TNR's Other Witness Recants

That's speculation, but I think it's accurate.

Although TNR claimed to have "at least five" witnesses to the various claims Scott Beauchamp recounted, only one witness -- one! -- comes even close to corroborating each of Beauchamp's three key claims in "Shock Troops."

One witness for each story. And simple math strongly suggests it is in fact one witness for all of Beauchamp's claims.

A while ago I was tipped as to the likely identity of Scott Beauchamp's buddy, likely the guy with whom he spent his evenings with giggling about the lies of the Bush Administration. I won't say his name as I don't want to expose him to publicity on mere speculation.

But the case seems pretty strong, and the new documents make it even stronger. I'll leave it at that.

At any rate, in the Beauchamp files, it specifically mentions this guy, who I had long pegged as TNR's "Corporal Quotey McQuoterton," as having denied Beauchamp's claims in the official army investigation.

Thus we have Corporal Quotey McQuoterton, almost certainly the only person TNR reached able to "confirm" Beauchamp's claims and the only person willing to be quoted (or at least the only person delivering helpful quotes), on record as denying Beauchamp's claims.

So.

TNR will of course claim that Corporal Quotey McQuoterton only denied Beauchamp's claims to protect his badly-behaving Army buddies.

Fair enough.

But why should we assume he told what he thought was a white lie to protect the other men in his unit, rather than assuming he told what he thought was a white lie to protect his good friend Scott Beauchamp (and his wife!) from public humiliation and career damage?

Corporal Quotey McQuoterton either may be fibbing to protect his other friends from administrative punishment or may be fibbing to protect bosom buddy Scott Beauchamp from instant death to his wannabe-career as a writer.

What evidence does TNR have in its possession that the former is more likely?

And furthermore, why has TNR deliberately obfuscated what I take at this point to be a fact -- that there was only one "corroborating witness" to Beauchamp's tall tales, and furthermore, he just happened to be Beauchamp's best friend in the unit (and in fact may have known him previously before joining the army)?

They presented their account of the "corroborating witnesses" to suggest that there were multiple witnesses corroborating the key details of "Shock Troops;" in fact, there was one. I know they read this blog so they know I came to that conclusion; and yet they have not clarified by stating "a different witness corroborated each of the three accounts." They wrote their article to suggest it was three different witnesses, but it wasn't, and they very carefully avoided saying it was more than one guy. They implied it was more than one guy, but took great pains not to say so.

It was one guy. Beauchamp's best friend, it seems.

Probably invited to his wedding.

TNR didn't tell us that. I recognize that they don't want to give their witnesses away, but they could alert us to the fact that this particular "corroborating witness" may not quite be a disinterested party.

And TNR also didn't tell us that, since then, their Star Witness apparently told the Army that nothing Beauchamp claimed happened did in fact happen.

This is relevant to their tale, is it not? Whether TNR believes Corporal Quotey McQuoterton's first story (told to TNR to help Beauchamp) or his second story (which they will claim was told to the Army to help his friends, and himself), the fact is the same man is on the record as telling two contradictory stories.

Again: What right does TNR have to hide this information from its readership? Having printed these stories as true, then used this man's word to support the stories' veracity, what right do they claim to hide the fact that he has apparently reversed himself and fully recanted when questioned by the Army?

TNR is free to spin his recantation whatever way they like -- but how can they justify refusing to report the reversal entirely?

posted by Ace at 04:09 PM

| Access Comments