The Republican leadership in congress has asked for an ethics investigation into Senator Larry Craig and his latest escapades.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republican leaders announced they will launch an ethics review of the senator.

“This is a serious matter. Due to the reported and disputed circumstances, and the legal resolution of this serious case, we will recommend that Senator Craig’s incident be reported to the Senate Ethics Committee for its review. In the meantime, leadership is examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement on behalf of the party’s Senate leadership.

I like that I belong to a party that wants to discipline its own. I don’t like having people who are saying one thing and doing another representing me.

If you look across the vast right blogosphere you will see calls for Craig’s resignation or at least an investigation into his conduct. We don’t circle our wagons and defend the indefensible.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp who went by the pseudonym of Scott Thomas, has recanted his stories he wrote for the New Republic, telling made-up things he and his unit did while in combat in Iraq, except he was in Kuwait.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”

The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety–meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”–took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been “melted” by an IED.

Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic’s editors complained that the military investigation was “short-circuiting” TNR’s own fact-checking efforts. “Beauchamp,” they said, “had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.”

No more can be said except the people who checked into this and found it to be an exaggeration were right.

Why would someone do something like this?