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.
Posted 2:55 PM EST by Andy Towle in Iraq, Matthew Sanchez, Military, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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