is it more likely that Beauchamp would continue to blow smoke, or come clean?
And the Bradley driving incidents were also checkable. Remember that in order for that kind of behavior to be credible, a Bradley vehicle commander, an NCO, not only would have allowed it, but participated in it, many times. Again, specific places and times that could have been checked to reveal the damage to Iraqi private property. Iraqis not at all afraid about speaking up and getting the compensation that America commonly pays in such situations surely would have assisted. Again, too many people would have had to have been involved for everyone to engage in a massive coverup, particularly to assist one sad sack private.
The investigators got to the truth, and quickly, but they did so professionally, using good techniques, and they confirmed their findings with every other troop who could possibly know anything. Beauchamp lied. He wasn't bright, he didn't think anything through, and TNR was so anxious to depict the Army in a bad light, they bought what were obvious fabrications. All that remains is to see to what degree Foer and TNR Rather themselves into the ground.
Any bets as to whether Foer decides to "spend more time with his family"?
Posted by: Tom | Aug 7, 2007 10:36:25 PM
TOM, the Army lied about Tillman (and continues to lie). They lied about torture (and blocked a full investigation). They lied about Jessica Lynch.
The Army's investigators can say whatever the fuck they want to say about Beauchamp. It really doesn't matter. They've lost any credibility. See Aesop, The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 8, 2007 6:26:45 AM
Silly Wilson is lying. Charles Wilson is not his real name. Silly Wilson forgets his own name because of the AIDs virus ravaging his body.
Silly Wilson wouldn't have a life if it weren't for his crush on Matt Sanchez. Silly Wilson pretends to be a journalist, but can't produce anything he has written.
Silly Wilson sends Sanchez e-mails that Sanchez has posted.
"Mateo, that big cock of yours is bigger than your pea brain"
Silly Wilson is supposed to have a dog and a "partner". No comment on what either one is used for.
Posted by: Silly Wilson | Aug 8, 2007 5:45:22 PM
The "Wilson" freak show.
Fake journalist
Fake smear man.
Hey Towleroad, didn't you claim you dated Sanchez? You should tell Wilson about how he fucked you, you'll give Wilson a thrill.
Posted by: Silly Wilson | Aug 8, 2007 5:48:01 PM
Uh-oh, looks like someone didn't ship Mateo's meds to the Middle East on time! I've been getting the same sort of comment thread vandalism on my website.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 9, 2007 8:33:01 PM
It appears Sanchez has been going nuts all over the place. I exchanged a few emails with him at LiveLeak and he said similar stuff as published here about "dirty fags" and "freakin homos". He is going completely bonkers and is lashing out in tirades all over the net. I live for the day a soldier in Iraq has the guts to ask him to his face how he as able to maintain an erection while performing analigus on other men. I'm sure that will go over well with Sanchez's Right-Wing buddies, LOL.
Posted by: Scott Lanter | Aug 10, 2007 12:08:25 AM
The truth about Sanchez can be found here: http://forum.cplsanchez.info/user/discussions.aspx
and here: http://www.cplsanchez.info/Home_Page.html
Posted by: Leo | Aug 10, 2007 12:11:06 AM
Anyone who disagrees with Wilson is Matt Sanchez. Wilson claims Sanchez is in his Manhattan apartment trolling for sex on Manhunt.
Silly Willy puts a lot of time into dissing Matt Sanchez, but Silly Willy has multiple sclerosis and can barely remember who he hates when he wakes up in the morning.
Or maybe HIV medicine eats the brain out.
Posted by: Silly Wilson | Aug 10, 2007 5:04:48 AM
Careful, if you go to Cplsanchez.info and don't agree with Silly Willy and his circle jerk, they will ban you from the site!
Posted by: Silly Wilson | Aug 10, 2007 5:08:09 AM
I do not have AIDS, nor do I carry HIV. I strongly object to "SILLY WILSON"'s statement that I do. I demand that he retract the lie, and apologize for it.
Posted by: Charles Wilson | Aug 10, 2007 7:07:23 PM