Master Sgt. John Hatley has been convicted of four counts of murder and has been sentenced to life in prison:

Master Sgt. John Hatley, 40, also will have his rank reduced to private, forfeit all pay and receive a dishonorable discharge, a jury of eight Army officers and noncommissioned officers decided. He has the possibility of parole after serving 20 years.
The sentence came a day after Hatley was found guilty of premeditated murder and conspiracy in the execution-style killings of the detainees.
He was found not guilty of premeditated murder in a separate January 2007 incident in which a wounded Iraqi insurgent was shot and killed.

Combat documentarian J.D. Johannes was in "The Arena" the killing ground in Baghdad's West Rashid neighborhood during the time of Hatley's deployment, and provides some perspective of what was occurring there at the time. It in no way justifies Hatley's action—to the contrary, it magnifies just how wrong Hatley's actions were during a critical time—but it does help explain how such crimes can occur.

And while I haven't yet surveyed the liberal blogosphere for reaction, day-late-and-dollar-short liberal bloggers are eventually going to latch on to the fact that Hatley was, at the time, the Sgt over one Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the fantasist that got The New Republic in such trouble for his various fictions including square-backed bullets, Bradley 25-ton IFVs that could turn on a dime to pick off dogs in the vehicle's blind spots, and verbally-abused female military contractors that never existed.

Hatley's case is proof that while no system of justice is perfect, the military system's promise of protecting those who turn in offenders from reprisals works.

Soldiers had to sense of justice to take down a superior (Hatley) and his accomplices for murders. Funny how none of the dozens of witnesses that would have witnessed Beauchamp's minor atrocities ever came forward, even when not doing could have lead to time in Leavenworth.

Far from weakening the Army's case against Beauchamp, that fact that soldiers in his unit are willing to testify against the most horrible of crimes actually bolsters the case that they would have come forward if Beauchamp's poorly-constructed stories were even close to the truth.

Below is a repost of my response to the announcement of Article 32 hearings of Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos, Hatley's fellow murders.

And? [Originally posted Sept. 19, 2008]

Some of the defenders of Scott Beauchamp's trio of fables in the New Republic simply can't let go of the fact that his stories were poorly written fiction. There's always been an odd attachment by some of them to justify his lies, almost as if his stories of minor atrocities were dismissed, then no atrocity claims would ever be taken seriously again.

Today, several left wing blogs have latched on to a story than has been simmering for months, the trial resulting from the execution of prisoners by members of Beauchamp's battalion between mid-March and mid-April of 2007 near Baghdad. They are trying to use that story to somehow resurrect Beauchamp's credibility.

"See? This guys in Beauchamp's battalion committed atrocities, so his stories must have been real!"

Uh, no.

During the debunking of Spencer Ackerman's cartoonishly bad "Notes on a Scandal" roughly a month ago, I compared the military investigation into Beauchamp's lies to that very same far more serious and still developing homicide investigation to make a point:

Ackerman’s biggest point of contention that Beauchamp's stories may be true are the claims that five soldiers contacted the New Republic to vouch for the accuracy of the claims made in the article — but that none of the soldiers were willing to go on the record in the magazine for fear of retaliation by the Army. Ackerman himself presents no evidence that he spoke to a single one of these soldiers, so we don't know if that claim has any merit, but I did get in touch with an officer yesterday involved in the saga who referred to claims of fears of retaliation as "a bald-faced lie."

The claims made in "Shock Troops" — insulting a burned woman, wearing bones as a hat, running over dogs — are barbaric, but at best are minimal crimes if true. Punishment for even those soldiers involved in acts such as those Beauchamp described would be administrative punishments carried out at the base, while those who would have witnessed such acts would face no penalty for reporting them. Lying on a sworn statement, however, is far more serious, and could potentially result in a court martial and prison time. Does anyone seriously want to argue that 22 men would risk their careers and freedom to lie for Scott Beauchamp, a soldier who had gone AWOL on several occasions and who many of these men did not trust?

In addition, whistleblower laws protect witnesses of crimes, whether minor cases of cruelty as reported by Beauchamp, or murder, and we need look no further than Beauchamp's own brigade for evidence proving this.

An Article 32 hearing for Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos will begin next week to determine whether these four soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion executed Iraqi prisoners.

It was other soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion that stepped forward and reported the far more serious crimes of executing captives. It is highly improbable that soldiers trained to do their duty would report their fellow soldiers for serious crimes, while men in the same battalion, presumably with the same training, would participate in a cover-up of far more minor violations, fearing non-existent reprisals, and risking their careers by participating in a cover-up to do so. The argument made by Beauchamp, swallowed so easily be Ackerman, is absurd.

The one particular detail of the murder investigation that has the left so suddenly feisty is that one of the soldiers facing charges (added as a defendent in the 1 1/2 months that has passed since the story cited was written) is SFC John E. Hatley, a soldier that has been cited for an email he wrote to milblogger SFC Cheryl MacElroy (RET).

Vietnam war historian Keith Nolan wrote this afternoon seeking my reaction to this development as he recalled I mentioned Hatley's email, and this is what I told him:

Mr Nolan,

Yes sir, I did quote from and refer to an email between SFC Cheryl McElroy and a SFC Hatley. I've contacted McElroy to see if she can contact the Sgt she emailed and determine it is the same Hatley. If it is the same Hatley, it would certainly destroys his credibility if he is judged to be guilty of such crimes.

What interests me is that Hatley isn't mentioned among the accused at all in this earlier article. I wonder what changed since late July.

As for how that impacts the overall case against Beauchamp? It doesn't.

It was still against SOP (not to mention suicidal) to change a HMMWV tire while on urban patrol in his area, and doubtful that a run-flat equipped vehicle would stop anyway.

There are still no such thing as a square-backed bullet in modern firearms, and Glocks are still among the most popular handguns in Iraqi culture, despite Beauchamp's claim that only Iraqi Police carry them.

There is still no burned female contractor. She simply never existed. I have an independent civilian contractor at that Kuwaiti base and military officers on the record supporting that.

Bradleys and other tracked vehicles still cannot maneuver as he described, and that comes straight from the company that manufactures them.

As for the most plausible story he told, that of someone abusing human remains, I've got two dozen signed affidavits in my hands (well, photocopied onto a CD) that makes the all sorts of slightly different claims you would expect regarding several bones found at a COP under construction, but not a single one of a guy wearing a rotting skullplate with flesh attached for part of the day and night.

Hatley's account was a supporting anecdote I relayed, but it played no significant role in my investigation or conclusions.

Hatley may very well prove to be guilty of murder and of lying in a email about how all of his soldiers are "consistently honorable."

But Hatley's guilt or innocence in a separate matter is of little more than a footnote in Beauchamp's stories, all three works of fiction that editor Franklin Foer finally decided that even he couldn't support.

Update: It looks like some of the liberal blogs found the story of the murder convictions, and predictably, are using faulty logic to insist that since Hatley lied, Beauchamp must be telling the truth.

A sampling.

Crooks & Liars:

If you cannot place the name, Master Sgt. Hatley was the direct superior of Pvt. Scott Beauchamp and the person most used to discredit (along with the gay porn star) the New Republic diary of the life of a soldier in Iraq and the ways they dealt with the pressures of Operation Clusterf*ck. All of which Hatley said was absolutely not what his ever virtuous soldiers did.

TPM Muckraker:

Some of those conservatives, including the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, participated in a concerted (and inaccurate) effort to discredit Beauchamp and tar, for lack of patriotism, the notoriously dovish New Republic and, by association, liberals everywhere.

For his reporting, Goldfarb relied on some...let's call them 'questionable' sources and even got an assist, in a bizarre breach of protocol, from Beauchamp's First Sergeant, who took to the blogosphere to make the case against the beleaguered Private. "My soldiers [sic] conduct is consistently honorable."

This soldier has other underlining [sic] issues which I'm sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man's fairy tale. I can't and won't divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here.

The name of that Non-Commissioned Officer might ring a bell: John Hatley. And he seems to have protested a bit too much. Hatley had, in fact, committed the murders before he took to the Internet to defend himself and his fellow soldiers against charges of recklessness. We excitedly await Goldfarb's statement on the issue.

Andrew Sullivan:

In many ways, you couldn't make this up. But given Michael Goldfarb's enthusiasm for killing innocents, it's not terribly surprising. Goldfarb was part of the wide bloggy attempt to describe TNR's correspondent, Scott Beauchamp, as an America-hating loser and liar for pointing out that some soldiers in Iraq acted dishonorably and immorally. One of his key sources, Beauchamp's own First Sergeant, was critical in rebutting Beauchamp's charges. Goldfarb's source for defending the honor of his men and himself was just convicted "of executing four handcuffed, blindfolded Iraqi men by shooting them in the backs of their heads." Goldfarb's kinda guy. But who looks more credible now? Goldfarb or Beauchamp?

Looks like we have some liberals trying to rewrite history on a grand scale.

Hatley was not a source cultivated by Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and his comments were not solicited by Goldfarb either. Then SFC Hatley wrote his comments in an email responding to milblogger SFC Cheryl McElroy, which you can read in the original form at her blog. It's quite obvious after reading that link that both Sullivan and TPMM's Brian Beutler owe Goldfarb at least a correction, thought I doubt they have the integrity to issue an apology for their rather gutless smears.

Like all of Beauchamp's wannabe defenders, these bloggers and others have overinflated Hatley's importance. Hatley's email on SFC McElroy's blog was a character reference we now know to be worthless.

That said, I have, via FOIA, all of the statements taken from soldiers in Beauchamp's unit, asked about the specific allegations Beauchamp alleges. There were more than two dozen. Even though they would have faced felony jail time if they lied under oath, not one soldier would support Beauchamp.

Not. One.

Bu the evidence that damned Beauchamp more than even the military investigation were details I investigated independently of the military.

I hunted down the manufacturer of the Bradley IFV, gave him Beauchamp's story, and he explained why you can't hit dogs as described in Beauchamp's fictions with a 25-ton tank.

I hunted down both civilian and military personnel in other commands that were stationed at both the camps Beauchamp claimed to have insulted the burned woman at, and all confirm that such a distinctive character would have easily stood out, and yet, she never existed.

As something of a firearms expert in my own right, I can state definitively that "square-backed" pistol ammunition Beauchamp wrote of and claimed to have recovered has never existed. Not was he even close to correct in claiming that Glock pistols were carried only by Iraqi police when they are in fact the most widespread pistol among the military, police, and civilians in Iraq.

Hatley is a murderer who directed a conspiracy to cover up his crime. He's also a liar. We all agree on that, and I think we all agree he earned his life sentence (though I would prefer that he didn't have the opportunity for parole after 20 years).

That said, Hatley's role in the Beauchamp case was a minor one (you can read my archives if you doubt that), and watching liberal bloggers trying to inflate his role so that they can tear down the case against Beauchamp (and thereby justify for their loathing for all things military) is a pathetic attempt at self-edification by a group that would still rather spit on the uniform than honor it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 2336 words, total size 16 kb.

Some of the defenders of Scott Beauchamp's trio of fables in the New Republic simply can't let go of the fact that his stories were poorly written fiction. There's always been an odd attachment by some of them to justify his lies, almost as if his stories of minor atrocities were dismissed, then no atrocity claims would ever be taken seriously again.

Today, several left wing blogs have latched on to a story than has been simmering for months, the trial resulting from the execution of prisoners by members of Beauchamp's battalion between mid-March and mid-April of 2007 near Baghdad. They are trying to use that story to somehow resurrect Beauchamp's credibility.

"See? This guys in Beauchamp's battalion committed atrocities, so his stories must have been real!"

Uh, no.

During the debunking of Spencer Ackerman's cartoonishly bad "Notes on a Scandal" roughly a month ago, I compared the military investigation into Beauchamp's lies to that very same far more serious and still developing homicide investigation to make a point:

Ackerman’s biggest point of contention that Beauchamp's stories may be true are the claims that five soldiers contacted the New Republic to vouch for the accuracy of the claims made in the article — but that none of the soldiers were willing to go on the record in the magazine for fear of retaliation by the Army. Ackerman himself presents no evidence that he spoke to a single one of these soldiers, so we don't know if that claim has any merit, but I did get in touch with an officer yesterday involved in the saga who referred to claims of fears of retaliation as "a bald-faced lie."

The claims made in "Shock Troops" — insulting a burned woman, wearing bones as a hat, running over dogs — are barbaric, but at best are minimal crimes if true. Punishment for even those soldiers involved in acts such as those Beauchamp described would be administrative punishments carried out at the base, while those who would have witnessed such acts would face no penalty for reporting them. Lying on a sworn statement, however, is far more serious, and could potentially result in a court martial and prison time. Does anyone seriously want to argue that 22 men would risk their careers and freedom to lie for Scott Beauchamp, a soldier who had gone AWOL on several occasions and who many of these men did not trust?

In addition, whistleblower laws protect witnesses of crimes, whether minor cases of cruelty as reported by Beauchamp, or murder, and we need look no further than Beauchamp's own brigade for evidence proving this.

An Article 32 hearing for Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos will begin next week to determine whether these four soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion executed Iraqi prisoners.

It was other soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion that stepped forward and reported the far more serious crimes of executing captives. It is highly improbable that soldiers trained to do their duty would report their fellow soldiers for serious crimes, while men in the same battalion, presumably with the same training, would participate in a cover-up of far more minor violations, fearing non-existent reprisals, and risking their careers by participating in a cover-up to do so. The argument made by Beauchamp, swallowed so easily be Ackerman, is absurd.

The one particular detail of the murder investigation that has the left so suddenly feisty is that one of the soldiers facing charges (added as a defendent in the 1 1/2 months that has passed since the story cited was written) is SFC John E. Hatley, a soldier that has been cited for an email he wrote to milblogger SFC Cheryl MacElroy (RET).

Vietnam war historian Keith Nolan wrote this afternoon seeking my reaction to this development as he recalled I mentioned Hatley's email, and this is what I told him:

Mr Nolan,

Yes sir, I did quote from and refer to an email between SFC Cheryl McElroy and a SFC Hatley. I've contacted McElroy to see if she can contact the Sgt she emailed and determine it is the same Hatley. If it is the same Hatley, it would certainly destroys his credibility if he is judged to be guilty of such crimes.

What interests me is that Hatley isn't mentioned among the accused at all in this earlier article. I wonder what changed since late July.

As for how that impacts the overall case against Beauchamp? It doesn't.

It was still against SOP (not to mention suicidal) to change a HMMWV tire while on urban patrol in his area, and doubtful that a run-flat equipped vehicle would stop anyway.

There are still no such thing as a square-backed bullet in modern firearms, and Glocks are still among the most popular handguns in Iraqi culture, despite Beauchamp's claim that only Iraqi Police carry them.

There is still no burned female contractor. She simply never existed. I have an independent civilian contractor at that Kuwaiti base and military officers on the record supporting that.

Bradleys and other tracked vehicles still cannot maneuver as he described, and that comes straight from the company that manufactures them.

As for the most plausible story he told, that of someone abusing human remains, I've got two dozen signed affidavits in my hands (well, photocopied onto a CD) that makes the all sorts of slightly different claims you would expect regarding several bones found at a COP under construction, but not a single one of a guy wearing a rotting skullplate with flesh attached for part of the day and night.

Hatley's account was a supporting anecdote I relayed, but it played no significant role in my investigation or conclusions.

Hatley may very well prove to be guilty of murder and of lying in a email about how all of his soldiers are "consistently honorable."

But Hatley's guilt or innocence in a separate matter is of little more than a footnote in Beauchamp's stories, all three works of fiction that editor Franklin Foer finally decided that even he couldn't support.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:29 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1015 words, total size 7 kb.

And you thought it was over...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

After the article "Shock Troops" in The New Republic had been challenged by critics , a documentary filmmaker/blogger by the name of JD Johannes narrowed down the search of the author to Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division on July21.

Three days after that on July 24, the military began a formal investigation, which included taking statements from soldiers in Alpha/1-18IN.

Scott Beauchamp gave his initial statement on July 26, published here for the first time.

Later, Beauchamp returned and filed another statement. For reasons as yet unexplained, he backdated the time of the second statement to 1700, an hour an 40 minutes before his original statement at 1840, and yet he directly refers to his statement made at 1840. [Update: perhaps the original statement was made at 15:40 and his penmanship is just bad? That would make a lot more sense...]

At no point during these two statements does Beauchamp directly recant.

He does not provide any support to the claims made in his article, "Shock Troops." There does not appear to ever have been any documentary evidence to support this story, nor the author's two previous stories.

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, penned a retraction of these stories five months later. Foer has yet to issue an apology to his critics or the military he maligned during the course of this story.

Update: Thanks to Jon Ham at The John Locke Foundation for enhancing the contrast of these images.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:00 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Among the documents provided by FOIA requests to U.S. Central Command was this FOIA request from Peter Scoblic of The New Republic.

This particular paragraph is rich with... well, you know.

TNR's senior editorial staff, particularly Franklin Foer, has been the primary if not exclusive source for attacks against the integrity and credibility of the U.S. military investigation from the very beginning of the criticism over "Shock Troops," all the way through Foer's belated, unapologetic retraction.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Documents released by the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base Florida, in relation to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests files for documents relating to the military investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" article in The New Republic magazine.

The following are the never-before published statements of soldiers interviewed in the course of the investigation. Names are redacted per federal privacy laws.

Statement 1 (click image to enlarge)

More documents follow. Check back in later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:15 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 3 kb.

Documents released by the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base Florida, in relation to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests files for documents relating to the military investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" article in The New Republic magazine.

The following are the never-before published statements of soldiers interviewed in the course of the investigation. Names are redacted per federal privacy laws.

Statement 13

More documents following throughout the day. Check back in later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 3 kb.

Alterman compares yesterday's circular firing squad of current and former TNR staffers to Rathergate... from a "nuanced" perspective.

The situation is, in many aspects, similar to the CBS Dan Rather mess, as the story has yet to be proven true or false, but remains insufficiently documented.

The community-based reality. Don't leave ours without it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:21 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "insufficiently documented" Ah the blessings of a secondary education...

Posted by: Joel Mackey at December 13, 2007 08:21 AM (tGm4a)

2 Eric Alterman is a pedophile who raped and murdered a 3 year old boy in 1997 and then bribed the local proscecuter to keep from being indicted...according to an insufficiently documented story I read somewhere. I'm sure Alterman will have no objections to that story being circulated while the exact details get nailed down, even if they never get nailed down.

Posted by: Pall Mall at December 13, 2007 08:29 AM (lWCFm)

3 You're a sicko, Pall Mall.

Posted by: novanom at December 13, 2007 08:38 AM (PfxrD)

4 Pall Mall's a sicko novanom? Altman's the one that is supposed to have done those horrible things -- and the evidence that Altman has done them is every bit as solid as that presented by Dan Rather in his accusations against President Bush. I'd say save your outrage for Altman.

Posted by: Mark L at December 13, 2007 08:49 AM (2X4q0)

5 I was in the Army circa early seventies when those documents were alleged to have produced. My MOS was 72F, a communications specialty. I worked with those kinds of documents and the whole range of equipment available in that time. I got my first PC in 1980. I got my computer science degree in 1986. I have worked with every version of Microsoft Word from 1.0 on. I am an expert on both ends of the issues related to the Rather documents; How military documents were produced and how the Rather documents were presented. Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag.

Posted by: Fred at December 13, 2007 08:59 AM (RO9Ei)

6 I believe Pall Mall's point was that if you give the benefit of the doubt to "insufficiently documented" claims, then you're opening the doors to slander and libel without limit.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 13, 2007 09:01 AM (ZJ/un)

7 I haven't seen any evidence indicating that Alterman is not a murderous pedophile. I don't suppose we'll ever know the truth...

Posted by: Pablo at December 13, 2007 09:09 AM (yTndK)

8 Guys, I know your trying to prove the absurdity of Alterman's position on the Beauchamp and Rathergate stories, but please, let's not go there with the equally absurd "insufficiently documented" story again him, okay? Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 13, 2007 09:20 AM (vxbTC)

9 Eric Alterman is a pedophile who raped and murdered a 3 year old boy in 1997 and then bribed the local proscecuter to keep from being indicted...according to an insufficiently documented story I read somewhere. Hmmm. I read the same thing recently. I'm sure Alterman will have no objections to that story being circulated while the exact details get nailed down, even if they never get nailed down. Agreed. I'm passing the story on to my cable news channels right now. Good. Goose. Gander.

Posted by: Fen at December 13, 2007 09:44 AM (2bnGW)

10 Ah, sorry CY - I didn't see your 9:20 post. Please delete my response to Pall.

Posted by: Fen at December 13, 2007 09:46 AM (2bnGW)

11 So, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Posted by: Techie at December 13, 2007 09:58 AM (AV8Z6)

12 CY, stop trying to cover for a homicidal pedophile! I read the same account of Alterman as did Fen. While "fake, but accurate" may put too fine a spin on the outing of this reprobate, the public has a right to know nonetheless.

Posted by: Al Fin at December 13, 2007 10:00 AM (6PCBb)

13 "Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag." But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at December 13, 2007 10:11 AM (Ugvmy)

14 I heard unsubstantiated allegations that Eric Alterman was a journalist. I also heard, based on undocumented sources who refused to be identified, that someone somewhere takes him seriously. In the absence of proof, we'll never know.

Posted by: DaveP. at December 13, 2007 10:15 AM (VUpJX)

15 Hmmmm. "I also heard, based on undocumented sources who refused to be identified, that someone somewhere takes him seriously." I used to take him seriously but then the doctors finally diagnosed my problem and now I can safely say that I'm much better.

Posted by: memomachine at December 13, 2007 10:22 AM (3pvQO)

16 " "Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag." But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!" They couldn't have been more definitely a forgery if they had been written using a Glitter Pink Hannah Montana crayon on a SpongeBob SquarePants Lunch bag! Forensics Forever! otpu

Posted by: Otpu at December 13, 2007 10:23 AM (9gSRq)

17 Got to laugh at Alterman who is more than a little annoyed in finding Elspeth Reeve "pissing all over" Foer as she "no doubt helped cause the entire mess". Right-o Alterman, in your own universe of How Stuff Works, it is the twenty-something intern who is responsible for the editorial controls that protect the magazine and its now MIA credibility. Only in the altered reality that is the world of lefty media, could an org chart be turned upside down with the critical responsibilities abdicated to those with the least time served and invested in the organization. Alterman's last words to Reeve: "How nice for you. Now go away..." Sorry about that inconvenient truth Alterman. It sure must hurt when the facts refuse to bend and fit your meme.

Posted by: Justacanuck at December 13, 2007 10:58 AM (hgxwr)

18 This guy is a perfect example of why the leftist media in this country will never understand the reasons behind the outrage over this affair. It goes beyond the fact that the stories were fabulism. It's the fact that they outrageously slandered the men and women in uniform that are putting their lives on the line everyday, so sleazy bastards like Foer, Beauchamp and others, can continue to do so. It's the fact that these pack of lies inflamed the enemies we are fighting in the region. There is no instrument in existence to measure my outrage at these people. James Dodd USMC 1st MEF 83-87

Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 13, 2007 11:29 AM (La7YV)

19 "But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!" Access to military grade pink crayons was strictly controlled.

Posted by: Fred at December 13, 2007 11:46 AM (RO9Ei)

20 Reminds me of the phrase "undocumented workers" as if it were simply a matter of misplaced paperwork or a typo or two on their birth certificate. They are undocumented because they are not citizens! There is "insufficient documentation" because there is nothing to document.

Posted by: Zach at December 13, 2007 12:12 PM (W7dTL)

21 Someone actually believes (other than Rather) that those documents were authentic? Good Lord what a moron!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at December 13, 2007 12:33 PM (Lgw9b)

22 Apparently, Alterman does not think that editors should be responsible for the stories put out on their watch. What responsibility? I am merely the editor.

Posted by: Penfold at December 13, 2007 12:37 PM (lF2Kk)

23 As someone who had clearance in the mid 70's (actually) I had access to military grade pink crayons and paper bags. I believe I have a document where Bush's commander reprimaded him for being a "dooty head". Surprisingly it is in pink crayon on a paper bag. On a more serious note, I had access to the best machines at LANL and none could do what the TANG document has. Alterman is a complete moron (something Rather aspires to).

Posted by: David at December 13, 2007 01:03 PM (1+EkR)

24 These clowns can be caught with their hands in the cookie jar all the way up to the elbow--editorially speaking that is--and the editorial crime will always be "insufficiently documented". Kinda tough to be in the "reality based world" as these 'gentlemen' claim to be, and yet unable to recognize and acknowledge reality when it's chomping them in the backside big time.

Posted by: Michael J. Myers at December 13, 2007 01:16 PM (LZ3cP)

25 Since Elspeth's in a chatty mood someone really should ask her how she came to be one of her hubby's own fact checkers. Was she assigned the position? By whom? And wasn't she concerned at least about an appearance of impropriety in such a relationship? Oh, and just how did STB come to the attention of the deciders at TNR in the first place? Just more items that remain insufficiently documented; but not ones that Alterman would give a damn about knowing.

Posted by: ThomasD at December 13, 2007 02:50 PM (gMIZD)

26 Kinda tough to be in the "reality based world" as these 'gentlemen' claim to be Wasn't it a Righty who came up with that title?

Posted by: novanom at December 13, 2007 03:53 PM (22/Qe)

27 novanom - No, I believe the term "reality-based community" came about as a lefty reaction to Bush's talking about the "faith-based community" several years back.

Posted by: Robin Munn at December 13, 2007 04:13 PM (bS0D6)

28 I believe the term "reality-based community" came about as a lefty reaction to Bush's talking about the "faith-based community" several years back. No, it was a Bush advisor who came up with it. He was scoffing at the idea of solutions to problems coming "from your judicious study of discernible reality." His point being that going through life basing one's actions on judiciously-studied reality is for fools.

Posted by: novanom at December 13, 2007 05:54 PM (22/Qe)

29 Ahh, I see novanom a/k/a nunaim is still arguing just for the sake of arguing. If a conservative was to say that ice is cold he'd be quite happy arguing the opposite.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 13, 2007 08:46 PM (CGiAW)

30 I see novanom a/k/a nunaim is still arguing just for the sake of arguing So I disagree with someone and bring a link to back it up, and I'm "arguing just for the sake of arguing." That's worthy of your scorn, but the pedophile accusation is not. Holy toledo, your values are out of whack.

Posted by: novanom at December 13, 2007 09:05 PM (g0MRO)

31 Nice try Novanon--but no banana. If you go over to the Daily Kossacks or to the Huffington poseurs, you'll see frequent self reverential references to the alleged fact that they are, in fact, the "reality based community". Now as a sample of the "reality based community's" rhetoric, Ms. Pelosi said today that the United States did not have a President. Now she may mean that in her view the United States does not have a legitimately elected President (some old wounds die hard when your grip on reality is not too firmly based) but last time I checked, someone was sleeping in the White House, riding on Air Force One, and generally kicking the crap out of the Dhimmicrats led by Ms. Pelosi. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck---it must be a duck. Pelosi doesn't get it. But in the "reality based world" every single thing that goes wrong is the responsibility of Dubya. Man, I don't know how one single person can get all that stuff done!

Posted by: Michael J. Myers at December 13, 2007 09:14 PM (LZ3cP)

32 Here's "How to be CCG for Dummies": If a lefty responds to a misstatement or a foolish opinion by a righty, make fun of the lefty for responding. If a lefty doesn't respond to a misstatement or a foolish opinion by a righty, tell the lefty that "your silence speaks volumes" and assert that said lack of response is a de facto admission that the righty has been correct all along.

Posted by: novanom at December 13, 2007 09:15 PM (g0MRO)

33 Now she may mean that in her view the United States does not have a legitimately elected President (some old wounds die hard when your grip on reality is not too firmly based) but last time I checked, someone was sleeping in the White House, riding on Air Force One, and generally kicking the crap out of the Dhimmicrats led by Ms. Pelosi. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck---it must be a duck. Pelosi doesn't get it. Shorter Michael J. Myers: Huh? "Figurative language"? What th' hell's that? Must be some kinda HollyWEIRD talk. Go get me mah Moon Pie and an RC Cola, Brandine!

Posted by: novanom at December 14, 2007 08:36 AM (JtSwx)

34 Thank you, novanom, or nunaim, or numnuts.. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.If I throw a stick, will you leave?

Posted by: Huntress at December 14, 2007 01:55 PM (Dqxeq)

35 If I throw a stick, will you leave? Probably not.

Posted by: novanom at December 14, 2007 03:36 PM (22/Qe)

36 That's probably the most honest thing nunaim/novanom has ever said here at CY. Huntress, the troll known as nunaim, novanom, and possibly other monikers doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of "not being welcome." He's been banned at least twice that I know of, and yet here he is, still trolling. He was last banned for arguing about--get this--the size of a door in a garage... and not a door for cars, he was arguing about the size of a door meant for people. I kid you not, here's the thread in question. Let his record speak for itself.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 14, 2007 07:49 PM (CGiAW)

37 Yet, on the other hand, I calmly and politely correct a misconception about the origin of the phrase "reality-based community"--and provide a link to back it up--and I'm still told that I'm full of sh!t and that I'm arguing to no purpose. CCG, you have Nunaim Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: novanom at December 15, 2007 09:11 AM (ZjmuZ)

38 As usual, nunaim, your link proves nothing, as has already been pointed out. An nameless person who is supposed to be a Bush advisor is hardly any proof. And it's been shown that the left itself proudly uses the phrase, and you did not even bother to post a substantive refutation of that claim, instead posting just more spin and personal attacks--you didn't even quote the portion of the post that dealt with how the left has adopted the phrase. And then you take umbrage at me pointing out how you act? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 15, 2007 10:42 AM (CGiAW)

39 Methinks thou dost protest too much. You do this all the time, CCG. Your fingers apparently move independently of your brain, because you're always sticking in stuff like "I said good day, sir!" and "Methinks thou dost protest too much" despite the facts that they are a) lame, and b) not applicable to the situation at hand. Once again, you've tried lamely to score points by asserting that I've avoided an issue that was not actually an issue, and so not worth avoiding. Why on Earth would I deny the fact that Lefties have embraced the term "reality-based community?" Of course the Left has accepted it. Seeing as how it originated as a term of contempt by a White House aide who scoffed at the idea of basing policy and actions on reality, accepting the mantle of "reality-based" does nothing more than highlight the "hallucination-based" reality of much of the Right. Remember: in Susskind's article the aide was not condemning the left for deluding themselves into thinking that they are reality-based, when, in fact, they're not; he was actually condemning them for thinking things through too much--contemplating before acting. Some people think that judicious contemplation of reality is good, rather than bad. And now you're going to say that the story's a lie because the official wasn't named? Note that you're now moving the goalposts. People have ripped on me for occasionally not providing links; now that I do, the link isn't good enough. What's the standard of proof for the discussion now? Are you going to question EVERY SINGLE story from EVERY SINGLE media outlet if a name isn't listed? Or are you questioning this link simply because I posted it? What actual reason do you have for questioning this link? Stop complaining about my link and post one of your own. While you're at it, get over your NDS.

Posted by: novanom at December 15, 2007 01:59 PM (ZjmuZ)

40 I question anything that comes from an anonymous source, O One With Multiple Banned Names. I also question any assertion, mind you, any assertion made by someone who thinks that the size of a door in a garage designed for the entry of people--not doors designed to let cars in--is a subject for argument or debate. In short, O Person Who Tries New Names Often, if you told me stone was hard, I'd try a rock as a pillow. And I am done letting you drag this thread off topic. Oh, and just to annoy you... Good day, sir. I said, Good Day!

Posted by: C-C-G at December 15, 2007 02:13 PM (CGiAW)

41 I'm willing to accept that that NYTimes article is where the "reality-based" term first got published, and that it spread from there. Anonymous sources are always troubling, of course -- one can't prove one way or the other that the source really said that, or whether the reporter made up the quote, because one can't contact the source and ask. But I'm willing to assume the quote is genuinely from a Bush aide until shown evidence to the contrary. But I can't help but wonder... what difference does it make? Why are we arguing about this? Whether the term was invented by a Bush aide or by the NYTimes reporter, it was quickly and proudly picked up by the Left, as a badge of honor. Two examples here and here, found by a ten-second Google search. So, novanom -- when you said "Wasn't it a Righty that came up with that title?", it appears you were correct. But I'm entirely failing to grasp the point you were trying to make with that off-hand comment. Did you mean that because a Righty came up with it, it's no longer ironic in the least if those who now proudly call themselves "reality-based" ignore reality? Because that conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Or, to put it in more colloquial language, "That dog won't hunt". So if you had a point to make by pointing out who invented the term, please explain.

Posted by: Robin Munn at December 17, 2007 02:10 PM (bS0D6)

42 So Ron Suskind wrote an article in which he says an unnamed Bush adviser waxed fantastic about how the American empire is creating new realities and leaving those in the "reality-based community," who merely study reality for solutions, in the dust. Of course it is not an official pronouncement from the Bush administration. In fact no one on the right supports this language, but the left embraced it anyway because it says exactly what the left wants to believe about itself and, conversely, about those who support President Bush. To my mind, this is just more substanceless "framing" from the left and a further demonstration that the left is not concerned with reality. If you want to use someone's words against them, better get a hard quote from a named person on a specific occasion--i.e. something based on reality--and not just some hearsay that make you feel superior.

Posted by: huxley at December 17, 2007 06:49 PM (rOvvS)

43 And they call Bush stubborn and living in a bubble/bunker?

Posted by: Mark at December 18, 2007 10:10 AM (cFKis)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just when you thought the TNR debacle over "Shock Troops" was over, current and former TNR staffers have begun firing at each other.

In the New York Observer... Bridal blog?

Quoth Elspeth:

"Yeah, it's a bummer, but it's hard to shed any tears over Frank," Elspeth Reeve was telling The Observer in a phone interview Friday, the day before her husband, U.S. Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, joined her at her motherÂ’s house in Missouri for his 30-day leave.

And:

Ms. Reeve said she was surprised to learn, in early November while visiting her husband in Germany (where he was transferred upon completing his tour of duty in Iraq), that Mr. Foer planned to retract the stories. She said that she and Mr. Beauchamp had not expected Mr. Foer to take any decisive action until Mr. Beauchamp returned to the U.S. this week, at which point they thought it would be much easier for him to speak up in his own defense.

"I think Scott thought Frank was on his side, you know? And that he understood that he was in a really difficult situation and so would be patient until Scott got out of Iraq," Ms. Reeve said. "I don't think Scott realized the limits on FrankÂ’s patience."

Ms. Reeve also argued that Mr. Foer's retraction, titled "The Fog of War," had failed to prove that any of Mr. Beauchamp’s stories contained fabrications—all it did, she said, was demonstrate that Mr. Foer was tired of dealing with the scandal.

