A report in the Weekly Standard alleged that, as part of the Army investigation, the private also had signed a statement totally disavowing his piece. When the New Republic inquired about such a statement, an Army spokesman denied it existed.
Since then, Beauchamp has remained in Iraq with his unit and the magazine has been unable to communicate with him.
An Army spokesman denied the existence of the statement on August 7.
“Since then,” the magazine has not been “unable to communicate with him,” as Rutten claims. The magazine has communicated with him at least three times since August 7. Rutten even mentions the first of those communication in his column — including the date.
So why does Rutten say that “since” August 7, the magazine has been unable to communicate with Beauchamp? Is Rutten lying? Or is his grasp of the relevant timeline really this tenuous?
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the latter theory. Doesn’t that mean that Rutten has no business writing about this to begin with?
P.S. Rutten says: “The magazine determined that the incident involving the disfigured woman was concocted and corrected that . . .” But later in the piece, he calls Beauchamp “the alleged fabulist, Beauchamp.” Huh? If even the magazine says he “concocted” an incident, how is he an “alleged” fabulist? (Of course, the magazine has not conceded that he concocted that incident in any event — another detail Rutten fumbles.)
UPDATE: More from Bob Owens.