Brian De Palma is tediously consistent if nothing else.

His Vietnam war fiction "Casualties of War" portrayed American soldiers as rapist thugs merely bidding their time for the opportunity to commit inhuman acts against a bucolic population.

Unlike "Casualties," which was filmed decades after the war in Southeast Asia, De Palma's new film, "Redacted" is an admitted attempt by De Palma to sway world opinion against Americans soldiers while they are actively engaged in combat.

A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.

"Redacted," by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition.

Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.

De Palma, 66, whose "Casualties of War" in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film's images, all based on real material he found on the Internet.

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

As noted above, De Palma's film is propaganda to which he proudly admits:

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

I wonder how this country would have responded if Director John Ford had released a film showing American servicemen raping and killing an innocent Japanese girl in 1943 and murdering her family, instead of the propaganda film December 7.

In 1944, Ford was a commander in the USNR, and watched the June 6, 1944 invasion of Normandy from the USS Plunkett as the destroyer screened troop transports off Omaha Beach, and later landed on sands tinged red with the blood of American soldiers. To this day, most of the film Ford's team of combat cameramen shot on "Bloody Omaha" has never been seen. One may wonder how De Palma would have reacted in such a setting. Would his reaction have been to have noted the sacrifice of America's soldiers, or to vilify them for shooting fair-haired soldiers of the Wehrmacht as their lines collapsed and were overrun?

It seems almost certain that if De Palma covered the battle for Okinawa in 1945, his predilection for vilifying the American military would no doubt have led him to tell the story of the noble schoolteacher who led her classroom of children over the cliffs to their deaths at Humeyuri-no-to, and the bloodthirsty Marines they escaped from into death.

Of course, De Palma isn't making movies during World War Two vilifying AmericaÂ’s soldiers; he's making movies during a current war vilifying Americans soldiers.

What would once have been quickly identified as treasonous or seditious in past conflicts is now something that appears to be quite fashionable among certain aspects of our society.

De Palma and like-minded souls in Venice, Cannes, and Santa Barbara, of course, feel brave for making a film that portrays the young Midwestern privates and southern specialists and street-smart second lieutenants from Jersey on the frontlines as savages, capable and yearning to unleash unbearable cruelty.

As sweat drips in the eyes of soldiers and Marines as they attempt to bring peace to a land that has rarely known it, their enemies will be watching pirated and crudely-dubbed bootlegs of Redacted in training camps in Syria, in mosques in Saudi Arabia, and in homes throughout the Arab world, who already take a suspicious view of the American soldier in Iraq.

We will not see the pictures that would actually win the war, of an Iraqi father wrapping his arms around a suicide bomber to keep him from entering a mosque, or of the Iraqi interpreter who proudly dreams of becoming an American Marine. We won't see American ssaving Iraqi lives, or Iraqis saving American lives, or the brutality of those we fight.

Those, you see, are the pictures that Brian de Palma has redacted.

Blast From the Past: I'd almost forgotten. Venice was a pretty smart choice for De Palma, as the Italians have quite the fetish for dishonest anti-war propaganda.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:20 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

I didn't post anything yesterday because I've got separate investigations going on at once that I'm trying to stay on top of, and I have the honor of providing a noted photojournalism expert with material for a photoethics speech he's giving overseas in October.

Since I haven't been giving you real content, here's some "Friday Stupid" to keep you entertained.

Only you can prevent forest fires:

I'll see if I can dig in and provide you with something more substantial (and less drafty) later today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:42 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Quite frankly, this is perhaps one of the more comprehensive explanations of the media's failures in covering the Iraq War that I've seen to date. Brilliantly written, and painstakingly documented, is is an indictment of why our media has failed and continues to fail us in their reporting from Iraq.

The Big Picture(s).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

A little bit of this, and a little bit of that. Greyhawk posts his latest from Baghdad in the Mudville Gazzette.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Two years ago today, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Buras-Triumph, Louisiana as a large Category 3 storm. While parts of coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama suffered the onslaught of the storm's surging waves and wind, most of the world's attention was paid, and is still being paid, to the City of New Orleans, where dozens of levee failures flooded most of the city.

More than 1,800 people were confirmed killed by Hurricane Katrina or in its wake, with 705 still missing, according to Wikipedia.

Literally millions of words have been written ascribing blame for the human failures that contributed to the loss of lives and property brought by this hurricane. The blame and blame-shifting continues to this day, and will be echoed, no doubt, long after the second-hand memories of the storm fade.

But this is not a post about past culpabilities, but those mistakes we are currently making in our all-too-human arrogance as we try to reclaim a disaster.

This is map of what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expected the Louisiana coastline to look like in 50 years, prior to the massive erosion and seafloor damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and also before the current fervor over global warming began predicting significant sea-level rise. The effects of Katrina and Rita have obviously shortened this timeline, and any sea-level rise that occurs will only hasten the demise of the city known as the Big Easy which is being killed, not protected, by the very levees and dikes that politicians seem so eager to keep building and rebuilding. Experts at LSU predict that the delta protecting New Orleans from a hungry Gulf of Mexico will be gone by 2090.

Several days ago, Presidential candidate Barack Obama unwittingly cited an appropriate passage from the Bible, even though, like most politicians, he drew exactly the wrong conclusions from the scripture he noted:

"Getting ready to talk to you today, I recall what Jesus said at the end of the Sermon on the Mount," Obama said at New Orleans' First Emmanuel Baptist Church. "He said, whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock."

"The rains descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. But it did not fall, because it was founded on the rock," he continued.

Most foundations and cities in America are built on rock, clay, or similarly durable soils, while New Orleans exemplifies the agonizing reality of the other house in that parable, the one that Obama didn't mention... that one made by foolish builders upon the sand, as noted in Matthew 7:24-27:

²⁴"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. ²⁵The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. ²⁶But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. ²⁷The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

The shattered fool's house in Matthew was built upon the sand.

New Orleans is built upon an even more unstable soil, silt, that is constantly compacting and sinking. What's more, that sinking, unstable soil is in a bowl below sea-level surrounded by the Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico, and Lake Pontchartrain, bodies of water that are eating away the coastline at a rate of 25 square miles or more each year.

In September of 2005, I interviewed a geologist who was the former Dean of his southern university's Coastal and Marine Studies program. His closing, unsolicited recommendation was that New Orleans "should be largely abandoned as a city."

New Orleans is doomed city, a geographical mistake destined to fall to geologic and hydraulic forces beyond our control. It is sad they we are too arrogant to concede this failed city to the sea, and seem destined to waste the billions of dollars that could be spent moving the inhabitants to higher ground.

Instead we seem intent on enticing back the poor and the destitute with promises of rebuilding what should not be rebuilt, just to put their lives in danger once more.

8/31 Update: Over at Reason, Steve Chapman is on the same page:

Before the nation undertakes the extravagant project of rebuilding New Orleans and securing it from the elements, we might ask if there isn't a better option, not only for the nation but for the flood victims.

The Democratic debate over the future of New Orleans somehow passed over the instructive example of Valmeyer, Ill. In 1993, the town of 900 was swamped, not for the first time, by a rain-swollen Mississippi River. It hasn't been swamped since, because it's not there anymore. Rather than remain in a vulnerable spot, the residents voted to relocate their village to a bluff 400 feet above the river.

But no one wants to suggest similar discretion in Louisiana.

New Orleans, like Valmeyer, had long been a natural disaster waiting to happen. Most of the city lies below sea level, surrounded by water on three sides, and it's sinking. On top of that, it's steadily grown more exposed to hurricanes, thanks to the loss of coastal wetlands that once served as a buffer. It's a bathtub waiting to be filled.

As one scientist said after Katrina, "A city should never have been built there in the first place." Now that we have a chance to correct the mistake, why repeat it?

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 977 words, total size 7 kb.

We've been over--and debunked--this story before:

The U.S. military's soaring demand for small-arms ammunition, fueled by two wars abroad, has left domestic police agencies less able to quickly replenish their supplies, leading some to conserve rounds by cutting back on weapons training, police officials said.

To varying degrees, officials in Montgomery, Loudoun and Anne Arundel counties said, they have begun rationing or making other adjustments to accommodate delivery schedules that have changed markedly since the military campaigns began in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As conclusively proved by interviewing three ammunition manufacturers last week, the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have little or nothing to do with police ammunition shortages in the United States.

To recap from that previous post, when the Associated Press ran essentially the same claims (a canned story deserves a canned response):

ATK's Ammunition Systems Group is the largest ammunition manufacturing body in the world. ATK runs the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant under contract, where it has the capacity to manufacture 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition a year, or put another way, a half billion rounds per year more than is being used by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also a major supplier of law enforcement ammunition under Federal Premium, Speer Gold Dot, Lawman, and CCI Blazer brands. The law enforcement ammunition is made in plants in Idaho and Minnesota that are completely separate for their military operations at Lake City. These production lines do not, as the AP falsely states, use the same equipment used to manufacture military ammunition.

Those who stayed with the entire Associated Press article might note that ATK spokesman Bryce Hallowell did not buy the AP's conclusion that the war in Iraq was having a direct effect on police ammunition supplies.

He stated further:

"We had looked at this and didn't know if it was an anomaly or a long-term trend," Hallowell said. "We started running plants 24/7. Now we think it is long-term, so we're going to build more production capability."

I contacted Brian Grace of ATK Corporate Communications for further information, and he also doubted the Associated Press claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for a police ammunition shortage.

Since 9/11 we've seen a huge jump in demand from law enforcement. In the last fiscal year alone we saw demand from law enforcement jump 40%. By running our civil plants 24/7, hiring hundreds of new employees and streamlining our manufacturing processes we were able to increase our deliveries to law enforcement by 30% in that same period. In addition, we've just announced we'll be investing another $5 million in new production lines at our civil ammunition facilities.

I pressed Mr. Grace to clarify, asking:

Based upon this 40% increase in demand by law enforcement, is it more fair to categorize the difficulty of some departments in obtaining ammunition as a fact of increased police demand outstripping current manufacturing capabilities, and not as the result of the military needing more ammunition and drawing down civilian supply?

Is their any shortage of lead, copper, or brass, or it is just a matter of not enough manufacturing equipment?

He responded:

Manufacturing capacity is the main issue. As you might imagine, for a precision manufacturing business that faced many years of steady demand, it can be quite a challenge to suddenly meet double-digit growth in demand. But we're very proud of the successes we've had with increasing our output while maintaining the quality and reliability of our products.

And we're committed to doing everything in our power to accelerate the growth in output, which is what precipitated the recently announced investment in additional equipment.

Let me make that crystal clear.

According to two spokesmen for the world's largest ammunition manufacturer, which runs the military's ammunition manufacturing plant and separately, is a major supplier of law enforcement ammunition, it is a massive and unexpected increase in law enforcement ammunition demand that is causing delays in law enforcement ammunition delays, not the war.

Michael Shovel, National Sales Manager for COR-BON/Glaser, writes into explain that the price increases for ammunition are at least partially because of the demand from China for copper and lead for their building boom:

The reason that PD's and people are having trouble getting ammo and also the price increases is the war effort and also the fact that China is buying up lots of the copper and lead for their building boom.

Our LE market has grown this year the same as it has the past 5 years. No big increase but no drop off either.

The only issue with our ability to deliver ammunition in a timely manner is getting brass cases and primers.

We do only some specialized ammo for the military and it's done in our custom shop instead on the production floor.

Interesting.

Mr. Shovel states that the war effort does play some role in the ammunition shortage, but does not say exactly what it is, and is apparently not speaking for his company when he makes that claim.

He states that their only issue in delivering ammunition has been getting brass cases and primers, and further, that the specialized military ammunition they produce is not part of their normal civilian/law enforcement manufacturing operations.

Michael Haugen, Manager of the Military Products Division for Remington Arms Company Inc., states:

I would say that if they [law enforcement] are not training it is not due to the availability of ammunition.

Remington has one plant that makes all of their ammunition (military, law enforcement, general civilian), and Mr. Haugen stated emphatically that military sales are "definitely not" in any way detracting from the development and manufacture of civilian and law enforcement ammunition, and that Remington has additional manufacturing capacity, depending on the product required.

We now how three major manufacturers stating that their law enforcement ammunition sales are not being impacted by military ammunition sales, which seems to be directly at odds with the claims made first by Associated Press reporters last week, and now by Washington Post staff writer Candace Rondeaux attempting to refloat an already scuttled premise.

And of course, Rondeaux was wrong when she said that the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge used by the military are "223-caliber rounds -- the same round fired by the military's M-16 and M-4 assault rifles."

Of course, had she bothered to contact ammunition companies in this story about ammunition, she might have figured a few of these things out before she went to print.

[h/t PrairiePundit]

Update: I'm not familiar with how the Washington Post cycles their news stories, but this one is no longer accessible from the front page.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1109 words, total size 8 kb.

The elated outburst from the family when the terp lets them know that he victim is alive is touching.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, I published an entry regarding a claim made by Harper's contributor Scott Horton.

In an August 24 entry called "Those Thuggish Neocons," Horton described what he claimed was a direct lie by a reporter:

I have no idea whether Beauchamp’s story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner’s war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it. One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,” as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications.

As I said two days ago, we need to know that those who are providing us information from the front lines are telling the truth to the best they can determine it. Whether you are for this conflict or against it is a matter of opinion, but to develop, reinforce, or change those opinions, we need facts.

If there are reporters who aren't just biased, but flat-out lying, we need to call them out and discredit them.

I sent the following an email to Mr. Horton at scott@harpers.org on August 25:

Mr. Horton,

I can't claim that Harper's is one of my normal stops, but I was very intrigued by your post today "Those Thuggish Neocons," particularly the paragraph about the reporter who fabricated the Haifa Street report you read.

If you are familiar with my small blog at all (and I'm sure you probably aren't); I often run down false or inaccurate media claims, typically hitting the wire service reporting the hardest, though I've also captured fraud and inaccuracies in newspapers and magazines as well. And yes, I'd readily admit that I have a conservative perspective, but that does not make me so biased that I approach the world with ideological blinders, as this post burning a false pro-Iranian War argument should show.

I was hoping that you would provide me with the date of the story you related as specifically as you can recall, along with the news organization and individual reporter you said was making up this report.

This is pretty obviously unethical and possibly illegal, and I want this resolved quickly.

Thanks,

To date, Mr. Horton has not responded to my query, though he has apparently been online and posting quite heavily; he has posted no fewer than seven blog entries yesterday and so far today. I hope he considers answering.

Since I submitted my first email and wrote my first post on the subject Saturday, a whole host of commenters has chimed in, suggesting certain writers and certain stories may be part of the story that Mr. Horton was referencing, including one of the reporters himself via email (who, as you may well imagine, stood behind his story).

The thing is, most of the stories suggested by both liberal and conservative commenters alike both came from 2007, and in an interview with Democracy Now!, Horton quite clearly shows that he was on Haifa Street for a period of three weeks, and "just returned" at some time prior to the April 14, 2006 interview.

This would seem to limit the time period of these dueling accounts to March or April of 2006.

I'd again like to ask Mr. Horton to tell us who wrote the report he said he read that was one of the "pure fabrications" he recalls.

If so, knowing the date range, I should be able to track down the article in question, and then cross-reference that again other media and military accounts to determine the accuracy of the disputed claim.

We need honesty in media, and need to burn dissemblers, left or right, to the ground.

Don't you agree, Mr. Horton?

Update: In case Mr. Horton's email is full or non-functioning, I've also sent a request in to Giulia Melucci, Harper's Vice President/Public Relations, and asked for her help in resolving this matter.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 817 words, total size 5 kb.

Like new glass.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

If we're to make any sort of sense of the Iraq War at all, we need to know that those who are providing us information on the conflict are being as honest in their reporting as inherent human biases allow. As it has often been said, we can allow people to have their own opinions, bu not their own facts. On that point, I think we can all agree.

Because of this shared desire for facts, those dissemblers who falsify accounts and events in that conflict should be brought to light and discredited so that the can no longer easily spread lies.

Friday, Harper's Scott Horton blasted one reporter for lying, and for being part of a group creating "pure fabrications" when it came to war reporting:

I have no idea whether Beauchamp's story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner's war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it. One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day "in the submarine," as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications.

Clearly, Horton vividly recalls the details of that day, including both the day-long gun battles erupting around him (how could he not?) and the written words of a dishonest reporter that he knew well enough that he could even identify him as part of the core member of a specific group of reporters.

I don't care if this reporter Horton read is pro-war or antiwar; if he's lying, he's undermining all of our understanding about the war. We need a thorough investigation, and if the charges are accurate, this liar should be purged from his news organization and the profession altogether.

But first, we need information.

Horton establishes last spring as the rough time frame and Haifa Street as the location in Baghdad where this story of press duplicity allegedly took place. I've taking the liberty of contacting Mr. Horton via his Harper's email address, and I'm asking him to provide as much detail as possible about the fraudulent reporting of which he was a near-eyewitness. The more detail he can provide, the more concrete of a case we can make.

We need good reporting to understand the wars to which we're committing our nation's soldiers, and we need to discard those journalists that either can't tell truth from fiction, or prefer not to make the distinction.

Hopefully, we'll be able to get this resolved quite soon. Such fakery simply can't be allowed to stand.

Update: At the always thoughtful Bookworm Room, lawyer "Bookworm" digs further into Horton's article, and discovers "a swirling sea of anger" where honesty is perhaps not his priority.

Update: I've noticed that several people attempting to track down the article Mr. Horton may have been discussing have been focusing on articles written in 2007.

According to Democracy Now!, Horton was in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, prior to this April 14, 2006 article, and had only "recently returned." Further, that seems to be more consistent with his vague timeline of "back last spring."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (60) | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

1 When you have the liberal belief that all truth is relative, then "facts" can be based on opinions.

Posted by: Francis Marion at August 25, 2007 05:15 AM (tmIbK)

2 I hope you aren't holding your breath wating for a response from Mr. Horton. My first thought when I read his accusation was - "Certainly, with such blatant deception on the part of this dastardly neocon, Horton's own rebuttal was soon written, corroborated, and published and the lying neocon's career was thankfully destroyed! Surely!" But I wonder why he didn't mention his own follow-up rebuttal? It must have something to do with the stranglehold the neocons have on the national media. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Fred Patten at August 25, 2007 06:41 AM (cp8yW)

3 CY, are you conducting similar rigorous fact checks with reporters you happen to agree with? Do you read right-wing reporting with the same jaundiced eye you have when you read reporting from lefties? For example, did you ever follow up on the "Al Qaeda roasting kids and serving them to their parents" story? That whole thing seemed far-fetched, to put the most charitable spin on it, but did you accept it because it came via Yon despite the fact that he provided no backup for the tale? Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember reading any email exchanges with Yon where you asked him to defend his story.

Posted by: nunaim at August 25, 2007 07:36 AM (wCRif)

4 I wonder.....are liberals capable of doing anything but talking, whining, and lying?

Posted by: Kathy Washburn at August 25, 2007 07:36 AM (7Fjsx)

5 I believe the "neocon" in question is Fred Kagen. On Monday May 21st he wrote a piece titled "You Bet We Can Win" in which he states: But looking at these casualty numbers alone distorts reality. Security is improving across Baghdad, even in traditionally bad areas. In early May, I walked and drove through these neighborhoods. Haifa St., scene of day-long gunfights between Al Qaeda terrorists and coalition forces in January, is calm and starting to revive. Its market is open and flourishing. Even in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood, some of which remains very dangerous, the market now has more than 200 shops - up from zero in February. " I would not be so quick to trust that Scott is telling the truth. By May, it is quite possible those streets were indeed as Kagen described. I'd like verification from many other sources about what Haifa Street was like during that time in May. However, even if Kagen's statement about Haifa Street prove to be wrong - for Scott to claim that he is part of a neocon group that always creates "pure fabrications" is nothing more hyperbole driven by his personal ideology. I have seen more than enough examples from members of the left wing liberal media establishment, of which Scott Horton belongs, create pure fabrications, both with words and photoshopped images but I don't belligerently discount all stories that emerge from them. John Burns offers some of the best reporting on Iraq, as do a short but important list of other journalists that belong to a large group of the liberal ideologically motivated left wing press. Even if Kagen's statement about Haifa Street is proven completely false, that doesn't negate the truth about Scott Beauchamp - he fabricated his stories that were passed off by Franklin Foer as the truth. Foer still refuses to admit he was wrong, he was duped, his teams fact checking was flawed or fabricated, and that he "chose" or "hired" Beauchamp to provide this "Diary" only because he was married or engaged(not sure which) to a TNR journalist & staff member. It bears repeating: Even if that one particular statement about Haifa Street was misleading or completely fabricated, neither that, nor the nepotism in chosing Scott Beauchamp to author this Diary" negate the uglytruth that neither Foer, nor his lemming readership, nor Scott Horton, a writer whose own agenda and idealogical leanings cloud his stories and his judgment, wish to acknowledge: Scott Beauchamp FABRICATED each story that TNR published and touted to be an honest and truthful look at a "day in the life" of soldiers in Iraq. Scott Norton is a member of a large society called "THE MEDIA" . This society is comprised of organizations and individuals that lean left and lean right. When any one individual or organization, whether they lean left or right, fabricates lies about the war, the soldiers, the President, or any other issue, it diminishes the credibility of EVERY journalist, writer and photographer including Scott Horton.

Posted by: Tara at August 25, 2007 07:42 AM (CeELz)

6 Here is the link to the Opinion piece written by Fred Kagen in the Daily News - that I believe Scott Norton was referring to: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/05/21/2007-05-21_you_bet_we_can_win.html

Posted by: Tara at August 25, 2007 07:46 AM (CeELz)

7 Even Carl Levin says this week that the Iraq war is improving. Naturally, the Left must ratchet up the anti-war response to counter any "good news" of this sort. How about going back 5 months and fabricating a story with a parsimony of detail to cast doubt? Don't do anything more than create a "Jayson Blair" scenario. Then sit back and deride the "neocons" who fail to PROVE the made up story is false. Makes me wonder if his source may not have been Scott Thomas Beauchamp???

Posted by: BigTex at August 25, 2007 07:46 AM (ilTLX)

8 nunaim, Yon recorded precisely what Iraqi interpreter extracted for the citizen--he neither claimed it was true or false, just an accurate recording of what the man said. Are you disputing the interpreter's translation?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 25, 2007 08:02 AM (HcgFD)

9 Are you disputing the interpreter's translation? No. What do I know about translations? On the other hand, Horton is recording what he experienced on the day in question. Why is one tale open to scrutiny and the other not? I suggest that it is simply because of the political leanings of the writers involved.

Posted by: nunaim at August 25, 2007 08:19 AM (wCRif)

10 nunaim: Try harder son. Horton isn't even saying he is comparing the SAME day as Kagen's. Horton states Kagen was referring to -some- non-specific day that was calmer than it had been in the past. He never mentioned a specific day. ALong comes Horton to say that ONE day, the day he is writing his piece was not calm, and had some skirmishes and fighting. So that means, within his tunneled logic, that ALL days MUST be like the ONE day he was writing about. Whereas Kagen stated, quite clearly, that while things aren't perfect, they are getting better. He never once said the fighting is -all- gone. Ever. Go home. Troll. Never once is it specified that Horton and Kagen are talking about the same day.

Posted by: couch1971 at August 25, 2007 08:31 AM (AW6kf)

11 As regards Burning yet another Beauchamp; Has anyone read the NYT op-ed from the soldiers of the 82nd? As I read, there were a number of questions that I had regarding the authorship of the piece. There were a several incongruities, (sp?)and while I was an E-5 (Army SGT), I didn't know many individuals whom were familiar with "Janus", albeit, I was. I spoke w/Bill Roggio via phone, and we both concluded that it was "ghost written" by someone far above the level of the individuals that put their names to it. We concurred that the "essay" could be ripped apart in almost every single paragraph. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Jack Coonan at August 25, 2007 08:37 AM (bAzyC)

12 *Sorry if this is a duplicate but my first attempt to publish this indicated there was a problem, so I re-edited it slightly and I've tried to publish one more time* -- Nunaim: You seem to suffer from the same stupidity most of your ilk is experiencing. Mike Yon never stated that the roasting of a child in Iraq by Al Queda was a fact. He merely shared a story that an Iraqi told in front of other soldiers and officials. The translator was an American soldier who belonged to the unit Mike was embedded with. At NO point did Mike say the story was true, altho he felt the need to share it only because in the past 18 months he has spent in Iraq he has personally witnessed atrocities by Al Queda, and as thus, he felt the story could not be dismissed. Why is cooking a child any different to you than BEHEADING civilians live on the internet? An Iraqi reporter that has recently been kidnapped by Al Queda told Mike he too had heard that same story, except it was the baked and roasted head of the child that was presented to the family. Al Q has tortured people using drills, have stuffed bombs up their cavities and used them as bombs to attack soldiers, have beheaded innocent individuals live on the net, and you wonder if its at all possible that Al Q could bake children and serve them to their parents?? Mike does NOT need to verify a story that he IDENTIFIED as a story and NOT as fact. Its interesting to me how NO ONE of any value or serious weight on either side o the media has any issue with Mike's credibility or his dispatches. The only people that keep harping on this are belligerent ignorant left wing bloggers with too much time on their hands, who seem incapable of understanding the ethical difference between sharing a story that was clearly identified as a story, within a bigger story, AND LYING or FABRICATING "facts" about our soldiers, our President, and the war. I stood on a small hill in Stuttgart that had been created by the ashes of Jews that were cooked in ovens after having been gassed. If Germans were capable of gassing alive Jews then cooking their bodies in ovens and leaving the ashes behind that eventually the formed a small but evident hill in an otherwise very flat landscape, then why do you have trouble believing a story but forth by an Iraqi claiming that he witnessed Al Queda serve a baked child to the child's parents. Let me make this clear to you--- at no point did Mike Yon ever state this story was a fact. Mike was embedded with a unit, and at a meeting with Iraqi officials, one official who spoke freely at the meeting in front of Iraqi and American commanders -- whose names Mike clearly states( these would be witnesses lending veracity to what Mike wrote, Numaim) this official shares his opinion about how Al Queda came to Baquabah and united independent criminal gangs. Now - you and your ilk of losers don't seem to take issue with that part of the dispatch. Lets move on to see how stupid you really are. In the same dispatch Mike clearly identifies that this Iraqi official is speaking through an American interpreter, Lt David Wallach who speaks native Arabic. So,numaim, David Wallach is identified, so he serves as yet another witness to the story Mike is RETELLING. So far Mike has provided 3 names that can lend veracity to the fact that this Iraqi told them about al queda baking a child and serving the child to his parents. So without a doubt we (those of us who actually know how to use our brains) know that Mike Yon has NOT FABRICATED the story, since he provides the names of people who were there and who can VERIFY that this Iraqi told the story about Al Q baking children. Are you following this logic, numaim?? I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand the difference since you and your merry band of morons out of desperation to prove your stupidity keep bringing up the "mike yon" story about Al Q baking kids. SO LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU: Beauchamp FABRICATED all his stories. Mike DID NOT fabricate what he reported. Mike repeated a story told to him in front of WITNESSES he identifies. And that story included some valuable important insight: "the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people." "AL Q used the young boys they recruited for kidnapping torturing and murdering people. At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently." I notice how you don't seem to ever comment on the above in your endless nattering so I have to assume you and TBogg and Instaputz and the rest of you lemmings have no problem with the credibility of the above. You just seem to have a problem with the rest of the story this same official is sharing, but you fail to mention that Mike didn't MAKE UP the story, he merely repeated it. Lets read what Mike witnessed: "The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family" Now let me help you out here, Numaim: Mike quoted what David Wallach, an American soldier who speaks arabic, was translating from the Iraqi official. At no point EVER does Mike Yon say the latter or even the earlier part of what the Iraqi official is telling him is itself factual. BUT he does report verbatim what Lt David Wallach translates from the Iraqi official. Mike Yon never said that this story about Al Q baking children was true. But we do KNOW that Mike Yon did NOT FABRICATE the story about Al Queda baking the boy. THAT, Nunaim, or more aptly,Numnut, is the difference between Beauchamp who insisted his stories did actually happen, but were in truth fabricated ( apparently he seemed confused about WHERE that the mess hall incident took place -mistaking Kuwait for Iraq) and Mike Yon's dispatch which is detailed in location, names, conversations, witnesses, and discerns between irrevocable fact and a small part of a story that is being shared as part of a bigger story about how Al Queda operated in Baquba. You keep insisting that Bob needs to seek proof from Mike about this story,but he doesn't because the proof is in the story. If Mike had FABRICATED any of this story then why have NONE OF THE MEN HE NAMES in this dispatch come forward to deny what he wrote?? It bears repeating that you and your lemmings have no leg to stand on with regards to your bogus accusations about Mike Yon and your useless attempt to diminish his credibility. Mike's credibility is not in question by the worlds most respected journalists- especially those in the liberal MSM, only by a bunch of foolish left wing bloggers. Using his name to attract attention to your blogs, to try to diminish his reputation and credibility and and to perpetuate some ludicrous assertion that Bob only attacks left wing writers serves to prove just how freaking stupid and desperate you are.

Posted by: Tara at August 25, 2007 09:02 AM (CeELz)

13 Wow. Tara, I can't add a single thing to that. Except, perhaps, BRAVO!

Posted by: C-C-G at August 25, 2007 06:12 PM (447LE)

14 I wouldn't hold your breath expecting any specifics back from Horton. As a noted Human Rights lawyer and journalist he is unlikely to trifle with mere blogs. As a haughty lefty who sees Iraq as a purely ideological struggle, he will not want to get pinned down when he is throwing unsupported bullshit against the wall. Generalities yes, specifics, hell no. He frames the Beauchamp matter in purely ideological terms rather than as a debunking of fables that strained the credibility of knowledeable observers. Once strained, the reluctance on the part of TNR to disavow the stories added credence to the suspicion that there may have been an ideological motivation behind their publication. The profile of Foer in this month's Columbia Magazine noted at Powerline certainly does nothing to diminish this suspicion.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 25, 2007 07:07 PM (0pZel)

15 Shorter Tara: I'm CAREFULLY not going on the RECORD as saying the event HAPPENED, but only LIEberals will question THE FACT that it HAPPENED, because it ADVANCES the NARRATIVE I'm PUSHING. Bonus Tara: I'm going to MENTION Beauchamp in my TIRADE even though the PERSON I'm REPLYING TO didn't mention him, mainly because WE ON THE RIGHT are obsessed with BEAUCHAMP, and we can't stop talking ABOUT HIM. Beauchamp's dreamy, isn't he? I can't get him out of my mind...

Posted by: nunaim at August 25, 2007 07:14 PM (wCRif)

16 nunaim, two points: Point the First: Tara never, I say again, never says that what was related in the story ever actually happened. In fact, she says: At NO point did Mike say the story was true Apparently you need to invest in reading comprehension classes. Point the Second: you've been present in every Beauchamp thread that I have seen here on CY. If we conservatives are obsessed with Beauchamp, apparently you are too. Or obsession might not have anything to do with it.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 25, 2007 07:22 PM (447LE)

17 Hmmm. Last spring? The suggestion that the "incident" of last spring isn't the only "neocon" lie? I'm with you on one point, however: no lying in the news. Ever. By anyone. Even so, there are a few interesting questions that might be wise to have answered before digging too deeply into this "situation:" (1) If Mr. Horton was so concerned about this incident and the myriad other incidents to which he alludes, why did he restrain himself from reporting them when they occurred? Liberals haven't been shy at exposing alleged conservative perfidy to this point, so why the reticence to publish potentially juicy and damaging stories? Why did he wait until now, when the outcry for complete disclosure on the part of TNR is so strong? Perhaps that's just a coincidence, but it would be interesting to know. (2) Why not expose the "liar(s)" immediately? Why not name names, if the truth is so belatedly important? Of course, without names, dates, times, it's much more difficult to investigate Mr. Horton's allegations, but surely he's not obfuscating? (3) What relationship, if any, does Mr. Horton have with Mr. Foer or with anyone working at TNR? What contact has he had with anyone working at or for TNR? Just food for thought...

Posted by: Mike99 at August 25, 2007 08:09 PM (eD2kz)

18 Point the First: Tara never, I say again, never says that what was related in the story ever actually happened. In fact, she says: At NO point did Mike say the story was true. Apparently you need to invest in reading comprehension classes. Oh, yes: don't people always spend paragraphs explaining things that they don't believe happened? The sweet smell of history being rewritten, with just a dash of conspiracy theory thrown in by Mike99. I'll bet Foer's a member of the Trilateral Commission!!

Posted by: nunaim at August 25, 2007 08:28 PM (wCRif)

19 Nunaim, Tara quotes the relevant paragraph. In it, Michael Yon presents the story as something an Iraqi citizen told a translator. Can't you read? Just how stupid are you?

Posted by: lyle at August 25, 2007 09:05 PM (6cFp4)

20 nunaim, you are purposefully taking things out of content, well past the point of gross misrepresentation. Goodbye.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 25, 2007 09:39 PM (HcgFD)

21 Why do I suddenly have a Queen song running through my mind?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 25, 2007 09:52 PM (447LE)

22 You people are arguing with Libs who still hold up the "16 words" of the SOTU address as a lie when it is incapable of being a lie. Anyone feel like they are wasting their breath?

Posted by: MAJGross at August 25, 2007 09:57 PM (USGNE)

23 Horton appears to be a full tilt hoony lib. peruse some of his daily web postings for Harpers. I particularly liked his paranoid screed from May 3, 2007 about Bush targeting the media in Iraq to control the message about the war - strike that - he says they are not REALLY targeted: May 3, 2007 Is it hyperbole to say that the Bush Administration has gone to war against journalists? Increasingly, this claim is a literal truth. Those who would dismiss the claim should contemplate some hard facts from the real battlefields of the “war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, over a hundred journalists have been killed – a multiple of the number who died in World War II – and a large part of that number fell to American arms. I don’t suggest that the U.S. soldiers intentionally targeted them; but it does appear that historical rules that shielded journalists on the battlefield have disappeared, and that this has led to deaths. And with respect to certain foreign press organizations, like al-Jazeera, intentional targeting is now documented. The above was just an excerpt, but it explains where his position derives. What rules protecting journalists were relaxed exactly? What the hell is he talking about? http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/horton-20070504cryp

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 25, 2007 10:10 PM (0pZel)

24 Anyone feel like they are wasting their breath? Every time I'm arguing with a liberal.

Posted by: John in CA at August 25, 2007 10:14 PM (PQVEt)

25 From Katherine Stapp, at IPS, via Asia Media Forum responding to the deaths of all journalists in Iraq, as of 07 JUL 2006: "FS: So far, CPJ has found only case where a journalist was killed by Iraqi forces, and, even in that case, the circumstances remain unclear. Most journalists who have been killed in Iraq have been murdered by insurgent forces or have otherwise been killed in insurgent attacks. Incidents involving U.S. military forces have been the second-leading-cause of death for journalists in Iraq. IPS: So far, the number of journalists deliberately targeted (3 and those killed in crossfire or other acts of war (36) are roughly equivalent. Do you see a trend in either direction? FS: Indeed, most journalists killed in Iraq have been murdered, usually gangland-style, in direct retaliation for their work. While nearly as many journalists have been killed in crossfire and many other acts of war. I don't think the trend in Iraq is necessarily changing. But here is food for thought. If one looks at CPJ's achives going back over the past decade, or even the previous decade, one consistent and alarming trend stands out: about three out of four journalists killed on the job are not killed on the battlefield; they have instead been murdered outright in direct reprisal for their reporting. Most of these journalists are local, investigative reporters. Even more alarming, in nearly nine out of 10 of these journalist murder cases, no alleged perpetrators have been prosecuted at all. The most murderous nations since 2000 are the Philippines, Iraq, Colombia, Bangladesh and Russia. IPS: How bad is the situation on the ground in terms of the control, or lack of it, of the various armed forces? It appears that outside the bunkers that protect the occupying forces and their allies, widespread chaos and violence reign. How can a journalist, especially a local journalist, prepare for such coverage? What does it mean to be a freelancer in Iraq? What is possible for a freelancer in terms of making a living, securing some degree of freedom of expression and covering the conflict? FS: Iraq today is the most dangerous conflict to cover in memory, and there is no easy or guaranteed way to cover the war and stay safe. The risks are tremendous from foreign correspondents, including even well-known Western news anchors on a Baghdad assignment to Iraqi fixers working closer to home. Freelancers whether foreign or local face additional risks. CPJ encourages freelancers especially to make sure that they have adequate health insurance, and we encourage news organisations to provide health insurance, in particular, to those whom they rely on. Security training is another important element that we also recommend. There is an organisation, the International News Safety Institute (that includes CPJ), that has been providing subsidised training for Iraqi fixers and others in Iraq." At IPS Ms. Stapp appears to cover an array of issues on the left, including world socialist get-togethers. Here she is debunking the CPJ claim of the US being a leading or, indeed, second-leading cause of death in Iraq. She previously cites only 13 cases with US military involvement, so that would be 13 out of 74. By her own account 90% of all Iraqi reporter deaths are by this thing known as 'murder' on the street in a lawless way. At that point in 2006 the Iraqi Police were having a hard time standing up and were the frequent target of killings by insurgents, coming right after civilians if memory serves. She places this at the feet of insurgents. Thus #1 is insurgents, #2 is gangland slayings (of which there are a number of such with the typical shot to the back of the head concept). There may be some overlap as criminal and insurgent interests overlap in some areas. That puts the US no higher than #3. Perhaps we can get some reporting on organized crime activity in Iraq from 'journalists'? So, this does seem to point out a problem with the 'US being the leading cause of death of reporters in Iraq' concept. It is a very violent place where al Qaeda, in particular, is trying to formulate the news environment so only news they like in the way they like gets reported, thus the targeting of independent journalists is done for a specific reason: to form the news environment and reporting. Of particular note is the number of Iraqi journalists, not foreign journalists, being killed and unreported in the US. Perhaps a 'journalist' could report on that...

Posted by: ajacksonian at August 26, 2007 06:30 AM (oy1lQ)

26 nunaim was pwn3d!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 26, 2007 01:50 PM (Lgw9b)

27 Well, I am going to have to find the various reports, but this reporters is going on out a limb to insist that it was a lie written on the same day that a battle took place. Reading various reports, it seems that Haifa street has consistently waivered back and forth from "peaceful and 'bucolic'" to a battle front. One such report was a rather historic view of the area through various units and strategies that were put in place. The current unit in control of the area now has combat out posts and Joint Strategic Stations that remain open. I will find the report, but according to this US commander, the original owners of that area had "pacified it" and then turned it over to Iraqi police, not making any substantial regular patrols or leaving forces in the area. The police, of course, were infiltrated and further, undermanned and outgunned, thus, unable to hold it allowing insurgents of all stripes to move back in. The movement of this US force was because the strategy had called for turning over "pacified" areas to the Iraqis and moving US forces to other areas. Largely because the manpower did not allow for leaving significant forces and because we looked at each area as a separate battle to be fought and pacified before moving on. This officer noted that, as soon as the previous unit pulled back, Haifa street was once again infiltrated by both Sunni and Shia militias and turned into a battle field. Something that we should not be shocked about since Haifa St is literally the fault line between Sadr city, a Mahdi Army Shi'ite enclave, and multiple Sunni districts like Rusafah and Karkh. both long time bases for the Ba'athists AND al Qaeda in Baghdad. In fact, before Zarqawi was killed and back when he was moving his forces more strongly into Baghdad to inflict his latest strategy and when we had taken over a safe house where we found the now infamous video of Zarqawi in New Balance Tennis shoes unable to fire a captured US weapon, they also found a document that discussed the problems with their forces located in these areas (Rusafah and Karkh; which also abutts the green zone), the removal of some leaders who were "too hot" (because US forces were tracking them) in the area and strategies that they might undertake to attack certain strategic locations like the central police station (located across the river), certain ministries, etc, all accessible by Haifa St. Haifa St also being the location of a rather infamous Sunni extremist mosque (the Imam Mohammed?) that openly preached "death to Americans" from its outside loud speakers. Its been raided so many times by the Iraqis and Americans, you no longer really hear about it. I believe the Imam was either replaced or significantly chastised. I believe, in the documentary "Gunner Palace", the officer in charge of the area told the Imam flat out that he would have him arrested the next time such blatant calls for attacking Americans were heard. So, this reporter is being rather disingenuous. Possibly even the other reporter who said it was peaceful. It probably was on that day and it has been for many days and weeks before it had been re-infiltrated. In fact, recent reports indicate that it is once again "peaceful" and shops are opening. But, earlier this year, there was a video featured at blackfive showing a battle between US and Iraqi forces v. "insurgents" (their association with AQI, Ba'athists or Sadrists was unknown). Before that, it had flip-flopped between quiet and deserted to outright battles with the Iraq police and any US force that did venture into the area. I really have to find the report because the officer in question was very honest in his portrayal of the history of the area and his units forced need to basically "re-take" the area, driving out the insurgents "again". this is, in fact, how the insurgency and counter-insurgency had been fought. This is, in fact, what happens when the previous strategy was in place. This is, in fact, a truth you could apply to any area in Iraq, including Ramadi and Fallujah where the area went back and forth several times before the Shiehks were finally convinced to throw their entire lot in with us. Therefore, I think this fellow is making something out of nothing and, is, in fact, ignoring the total history of haifa st throughout the battle to secure Baghdad and Iraq. he is also ignoring the new strategy of continuing presence and outposts to avoid this continual back and forth control of the street. It hardly signifies a "lie" on behalf of the "neocons" or a static "truth" that cannot change depending on the month and strategy. I'll look for the reports, but I believe they are linked somewhere in Blackfive and Mudville Gazette. I think the reporter in question, should this idiot you are quoting, actually indicate the time and date, would be found to be telling the truth for that specific time frame. It probably was rather peaceful and "bucolic" with shops opening, etc while he was there. It doesn't make his report a lie. It is just a snapshot among the many back and forth conditions of this street. To point it out as some sort of "proof" of "neocon" lies over the entire war is like trying to extrapolate the rather stupid anecdotes of Beauchamp as definitive of US forces as a whole. In short, I give no credence to his lousy and unfounded attack. Anyone who has actually been paying attention to the Battle for Baghdad would know the truth is in between and believe neither represents the final disposition of the street or the war.

Posted by: kat-missouri at August 26, 2007 02:27 PM (io+Si)

28 Oh...and Haifa St is literally miles long and transits Baghdad from South East to North West. Meaning that, on any given day, one section of Haifa St could be exactly as the one reporter noted while on the other end of the street, miles away, a gun battle could take place and the reporter would not even know it while another one could be right in the middle of it. So, yeah, if this guy can't name the date, time and exact location on the street the fight was raging to compare to the other reporters date, time and exact location on haifa st, I call this Scott character at least a misleading, disingenuous ideologue if not a liar. Maps and outlines of various areas including denoting "haifa St" and how long it is: http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2006/05/battle-for-baghdad-ii-zarqawi-on.html http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2006/05/battle-for-baghdad-ii-zarqawis-alamo.html We're talking miles and through different mixed and ethnically singular neighborhoods. Scott Norton is an idiot.

Posted by: kat-missouri at August 26, 2007 03:19 PM (io+Si)

29 Calling a liberal an idiot is redundant.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 26, 2007 03:27 PM (Lgw9b)

30 Calling a liberal an idiot is redundant. Not necessarily. There are those who are intelligent and who embrace liberalism in the quest for personal power. I call those "evil."

Posted by: C-C-G at August 26, 2007 04:10 PM (447LE)

31 Finally, just so I am providing accurate information, the Sunni Mosque that was routinely raided for calling for attacks against Americans and harboring insurgents was the al Hanifa Mosque in Adhamiya on the Northwest end of Haifa St. Battle for Baghdad Al Adhamiya district also contains the al Hanifa mosque that has been raided many times. It is widely known to spread anti-American and anti-government information via sermons as well as the use of their external PA system. Also suspected of providing sanctuary to insurgents and storing weapons. The purpose of the raid was not immediately clear but some worshippers, gathered outside the mosque, said the security forces had arrested the mosque's imam, Shaikh Muayid al-Adhami. According to the US Commander of the district, in 2004, he had warned Adhami several times about mosque activities and finally had him arrested when he continued his activities. Adhamiya is largely Sunni rejectionist and Ba'athists. Zarqawi tries to make common cause with them to prepare the way for his arrival and operations in Rusafah. He may even be hoping for "joint operations". After the curfew was lifted on Tuesday afternoon, residents gingerly came out onto the street once more. Meanwhile, a statement issued by al-Qaeda in Iraq, the country's most prominent insurgent organization, promised more fighting on Wednesday. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq is announcing a new raid to avenge the Sunnis at Adhamiyah and the other areas, and the raid will start with the dawn of Wednesday, if God wishes," the statement said. "The Shiite areas will be an open battlefield for us. We will strike anything we face." While just a mile or so down the road is "al Thawra" or "Sadr City" and a little further down the road is the Sunni neighborhood of Rusafah and so on and so on. I really could go on and on about what is the reality of the area. Before we lynch somebody as a liar, know more about the area and tell this Scott character to give up his date, time, and exact location for either alleged event. Until then, this is a macabre dance to try and prove we aren't "biased". Something that is pretty foolish and plays into this character's own ideologically biased fantasy world.

Posted by: kat-missouri at August 26, 2007 04:41 PM (io+Si)

32 Wretchard made a similar point to kat-nissou's last post, but with respect to the battle of Tal-Afar. Two reports on the same day - one portraying units out looking for insurgents and finding nothing (and implying the US military effort was fruitless.) Another right fromt he middle of a fire fight. Both were true, crrectly reported what the reported saw, the narrative (quagmire, hopelessness)thrown in with the first report not so much.

Posted by: Buck Smith at August 26, 2007 04:51 PM (7m8wS)

33 I did think I could find the post by Wretchard, but whaddiyah know I did: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/09/news-magazine-of-mysteries.html#links

Posted by: buck smith at August 26, 2007 04:54 PM (7m8wS)

34 This reminds me of reading one of the stories in "A Piece of My Heart." It told of the rocket and mortar attacks on the hospital at Pleiku in Viet Nam. I happened to be stationed in the Pleiku area during the time that the story took place and the frequency and intensity of the storied attacks would have been notable to me. I won't begin to claim that none of them took place, but I'd bet that not nearly as many took place as was stated. Just like those Haifa Street battles that may or may not have ever happened, the peaceful neighborhoods vs. constant street battles of the opposing press positions, may depend a lot on which side of the aisle one stands. I for one, tend to believe the soldier who claims things seem to be more nearly peaceful. But, that's just me. Woody

Posted by: Oran Woody at August 26, 2007 05:11 PM (NHGdT)

35 He's pretty clearly talking about Kristol's "Nothing to Fear but the Polls Themselves," in which Kristol quotes an unnamed friend: We went through two of the worst Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad ... heavily infested with al Qaeda and other terrorists who terrorize the population and drive them to support or at least tolerate attacks against us. But the kids on the streets -- and there were many -- waved, smiled, asked for candy. The locals give us tips and ask us to get the terrorists out of the area and, above all, to protect them. We walked through a market off of Haifa Street -- remember, the site of that long-running gun-battle back in January that made so much news? The market was thriving, flourishing, the local U.S. commander knew everyone and everyone knew him. The kids thronged around us, laughing, asking for candy. This friend must've written Kristol in the two weeks prior to 21 May -- the article seems to have gone online 14 May, so let's see what Haifa Street was like in late April/early May 2006. From Bassem Mroue, "Attacks on bridges aim to geographically divide Baghdad," April 25, 2007: Some Shiites who commute across the river say that after the Sarafiyah bridge was destroyed, they must now drive through the Sunni areas of Haifa street to the south or the Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah to the north. Verdict: Dangerous. From Ann Scott Tyson, "The Two Sides of Baghdad Barriers," Washington Post, April 30, 2007 Across the river in the predominantly Sunni district along Haifa Street, Col. Bryan Roberts, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, said an increase in vehicle bombs had led him to introduce a plan to barricade five markets in the district. "My biggest concerns security-wise are the current attack methods, the VBIEDs, suicide vests," he said. Verdict: Still Pretty Dangerous On 9 May, Ann Scott Tyson, in "Commanders in Iraq See 'Surge' Into '08; Pentagon to Deploy 35,000 Replacement Troops," noted: In the relatively safe Haifa Street area of Baghdad, monthly attacks fell by about 50 percent from January to February but since then have increased slightly, including a significant increase in suicide car bomb attacks. Verdict: "Relatively" Safe. Ironic quotation marks because things did not go well on 10 May, as reported by Agence France Presse: Meanwhile, residents were woken by the sounds of a battle near Haifa Street, a main city thoroughfare that was once notorious as a three-way battlefield between Sunni insurgents, Shiite militia and Iraqi security forces. For almost two hours explosions and automatic gunfire echoed among the restive district's tall concrete buildings, but officials were not immediately able to explain what was going on. Verdict: Not Very Safe At All According to an 18 May security report, "US gives Iraq two months to 'rectify' political course": "The US troops have arrested a person called Shaykh Haydar at the home of his sister, whose husband was also arrested. The US troops said that Shaykh Haydar's brother-in-law is responsible for masterminding many killings, abductions, and acts of displacement on Haifa Street in central Baghdad." Verdict: A Little Safer, But Still Pretty Dangerous So I wonder who Kristol's anonymous friend is, and whether the emphasis should be on refuting Horton, since his account better squares with what I could pull up on Lexis/Nexis. Do you really believe Kristol to be an objective, non-ideological writer? Moreover, do you really believe his anonymous friend is?

