The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned [TNR editor Franklin] Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.More to come on this, I'm sure. Stay tuned.
....The New Republic is deeply frustrated by the Army's behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover whether Beauchamp's article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked selective parts of the record including a conversation that Beauchamp had with his lawyer continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.
BEAUCHAMP UPDATE....Does Scott Thomas Beauchamp stand by the "Baghdad Diarist" pieces he wrote for the New Republic or doesn't he? In his September 6 conversation with TNR's editors, which was leaked to Drudge by the Army a couple of days ago, he declines to say anything at all. Today, TNR offers more: