Not so fast there TalkingPointsMemo (a site you should be reading!) has an excellent point about this story and the handling of it by the Army Public Affairs Office. Copied in full:

If you've been following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Affair, I strongly recommend reading the latest update from The New Republic. The short version is that the Army's investigation of the case appears to be confined to a) releasing no information about their investigation or details of its findings, b) leaking alleged details to the Weekly Standard, which no one will confirm on the record and c) keeping Beauchamp himself in communications lockdown where no one but family members in monitored conversations can communicate with him.

Perhaps Beauchamp made this stuff up. And that's not a throwaway line; I freely concede it may turn out to be the case. There's no getting around the fact that the legacy of the Glass Affair puts an extra hurdle of credibility in TNR's way.

But the behavior of the Army Public Affairs Office suggests that what they are pushing is not an investigation that would pass any muster in the light of day but a war against a particular article and publication.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but going back over recent years -- the WMD stories, al Qaeda link, the Iraq War and more -- when you've got the goods, you take it to a real press outlet. When you're blowing smoke, you take it to the Standard.

From an earlier posting:

But it's hard not to have some suspicion that the Army has put itself in charge of investigating charges which, if true, would be deeply embarrassing to the Army; that it has provided itself a full exoneration through an investigation, the details of which it will not divulge; and it has chosen to use as its exclusive conduit for disseminating information about the case, The Weekly Standard, a publication which can at best be described as a charged partisan in the public controversy about the case.

I agree with Josh. He may be lying, but the process hardly inspires confidence in a truthful outcome.

“But more likely is that they asked their soldiers to implicate themselves in obnoxious if not illegal actions, and they probably denied it. I would've.”

Nice. An alternative description is that after investigating those stories, and interviewing soldiers who were/are serving with Beauchamp regarding the stories he wrote, they found nothing to support those stories, just maybe.

My comments should be indented differently...my bad.