Huffpost Media
THE BLOG

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

David Fiderer Headshot

Weekly Standard to New Republic: J'ACCUSE!

Posted: Updated:

"J'ACCUSE!" writes the Weekly Standard, NRO.com and, by proxy, Howard Kurtz who collectively expose biggest Washington scandal since Joe Wilson said his wife didn't send him to Niger. The New Republic has been spreading, "Lies! Lies! Lies!" about our brave fighting men in abroad. Thank God for the U.S. Army, which confirmed to the Standard that it conducted a complete and comprehensive investigation to irrefutably prove that such heinous allegations are not even remotely possible.

I can't even imagine what kind of sick mind would come up with such disgusting stories. This pervert, the so-called Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, wants to stain the otherwise unblemished 52-month record of the U.S. military in Iraq. He hasn't even been on his third overseas deployment, yet he writes the following about his fellow soldiers:

1. They made gross and insensitive remarks about an Iraqi woman whose face was deformed by an explosive device.
2. They found skulls of executed Iraqis buried in the ground and played with them.
3. A soldier drove a Bradley Fighting Vehicle over some stray dogs.

It doesn't take much to deflate such ridiculous and far-fetched accusations. Anyone who has spent any time among a group of college-age boys - doubly so college-age boys away from home for their first time and stationed in a combat zone - knows that they never voice mean and nasty remarks about a woman's appearance, especially about one so tragically afflicted. These are soldiers in Iraq, where the U.S. military treats everyone with the same sensitivity, respect and trust. Ask Laura Ingraham. She was there!

As for playing with human skulls, it's inconceivable that young men who witness wartime death and injuries would acquire a taste for such dark nervous humor. (Where does Beauchamp come up with this stuff?)

Running over a stray dog? That might have been possible had the Army deemed it necessary to lower its high standards for enlistment. "Those of us here who have commanded Army units understand that there are certain people in your unit that you'd be better off without," testified Andrew Krepinevich, from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, at a recent Senate hearing. (Fans of reality programming have confirmed Dr. Krepinevich's belief.) Liberal media types think the dog torture story is plausible because of the lies being spread by General Barry McCaffrey, who said "My own gut feeling is that 10 percent of Army recruits are of poor caliber and should not be in uniform. They're in there under waivers for non-high-school graduate, moral turpitude, felony arrests, drug use." Watch for NRO to disprove these falsehoods any day now.

Howard Kurtz reported the definitive truth this morning. "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false," an Army statement said. "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims." Kurtz neglected to mention the Army's stellar record for thoroughly investigating such matters.

Can't you just imagine that investigation? "Private, did you ever observe someone driving over a stray dog?" The results herein validate the point made by academics who cite several conclusive psychological studies on male group dynamics: any soldier who witnesses offensive behavior will report the unvarnished truth to his commanding officer, because he knows that his candor will garner the respect and allegiance of his peers.

Thank goodness for Emile Zolas at The Standard and NRO and their ever-vigilant pursuit of truth. This latest coup upholds the tradition set by such high watermarks as:

1. The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, by Weekly Standard reporter Stephen F. Hayes.
2. "Spy Games: Was it really a secret that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" by Clifford May, who has an unnamed source, "someone who [on September 29, 2003] formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner," who led lhim to infer that Valerie Wilson's CIA-status "was something that insiders were well aware of." Clifford May would reveal his unnamed source, except he doesn't comment about ongoing investigations.