At least one current TNR staffers had other opinions:

According to Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at TNR, the magazine received little cooperation from Mr. Beauchamp throughout the investigation process. "The basis [for the retraction] was just that Scott is maddening," he said. "He's just flaky, he's irresponsible, he doesn't do things that are in his own obvious interest to do. ... Scott was the guy who lives in the group house and is supposed to pay the electric bill and just doesn't, and the lights get shut off. Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him."

Hmmm... perhaps they should have figured that out before they published three of his stories?

The most damning comment, however, comes from TNR editor in chief, Martin Peretz—who was notably mute throughout the entire scandal.

"Certainly in retrospect we shouldn't have published them," he told The Observer Monday. "They did not meet the highest standards of proof."

I would have expected Peretz to provide more backing for embattled editor Franklin Foer. Interesting...

Update: And more today, including a previously unmentioned conversation between Peter Scoblic, Elspeth Reeve, and Scott Beauchamp.

Why didn't Frank mention that conversation in his 14-page opus, and why won't Scoblic discuss it now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:38 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

...as a freelancer at NRO:

Dear Readers,

After much reflection and consideration, I am withdrawing from my professional relationship as a regular freelancer with National Review Online.

This is my own decision. No one at NRO has asked me to do this, nor has anyone suggested or even hinted I should. But I believe this to be in the best interest of the publication which I have so much respect for.

Both NRO and I have taken far too much heat for something which would never have happened had I been more specific in terms of detailing my sourcing while blogging about Lebanon at "The Tank". That is a responsibility I have to accept.

It was an honor to write for NRO. NRO has stood by me and supported me throughout all of this, and for that — and for so many other things over the years — I will always be grateful. And I will always cherish my relationship with NRO.

As I said in an interview the other day, I'm not sure what the future holds for me in this. But what I do know is that I will continue to march forward into it.

All the best,
W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Franklin Foer, you are on the clock.

Update: Katharyn Jean Lopez provides a full accounting of what went wrong with Smith's reporting from Lebanon at NRO blog "The Tank."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

"Re-reporting" for The New Republic doesn't apparently consist of going back to talk with experts they've interviewed to discuss discrepancies in their claims.

On August 9, I published When Hidden Experts are Found, an interview with Doug Coffey, the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems. He is the corporate spokesmen TNR cited—anonymously— on August 2 (my bold):

The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described.

As TNR did not publish his name—or for that matter, any other experts they claim support the allegations made in "Shock Troops"—I stumbled across Coffey purely by accident.

It quickly became apparent that TNR did not ask him to actually review the specific claims made about Bradley capabilities in "Shock Troops," and once he reviewed the exact passages, he didn't seem very convinced:

I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a "driver" can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.

The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.

Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn't move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.

The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.

It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander's independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can't imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.

This interview with Mr. Coffey has been cited once or twice, and seems to cast significant doubt on the quality of "re-reporting" done by the editors of The New Republic.

I would think that in the almost four months since this interview first posted that TNR would seek to reestablish contact with Mr. Coffey to discuss the apparent discrepancies between what they suggest he said, and what he said here, especially as this is often cited as one of the strongest claims against the quality and intent of their investigation.

To date, The New Republic still refuses to release the names of the other experts they said supported the claims made in "Shock Troops."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

The TNR saga is slowly seeping into the media, with posts this morning at the Washington Post and the New York Times, in addition to last night's mention in the New York Observer.

Not a single one of these outlets discusses the fact that Franklin Foer spent the better part of 13 pages alleging a military conspiracy spanning four bases in three countries involving dozens of soldiers, from privates to colonels.

I guess they didn't want to discuss how nutty that explanation sounds.

Nor did they mention that Foer and The New Republic refused to apologize to those soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait they accused of atrocities.

Not a single one them acknowledges that Foer was being deceptive when he claimed back in July "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published".

Nor did they mention that both of the author's prior stories made statements--at least one unequivocally false--that should have made them doubt his veracity from the beginning. Even Media Matters ripped The New Republic for their handling of this debacle, perhaps marking the first time in history the organization has ever been to the right of major news outlets.

No. I'm not kidding:

Essentially, what unnerved me is that a magazine like TNR was so completely divorced from the military that they did not even have one person on staff -- one single person -- who was personally connected to a career professional in the military (and Elspeth Reeve, an intern at TNR who is now married to Beauchamp -- himself not a career professional in the military -- doesn't count), who could have a) helped them screen what was being sent in the first place, and b) helped them figure out how to fact-check the guy (let alone, after the fact, help them figure out what was really going on). I mean, seriously, how is it that at this point the best de facto depictions of life in-country come ... in Doonesbury?! (The very liberal cartoonist Gary Trudeau is, in a strange twist of journalism, apparently far better wired in to real soldiers on the ground than is the editor of a major magazine? How did this happen?)

Folks, we are six freaking years into a war now. Regardless of how you or I or Eric or anybody feels about the causality of these wars, the fact of these wars remain important for all of us to understand. We are six years into a period in which the military and issues of war have been, like, you know, sort of central. How could TNR remain so divorced from anyone in the military for so long that they eventually fell for this?

Nor have the professional media sought to address, in any way, that The New Republic hid testimony provided to it by military personnel that contradicted their preferred narrative, and have flatly refused to provide the names of their anonymous civilian experts they interviewed, perhaps because the one that was found shows just how disreputable the magazine truly is.

This story is far from over, folks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:28 AM | Comments (83) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Rip 'em!

Posted by: T.Ferg at December 04, 2007 10:08 AM (2YVh7)

2 When I was a young man there was a trade called "reporting". That trade died, unfortunately replaced by the "proffession of journalism". Reporters were mostly bright, lower class kids with a way with words. They found their way out of the factories and farms. Their brothers and cousins were factory workers, farmers, cops and soldiers. These days, instead of the bright working class kids, the upper class sends it's kids who aren't bright enough for management go into journalism. The dumbest kids in the universities are in the school of education, the next dumbest are in J-schools and schools of social work. Please don't act surprised at the shortcomings of journalists. Dimbulbs just can't help it.

Posted by: Peter at December 04, 2007 12:17 PM (AiJXe)

3 Thank you for your tireless efforts in this regard. I made my voice heard too, but you deserve high praise for turning the tide. I have one other suggestion: Each year there are Darwin Awards, i.e., for people who remove themselves from the gene pool via stupidity often combined with arrogance. Can you orchestrate Dan Rather Awards, e.g., hold them each year on the anniversary of some important date in the Dan Rather TANG story debacle? Candidates would be those journalists (including faux photographers who multiply the degree of bomb produced smoke over Damascus) whose asine works are uncovered by bloggers and which eventually forces them to recant. Points for scoring who would win that year could be based on many factors such as the size of the whopper, the time it takes for them to recant, or even if they don't recant personally, the time it takes their media outlet to desert them, etc. I think that posting a table showing these points in the various categories andd which adds them up based on a reasonable formula along with a succinct narative, cropped images, etc., would help convince your readers that the most deserving journalist et al. "won" that award that year, while also establishing the relative asinity of the "runners-up". Best wishes.

Posted by: Ivon Fergus at December 04, 2007 12:55 PM (o3NlY)

4 What twigged me, and many others, was the bit about the dogs. You just don't do that with a track! Most especially, you don't do that with a track containing people who are standing up wearing lots of heavy gear and carrying stuff -- and most most most especially, you don't do that with a track containing, etc., when you might be under fire at the moment. The situation deteriorated from there. And note what Foer did. He called up the manufacturer, whose rep is quoted in the blogosphere as saying something resembling the above and no doubt said the same thing to the TNR staffer making the inquiry. But, being an honest person, the rep no doubt also made some statement to the effect that he wasn't there and soldiers are inventive and sometimes irresponsible -- and that's all Foer heard of the entire conversation from what he reports. That's not lack of information or even misinformation. He took a statement that did not support his assumptions, and extracted from it what appeared to him to support them. That's delusion on the level of the guys on street corners ranting about conspiracies between the CIA and Gray aliens. Millenium hand, and shrimp! Regards, Ric

Posted by: Ric Locke at December 04, 2007 02:47 PM (DTj4I)

5 Bob, you're STIFLING THEIR DISSENT! Seriously, hats off to ya, buddy. They could surely profit from the example of real journalism you've set them, here and elsewhere. But we both know they won't.

Posted by: Mike at December 04, 2007 03:00 PM (U1PqM)

6 What is stunning to me is that Foer seems to argue that the story about a soldier wearing a human skull into battle was true, but that officers of the US army constructed a cover cover up and coerced soldiers to sign statements supporting the cover up. This it seems to me, would be a huge story if it could be proven. First Foer got Beauchamped, now it seems he is trying to Beauchamp himself. By the time I got to the part where Foer finally admitted that TNR couldn't stand by Beauchamp's piece, my main thought was when will TNR admit that they can not stand by Foer's piece? The whole idea of bringing in the real fact checkers after the article is published is pretty funny, I have to admit. Lets see what the real fact checkers have to say about Foer's article. Foer's piece was dated 12/10/2007, so the fact checkers probably won't even know of its existence till next week and may not actually read it before the end of the year.

Posted by: kenmoreland at December 04, 2007 03:26 PM (/Vadj)

7 You'll notice that the MSM put the story on ice until they had an 'equilavence' slam against NRO. The difference, of course, being that TNR stonewalled for 5 months and NRO immediately admitted the shortcomings of their pieces and rectified the situation.

Posted by: John at December 04, 2007 03:51 PM (tT2sa)

8 As a parent I think I speak from experience when I contend that if it takes fourteen pages of excuses for someone to work themselves up to saying "oops" there is sufficient grounds to question their sincerity.

Posted by: submandave at December 04, 2007 03:58 PM (ljAGw)

9 Another distinction, John, on these two events is that the NRO errors are politically neutral; whether or not there were certain numbers of Hezbies and Hamantashen doing what they do at a particular place and time, in particular numbers, is hardly identifiable as a trope of one political persuasion or another. Baghdad Diaries... not so much.

Posted by: megapotamus at December 04, 2007 03:58 PM (LF+qW)

10 Thanks Bob. USMC '82-88

Posted by: DaveW at December 04, 2007 04:01 PM (PSjyc)

11 Media Matters wrote, "Essentially, what unnerved me is that a magazine like TNR was so completely divorced from the military that they did not even have one person on staff -- one single person -- who was personally connected to a career professional in the military." Fred Reed, a Marine in Viet Nam and a career reporter writes on the news media and reporters, with some references to the military in An Oozing of Gray Sludge. Some excerpts. "In thirty years of in the writing trades, IÂ’ve covered a lot of things, but three in particular: The military, the sciences, and the police. For years I had a military column syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate and later carried by the Army Times papers until I was fired for political incorrectness. For half a dozen years I rode with the cops all around the country for my police column in the Washington Times. And IÂ’ve written tech columns and pieces for technical mags like Signal forever." "This isnÂ’t my first rodeo." "In each case the reporters I met were, with very few exceptions, pig ignorant. The military reporters didnÂ’t know the history, the weaponry, the technology, strategy, tactics, or how soldiers work. Almost none had served." "Over the years IÂ’ve noticed several things. First, in print publications, most reporters arenÂ’t very smart. A few are very bright, but probably through a mistake in hiring. (The prestigious papers are exceptions, hiring Ivy League snots of the sort who viscerally dislike soldiers, cops, rural people, guns, etc.)" Fred's disgruntlement is our gain.

Posted by: Looking Glass at December 04, 2007 04:10 PM (lmkcJ)

12 I ran out of gas. I got a flat tire. I..uh..didn't have change for cab fare. I left my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake . . .a terrible flood! IT WASN'T MY FAULT I SWEAR TO GOD!!! Therefore, we can no longer stand by the story.

Posted by: Mike S at December 04, 2007 04:38 PM (/4imY)

13 Thanks very much. USAF, 1984-1991

Posted by: Patrick Carroll at December 04, 2007 04:53 PM (xho2Y)

14 The American left is so anti-war that it simply cannot see the military without a negative bias. Believe me, I know. I joined the anti-war ranks during Vietnam and woke up to cold realities only after 9/11. But at least I woke up. I can't say the same for TNR and others who simply won't EVER get it. Thank you for your brilliant and tireless work on behalf of the truth.

Posted by: E. Miller at December 04, 2007 05:07 PM (/YDnc)

15 Seeing how TNR values propaganda over truth, the lesson is clear: They have sold their birthright for a pot of message.

Posted by: pst314 at December 04, 2007 05:09 PM (OA547)

16 Okay. This is the most memorable story out of Iraq. Guess who then gets to keep the problem? Did you know that there are people "out there," who call this adventure Bush's war? Seems lots of people think we've been ripped off. But they can't quite figure out the "how" part. Like in "how" did we get to do so much work for the Saud's? While Maliki hates out guts. And, Afghanistan is going to hell in a hand basket. Okay. So you "bagged" TNR. Big deal. But how come the army let Beauchamp "keep serving?" If he's the biggest story teller in Iraq, how come there is a marine who is on trial for his life? His crime? He was sent out at night, to patrol. With an Iraqi. Who lit a cigarette. Giving away their position to snipers. So, to protect his own life, this marine tried to get the Iraqi to put out his cigarette. Words led to fists. Led to the Iraqi reaching for his AK-47. And, yes. The marine with only a knife in this fight, killed the Iraqi. But now? 20 terrorists watched. So the American lawyers have 20 "witnesses" looking to hang this marine. Too bad Maliki hates Bush. If he didn't, the Marine's life wouldn't be at stake. And, Beauchamp? What happens when his tongue starts to wag? Or his computer starts to function? You think TNR's surrender is the best story out of Iraq? Wow. Plus, I don't think they surrendered. They just took their time sifting through the bullshit. It's pretty standard, when you go to war, and you are part of the action; your brain shifts gears. And, you get hardened. Perhaps, TRN can't recognize a hardened soldier. Doesn't mean there aren't stories out their that would make your hairs on your head stand on end. You can't fool me. The Saud's are financing terror. And, Bush is pushing for them to get "status" in the Mideast. We shall see.

Posted by: Carol Herman at December 04, 2007 07:05 PM (WVnVh)

17 Did you know that there are people "out there," who call this adventure Bush's war? Yes Carol, we know you do. And you are "out there", really out there.

Posted by: Boss429 at December 04, 2007 07:39 PM (pjz6G)

18 Carol - Do you have a citation for the follwing portion of your comment? "You think TNR's surrender is the best story out of Iraq? Wow."

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 04, 2007 07:56 PM (0pZel)

19 There you have it, folks, a shining example of the left. Thank you for that, Carol.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 08:08 PM (SoUge)

20 it is so sad that you people think that this is some kind of victory, or that you think TNR is a left wing rag. from the well over a thousand postings on TNR talkback section, you might imagine that TNR did the equivalent of telling the Germans of the DDay landing. Has anyone here actually read all 14 boring pages of the Foer article? I am a subscriber who thought that 3rd story was too macabre, even if true, but it was one story out of tens of thousands written yearly. Victor Hanson has written for TNR, and not long ago. It has also had Fred Barnes, Morton Kondrake, etc. on its staff. It produces much greatness and a few clinkers. As to Beauchamp, he is an ass who, if telling the truth, is a jerk, if embellishing or lying betrayed his wife and her company by his actions. I have been an ardent supporter of the war, and of the surge (wishing it had been done years ago) I engage in many long and useful discussions with other TNR readers. We go from the far left to the far right (has anyone here ever read Marty Peretz's blog the Spine?) no squishy liberal he. There is no groupthink at TNR. Some of the most vociferous Hillary bashing can be found there (as well as her defense) I seriously doubt most of the posters here could last a week with the intellects who post at TNR's talkback. Believe you me, I don't include myself in this group, but I do learn from many of these people. Don't judge everything on one story, especially when the story is a minor sideshow relegated to the back of the magazine.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 04, 2007 08:30 PM (ALRl0)

21 Oaxaca, if you think that it's still possible that Beauchamp is telling the truth, you are willfully ignorant, and therefore not worth further discourse. Good day, sir. I said, good day!

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 08:32 PM (SoUge)

22 Ric Locke: What got me was the dining hall story. I am in the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I have eaten at Coast Guard stations, and ribbing and poor-taste jokes happen. But such cruelty to a wounded person in the hearing of NCOs is not heard. It didn't fly with me, especially as I also work in government on my day job and in both the day job and the USCGAUX we have been given the videos and sermons about behavior. Joke with your buddies when no one is around to overhear? That happens. Do that when more than your buddies are around and someone will have to say something if a complaint is filed? Hell no! It didn't fly, no one said "STFU, you idiot." That sounded more like a high school cafeteria story than a large military mess deck to me. Regards, Mikey NTH

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 04, 2007 08:44 PM (kAnhF)

23 before I get yelled at for being some kind of leftist pinko, I want to mention that I have spent over 10 years living and working in the third world. In China criminal gangs kidnap small children from peasant farmers, break their bones and reset them in crippling fashion, in order to make them effective beggars. Does anyone here doubt me? I think not, I need no proof because you know it is true. It got to the point I could no longer live in rural China. Now I am in Oaxaca, recently a group of young Guatemelan migrant girls were kidnapped on the way to America, with the direct support or complicity of the Police, aimed to extort money from immigrants' families already in the United States. A brave Catholic priest Padre J. Alejandro Solalinde Guerra of the Tehuantepec Diocese was jailed by the same police for his protests on behalf of them. I have daily seen such genuine heartbreak and horror that a story of a few dogs run over, a mocked woman, or bits of bodies where dead bodies are in abundance, all that shocking. It makes me wonder if many of you find the story all that shocking either, or just find this an excuse to vent hatred at your fellow Americans whose politics you disagree with. Move to a third world country for a while and you will find just how many values you share with Democrats (or Republicans) and you will wonder just what you were so pissed off with them about.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 04, 2007 08:51 PM (ALRl0)

24 BTW: When I typed "wounded" I meant "hurt"*. Stupidity happens and things happen, but just ripping apart another person because of an injury? Not like that. *I'm on the Great Lakes. Injuries happen, but so far no 'bad guy inflicted' wounds that I know of. Thank God

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 04, 2007 08:52 PM (kAnhF)

25 oaxaca: What you are reporting is not the fault of or the actions of US military personnel. There is a vast difference in behavior between the US Army and the Mexican police or Chinese criminal gangs. Try again.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 04, 2007 08:56 PM (kAnhF)

26 thank you C-C-G for proving my point at just how closed minded many of you are and insulated your lives truly are. What have you done to truly help your fellow man? I have lived in poverty from a small island in Micronesia, rural China, rural Mexico, to realize just how insignificant that story of Beauchamp was, certainly not worth the thousands of posts related to it. When my second son was born prematurely in China I found out later a girl, who was even more premature, was nearby. The father, a poor peasant, did not want a girl (one child policy and all) and he did not want to pay for the incubator, the hospital itself simply let that baby die. I found out about this later. I don't know what I could have done, at the least I would have offered to put my name on the birth certificate as the child's father and paid for the babies treatment, I am certain I could have found many Americans who would have adopted the baby. But I didn't know until afterwards, I was too engrossed in my own son to pay much attention. I did nothing wrong yet I still feel such regret. How dare you call me willfully ignorant. I doubt you will even read this, and if you did doubt an apology would ever grace your lips. Believe me, you have no idea the things that are possible, especially in the third world where life is cheap.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 04, 2007 09:05 PM (ALRl0)

27 Oaxaca, why don't you go back into the archives of this very blog and see how CY proves conclusively that Beauchamp could not possibly have told the truth? Then I shall accept an apology from you. As for what I have done... I am not going to get into a "holier than thou" contest, and you're showing your own colors by attempting to draw me into such. Since you cannot disprove my statements, you are attacking me personally. Begone, troll!

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 09:09 PM (SoUge)

28 oaxaca - I can readily believe your assurances that you would not be able to hold your own in a discussion thread over at TNR. I'm not sure what that proves since I also suspect you wouldn't do any better with fifth graders. It is totally meaningless and absurd to be drawing some sort of parallel between what you witnessed in your work assignments in some third world location and fabricated stories published in a prominent magazine for the sole purpose of denigrating American soldiers.

Posted by: Terry at December 04, 2007 09:14 PM (AiJXe)

29 Mickey NTH, I never said anything about the US military being at fault in the slightest. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you read what you wanted to think I wrote? I said Beauchamp was at fault foremost, for being either an ass or a liar. I also said TNR was wrong to publish this last piece, my main point is I don't care anymore and am not sure why so many of you do to the extent that you seem to. The TNR readers took Foer to task from day one on this issue, we are sick to death of it, especially when it becomes simply an issue to bash people's politics over the head with. Martin Peretz, the recent owner, has and continues to be a vigorous supporter of the war. TNR is not this one story, can't you realize that? You know, I really enjoy the dialogs between Jonah Goldberg of NRO and Peter Beinert of TNR. I won't condemn NRO because of one part time blog writer who lied or exagerrated about Beirut. That would be infantile. As I said, if Beauchamp lied, he betrayed his wife, his wife's employer, and his fellow troops. If he didn't he is an ass who should be ignored at best, punished at worst. End of story. Why he wasn't dishonorably discharged is a different issue, I would hope the US military ain't that hard up for troops. But since they didn't and he remains a soldier the US military doesn't seem to be that concerned by it either.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 04, 2007 09:24 PM (ALRl0)

30 Bob, the fact that you are not addressing the NRO/Smith issue is driving the idiots at Sadly,No completely insane. Please keep up the good work.

Posted by: marc at December 04, 2007 09:24 PM (/NgrF)

31 I do find this thread very amusing. I have been a consistent war supporter for years, but have always been hobbled by the hosanna chorus of see no wrongs done by President Bush. How thick are you people? Beauchamp is a serving soldier, he betrayed his wife, his fellow soldiers, and TNR. Foer trusted a serving soldier, and in the wake of Abu Ghraib, is what he really wrote so shocking. Beauchamp denigrated first and foremost himself. Answer me, why hasn't Beauchamp been discharged for conduct unbecoming? None of you can answer because you are all doubtless brain dead. I have tried to engage in a meaningful conversation but with the hosanna chorus it just ain't possible. You would not last a week doing what I do. Holier than thou, damn right I am. I take pride in my service to the worlds poor. I find it stunning that not a one of you felt the least bit of sympathy for that dead baby girl to at least mention it before you got on with your ad hominem attacks. Honestly, you are all a bunch of heartless bastards, self righteous and pathetic. Don't worry, I will be gone, and gone for good. I can't waste my time with you people. Feel free to rip me, claim I made up everything, I don't care. I know what matters, and I know by next week all of this will be forgotten by you and I. Ask yourself one question though, what have you done for the poor of the world today. Myself, I know I did my share. So ultimately, when I die I can look God in the face. He will forgive me for losing patience with fools such as yourselves. YOu can say you blogged and pretended that mattered. Zaijian, Hasta Luego, Auf Wiedersehen. Unlike you idiots, I speak 4 languages.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 04, 2007 09:40 PM (ALRl0)

32 Oaxaca, next time you're in your Bible, check out the following verses: Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 27:2: "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips." Matthew 23:12: "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." And probably the best one... Matthew 6:5: "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward." Oh, one more thing. Don't try to act self-righteous around a preacher's kid, lay preacher, and theology student. You typically get your head handed to you.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 09:54 PM (SoUge)

33 This holiday season, the editors at TNR have provided all of us with a remarkable lesson on the value of the common man. While journalists increasingly aspire to heroic "sticking it to the man" and "screwing the right-wing conspiracy" greatness, tossing ethics, boring objective reporting, fact-checking and other tired and unrewarding distractions, countless people in our daily experience patiently carry out their seemingly uninteresting tasks. Their humble, consistent efforts make our life experience so much greater. Seriously said, how many people do each of us ignore each day that do presumably boring, undynamic yet probably quite necessary functions? I see the same guy cleaning our restrooms daily who always has the best attitude and does a damn good job cleaning. Another female security guard at our front gate always puts you in a good mood with her pleasant yet diligent effort. I going to make sure I find a way to thank these sincere "people of quality" that make our country great. Forget these ethically bankrupt journalistic poseurs in a dying profession this holiday season and do something nice for those who tirelessly do truly outstanding, unremarkable work.

Posted by: redherkey at December 04, 2007 11:11 PM (kjqFg)

34 I going to make sure I find a way to thank these sincere "people of quality" that make our country great. Shake their hand, look them straight in the eye, and say "thank you." Really, it works. And it's worth more than even Bill Gates' fortune.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 11:15 PM (SoUge)

35 Oaxaca, What you are doing is good work and I applaud you. The problem with what you have written in your comments is that you conflate evil and wrong deeds that have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Godspeed.

Posted by: Mark at December 04, 2007 11:26 PM (P8ylB)

36 oaxaca, if you are still here, 1) thank heaven that unlike TNR this blog allows --whitespace-- aaaah! (carriage returns don't show on the TNR site) 2) your support for the war is noted. criticism of beauchamp noted. criticism of tnr noted. 3) what i think we are left with is, tempest in a teapot, there are bigger fish, even the bad acts described by beauchamp, if true, are petty stuff compared with your 3W experiences, and one of tnr's FAILs was to consider them worth posting on. this is all pretty true. 4) what you fail to consider is: we feel that the meritorious observations you make are better made by tnr. the fact that they prefer to expose dog-slicing and skull-play means either: a) they have no values b) their values say that minor bad acts that reflect badly on the US/US military are more significant and newsworthy than major bad acts that do not reflect badly on the US/US military, or that reflect badly on #Wers who are supposed to be victims all the time but never perpetrators of evil. 5) thank you for your fine service on behalf of the world's downtrodden (although there are no doubt poor people in the US who could also use your help). i think this should lead you to agree with us that tnr's actions have harmed the US by lying/error, and the world's poor by omission/neglect. furthermore i think you would agree that tnr has not only shown FAIL in the original harms as above, but by their bad attitude in handling it. 6) many die-hard posters on tnr think they are doing something good but are only enabling the tnr FAIL. they are doing harm in this way. also, though you may feel you have gotten short shrift here, i think you have been treated better than the tnr reader die-hards treat "nonsubscribing wingnut smegma-heads," if you get me. 7) i also agree that boasting of one's philanthropies is in questionable taste, at least to followers of Judaeo-Christian ethics, except perhaps inasmuch as it serves to encourage others. many people here do wonderful things for others and will never speak of it.

Posted by: nichevo at December 04, 2007 11:32 PM (aBVUu)

37 At a young age I learned this very important thing: make friends with janitors, lunch ladies, and paperboys. Tell them all "thank you" whenever you can. Having been two of the three helped quite a bit in learning that. I really cannot tell you just how many time those two little words spoken in a heart-felt and serious way either made my day or the person I spoke them to. In that vein - CY, for all you do - Thank you. Thank you to all other commentors for your efforts on these pages...yes, even the trolls

Posted by: Mark at December 04, 2007 11:34 PM (P8ylB)

38 Mark, you were a lunch lady? Sorry, couldn't resist. I second the thanks to CY, and extend it not only to the commenters, but also to the lurkers... if you have a job, no matter what it is, you help society at large. Thank you.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 11:38 PM (SoUge)

39 Come on, CCG - the outfits (and hairnets) were cool...and the extra cookies, mmmmmmm

Posted by: mark at December 04, 2007 11:55 PM (P8ylB)

40 Bob: "This story is far from over, folks." I certainly agree that it shouldn't be over yet, because the most revealing paragraph in Foer's apologia has gotten almost no attention: Naturally we wanted to learn more about the dog-hunting and the skull–although, in hindsight, the genesis of these anecdotes in such a nonchalant aside should have provoked greater suspicion. Beauchamp revised the piece, and we sanded down the prose. A month after he submitted the first draft, after several revisions, it entered into galleys. TNR clearly had a far more active role in shaping Beauchamp's "diaries" then they have previously been willing to admit. Indeed, I suspect Foer was too caught up in his effort to demonstrate how seriously TNR took its responsibilities (layers of editors hard at work!) to realize how damaging an admission he's made. Not only did Beauchamp write up 2 of the 3 most inflammatory anecdotes in "Shock Troops" at TNR's specific behest, TNR participated heavily in developing the very piece that set off the alarm bells -- from two snippets that Beauchamp himself barely mentioned in the effort he originally submitted. One can only imagine what sort of "dialogue between soldiers in a guard tower" TNR actually rejected outright. I don't doubt it was quite a task to transform Beauchamp's Hemingway into "the introspective writings of a low-ranking soldier" describing "the plight of sensitive young soldiers on the front line." No wonder the end results were so badly written! There's plenty that makes no logical sense in Beauchamp's earlier essays too (the putatatively well-received "James Bond" story in particular), and I see no reason not to suspect heavy handed editorial intervention there as well. This was clearly an agenda driven process, regardless of whether it was also politically motivated or not. These stories derive from an author in search of a publisher, and a publisher willing to take advantage of a young soldier's amibitions: After a month of sanding and multiple rewrites, Beauchamp finally produced the piece that TNR wanted him to write. The misbegotten editorial judgment which spawned this hoax, and the editorial dishonesty of trying to pass off the resulting work as an unadulterated 1st person narrative from the front, are ultimately more damning than the prevarication which has characterized Foer's attempt at damage control.

Posted by: JM Hanes at December 05, 2007 02:42 AM (bKtAF)

41 digitusmedius takes "the right wing" to task for "pure speculation" on TNR's stories. Well, duh. The Bradley rep clearly doesn't know what happened in Iraq, and states that fact. But digitusmedius, dahling, the same is true of you. And me. All of us. Absent speculation we all would remain mute. Granted, speculation should be based on evidence, and rational interpretation of the facts at hand. You don't provide any evidence. At all. None. The basic dialog with you goes like this: Commenters: provide facts based on personal and extensive knowledge of military tactics, Bradley performance, ammo, firearms, identified sources, etc. etc. etc. that strongly suggest TNR is shovelling guano. You: a) Bush is the devil; b) you lying scum!; c) prove it didn't happen; d) Abu Graib; e) hey, nice shoes; f) bite me. When challenged, change the subject. If further challenged, whine. Repeat as necessary. BO-RING.

Posted by: Mikey at December 05, 2007 04:01 AM (+Am0I)

42 oaxaca: Then why are you even bringing up the Mexican police, Chinese criminal gangs, or the fact that the third world isn't a nice place? What the devil does that have to do with Pvt. Beauchamp's fantasy stories unless you are trying to conflate the US Army with the Mexican police or a criminal gang? What does that have to do with the fact that TNR printed those fantasies without checking and then spent over four months in denial before issuing a non-apology apology? You worked in the third world? Bully for you; and that has something to do with this subject - how? Try being a little less strident, a little less holier-than-thou, but above all, try making a point!

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 05, 2007 06:18 AM (xzmT0)

43 JM Hanes, I have been saying that all along too. Just posted at TNR (please, folks, their sloppy site has a long delay before posts appear), and I have posted other places, that square backed bullet nonsense most probably came from the TNR offices, not Baghdad. As someone who has had experience being "interviewed" under the guise of a date, then being written about without foreknowledge or permission, to include a fabricated quote and plenty of fabricated details, all from TNR, by a writer/researcher who is now an assistant editor, I think that I can assure you that there is a HUGE difference between the story you read and the information that they began with. BTW, Eve Fairbanks (who I am referring to above) is a Yale educated and trained reporter, the Foer excuse of PV1 Beauchamp not having that training falls a bit flat. Also, Foer's ignorance is glairing when he did not know the driver's license organ doner thing was a freaking joke!? To top it off, he sounds like he lifted quite similar words from another 'blogger who doubted that bit and checked out Iraqi driver's licenses for organ doner status (they don't have one). Wasn't that Blackfive who researched that? I should look it up, or someone else can compare and contrast. BTW, in my head I said "are you freaking kidding me, you think that is serious" when I red the 'blogger complaint about the DL comment as if it were serious. Oh, did anybody notice the 'nice touch' that Mr. Foer used to burn PV1 Beauchamp's Platoon Seargent? He would not name the guy out of respect for him asking for his name not be used, he might as well given the paragraph and line number from the MTOE for the guy. BTW Bob, I did like that you addressed the NRO/Smith issue, but being as harsh on them for coming out and addressing things right away as you have on TNR is a little too much. I am pretty darn certain that the stories submitted are seriously different than the ones that were printed and a lot of the stuff everybody is complaining about was done in DC, not Iraq/Kuwait/Germany.

Posted by: Guy Montag at December 05, 2007 07:03 AM (otDb3)

44 As a soldier, what bothers me the most was that in Frank Foer's long excuse of an explanation, I don't see the words "sorry" or "apologize" anywhere. This is especially rich since Mr. Foer once demanded that his detractors apologize over the issue (as well as dozens of other pundits, btw. Look here for example). All he had to do was print a one page piece claiming "we no longer have confidence in our source, and are sorry for misleading the public." Also, I want to answer Carol Herman: Beauchamp? What happens when his tongue starts to wag? Or his computer starts to function? He probably already has his computer back, but even if he doesn't there are dozens of ways he could have communicated with TNR. Buy an Iraqi cell phone. Use the AT&T phones on FOB Falcon, use the MWR computers. Even if Beauchamp was still under 100% communications restriction (which is unlikely) he could still send an old-fashioned letter through the US mail (you don't even need a stamp when sending from Iraq). But he chose not to do so, and I know why. Because his stories were simply impossible. No, it's not the most important story of the war, but it is just one of many fake stories I've seen over the years. This one just got more publicity, that's all.

Posted by: John Rohan at December 05, 2007 10:48 AM (BfPzY)

45 nichevo, great post in actually addressing what I said and not what you imagine I said. TNR has a subscriber base of 60,000 people, probably less than a magazine devoted to Ferret owners. We are talking about 60,000 worldwide. Understandably they don't have a Baghdad bureau, and given their limited revenues took a journalistic shortcut by relying on a fact checker who was dating the author of the story. No question, Foer f'ed up. Again, we are talking about a magazine with 60,000 subscribers. National Review just got hosed by one of their own bloggers who point blank made up things in Lebanon. Why anyone would lie about scum like Hamas is beyond me? Tell the truth about them, but now the issue becomes NRO's lies and not the villainy of Hamas. I don't think that should be so. I won't get caught up in pointing fingers at NRO, they were betrayed. I am certain that TNR has values. Not to long ago Victor D. Hanson wrote an article in TNR (you know, the historian who is quoted by Dick Cheney) about how to win the war. I am happy (unlike some others) that TNR commissioned the piece. TNR has f'ed up about other issues. Joshua Kurlanzick not long ago talked about the Chinese people's reluctance to speak about the Cultural Revolution. Bullocks. He went up to english speaking chinese strangers and asked them about it, naturally they were reluctant to talk about it. Learn Mandarin and you will find Chinese people there who won't shut up about it. Should Foer have been fired over that? I accepted they didn't have the resources, that Kurlanzick did believe what he wrote, he was just wrong, and I pointed out how he was wrong. Basically, I was the only person in the world who called him on it. My point is TNR often will publish articles bridging all sides of the spectrum, they are a small magazine with very finite resources. Don't make this more than it is. I got all holier than thou because of people saying TNR readers live in a cocoon, if so our cocoon encompasses the whole world. Anyway, nichevo, excellent posting. (unlike CCG who thinks quoting scripture takes the place of helping people in the real world) By the way, that priest who was arrested was released because of bunch of us down here wrote Human rights watch, who in turn pressured Calderon who ordered him released. Yes, I helped cause the release of an unjustly prisoned Catholic priest (being american and taking pictures of the prison he was held does make a difference) and just how many political prisoners has CCG helped release lately? Oh right, none.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 11:09 AM (ALRl0)

46 ccg, if you want to make a difference, besides condescendingly thanking the guy who cleans your companies toilets (oh yeah, that will make his day, who needs food when they can shake your hand) write Mattel and demand they hire a Mandarin speaking American to accompany an American quality control inspector to spot check the factories so our children won't be potentially poisoned (talk about penny wise, pound foolish by Mattel). Get enough people to write and maybe Mattel will pay attention. Mikey NTH, my point is that an article in a magazine with 60,000 readers is not worth wasting time and effort over. Far better to pay attention to the recent Chinese party conference wherein the last of the Liberal, reformist Shanghai faction has been pretty much purged, replaced by hardliners. Wen Jiabao, the PM whom I had some hopes for, seems to be seriously undercut. If you recall (which of course you don't) Wen was Zhao Ziyangs right hand man until Zhao was purged for supporting the students in Tiananmen prior to the massacre in 1989. What is your thoughts about this? None I am sure, since you equate the scribblings of a little jerk in a magazine with 60,000 subscribers to be of more import than the sudden recent lurch to darkness in the most populous country in the world. One thousand postings about that article. If I recall a mere dozen in the TNR article about this issue. Way to stay informed dude. And how many articles here about that?

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 12:34 PM (ALRl0)

47 oaxaca, Agreed on just about all of your points in this comment. However, the issue many, including me, have with your previous postings is that you've conflated issues that have nothing to do with each other. The point to this TNR/FF/STB issue is not whether or not TNR is a 'small mag' that has 'limited resources', but has done lots of good stuff (and still does). The point is the STB stories were fabricated, Foer obfuscated and stalled, then Foer came out with a 14-page mealy-mouthed apology that contained NO apology. STB/FF/TNR violated basic journalistic ethics with the printing of the first Diarist story. Compounded their mistake with two more stories. Then, FF put up a huge show of "re-reporting" previously "thoroughly fact-checked" stories. Then absolutely and abysmally failed to take responsibility for that failure. I have no problem with TNR continuing to be produced...I have a HUGE problem with FF being at the helm. I applaud you and your service to the downtrodden. I anguish along with you on the suffering of innocents. BUT, your experiences/exploits are NOT the point of THIS discussion. Pointing to instances of "bad behaviour" and equating them to completely different instances of "bad behaviour" does not wash. If you want to discuss what you do and have seen...then set up your own blog and do first-hand reporting from Oaxaca, MX (or wherever you happen to be doing your good works). If you don't have internet access/electricity/etc., then find a way to get your info to someone that does! Put your apples there and talk about the oranges here and elsewhere. Blowing your own horn in your comments tends to bring people's hackles up. I don't work in the 3rd World...but, just to let you know some of my "good deeds", here's the toot: I have a full time job, a debilitating disease, and, yet, I volunteer hundreds of hours each year doing what I can for people with that same disease. Regards

Posted by: Mark at December 05, 2007 12:44 PM (4od5C)

48 The issue at hand is TNR's defamation of America's soldiers. What good things Oaxaca has or hasn't done are utterly irrelevant. Also irrelevant is whether there are worse things going on around the world. The point is that TNR published those lies, and then obfuscated and stonewalled in defense of those lies. To paraphrase a very old comment, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

Posted by: pst314 at December 05, 2007 12:59 PM (OA547)

49 Mark, thank you for an excellent posting. I suppose I should try to separate the wheat (you, nichevo, from the chaff: CCG). As a longtime reader of TNR I got disgusted by the well over 1000 posts by people who only know TNR from this, labelling TNR readers as cocoon dwelling idiots. My point is that running over dogs, mocking a woman, or playing with body parts (fabricated or otherwise) does not rise to the level of horror worth commenting on, certainly not to this extent. I mention my own experiences to state the actions are bfd. The actions themselves, true or not, are truly small potatoes. That soldier who raped the iraqi girl and killed her family (which in no way reflects on anyone else but him) is a story conversely I wish had been made up, same with Abu Ghraib. But those were not made up, is it really so hard to imagine a non military guy like Foer falling for Beuchamp's? As I said I think Foer messed up. Should he be fired, that is up to CanWest. As a subscriber I mostly stick around for the threads (which can be very funny). Today there is an excellent article about Chavez. One poster, emigdio, lives there and has an excellent blog. http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/ with a birds eye view there. In it he labels Chavez a fat man in a palace. His blog places his own life (albeit only in a minor fashion) in jeopardy. Without TNR I would not have known of this blog, and certainly not from a website like this one. And I do hope the STB story (the first) about the Iraqi boy whose toungue was cut out because he fraternized with Americans was fabricated. Nobody though questioned that story, or said that was impossible, because sadly that is all too believable. When I read that I was filled with both determination (we have to defeat those bastards who would do such a thing) with dread (how can you defeat them if they come from a society where that is accepted?) so I don't think TNR violated any ethics when they published that story (and even you would have to admit it would be pretty damn horrific and damn difficult to have to verity that one). Can you elaborate how that first story violated ethics?

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 01:28 PM (ALRl0)

50 pst314. sure, why should anyones personal experience come into play on whether or not someone elses recollections are valid? As I have said one hundred times, Foer most likely got hosed by a soldier, who is presently still actively serving in Iraq. What freaking cover up exists? Did Foer shut down the comments section? Did he issue a "no Comment" to the story? First people said STB was not a real soldier, Foer provided the real soldiers name, then people said the soldier was lying, and now Foer says he can not verify the story absolutely. What coverup? Foers crime? Trusting the veracity of a uniformed American soldier in wartime. Or has every American soldier who has talked about wartime misdeeds lied? Or should we ignore every allegation of misdeeds unless there is video evidence? And what of STB? Why has he not been dishonorably discharged considering what you call his crime (defaming his fellow soldiers). Could it be the Military considers the episode small potatoes and not worth the aggravation? I am sorry, but I take the Military's own response to STB to hold a hell of a lot more worth than anything anyone here screeds about. Yes, I am a terrible person agreeing with the military and not some hacks whose contribution to the betterment of the world is to post blogs. Or is the Military wrong in its response to STB? No, wait, TNR was wrong to trust a soldier whom they had no reason to believe would lie, but the US Military is right to continue to trust a soldier who has been shown to be a liar? How do you knuckleheads square that? I square it because I agree with the military that this is no b.f.d. Can anyone refute my question?

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 02:40 PM (ALRl0)

51 yeah, busted in rank one grade, which can happen for a whole host of offenses. Yet he still serves in Iraq. For what its worth, I agree he should be busted, for nothing if not making fun (allegedly) of a crippled woman and then going public with it. Definitely worthy of an ass whipping. Personally, I wouldn't want him in my unit, but the Military knows what they are doing, and there must be a reason they didn't ship his ass stateside. The military continues to trust him with the lives of his fellow soldiers, so they must see in him much more than I do. Again, this is why I came to the conclusion this is just no b.f.d. And if the other soldiers in his unit felt all that defamed I imagine the military would have transferred his ass because his getting "accidently" left behind after a patrol would be all too likely. Again, I imagine his fellow soldiers also consider it to be no b.f.d. I am sure they give him shit, but he deserves that. When STB and his fellow soldiers are out of Iraq and discharged from the military, when there exists no threat from any higher ups (I sure as hell wouldn't admit to being part of anything that is alleged) then TNR had damn well better come up with an honest accounting of this. If not then demand Foers head. What the world can't wait six months (or however long) Something tells me you won't forget to remind TNR.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 03:19 PM (ALRl0)

52 STB is out of Iraq, and has been for weeks. The picture of he and his wife at the Washington Post in Kurtz's article was taken during his homecoming. Frankly, what the military thinks of him once they found his stories to be without merit according to their formal investigation is not my primary area of concern; my area of concern is, and has been for a while, whether or not Franklin Foer and the editors of The New Republic have given an open and honest accounting of their role in reporting and re-reporting this story. That answer, to the best I can determine, is no. We know for a fact that in early August TNR editor Jason Zengerle was told by a major in Kuwait that the burned woman story was an urban legend or myth. Foer is yet to mention this, or any other claims that contradict his preferred narrative, including those by one of his own now named experts. Foer has refused to release the names of the civilian experts that he claims support his version of events. There is no logical reason to refuse to provide this information if he is conducting an honest investigation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 05, 2007 04:17 PM (vxbTC)

53 CY, at least I gotta give you kudos for answering without the invective (which frankly annoyed the hell out of me) of many of the posters on the fog of war thread. As I said before, I don't take everything TNR says at face value, I myself caught them a number of times in mistakes (mostly related to the political state in China, names mistaken or dates wrong, etc.). There was no thousands of postings full of flaming invective demanding anyones head then, and I dare say that issue is of more import to America's future then STB will ever be. You seem to forget there were 3 stories by STB, the first one (the hook) was about the boy I mentioned above. The second (dogs of war) or (the line) was about how packs of dogs feasted on the dead bodies dumped by the side of the road, and how people were afraid lest they be boobytrapped to move them. Was that a line? I don't know, it was certainly plausible. Then came the sinker, the 3rd story. By that time, Foer made the all too human mistake of trusting STB, and when the shit storm came circled the wagons. As a long time reader I had seen the story played out to death and then some, it stopped holding interest for me after Jonah Goldberg dissected the issue months ago on "what's your problem." The essential difference between you and I (and given the intelligence of your answer, which addresses my points) is that you believe this is a firing offense. I don't for the same reason I don't think Katheryn Lopez should be fired, their fundamental flaw was in trusting people whom did not deserve to be trusted. Beyond that, it is not my call since I don't own either NRO or TNR. At most, as a subscriber I can cancel my subscription to make my displeasure known. I won't because to me TNR is like a stable of fine horses, but once in a while you gotta expect to step in some horseshit. I also suppose I feel too much sympathy for some people, and feel uncomfortable calling for people's heads. If you think Foer should be fired for breaching of journalistic ethics, I have no argument with you. If you think he should be fired because he allowed a posting of a political position with which you disagree with, which has apparently been shown to be fabricated (or even not) then of course I have an argument with you. Ugly truth is superior to pretty lies, but we must be careful in our search for ugly truths we don't produce ugly lies. From your responses I think it is the former, from a lot of the flaming posters on the fog of war thread, I think it is the latter. As I said before, I have to separate the wheat from the chaff better.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 05:07 PM (ALRl0)

54 oaxaca, You are fixating on the wrong villain at his point in the story. STB is not the issue. I agree with you that the military has handled him. I believe he is back in Germany now and not in Iraq. Anyone with more solid knowledge, please correct. The problem is with FF. As soon as he heard of the questions raised or, at the very least, found out about the change in venue for the 'melted woman', he should have conditionally retracted all of STB's stories. Not doing so damaged himself (Foer) and TNR as a whole. The STB issue is done and the question now is how Foer (TNR) handled the questions raised about the stories and the imbedded slandering of troops. The ethical lapse that is most glaring for the first story is: STB's wife (maybe girlfriend at the time) fact-checked that article. That is a gross violation of “conflict of interest”. If you check JM Hanes’ and Guy Montag’s comments above, you will see more examples of Foer’s ‘desire’ (my word) for the stories to be true and how that is also significant issue. If you want more, then read the 14 pages of drivel Foer put out as conditional apology/retraction. My profession is in auditing. As such, I cannot perform my duties if I have an independence issue. For example, if I own stock in a company I’m scheduled to audit, I can’t do the audit. If Foer still wanted to print the stories his best option was to have the fact-checking done by an outsider. If he would have done that, I’m very positive at least the last two articles would never have seen the pages of TNR. CY has already addressed the cover-up. I’ll simply add: four + months to provide a non-apology apology and conditional retraction? Compared to the NRO/Smith issue, Foer’s actions and words are ridiculously LAME. I’ve read TNR in the past, but have never subscribed. I am neither a fan nor an enemy of the mags general contents. My concern is ethics. As for wheat and chaff…please give CCG a break. I’m fairly positive his irritation was with your enumeration of deeds (holier than thou appearing stuff) and conflation of issues.