Posted by: SEK at August 26, 2007 06:09 PM (9FbHz)

36 SEK, the update I posted hours ago shows Horton was in Baghdad on Haifa Street in 2006, and I have not seen anything saying he'd been there before or since that visit. All the articles you've cited come from a year later, in 2007. Horton may be many things, but I don't think he's a prophet.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 26, 2007 06:47 PM (HcgFD)

37 It's really neither here nor there. Haifa St has continually gone back and forth between peaceful and calm and outright battles. While one section might be secure, another section might be an insurgents' playground. It's almost five miles long. I could be having chai at an outdoor restaurant on one end while a pitched battle was happening on the other. On the same day. On the same street called Haifa in the city of Baghdad. Finally, no one should take any one report from any one resource on anyone day and try to conflate it into the definitive view of the street, Baghdad or Iraq as a whole. It is literally defined in inches, feet, yards, miles and district to district.

Posted by: kat-missouri at August 26, 2007 06:52 PM (io+Si)

38 I'd seen the update, but it's not unusual for correspondents to cover an area multiple times -- esp. when the one in question passed the Iraqi bar exam a few years back. Another way to put it: the Kristol article squares with Horton's description, and given that he says "back last spring," it seems to logical to assume he was talking about 2007. Until evidence to the contrary's presented, I'm not sure why you're assuming "last spring" meant "a year ago last spring." RE: Haifa Street From what I remember, it's a little over two miles long, and they're describing the same Sunni-controlled sections of Haifa. But I can turn this around: even if Horton's talking about 2007, not 2006, Kristol's reportage on Haifa is suspect. I expect a post about the veracity of his anonymous correspondent's observations post haste.

Posted by: SEK at August 26, 2007 07:12 PM (9FbHz)

39 Horton writes his post to specifically present the picture of a man reading the news one evening after his neighborhood had been under constant combat all day, reading with anger and disbelief that some claims to have walked through the same neighborhood, but instead of violence he saw scenes "a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community." Horton specifically cites two things that he said the un-named writer recounted--the presence of an American patrol, children playing in the street--that he claimed could not have happened on that day, in that neighborhood because of the running gun battles. Is this a honest presentation? Obviously, it is not. Either the unnamed member of "the core neocon pack" was on that section of Haifa Street in a peaceful time, or Horton was hunkered down to avoid fire: both cannot co-exist at the same place, at the same time. Someone, obviously, is not telling the truth. SEK, Horton is clearly writing about a report he read that day, filed that day, which was in the spring of 2006. Please quit trying to justify being a year off; it's rather unbecoming.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 26, 2007 08:41 PM (HcgFD)

40 In the Democracy Now interview, Scott Horton says he lived on Haifa Street for three weeks. If we combine that with the knowledge that he left Iraq shortly after his client was released around 4/10/06, then we can surmise that he was probably living on Haifa Street in 2006 from about 3/20 until 4/10. I don't have access to Lexis/Nexis, but a Factiva search turned up only 1 instance of the phrase "Haifa Street" during that time frame. It was clearly not the article in question.

Posted by: WFR at August 26, 2007 09:02 PM (ODy3M)

41 WFR, I'm deaf, so I didn't try to listen to the interview. I'll do a Lexis/Nexis search for 2006 tomorrow, however, and see what turns up. Confederate Yankee, there's absolutely nothing unbecoming about assuming that by "last spring" someone means "last spring." It's an entirely rational assumption, and I feel no shame in having made it. If I'm wrong, so be it, I can pull up the articles for 2006 and see what fits in that time-frame. That said, the Kristol article is by William Kristol, a prominent neo-con. It does talk about an American patrol on Haifa St. and children playing in the street. And it was from "last spring," fitting the time-line Horton presented. I'm not sure the reason for your tone, except that you seem certain that because he was in Iraq a year ago last spring, that means he couldn't have been there last spring too. Which, frankly, strikes me as illogical. Again, I could be incorrect here, but I don't think I'm doing anything "unbecoming." However, I'll note that you didn't respond to my remark about when your post on Kristol will be posted. After all, the published accounts of Haifa St. in April/May 2007 don't correspond to the one Kristol presented in The Weekly Standard. Why not bolster your rhetorical bluster with some proof that you're willing to investigate inconsistencies regardless of ideological affiliation? Kristol's relayed report on Haifa St. this April/May is contradicted by the DOD's own press releases. Where's the outrage?

Posted by: SEK at August 26, 2007 09:46 PM (9FbHz)

42 I looked over all of Horton's 2007 web postings for Harpers yesterday, sometimes more than three per day. There was nothing to indicate he was living or visiting Baghdad for any period of time this past spring unless he chose not to write about it, an event I find highly unlikely given his antiwar views and proclivity for Bush bashing. SEK, you should take a look at his writings instead of taking a shot in the dark. I see nothing inconsistent with Kristol relaying the observations of his friend with the concurrent reporting and concerns over bombings cited elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps your ideological biases are showing the way they did on the Beauchamp threads at Protein Wisdom. Time to look in the mirror, SEK.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 26, 2007 10:12 PM (0pZel)

43 daleyrocks, you mean the "ideological biases" which allowed me to admit, openly and unreservedly, that I'd been wrong about Beauchamp, and that he'd violated the codes of journalistic conduct I thought TNR would've at least superficially abided by? Sorry, but I'm not blinded by ideology, as any of the folks at Jeff's place (not to mention Jeff himself) will tell you. I evaluate the facts before me, honestly, and draw my conclusions from them. Right now, I know that Horton claimed he was there "last spring." If you can tell me why "last spring" definitively refers to "a year ago last spring," I'll buy it. I understand that he was there in the spring of 2006 ... but that doesn't preclude him having been there in the spring of 2007. Anyway, this is a moot point, as I'm willing to grant that I'm wrong and look at the evidence from spring of 2006. I'm not wedded to my theory, I'm looking at the best available evidence. And yes, there are inconsistencies in the picture Kristol paints when you consider what happened on Haifa St. in April/May 2007. The rhetoric's loaded -- the terrorists quickly disappear and are replaced by smiling children requesting candy ... when, as the other reports indicate, that area was prone to extreme violence at the very time the Kristol's correspondent writes about smiling children requesting candy. At best, Kristol's guilty of manipulating his friend's report to emphasize the narrative he's wedded to -- that the surge is working, Baghdad's getting better, &c. That he didn't mention the destruction of the bridge into the area, the "significant increase in car bomb attacks," &c. demonstrates as much. I suppose my bias is responsible for my trusting the words of Col. Bryan Roberts, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade ... but now, as on Protein Wisdom, I'm going to trust the words of a soldier over those of an anonymous commenter. Or do you not remember the reason I got involved in those thread? If you're wondering, it's that someone over here would countermand the words of one of our soldiers over there. Yes, it turns out Beauchamp lied, but that doesn't change anything for me: they're over there, fighting for us, and it's sad that some of you would dismiss them so quickly just because their assessment fails to jibe with yours.

Posted by: SEK at August 26, 2007 10:37 PM (9FbHz)

44 SEK - I don't remember you admitting you were wrong at PW. I just remember your attitude and bias, but I could easily have missed your admission. I'm not disputing Col. Roberts at all as I said above. Here's an excerpt from either the same oa a different Ann Scott Tyson piece from April 30, 2007: Although sectarian killings have decreased in Baghdad since February, when tens of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops began arriving, attacks with the vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, known as VBIEDs, have increased. Supply of the weapons, which commanders liken to a low-tech precision bomb, is virtually unlimited. "It's a sophisticated network, but not a sophisticated weapon," said Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad. "The difference is a set of keys and a driver." "We'll come back here tonight and clean up" the debris, said [Bryan Dodd], 31, of Killeen, Tex. Before the bombing, Dodd said, the market area was so quiet he had chatted with residents over tea. "They said I could eat with them and didn't need any body armor," he said, but added somberly, "Our job is to be constantly looking for the threat." U.S. and Iraqi commanders are planning more measures to guard against vehicle bombs, including adding barriers to parking lots such as the one outside the Sadriya market. "We will put in some more barriers," [Stuart Toney] said. "We had suggested it before, but the locals were adamant we didn't. Now they are receptive." If you were a close follower of events on the ground over there you would have known about a shift in insurgent tactics as well as a change in coalition response this year. The erection of vehicle barriers at markets was a more widespread development this year. The peaceful scene of sitting around without body armor would not be inconsistent with that of Kristol's friend, even though danger is still present. See how this works SEK? Nice of you to drop by.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 26, 2007 11:03 PM (0pZel)

45 SEK - I'm also not wedded to 2006 versus 2007, but was merely pointing out what I observed from scanning his prolific output on Harpers weblog from earlier this year. Common usage would argue that he meant 2007, but he gave not hint of it in his postings this year. Strange.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 26, 2007 11:15 PM (0pZel)

46 Does SEK have a problem deciphering 2006 and 2007? I can't grasp what he's talking about. The story is about the spring of 2006 and he keeps bringing up something Kristol said in May of 2007.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 26, 2007 11:25 PM (Lgw9b)

47 Funny, I've looked in the comments here and other blogs and no response from Horton. What a surprise! Seems such a simple thing, to throw read meat at the knuckle draggers and watch them knaw. But alas, we already know that Horton won't provide a date and that the only response will be more shrill and deranged attacks on the "neocons" over the Beauchamp expose. So nice of everyone to be so diplomatic and at least pretend he would be willing to defend his [snicker] honor. The real story in all of this is how often these "esteemed" reporters for mainstream lefty mags just make shit up. While we always knew they did it, it is astonishing that they are unablet to correct even the most obvious problems and instead act like sociopaths, daring their readers with even bigger and bolder lies.

Posted by: Becky at August 27, 2007 12:29 AM (CTxe6)

48 Funny, I've looked in the comments here and other blogs and no response from Horton. What a surprise! Seems such a simple thing, to throw read meat at the knuckle draggers and watch them knaw. But alas, we already know that Horton won't provide a date and that the only response will be more shrill and deranged attacks on the "neocons" over the Beauchamp expose. So nice of everyone to be so diplomatic and at least pretend he would be willing to defend his [snicker] honor. The real story in all of this is how often these "esteemed" reporters for mainstream lefty mags just make sh** up. While we always knew they did that, it is astonishing that they are unable to correct even the most obvious problems and instead act like sociopaths, daring their readers with even bigger and bolder lies.

Posted by: Becky at August 27, 2007 12:31 AM (CTxe6)

49 Funny, I've looked in the comments here and elsewhere, and no response from Horton. Seems such a simple thing, to throw that read meat at the knuckle draggers and watch them gnaw. But alas, we already know that Horton won't provide a date and that the only response will be more shrill and deranged attacks on the "neocons". So nice of everyone to be so diplomatic and at least pretend Horton might want to defend his [snicker] honor. The real story in all of this is how often these "esteemed" reporters for mainstream lefty mags just make sh** up. It is astonishing that they have no ability to correct even the most obvious problems and instead act like sociopaths, daring their readers with even bigger and bolder lies.

Posted by: Becky at August 27, 2007 12:38 AM (CTxe6)

50 Funny, I've looked in the comments here and elsewhere, and still no response from Horton. Seems such a simple thing, to throw that red meat at the knuckle draggers and watch them gnaw. But alas, we already know that Horton won't provide a date and that the only response will be more shrill and deranged attacks on the "neocons". So nice of everyone to be diplomatic and at least pretend Horton might want to defend his [snicker] honor. The real story in all of this is how often these "esteemed" reporters from mainstream lefty mags just make sh** up. It is astonishing that they have no ability to correct even the most obvious problems and responding instead like sociopaths, daring their readers with even bigger and bolder lies.

Posted by: Becky at August 27, 2007 12:42 AM (CTxe6)

51 I'm really sorry about the excess posts. It didn't look like they went through. My bad.

Posted by: Becky at August 27, 2007 12:46 AM (CTxe6)

52 The roasted child story is important not because of of its truth or falseness (it seems dodgy to me). It is important because it shows what the Iraqi attitude (in some sectors at least) is towards Al Q.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 27, 2007 06:19 AM (aciBF)

53 I would suggest that we try to not be drawn into arguments over Michael Yon, baked children, hypocritical bloggers, and so forth. This really boils down to something simple: Scott Horton, in an article posted to a well known magazine's website, has accused a reporter of deliberately lying, and also used that as an example to make a blanket accusation against the "Neocon corner" and their "war fables." If he has any evidence that reporters are deliberately lying about their experiences in Iraq, then he should provide that evidence. He should also have no problem providing the exact dates and any other specific information he can about the time he spent at Haifa streen in Iraq. Anything else being commented on here is just window dressing. All that is being asked here of Mr. Horton is that he back up his accusation. That's it. It was he who made the accusation, so it is incumbent upon him, and not the accused, to provide the evidence.

Posted by: RJ at August 27, 2007 09:10 AM (su1ER)

54 It is pretty clear that Haifa Street has a history as varied as the route is long. My bit of research shows that the area has been hotly contested throughout the insurgency, but that the most recent reports--beginning in May 2007--are the most accurate. Wes Morgan is no neocon hack and he writes descriptively about the area. His posts at The Fourth Rail are worth a read to anyone boasting intellectual honesty as a character trait. Kristol may well be relating comments provided to him by Kagen. The two men are certain to correspond professionally, and Kristol's essay could be rehashing what Kagen described to him. Horton very clearly has not been to Haifa Street in over a year. There is no evidence whatsoever to show his presence there at the time that Kristol and Kagen describe. What's ironic is that Bob started this discussion in an intellectually honest attempt to determine if there was a Beauchamp on the right. He'd come across an accusation that someone had "fabricated" a story, and he expressed a desire to have the truth be told. That is, Confederate Yankee appeared set to castigate a conservative for the same thing we've raked TNR over the coals with. Instead, it looks like the prevarications are coming from the left. Again. Heh... Tara and kat-Missouri have research skills that are teh bomb. Y'all rock.

Posted by: Dave at August 27, 2007 09:12 AM (bF9wi)

55 How long is Haifa street?

Posted by: Bill Mead at August 27, 2007 10:37 AM (DsyJO)

56 Yes, there seems to be a disjoint between Harper's 2006 experience, and Kristol's 2007 report. If nothing else, the events described are a year apart. Please note that Harper did not mention a specific name or date in his 2007 blog post. Also please note that he only provided one (vague) example. Normally when one is trying to establish a specfic claim, one attempts to provide as many specific data points (i.e. facts) as possible, for no other reason that it takes at least two data points to establish a trend. In other words, if Harper wants to establish a claim that there's a neocon bias, or a neocon habit fabulism regarding war reporting, he is obliged to provide more than one "fer instance," and he would do well to give as many specifics as possible. The very first thing that jumped out at me when I read Beauchamp's work was the complete absence of names, dates, ranks, or outfits. I have concluded that it is very nearly a definitive law that any claim made about American armed forces abuses is not trustworthy when the story-teller can't or won't provide those four things. Beauchamp's claims tended to validate that "law." CY, maybe -assuming Harper ever even answers you- you can ask him for more instances of "neocon ... war fables." About the only thing I can think of relates more to "quick on the trigger," as opposed to "fables," and that's when everyone jumped all over every news release that claimed Hussein had been killed or captured. Again. Didn't we kill him about 3 times before they finally get him? A similar problem occured several times when press releases announced that someone on the infamous "deck of cards" had been killed or captured, and writers/bloggers would run with it immediately, only to find out -oops!- wasn't him...

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at August 27, 2007 11:12 AM (xdVg/)

57 "For example, did you ever follow up on the "Al Qaeda roasting kids and serving them to their parents" story? That whole thing seemed far-fetched, to put the most charitable spin on it, but did you accept it because it came via Yon despite the fact that he provided no backup for the tale? Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember reading any email exchanges with Yon where you asked him to defend his story. Posted by: nunaim " Yon did not report that incident as fact. He reported what the translator was being told by an Iraqi. In this scenario, fact verification would involve contacting the translator and asking if that is what he communicated to Yon. If so, then Yon's reporting is verified. Now, if Yon left out the part of the translator and the Iraqi, and instead reported that Al Quaeda was baking children, then verification of the alleged incident would need to occur. Get it?

Posted by: PJ at August 27, 2007 01:00 PM (dIusl)

58 It started out by CY trying to get someone to assist in possibly uncovering another "Beauchamp." Along the way, its become apparent that to ALL involved, be it a left/right reporter or blogger, the fact is/was/always will be/should be is that the so called "Fourth Estate" is supposed to be free of personal bias in all ways shapes and forms. Unfortunately, that is no longer and issue, and because of the constant harping of both sides of the political spectrum, the future of America seems to be one similar to that of the Balkans, specifically the former Yugoslavia. Red State VS Blue State, Us VS Them... its all leading to a massive fractioning of society. Damned shame if you think about it. The ONLY consolation that I have (personally speaking) is that for all the virulent rhetoric on both sides, its nice to see that SOME people have a grounding in reality. Specifically here on CY...

Posted by: Big Country at August 27, 2007 04:13 PM (q7b5Y)

59 Two additional points on SE's attempted defense: 1. Those Ann Scott Tyson articles are datelined from.... where exactly? 2. This would appear to be the same Ann Scott Tyson busted by the WaPo's ombudsman for regurgitating antiwar propaganda in a story about Army recruitment.

Posted by: Karl at August 27, 2007 04:23 PM (00Q3s)

60 Hey CY! As a linguist - I took a stab and trying to decipher Horton's story and he purposefully made his recount of his day on Haifa Street so non-specific that it could be any day, any year, on any part of this street. What reporter (and editor for that matter) would permit such vagueness in an "investigative" report? Here are some telling examples: One example: back last spring (lack of detail), when I was living ("working", "reporting", "posted" would be much better choice of words) in Baghdad, on Haifa Street (again, no detail, what neighborhood? What hotel?), I sat (where? In your room? In an outdoor cafe?) in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack (In what context was he reading? Online? Newspaper? What was the source?). He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day (a day? There are 365 of them in Iraq just as there are here in the US! more no specificity) he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,” as they say, missing appointments I had in town (appointments?). Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day (I recall a quite, typical Tuesday morning in September of 2001 that was as usual and typical as could be until about 10 am). In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position (How dangerous could it have been if he decided to watch this all from his viewpoint? Didn't he need to take cover?). No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street (So, he was outside on the street the entire day, watching every vehicle that passed by?). This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications. (So, ONE report leads him to the conclusion that they ALL are "pure fabrications"?) Not only should the writer be taken to task, soneone should be asking some hard questions to his editor asking for justification for such a strong accusation with so little, if any supporting evidence.

Posted by: Marc at August 27, 2007 06:04 PM (tYUVB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

big m t 4 u 2 c

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

"Help me, Help you."
Photo from TomCruiseFan.com

Dear "The Editors,"

I noticed with some bemusement earlier this week Jonathan Chait's attempt to rally the TNR faithful by attacking William Kristol, and note that Jonathan Cohn returned to that theme once again yesterday afternoon, with the slight exception of focusing on Ramesh Ponnuru's criticism of Chait's rant. I find it fascinating that you have the time to dedicate to critiques of critiques, but I'd really rather prefer that you just did your jobs as editors.

It has been precisely two weeks since your last attempt to whistle past those "legitimate questions that have been raised" about Scott Thomas Beauchamp's articles. It has been even more troubling that you have stone-walled those who have asked legitimate questions about your own investigation, which is far from transparent.

As Scott Johnson notes at Powerline this morning, Fridays seem to be a big day for TNR editors when it comes to releasing Beauchamp investigation-related news.

Towards that end, and knowing it is a little late, I'd still like to offer up my services to help you with your investigation.

You see, it doesn't often take very long to conduct a legitimate investigation into matters such as these.

For example, once I was finally able to reach Doug Coffey at BAE Systems, the company that manufacturers the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles that you refused to identify, it took only one email to determine that you didn't provide him with Beauchamp's dog-killing story to review for plausibility. I did, and his same-day response... well, we know how that ended up, don't we? It seems your researcher "re-reporting" the story just didn't know quite which questions to ask.

I seem to have a knack for knowing what to ask, so if you would be so kind, please provide the names of the civilian experts you claim to have interviewed during the course of your re-reporting, and I'll be happy to take a few minutes out of my day to make sure that you asked them the right questions, or for that matter, determine if you even asked the right experts the right questions.

Doing a thorough, transparent, and competent investigation doesn't take weeks.

Of course, that assumes that you want a thorough, transparent, and competent investigation.

Like you, dear readers, I find it rather doubtful that The New Republic will provide me or anyone else with the names of their civilian experts.

As details leak out, it seems Franklin Foer and his collaborators have become the cliché, and their continuing attempts to cover-up their editorial failures with even more questionable ethical violations and purposeful deceptions is worst than Beauchamp's fabulism. At this point, Franklin Foer and TNR's senior editors aren't so much editors as they are post turtles.

What's a post turtle? I recall an email where a doctor asked that same question when an old farmer whose hand he had been suturing used the term.

The farmer replied:

"When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

"You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb thing get down."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Is this attack on one liberal journalism professor by another liberal journalism professor in a left-coast liberal newspaper missing anything?

Off the top of my head, I'd say there is an almost purposeful lack of the important contributions to original reporting from center-right blogs.

Oh, I'm sure that there is a market for those who care about an over-priced chocolatier's deceptive marketing practices, but I'm quite convinced that Rathergate, the CBS/Sixty Minutes scandal that saw Mary Mapes and Dan Rather discredited while trying to run a pre-election hit piece on President Bush using fake documents, was far more important. Driving that scandal were "buckhead" on Free Republic, Powerline with their "The Sixty-First Minute" and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who showed that forged documents were created on the only version of Microsoft Word running in 1973. Rosen, instead of giving credit to the conservative bloggers that blew this story wide open, instead links to a non-blog web site.

Rather disingenuous, if you ask me.

Charles Johnson was also a lead blogger in the "fauxtography" scandals emanating from last summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war, catching Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj photoshopping a picture of combat. Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report discovered another Hajj photograph where the photographer cloned elements and duplicated them. Reuters subsequently pulled more than 900 photos as a result. Literally dozens of other photos were scoured by conservative bloggers and shown to be staged and/or staged managed by HezbollahÂ’s media minders.

This raft of stories also doesn't make it on Rosen's radar, which seems to only scan left.

Ed Morrissey's coverage of "Adscam" revealed corruption that was credited as a key factor in sending the Liberal Party of Canada down to defeat in national elections.

There is also the current, on-going meltdown with Scott Beauchamp and The New Republic, exposed and led by center-right bloggers beginning with Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard.

I've also had a busy couple of months myself, debunking a pair of wire service reported massacres that never occurred, revealing the hidden experts behind a ethically-bankrupt magazine's rigged investigation, embarrassing the world's oldest wire service into changing their photo attribution policies, and conclusively debunking a poorly-research Associated Press group report that sought to blame law enforcement ammunition shortages on current overseas conflicts.

One might think that most readers would find these right-generated stories marginally more interesting than an open-source software lawsuit details and chocolate exaggerations, but then, perhaps that is my bias.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't normally read Jonathan Chait and know little about him. I don't know what role he normally plays at The New Republic, or what role he may or may not have played in the magazine's latest fabulism scandal.

What I do know of Chait is that his attack on William Kristol this morning is written with the obvious intent of distracting TNR readers from the editors' compromised ethics by attacking an ideological opposite.

It is perhaps not the oldest trick in psychology or politics, but it is close: attack a common enemy to shore up your own faltering base. Chait's none-too-subtle-variation on this is to get readers riled up at Kristol for a comment where he states that liberals are turning against the troops. I would imagine that the quote is probably accurate, even though Chait provides neither a link to the original editorial, or the context in which this passage appeared.

But what is far more interesting—both to myself, and based upon their comments, some of the magazine's readers—is what Chait doesn't say in his attempt to distract us away from the magazine's editorial deceptions with his assault on Kristol.

The topic was The New Republic's decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised about this essay's veracity. (We've been publishing updates on our continuing efforts to get answers to them at tnr.com.) But Kristol rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a "fiction."

Legitimate questions were raised about Beauchamp's articles: all three of them, in fact. And we know now based upon an internal investigation by the United States Army, interviews with military personnel, contractors, vehicle experts, and even simple Google searches, is that the major allegations made in "Shock Troops" and in at least one of Beauchamp's other stories ("Dark of Night") are indeed, fiction. They are fabrications. Untruths. Lies.

The questions that remain surrounding this fabulist's train-wreck are concerned with the editorial decisions of Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and perhaps even Chait and other editorial staffers.

Those questions—what did the editors know, when did they know it, and why do they continue to cover it up—those are the questions that remain unresolved and of interest to those following this on-going example of gross editorial misconduct.

To recap:

• TNR editor Franklin Foer claimed on July 20 that, "I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation." Foer has never provided any corroborating details to support these claims, despite his promise.
• The editors claimed that "the article [Shock Troops] was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published." The fact of the matter is that TNR subsequently had to change the "burned woman" assault story from happening at FOB Falcon and as the result of the psychological trauma experienced by the author as the result of combat, to another location in another country before Beauchamp ever went to war, precisely because they did not rigorously edit or fact check the article before publication. This is a not only evidence of a lie by the editors when they said they "rigorously edited and fact-checked" the article before publication, it fatally undermines the entire premise of the article.
• TNR has not released, and appears to have purposefully hidden, unfavorable testimony of those it interviewed in the course of their investigation. We know that TNR editor Jason Zengerle admitted to John Podhoretz of The Corner that a Kuwait-based PAO regarded the "burned woman" story as a myth or urban legend, yet TNR editors have never revealed these findings as part of their investigation. So much for the promise to "release the full results of our search when it is completed." We have no way of knowing if they have hidden other unfavorable information.
• TNR's editors have led a purposefully vague investigation that does not disclose the names, qualifications, or expertise of anyone they claimed to have interviewed during the course of their investigation, hindering anyone who would like to follow behind them and verify the veracity of their claimed research. They have not disclosed the questions they asked their experts, and have thus far refused to provide their answers directly.
• One of the experts has been located and re-interviewed, and discloses the fact that he was never specifically interviewed about the claims made by Beauchamp at all. Further, once provided with Beauchamp's direct claims, he cited the physical properties and characteristics that would make Beauchamp's claims highly unlikely if not impossible. TNR staffers are well aware of his new, more fully-informed response, and have yet to respond.

In short, TNR's editors, led by Franklin Foer, have misled their readers, hidden testimony, and perhaps even rigged an investigation in order to claim some sort of vindication for their editorial and ethical failings.

These are the matters of importance that Johathan Chait, Franklin Foer, and other staffers at The New Republic would rather we didn't focus on.

They would much rather gin up "us versus them" conflicts between liberals and conservatives, between The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, and supporters of the war versus those who would bring the troops home now, than focus on the all-too-apparent fact that the editorial leadership of The New Republic has lied to its readers, compromised their integrity, and dissembled to fellow journalists and critics alike. They've done all of this to cover-up just how poor of a job they did in allowing a staffer's husband to publish inflammatory articles without any apparent editorial controls in place.

The editors of The New Republic have rather obviously lied to us all. They continue to do so today, and no amount of blame-shifting or "look over there!" sleight-of-hand will hide that brutal fact.

In the comments to Chait's article, TNR subscriber "PJmolloy" states:

This is a vile piece. It almost makes Beauchamp look tolerable if this is the alternative.

I've subscribed to TNR off and on for forty years. But it looks like it'll be more off than on in the future. Isn't there someone who can help this magazine?

There is, of course.

Why CanWest MediaWorks refuses to do so is yet another mystery.

Update: Captain Ed pulls no punches:

Chait should save his shocked, shocked! hypocrisy for the people in his own office who violated journalistic standards to publish Beauchamp, apparently based on the word of his wife and sweetened by the themes of his inartful fabulism. Attacking Kristol for essentially nailing the strangely-silent editors and publisher of TNR may conform to the strategy of going on offense as the best defense, but it's rather transparent, like the glass house TNR has chosen to occupy.

Nor does Bryan at Hot Air:

ChaitÂ’s article is another example of TNRÂ’s defense by offense, and itÂ’s the work of a smear artist and a scoundrel.

Powerline's Scott Johnson rips the TNR editor's "Chaitred" as well.

It seems at this late stage that even an offensive by The New Republic is quite transparent and doomed to fail.

I also seem to have someone's undivided attention at the home office.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 1226 words, total size 9 kb.

An Associated Press report published late Friday afternoon stated that ammunition shortages in some law enforcement agencies around the nation were to be blamed on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Troops training for and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing more than 1 billion bullets a year, contributing to ammunition shortages hitting police departments nationwide and preventing some officers from training with the weapons they carry on patrol.

An Associated Press review of dozens of police and sheriff's departments found that many are struggling with delays of as long as a year for both handgun and rifle ammunition.

The damning narrative was grasped quickly by war critics who uttered banalities such as this:

Here's another little way the Bush doctrine is endangering our safety at home. Our local police are running out of ammo...

Similar thoughts from the community-based reality were echoed here:

The good news is, U.S. forces in the Middle East are not going to run out; the troops get most of their ammunition from a dedicated plant. The bad news is, the strain is a burden on police departments, which could undermine public safety.

Bloggers were hardly alone is running with the narrative, which was carried by the Boston Globe, the Seattle Times, and other news agencies.

The Associated Press article cited police officers and sheriffs, and seems to present a bulletproof case.

Reality, however, shows that the assumptions made and biases held by the Associated Press reporters may have led the story to having been built on an entirely fault premise.

To understand the ammunition shortage being experienced by some police agencies today, we shouldn't look at September 11, 2001, but instead, begin with February 28, 1997.

It was on that day in North Hollywood, California that Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu, two-heavily armed and armored bank robbers, engaged in a 44-minute shootout with an out-gunned Los Angeles Police Department. The two suspects fired more than 1,300 rounds of ammunition, and each was shot multiple times with police handguns. The 9mm police pistol bullets bounced off their homemade body armor. Phillips eventually died after being shot 11 times; Matasareanu died after being hit 29 times.

In the aftermath of the shootout, the LAPD, followed by police departments large and small nationwide, began to feel that rank-and-file patrol officers should be armed with semi-automatic or fully-automatic assault rifles or submachine guns in addition to their traditional sidearms, anticipating an up-tick of heavily armed and armored subjects. The trend has failed to materialize more than a decade later.

As with most trends in law enforcement, the trend towards the militarization of police patrol officers to a level once reserved for SWAT/ERT teams was slow, though one that gathered momentum rapidly after September 11, 2001.

Today, it is this increased and on-going militarization of police forces and the associated training requirements that have caused the ammunition shortages experienced by some police departments, and the lack of ammunition is not related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in any meaningful way.

The Associated Press report is not supported beyond anecdotal evidence by real, objective facts.

ATK's Ammunition Systems Group is the largest ammunition manufacturing body in the world. ATK runs the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant under contract, where it has the capacity to manufacture 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition a year, or put another way, a half billion rounds per year more than is being used by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also a major supplier of law enforcement ammunition under Federal Premium, Speer Gold Dot, Lawman, and CCI Blazer brands. The law enforcement ammunition is made in plants in Idaho and Minnesota that are completely separate for their military operations at Lake City. These production lines do not, as the AP falsely states, use the same equipment used to manufacture military ammunition.

Those who stayed with the entire Associated Press article might note that ATK spokesman Bryce Hallowell did not buy the AP's conclusion that the war in Iraq was having a direct effect on police ammunition supplies.

He stated further:

"We had looked at this and didn't know if it was an anomaly or a long-term trend," Hallowell said. "We started running plants 24/7. Now we think it is long-term, so we're going to build more production capability."

I contacted Brian Grace of ATK Corporate Communications for further information, and he also doubted the Associated Press claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for a police ammunition shortage.

Since 9/11 we've seen a huge jump in demand from law enforcement. In the last fiscal year alone we saw demand from law enforcement jump 40%. By running our civil plants 24/7, hiring hundreds of new employees and streamlining our manufacturing processes we were able to increase our deliveries to law enforcement by 30% in that same period. In addition, we've just announced we'll be investing another $5 million in new production lines at our civil ammunition facilities.

I pressed Mr. Grace to clarify, asking:

Based upon this 40% increase in demand by law enforcement, is it more fair to categorize the difficulty of some departments in obtaining ammunition as a fact of increased police demand outstripping current manufacturing capabilities, and not as the result of the military needing more ammunition and drawing down civilian supply?

Is their any shortage of lead, copper, or brass, or it is just a matter of not enough manufacturing equipment?

He responded:

Manufacturing capacity is the main issue. As you might imagine, for a precision manufacturing business that faced many years of steady demand, it can be quite a challenge to suddenly meet double-digit growth in demand. But we're very proud of the successes we've had with increasing our output while maintaining the quality and reliability of our products.

And we're committed to doing everything in our power to accelerate the growth in output, which is what precipitated the recently announced investment in additional equipment.

Let me make that crystal clear.

According to two spokesmen for the world's largest ammunition manufacturer, which runs the military's ammunition manufacturing plant and separately, is a major supplier of law enforcement ammunition, it is a massive and unexpected increase in law enforcement ammunition demand that is causing delays in law enforcement ammunition delays, not the war.

Once again, a media organization with target fixation seems to have widely missed the mark.

Update: Another Manufacturer Weighs In
Michael Shovel, National Sales Manager for COR-BON/Glaser, writes into explain that the price increases for ammunition are at least partially because of the demand from China for copper and lead for their building boom [and for toy paint, and baby bibs, and pajamas, but I digress--ed]:

The reason that PD's and people are having trouble getting ammo and also the price increases is the war effort and also the fact that China is buying up lots of the copper and lead for their building boom.

Our LE market has grown this year the same as it has the past 5 years. No big increase but no drop off either.

The only issue with our ability to deliver ammunition in a timely manner is getting brass cases and primers.

We do only some specialized ammo for the military and it's done in our custom shop instead on the production floor.

Interesting.

Mr. Shovel states that the war effort does play some role in the ammunition shortage, but does not say exactly what it is, and is apparently not speaking for his company when he makes that claim.

He states that their only issue in delivering ammunition has been getting brass cases and primers, and further, that the specialized military ammunition they produce is not part of their normal civilian/law enforcement manufacturing operations.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza, Director of the Frontsite Firearms Training Institute was also contacted about the shortage claimed by the Associated Press, as Frontsight's training courses typically require from hundreds to over a thousand rounds of ammunition per student per course.

Dr. Piazza noted, "From time to time ammo becomes in short supply but we always find it at various sources." He also stated that the shortages have been blamed on the ammunition companies "selling all they can sell" to the government, but once again, we don't seem to have any direct evidence of this charge revealed, at least not yet.

Could it be that the "conventional wisdom" is wrong?

Once again, I'm forced to wonder why the Associated Press reporters who composed this article chose to interview police officers about ammunition, instead of the companies that manufacture it and would have far more direct knowledge of the cause of any shortages.

Update: Manufacturer Remington Weighs In

Michael Haugen, Manager of the Military Products Division for Remington Arms Company Inc., states:

I would say that if they [law enforcement] are not training it is not due to the availability of ammunition.

Remington has one plant that makes all of their ammunition (military, law enforcement, general civilian), and Mr. Haugen stated emphatically that military sales are "definitely not" in any way detracting from the development and manufacture of civilian and law enforcement ammunition, and that Remington has additional manufacturing capacity, depending on the product required.

We now how three major manufacturers stating that their law enforcement ammunition sales are not being impacted by military ammunition sales, which seems to be directly at odds with the claims made by these Associated Press reporters.

I've approached Associated Press Media Relations Director Paul Colford and suggest that either a correction or retraction seems to be warranted for this story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:12 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment
Post contains 1595 words, total size 11 kb.

CY commenter Dusty Raftery and I published a story this past Friday of how French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) apparently attempted to take credit for a U.S. Army photo taken in Afghanistan.

Later that evening, several readers come to the article from AFP's Paris domain, and apparently what they found may have led to a change in policy, where AFP is more transparent on the source of military-provided photos.

Note that the both the Army and the individual photographer are properly credited by AFP as they should be in several current military photos, such as the one above.

Let's hope that this continues.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

At Pajamas Media this morning, Richard Miniter has posted a devastating article called How The New Republic Got Suckered. It is the most incisive look into the heart of The New Republic during the early days of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp scandal thus far.

Miniter draws heavily from former TNR assistant to the editor Robert McGee, who recounts his experiences inside The New Republic before being terminated and then slapped with a cease and desist order by the magazine's lawyers for revealing that Beauchamp was married to a TNR fact-checker and writer, Elspeth Reeve.

It is because of this relationship that I suspect Franklin Foer and other TNR editors failed to adequately fact-check Beauchamp's three articles. What still remains unanswered is if Reeve was the fact-checker on her husband's stories, as such a conflict of interest would be yet another violation of journalistic ethics.

Also telling, if accurate, is McGee's observation that Foer may have approached, and may still be approaching, the scandal with ideological blinders firmly in place.

Later that night, Robert McGee, a then-assistant to The New Republic's publisher, went looking for the host. He is curious what Foer thinks about the building scandal. He wants the inside dope.

He finds Foer on the front porch and asks as casually as he can: "So, what's up with this?"

As McGee recalls the conversation, Foer immediately volunteered the standard answer: conservatives have an ideological grudge to settle because they perceive the magazine to be anti-war, anti-military and so on.

"He sounded almost rehearsed," McGee said.

What bothered McGee about the conversation was that Foer saw the questions from the bloggers as a completely ideological attack. "Foer wasn't acknowledging that at least some of the attacks on the [Beauchamp's] 'Shock Troops' piece came from active-duty military members whose skepticism was factually grounded, and not just from stateside political pundits."

Discounting criticism merely as a result of the ideological position of the critics was a serious mistake by Foer, though hardly the first, and certainly not the last.

Just because political pundits made these observations does not make them invalid. It matters little who tells you that Glocks do not fire "square-backed" bullets; this fact does not change if it comes from a liberal or a conservative, a Republican or a Democrat.

Nor does it matter that it was this conservative blogger blew away TNR's insistence that they fact-checked Beauchamp's claims before publication by pointing out that if TNR has run so much as a Google search before publishing Beauchamp's libelous murder claim in “Dark of Night," then he would have likely been exposed as a fabulist well in advanced of "Shock Troops."

Time and again, it seems, Franklin Foer and perhaps other senior TNR editors allowed personal loyalties to subvert their editorial responsibilities.

In the beginning, these were small sins.

One wants to be able to trust the spouse of a staffer. I can understand why the fact-checking that should have occurred may have been minimized in Beauchamp's first post.

But in "Dead of Night," Beauchamp makes significant fact errors in leveling an accusation of murder. Personal relationships should matter little when an author makes such an inflammatory charge, and the editor's have a significant duty to verify that the facts support such a potentially divisive claim.

It is painfully obvious that even a passing attempt to verify the claims was never made. No handgun on the planet fires a "square-backed" pistol bullet, and if the editors had so much as bothered to click on the Glock web site, they would have readily discovered that Glocks use the same ammunition as every other 9x19mm caliber pistol, and that this claim was absurd.

Further, the editors of The New Republic made absolutely no attempt to verify the demonstrably false Beauchamp claim that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

This fabrication is easily discredited within seconds with a simple Google search.

Glocks are a common and favored handgun on the Iraqi black market:

Glock pistols were also easy to find. One young Iraqi man, Rebwar Mustafa, showed a Glock 19 he had bought at the bazaar in Kirkuk last year for $900. Five of his friends have bought identical models, he said.

There are literally dozens of stories of Glock pistols being recovered from insurgents, terrorists, and militiamen. They have been captured in cordon-and-search operations, in targeted raids, recovered in weapons caches, and taken from dead and wounded insurgents, militiamen, and criminals.

American soldiers also have them, as do civilian contractors. Ordinary Iraqi civilians (men and women) buy them to protect their families. Glock are quite likely the most ubiquitous handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all.

But Franklin Foer's editors did not fact check any part of the murder claim made in "Dead of Night." That is clear, and in doing so, the editors' of The New Republic slipped from being loyal friends making an innocent mistake, into what can only be described as an overt case of editorial malpractice.

Had the editors of The New Republic actually edited this article and fact-checked it before publication, there is every reason to believe that these significant fact errors in "Dark of Night" would have eventually led to the quiet termination of Scott Thomas Beauchamp's writing career at The New Republic after one article.

But Franklin Foer and the other editors at The New Republic utterly failed in their editorial responsibilities.

Instead, the willful disregard of editorial standards allowed Beauchamp not only to libelously assign a murder based upon false claims, it also allowed him to later publish his most infamous post, "Shock Troops," in which he wrote three vignettes that effectively slandered every soldier in his entire company and within the other companies with which his unit served.

But this editorial dereliction of duty was by no means the greatest sin of the editors of The New Republic.

Once caught, they escalated their editorial incompetence with a series of readily apparent purposeful deceptions, dissembling to readers and critics alike.

Franklin Foer stated that The New Republic fact-checked "Shock Troops" before publication. That statement is an obvious falsehood. Foer's magazine utterly failed to fact-check the article prior to publication, and therefore had to move the time, location and underlying premise of Beauchamp's primary charge to another time and country when they did finally attempt to fact-check it well after publication.

Foer's editors attempted to further deceive readers and critics on at least two other known occasions.

The New Republic claimed to publish the findings of an internal investigation that they said vindicated the magazine, but was in actuality nothing more than an apparent attempt to save their jobs via a whitewash.

The magazine offered no named witnesses or experts, no evidence or testimony, and when one of the experts TNR claimed to have supported their story was located, it became abundantly obvious that TNR avoided a real investigation, did not provide him with any context, and was attempted to only provide itself with rhetorical cover. The attempt failed, miserably.

The magazine has also apparently made it a practice to bury dissenting viewpoints, such as when a military PAO based in Kuwait told TNR editor Jason Zengerle that the story was regarded as an urban legend or myth. Zengerle acknowledges he was told this, but the account was never published in The New Republic.

Foer's magazine then attempted to avoid responsibility for their editorial malpractice, purposeful deception, and account burying by blaming the Army, claiming that the Army was obstructing their investigation.

But the Army never obstructed any investigation by The New Republic. This is presumably fine, as The New Republic had no intention of really conducting one.

But now we are left with a magazine where the editors have moved beyond merely partisanship and incompetence to obvious willful deception of their readers and critics alike, and perhaps actionable fraud.

It remains to be seen how CanWest Mediaworks, owner of The New Republic and other media properties, will respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 1342 words, total size 10 kb.

I guess this answers the question of what happens "When the Sun Goes Down."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Tomorrow marks precisely one month since Michael Goldfarb published Fact or Fiction? at The Weekly Standard, calling into doubt the veracity of claims made by a soldier later revealed as Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Since that time, key "facts" in two of three Beauchamp-authored stories have been discredited.

• Glock pistols do not fire a unique "square-backed" 9-millimeter pistol cartridge.
• Glocks, far from only being used by the Iraqi Police as the author claimed as he libeled the Iraqi Police for murder, are instead one of the more common handguns in Iraq.
• Thee was never a "burned woman" in the dining facility at Camp Falcon as the author alleged. Nor was there a burned woman at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, a fact attested to by both named military personnel and named civilian contractors.
• There is no evidence there was ever a garbage-stratified grave as the author alleged (though there was a cemetery that was relocated), and no support than anyone could or would wear a section of rotting human skull under the close-fitting helmets currently used by the U.S. Army.
• There is no evidence of a dog-murdering Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle driver, and literally dozens of Bradley crewmen, commanders, drivers, infantrymen, and even the spokesman for the company that builds the Bradley all consistently stating it is all but impossible for a Bradley to be used as the author described.

In addition to the factual problems published in the articles, there have been significant issues revealed about the editorial management of The New Republic, the magazine that published the claims of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, issues that should call into question their ethics and credibility.

• TNR editor Franklin Foer claimed on July 20 that, "I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation." Foer has never provided any corroborating details to support these claims, despite his promise.
• The editors claimed that "the article [Shock Troops] was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published." The fact of the matter is that TNR subsequently had to change the "burned woman" assault story from happening at FOB Falcon and as the result of the psychological trauma experienced by the author as the result of combat, to another location in another country before Beauchamp ever went to war, precisely because they did not rigorously edit or fact check the article before publication. This is a not only evidence of a lie by the editors when they said they "rigorously edited and fact-checked" the article before publication, it fatally undermines the entire premise of the article.
• TNR has not released, and appears to have purposefully hidden, unfavorable testimony of those it interviewed in the course of their investigation. We know that TNR editor Jason Zengerle admitted to John Podhoretz of The Corner that a Kuwait-based PAO regarded the "burned woman" story as a myth or urban legend, yet TNR editors have never revealed these findings as part of their investigation. So much for the promise to "release the full results of our search when it is completed." We have no way of knowing if they have hidden other unfavorable information.
• TNR's editors have led a purposefully vague investigation that does not disclose the names, qualifications, or expertise of anyone they claimed to have interviewed during the course of their investigation, hindering anyone who would like to follow behind them and verify the veracity of their claimed research. They have not disclosed the questions they asked their experts, and have thus far refused to provide their answers directly.
• One of the experts has been located and re-interviewed, and discloses the fact that he was never specifically interviewed about the claims made by Beauchamp at all. Further, once provided with Beauchamp's direct claims, he cited the physical properties and characteristics that would make Beauchamp's claims highly unlikely if not impossible. TNR staffers are well aware of his new, more fully-informed response, and have yet to respond.

In short, TNR's editors, led by Franklin Foer, have misled their readers, hidden testimony, and perhaps even rigged an investigation in order to claim some sort of vindication for their editorial and ethical failings.

A month into this story, it seems apparent that the Editors at TNR and their owners at CanWest MediaWorks have no intention at all of dealing honestly with the continuing editorial and ethical failures of this magazine.

Few people read The New Republic before they self-immolated their credibility. If there is any consolation to their deplorable behavior, it is the knowledge that their audience will grow smaller still as a result.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Fresh off of being caught trying to pass off unfired civilian ammunition as evidence of soldiers shooting into the home of an elderly Iraqi woman, the French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) has been caught once again in a photography scandal involving the U.S. military, this time misidentifying a U.S. military photo taken by a member of the 173rd Airborne in Afghanistan last month as one of their own.

Here is the photo, as it ran Wednesday at BBC News.

(Click photo for full size)

You'll note that in the enlarged version of the page, the photo is credited "AFP" in the bottom right corner (The photo in the current version of the BBC article has since been changed).

The photo with the "AFP" stamp was not taken by an Agence France-Presse photographer, but by Sgt. Brandon Aird, 173rd ABCT Public Affairs, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, and was first featured in this post by Sgt. Aird on Central Command's web site on July 31.

(Click photo for full size)

I've confirmed with an Army combat photographer that they cannot give or sell their photos directly to news agencies.

AFP misidentified this photo as one of their own, but it gets worse:

They were also apparently trying to sell the photo through AFP/Getty Images (via Daylife).

Once again, the photo editors of Agence France-Presse have some explaining to do.

[Author's note: Most of the information in this story was compiled by CY commenter Dusty Raftery. Excellent work, Dusty.]

Update: Dan Riehl notes that the BBC is using the photo as the teaser for a video segment that doesn't even involve U.S. soldiers. Truthy?

Update: Yup. It's our fault media credibilty is tanking.

Update: We get noticed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:11 AM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 3 kb.