The war in Iraq has sparked a parallel war between two of Washington's most prominent partisan political publications, The New Republic and the Weekly Standard. The war has been akin to the ongoing seige of Baghdad's Green Zone, with the Standard playing the role of Iraqi insurgents, lobbing mortars over the Green Zone gates while TNR rushes to shore up its defenses.

The war began on July 13, when The New Republic published a "Baghdad Diary" by "Scott Thomas," an Army private writing under a pseudonym about U.S. atrocities in Iraq. Thomas described his participation in the mockery of a female soldier disfigured by an IED, claimed he witnessed troops intentionally running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and alleged that another soldier played with the skulls of dead Iraqi children.

In attempt to challenge the wild notion that atrocities could occur amidst a violent occupation, the neoconservative Weekly Standard's Matthew Goldfarb published an article declaring that TNR's Baghdad Diary was "looking more like fiction." Goldfarb's piece relied on a series of letters supposedly sent to him by active-duty soldiers that raised questions about the veracity of TNR's story.

As a result of intensifying attacks from the Standard and right-wing blogs -- attacks amplified by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz -- Thomas was forced to reveal his identity: Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. According to Foer, the Army punished Beauchamp by revoking his cellphone and email privileges. Right-wing bloggers subsequently seized on TRN editor-in-chief Franklin Foer's disclosure that Beauchamp is engaged to TNR reporter and researcher Elspeth Reeve.

Beauchamp has placed his career in extreme jeopardy and subjected his private life to the scrutiny of right-wing trolls, all to confirm his published account of U.S. atrocities in Iraq. TNR for its part has just completed a review of Beauchamp's diary and found only one minor error. Now it is up to Goldfarb and his allies to back up their incendiary charges. Who are the Standard's sources? Are they reliable? And if they are, why did the Standard omit key details about their backgrounds?

Among all the active duty soldiers used by Goldfarb to undermine Beauchamp, only one is cited by name: Matt Sanchez, a corporal in the Marine reserves. "Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story," Sanchez proclaimed in the Standard about Beauchamp's diary. Who is Sanchez? According to Goldfarb, he is simply a soldier "who stands behind his work."

But Sanchez is more than a mere man in uniform. As I reported for Media Matters today, Sanchez is also a conservative pro-war activist whose bio includes a stint as the gay porn actor Rod Majors, (star of such filmic classics as "Beat Off Frenzy") and an illustrious part-time job as a male prostitute -- facts he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae."

More importantly, Sanchez has been under investigation by the Marine Corps for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request." The email added: "'Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul."

There is no excuse for Goldfarb's omission of these facts about Sanchez. They were easily accessible through a simple Google search of Sanchez's name, and have been the talk of the blogosphere for some time. I wrote extensively about Sanchez for the Huffington Post in March and appeared on a segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann to discuss his strange double life. Sanchez has also been profiled by Radar and by numerous bloggers. He even penned a long auto-apologia for Salon.com about his path from porn to the conservative movement. Couldn't Goldfarb find a better on-the-record source? Apparently not.

The efforts of Sanchez and right-wing bloggers to take Beauchamp down were allegedly supported by a TNR staffer with a bizarre background. I just received a letter from a source close to TNR. The source wrote:

One reason Beauchamp had to go public was that conservative bloggers were tracking him down. And the reason they were was that a temp who was working as assistant for our publisher was leaking like crazy to right-wing websites. Not that he knew much, but he was hanging around, he went to a going away party for Ryan [Lizza] at frank's [Frank Foer] house, eavesdropping and then posting on right-wing websites.

That's how they found out about Scott being married to Ellie [Elspeth Reeve].

Anyway, the guy's name is Robert McGee. His online pseudonym: Throbert McGee. Not real hard to track down (especially when he's posting that he works at TNR.)

After a little Googling, I found that "Throbert McGee" (seen here embracing his "longtime sidekick Juan") once kept a "blinkin' blog" where he posted about "Faggot fixer-upper wallpaper" and linked to the overtly racist right-wing blog, "Little Green Footballs." On the forum of another conservative blog, Throbert commented favorably about Matt Sanchez's "11" Monster Cock." Throbert also used this forum as his platform to attack Beauchamp and leak information to conservative bloggers about Beauchamp's private life.

