That's gonna leave a mark

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on August 4, 2007

Just a couple days after The New Republic editor Franklin Foer proclaimed that Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "reporting" had been verified (except for the fact that he was a little jerk before he got to Iraq -- not that the war made him one), we have additional confirmation that Foer is wrong and Beauchamp is a liar.

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.

It will be very interesting to see how TNR responds.

Tags

@ZebraFactCheck @PolitiFactBias The majority of posts I saw talking about the 1% were noting the accurate 40% stat. It's telling PolitiFact went searching for the claim they could swat down as "false," rather than fact-checking the accurate claim as "true." Reminds me of this exchange https://twitter.com/fact_meta/status/1431378857798488068

MetaFactGroup@fact_meta

@kentorianu @ZebraFactCheck @PolitiFact Since there's concern about bad faith arguments, I'll make it simple.

Vaccinated people can spread variants. True or False?

Load More...

Calendar

August 2007
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

Categories

pencil linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram