I think at best they had 1 corroborating witness (un-named) to all three incidents, and tried to portray it as multiple corroborating witnesses.

I’ll tell you right now, that with the behavior described by Beauchamp, there would have been numerous witnesses.

In the Bradley, there are 4-5 other crewmembers, all of whom would have outranked Beauchamp, and a vehicle commander who would have never “covered” for Beauchamp’s story because he knows how much more detrimental to his career lying to investigators would have been than simpy admitting “yeah, we ran over some dogs”.

In the dining room incident, the entire DFAC would have been a witness — and believe me, when the Army started their investigation, anybody who did know something about it would have gladly stepped forward to bury Beauchamp with the truth. If it had ever happened (it didn’t).

Again, Preston: just because TNR claims to have found corroborating witnesses, doesn’t mean they did. At this point, it’s devolved so much and has so tarnished their reputation, that if they did indeed have independent verification of these “facts”, they better start naming names.

They won’t though. Because those “witnesses” don’t exist.

Second: It was clear long before 11/27/06, that the NR reverted to typical libtard behavior.

And you can attempt to downplay Beauchamp’s and NR’s despicable behaviror. Unfortunately for them, they got caught in another lie. Just like you always do!

First: it’s debate convention, since I’d guess the entirety of Western Civilization, for the burden of proof to rest on the person- say Copernicus- making the statement- say ‘The world revolves around the sun’. I would have expected that you’d be eager to provide supporting evidence for your arguments…

Second: with the newfound information, I’ll cede the point: on November 27th the New Republic went from celebrating the troops as the bearers of freedom in the Arab world to soliciting fabricated tales suggesting that soldiers don’t treat dogs very well.

“At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war.” 11/27/2006

If you want a link, get it yourself.

Occam’s Razor would suggest either the soldiers were lying in the first place or they are lying now to save there skins. I don’t find it plausible that a pro-war magazine (I’m still waiting for KMA’s link suggesting they changed their position on that) would abet the fabrication of this story. Even if TNR was anti-war, this story doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that US troops should withdraw from Iraq. I just don’t see the upside for the New Republic to act in a conspiracy to slander US troops as dog killers and skull wearers.