I hear there are darker postings by Throbert lurking in the blogosphere, but I will leave it to his right-wing mouthpieces to explain those. And I will wait for the Weekly Standard's Goldfarb to come clean about Sanchez and the rest of the unnamed "active duty soldiers and various experts" he used as sources. So far, the silence is deafening.

Comments (37)

1. Yeah, we get it Nation. All military personnel are baby killers, rapists, and genocidal maniacs.

   You anti-Americans have not changed since Nam. No one really expects you to grow up and develop an adult mind, but it would be a refreshing change.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/03/2007 @ 2:10pm

2. Why do so many gay male prostitutes end up as Repugs?

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/03/2007 @ 2:35pm

3. You anti-Americans have not changed since Nam. No one really expects you to grow up and develop an adult mind, but it would be a refreshing change.

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 2:10pm

   You assholes can't seem to grasp reality. We're just trying to help, as useless as it is.

   How did the Anal Cranial Extraction go for you, LUVVY?

   And don't call me anti-American, asshole. For someone afraid to back it up, you sure do shoot your mouth off.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/03/2007 @ 2:37pm

4. Here's you hero, LUVVY:

   In interviews given in 2007, Sanchez said that he performed in "a few adult videos." The Internet Adult Film Database lists the following 38 films that included "Rod Majors" or "Pierre LaBranche" – the pseudonyms used by Sanchez -- in their casts. This writer believes that at least 15 videos were originals shot between 1992 and 1995. Others are recompilations.

   Although Sanchez has claimed that he performed in non-gay videos, all of his sexual performances were in fact with other males, including in the somewhat mistitled 1995 epic, "Bi Conflict."

   All About Last Night (1994) Beat Off Frenzy 1 (1994) Best of Anthony Gallo (1997) Best of Brad Stone (2007) Best of Dave Logan (1997) Best of Zak Spears (1996) Bi Conflict (1995) Biggest Dick in Town: Well Hung (2004) Built Tough (1995) Butt Crack Mountain (1999) Call of the Wild (1992) Colossal Cocks (2000) Come and Get It (1994) Conflict of Interest (1994) Everybody Does It (1995) Forever Hold Your Piece 2 (1994) Glory Hole Hall of Fame 3 (1998) Guest Services (1995) Guys Who Swallow Cum (1997) Hardbody Video Magazine Issue. 5 (1995) Idol Country (1994) Jawbreaker (1995) * Laid to Order (1993) Lunch Hour 2: Sweating Grease (1994) * Man to Men (1995) Manticipation (1994) Meat Wave (2000) Montreal Men (1993) * Northern Exposures (1993) Power Trip (1995) Secret Sex 2: The Sex Radicals (1994) Size Queens (1995) Spanish Hardon (1996) Tijuana Toilet Tramps (1994) Touched By An Anal (1997) Uncut Cocks (1997) Wet Dreams (1995) Woody's (1994)

   How many of those titles sound familiar to you LUVVY?

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/03/2007 @ 2:38pm

5. Excuse me, but before everybody goes off into "Anti-American" or "Repubs are all gay prostitutes"....

   did anybody PROVE those original allegations?

   Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 2:41pm

6. MAX: Thomas described his participation in the mockery of a female soldier disfigured by an IED, claimed he witnessed troops intentionally running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and alleged that another soldier played with the skulls of dead Iraqi children.

   Private Thomas participated in mocking a disfigured soldier! Oh My God!

   Private Thomas knew the dogs were ran over intentionally? Was he driving or at least, inside the dog-plowing vehicles and participated? Oh My God!

   Private Thomas `alleged' another soldier `played' with dead skulls (I think skulls of the living kind are called HEADS and never live skulls)? He didn't say he `witnessed' so I guess he felt compelled to pull a `Kerry'!

   Don't mean to be overly harsh w/the Private.....but his own character seems a bit open to interpretations!

   MAX loves this stuff......to pen such a long piece!! Had to keep up w/Corn (Vitter), Nichols (Stevens), Katha (Cleavage).....even male prostitute, no less!

   Must be Friday!

   Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 2:58pm

7. I just love the titles of gay porn movies....c'mon MBB, Luvvy and Happy you've gotta love those titles (Forever Hold Your Piece for instance).

   Also I wonder if he "knew" Jeff Gannon and exactly who Jeff was making all those late night visits to in the Whitehouse.

   Posted by freedomplease at 08/03/2007 @ 3:15pm

8. The point of the article is that the right wing fruits will do anything to discredit their critics, including lying, misinformation, and anything else they can think of. When you're wrong, when the facts fail to support your argument, then you have to prevaricate. But, of course, when you're doing "god's" work, anything and everything is okay.

   For those that refuse to believe atrocities are committed by American troops--even during a long, drawn out guerilla war--read up on the history of guerilla struggles (or--for the not too bright, literate--just look at a few Goya drawings of the French occupation of the Iberian Peninsula).

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 3:32pm

9. ....we all already have a big problem with the tendency of media to focus on the shallow and the tawdry as opposed to real issues -

   Posted by ZERO 08/03/2007 @ 3:32pm

   Oh My God! Lighten up SERO!

   Today is Open Blog Friday! A week's worth of "sexual McCarthyism" has been shoved down our throat by The Nation and guess what, we want more!

   Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 3:50pm

10. I think an individual's sexuality is relevant if the individual belongs to a party, organization, group that critizes the sexuality of others. For example, if a politician runs on an anti-gay, holier than thou stance, then that politician's own sex life deserves all the scrutiny it gets. And it's especially odd to read that our right wing trolls are so adverse to the practise after they attempted to impeach a sitting president for getting a hummer from an intern.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:01pm

11. Well, it was inevitable....subject involves homosexuals and Empty SPENCE the Homophobic Baby Face Nelson has to leap to the chance...

    "The point of the article is that the right wing fruits will do anything to discredit their critics..."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 3:32pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:01pm

12. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 4:01pm

    What if a supposed "progressive" uses terms like "fruits", "fags", or "marys"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:02pm

13. Posted by MASK

    You're the supporter of the party that openly discriminates against gays and lesbians, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:03pm

14. What if a supposed "progressive" uses terms like "fruits", "fags", or "marys"?

    Posted by MASK

    You're stereotyping progressives, mary. We are all not the same. Besides, it's not what you say but what you do that counts. I guess your lying, chickenshit parents failed to teach that, huh?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:05pm

15. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by john maasch at 08/03/2007 @ 4:07pm

16. What if a supposed "progressive" uses terms like "fruits", "fags", or "marys"?

    Posted by MASK

    Now, rather than waste our time, why not write your mommie a nice long letter and tell her all about it?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:08pm

17. Wake up, old man.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:08pm

18. Mask,

    I am becoming more and more convinced that Empty maybe a "progressive" reincarnation of Aludra. Same level of intelligence and lack of critical thinking

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:12pm

19. Oh, and now the inbred, fundamentalist hick wants to throw in his two cents. Blow it out your crippled ass, libertyliar.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:14pm

20. Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    If you were really in 'Nam you know all about the atrocities American soldiers can commit, don't you?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:15pm

21. You're a young American kid with firearms, stuck in an alien culture on the other side of the world, everybody is the enemy, day after day you lose buddies... It doesn't take too long to grow hard, vicious.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:21pm

22. They don't look like you. They don't talk the same language as you. They don't dress like you. They don't act like you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:22pm

23. They are "alien"--not human.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:23pm

24. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 4:08pm

    Not "mommie"...I'll just call these fine folks [en.wikipedia.org].

    Hopefully they don't run a credit union!

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:39pm

25. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 4:12pm

    Well, I have to say, LVLIB, though your homophobia is Biblically based (Leviticus et al)....

    you've never used terms like "fruits", "fags", or "marys" that I know of.

    So half a point for style over the Texan Trotsky!

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:41pm

26. Oh, and now the inbred, fundamentalist hick wants to throw in his two cents. Blow it out your crippled ass, libertyliar.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 4:14pm

    This from an uneducated bank robber. I have several degrees, how about you? I have taught in the University of California system, where did you teach?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:27pm

27. Posted by MASK 08/03/2007 @ 4:41pm

    For what has to be the 100th time; I have never used nor mentioned Leviticus as a basis for my views on homosexuality. I have used instead the teachings of Jesus (both directly and as given by Him to Paul).

    Yes, Jesus taught Paul personally as Paul stated in his letters (Galatians 1:12 and Ephesians 3:3). Jesus taught him in the Arabian desert similar to the way He appeared to Moses and taught him.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:32pm

28. This from an uneducated bank robber. I have several degrees, how about you? I have taught in the University of California system, where did you teach?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    And degrees equal intelligence? Ever bothered to study the Third Reich? Hitler had plenty of "educated" supporters and party members.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:33pm

29. Got to run..time to load up my wife, mother-in-law and dog and head out on the road.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:33pm

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    And how "intelligent" is the person that believes a virgin gave birth to the son of a god?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:34pm

31. Not "mommie"...I'll just call these fine folks [en.wikipedia.org].

    Hopefully they don't run a credit union!

    Posted by MASK

    Mommie, the step father that sodomized you, GLADD--who ever you want to cry to, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:35pm

32. I am a former journalist and the creator of a Posted by cwilson2000 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:40pm

33. Sorry for the garbling of my first comment.

    I am a former journalist and the creator of a comprehensive website about Matt Sanchez [cplsanchez.info]. It brings together virtually everything that's been reported about his careers in gay porn, male prostitution, the Marine Corps, and right-wing media. It also details the ongoing effort (thus far successful) to censor any mention of his prostitution from Wikipedia's website.

    I've included a discussion board on the website, and comments are welcome. I will be updating the site this week to reflect Sanchez's activities in the Middle East and his involvement in the Beauchamp story. Please come to the site and check it out, and then post in the discussion forum and/or contact me. Thanks much.

    Posted by cwilson2000 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:43pm

34. Those interested in how the right-wing smear machine works might want to read this unethical hackery [amazon.com] from a self-styled "semiotician" who accused the New Republic of inventing a soldier in the field. When that one was batted down, the right wing decided to attack the veracity of the stories.

    Then the New Republic verified them, not just once but twice. So the right-wingers pounced on an error as to the location of one of the incidents described in the report. And they accused the New Republic of taking an unscheduled staff vacation.

    I guess it never occurs to the right wingers that they just might be "wrong" about something. Nope, can't be.

    Posted by cwilson2000 at 08/03/2007 @ 6:16pm

35. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 5:35pm

    Sorry, Empty...didn't realize opposing homophobia was an indicator of either an Oedipal complex or child abuse syndrome.

    I'll mention that to Richard Kim here at "The Nation" (as well as a few million others).

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 7:47pm

36. Well, I don't really know what Max expected in the way of "journalism" from one of Rupert Murdoch's rags. The Standard is right down there with the NY Post, Faux News and fact-inventing Bill O'Really. To think that anyone at WS actually speaks their own thoughts and opinions is nonsense; they all write what Rupert tells them to write.

    I predict that Sanchez will next surface on the op-ed page of the WSJ, mark my words...

    Posted by sjduskin at 08/05/2007 @ 9:36pm

37. Anyway, I wouldn't worry so much about finding lies in a Rupert propaganda outlet. It's when he gets his lies printed in supposedly neutral outlets, without disclosure or attribution, that we should worry.

    I recently discovered that a "journalist" who as hired by the Philadelphia Inquirer to provide a "fair and balanced" (read: right-wing) voice on the op-ed page was actually a full-time Rupert lackey, Jonathan Last.

    Did the Inquirer tell its readers who was actually writing those "conservative voice" pieces?

    Of course not - it was recently taken over by a former Ad executive - you know, one of those fellows who writes lies for a living - who probably thought it might cost him subscribers.

    Why should the readers know the truth, anyway? Suckers...

    Rupert's minions are far more widespread than anyone realizes, sort of like fly manure, but less nutritious.

    Posted by sjduskin at 08/05/2007 @ 10:15pm