Posted by: Mark at December 05, 2007 05:14 PM (4od5C)

55 good posting, I am pretty much out of the loop down here and it is rare to get chances to go online. Eh, I was irritated by the good day sir line, and then the begone troll. Thems is fighting words. Ha. It was pretty surprising though how the quality of the responses has shot way up. I was also very annoyed by a lot of the responses on the fog of war thread by non-subscribers demanding accountability for a magazine they never read, in the meantime stating that anyone who reads TNR is an idiot. Check a lot of it out and you will see what I mean. Hey, I agree Foer f'up. They have only 60,000 subscribers so why expect that they would have such rigorous checking? Can they afford an outside auditor? I simply don't know. To be honest, you do the subscribers a favor by holding their feet to the fire if they make bad editorial decisions. If you are pissed off by TNR's moderate Liberal slant, well go elsewhere. If that (editorial accountability) is CY's intention, then he should be commended, if it is to play gotcha, you are wrong about this therefore you are wrong about x,y,z issue, then that too is nonsense. One of my favorite things about TNR is "what is your problem" where Goldberg and Beinert discuss the issues civilly, respectfully, and often humorously. This issue has been devoid of all humor, and filled with too much anger. I am not wedded to the idea that TNR is always right, or that I am. Not long ago I had the idea that a possible solution to the Darfur crisis is to arm and train the natives, a poster on the ground persuaded me that I was wrong, that the topography and the situation would only cause even more slaughter. TNR has fought long and hard for an end to the genocide in Darfur, a cause which I support. They are one of the few mainline groups that do this. As you can see I am also not afraid to commend good postings here when I see them. Tdneely and Klfoster were regular posters on TNR, if they are gone they will be missed.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 05, 2007 07:07 PM (ALRl0)

56 IÂ’m fairly positive his irritation was with your enumeration of deeds (holier than thou appearing stuff) and conflation of issues. Indeed. They have only 60,000 subscribers so why expect that they would have such rigorous checking? Confederate Yankee has one staff member: CY himself, also known as Bob. Yet he single-handedly found the truth of all of these claims. If he can do it, why can't TNR?

Posted by: C-C-G at December 05, 2007 08:12 PM (SoUge)

57 "sure, why should anyones personal experience come into play on whether or not someone elses recollections are valid?" People would like you more if you didn't try to use bombastic self-flattery to claim moral and intellectual authority and to change the subject. Whatever good works you may have done in third-world countries, they do not make you an expert on the facts of the Beauchamp affair, and so do not qualify you to dismiss so cavalierly and rudely everything that has been uncovered by CY and others (including some milbloggers.) Have you actually *read* CY's series of posts on the Beauchamp affair? After he (with very little effort in terms of the resources a major news organization can muster) demolished Beauchamp's claims and credibility, TNR tried to discredit Beauchamp's critics and painted them as merely political partisans.

Posted by: pst314 at December 05, 2007 10:09 PM (WjPRb)

58 "My point is that running over dogs, mocking a woman, or playing with body parts (fabricated or otherwise) does not rise to the level of horror worth commenting on" Really? Stories which defame our troops don't matter? Every unchallenged lie demoralizes American citizens (and troops!) and diminishes America's reputation around the world. I'd think that's reason enough to challege every lie. Or don't you care about the reputation of America's soldiers?

Posted by: pst314 at December 05, 2007 10:13 PM (WjPRb)

59 That is actually sort of what I was thinking of. It has been mentioned elsewhere - I believe I last saw it with one of the PajamasMedia guys. I think it was the "myth about fact checkers" post. Since I've never been in the magazine publishing business, I have no idea what sort of hold these publications have on their proposed stories. Whether or not they consider them to be sacrosanct until they get them into print, I donÂ’t know. However, there are literally millions of potential fact checkers out here. Why not ask a few questions to a few of them for the plausibility of certain situations if you donÂ’t have the expertise in house? They (FF/TNR) would have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble.

Posted by: Mark at December 05, 2007 10:23 PM (P8ylB)

60 Every unchallenged lie demoralizes American citizens (and troops!) and diminishes America's reputation around the world. I'd think that's reason enough to challege every lie. Indeed, a very good reason, unless one is a rabid anti-American. Another one can be described by paraphrasing C. S. Lewis: "Good reporting must exist, if for no other reason, because bad reporting needs to be answered."

Posted by: C-C-G at December 05, 2007 10:26 PM (SoUge)

61 "Every unchallenged lie demoralizes American citizens (and troops!) and diminishes America's reputation around the world. I'd think that's reason enough to challege every lie." Wow, that is one of the most week kneed things I have ever read. If someone lies about America you become demoralized? Grow a pair. I lived in China a long time, the lies I heard only emboldened me. In point of fact, I had a picture of the man who stood up to the tanks at Tiananmen on my wall (one of my little subversions). The only sad thing is no chinese ever recognized what it was I can't even believe you can say that with anything approaching a straight face. You apparently know nothing about the outside world or America's standing in it if you think this nothing of a story can damage out position. Challenge lies, certainly, but not out of cowardice or worry about what others think of us but because it is the right thing to do. And do you think I care if anyone here likes me? I am honest and state my opinion, which is based on a lifetime of realworld experiences, unlike (I am certain CCG engorging himself on KFC believing his trite nonsense, believe I post therefore I am) I will pay personally CCG's airfare to take a position in Iraq teaching in a local university, or other work. I can provide the names and numbers for him to do it. I doubt (am certain) he would never do it. I have the names and number because I wanted to go to Iraq, my wife threatening to leave me prevented it. But one article from a magazine none of you read, well now, nothing is more important than that. You should be ashamed of yourself if you think one lie could forever tarnish the American military (or even 10 million ones). The only thing that can tarnish them is their own actions.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 06, 2007 11:04 AM (ALRl0)

62 oaxaca, Here is where you are wrong: "You should be ashamed of yourself if you think one lie could forever tarnish the American military (or even 10 million ones). The only thing that can tarnish them is their own actions." (Sorry, I haven't figured out the block-quoting technique yet) One lie turns into two lies which, in multiple turns, spawn millions of lies. I've been overseas twice in the last 4&1/2 years. Since I speak a bit of Italian and was in Italy, I watched their local news broadcasts, the BBC, and even some French crap in the summer of 2002. The coverage I saw there included such wonderful Italian takes as story titled "Bush - Assasino" (my spelling is probably off). I'm fully aware of the anti-American stand of most of Western Europe's 'news' organizations since I witnessed it first-hand. This summer I traveled to Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic. I also know a bit of German and their coverage still included Abu Ghraib and insinuated that ALL AMERICAN SOLDIERS participated and they did so UNDER ORDERS. The Czech Republic was an oasis for me (and actually had really good beer - Budweiser and Pilsner Urquell...the Bud is much better there). I don't know very much Czech...please and thank you is about it. But, they also had subtitles for their broadcasts in English. Much better coverage and little slant than anywhere I've been in Western Europe. Every single lie that denigrates the US or its troops not only should be challenged but MUST be challenged. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war for conquest but a war for alliance. To accomplish (victory) this alliance, our troops must be portrayed as wonderful human beings that are able to deal out swift death to terrible human beings. The good news is the vast majority of them really are both things. However, pieces like STB and TNR have put out are more the norm. It appears to me that for every single good story that is reported about our troops there are 50 negatives. Case in point: how many times did the Abu Ghraib story grace the cover of the NYT (50+)? How did they cover Lt. Michael P. Murphy's Posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor presentation? He happened to be from Long Island. I believe Long Island is in the NYT home range, is it not? Answer: it didnÂ’t cover the presentation. It did have a pitifully small story a few days later that was buried, but even that took pressure from several quarters including Bill OÂ’Reilly. You ARE correct that we should be ashamed but not for the reason you state. We should be ashamed that weÂ’ve allowed most of the US (and world) MSM to get away with sliming, lying, obfuscated, disclosing classified info, and generally denigrating this country and its military. IÂ’m sorry TNR gets to be somewhat of a poster-child; IÂ’d rather it was the NYT.

Posted by: Mark at December 06, 2007 12:11 PM (4od5C)

63 oaxaca - Your daily dose of moral superiority is amusing but tiring. If you had bothered to read all of CY's reporting on TNR's Beauchamp saga you will have noted that he raised serious issues with all three stories and not just the third. You raise the issue of fact checking. That became an issue because when TNR was questioned over the veracity of the stories they stridently claimed to have refactchecked 100% of the stories and attacked the questioners. That obviously turned out not to have been the case. You also raise questions about the military's handling of STB without what appears to be knowledge of the facts ot military procedures, much like Franklin Foer. Your credibility, like his, is shaky. You state: You should be ashamed of yourself if you think one lie could forever tarnish the American military (or even 10 million ones). The only thing that can tarnish them is their own actions. Oaxaca, the problem with the left is that they keep repeating lies about the conduct of American soldiers until everyone believes they are actions. Fictional massacres, torture which didn't occur, Haditha, antiwar movies, and the like. If you know people in the military or have any patriotism, you must know how disturbing these innaccurate portrayals of the military are. The propaganda, by your comments you have shown you understand the value of propaganda, content of stories such as these to our enemies is tremendous. Your ridiculous challenge to show how this story affected anything is completely beside the point. Lies need to be challenged where they occur before they become accepted as fact. John Murtha and Harry Reid are two of the biggest liars out there and they carry a lot of weight. You also insult our blog host by complaining that you would not have learned about blogs in Venezuela on this site, but did on TNR. I can't speak to the subjects CY covers, but he is only one person. Would you learn about all the sources for in-depth coverage, even on the ground coverage of the war on terror at TNR? I think not given that they have proven that they do not know how to fact check an article about Iraq themselves. oaxaca, you are just a credibility challenged gasbag. Come back when you have had a chance to bone up one the facts of this debacle. You don't have them.

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 06, 2007 12:16 PM (0pZel)

64 "I can't even believe you can say that with anything approaching a straight face. You apparently know nothing about the outside world or America's standing in it if you think this nothing of a story can damage out position." Know nothing? How about many years of education in foreign languages and history, followed by years of browsing French and German periodicals, both print and online? I've seen what use some of those European news organizations make of these slanders. And I have endured numerous arrogant lectures on morality from Europeans who were indoctrinated on this propaganda. So please save your "I can't believe". Your ignorance (or is it dishonesty?) is only exceeded by your arrogance. "But one article from a magazine none of you read" What makes you think that? Some of us DO read it (I, for one, subscribed for many years) and many of us followed the blog links to read everything that TNR published on Beauchamp. But of course you know the postings and comments on this blog that this is true, so why are you again uttering a falsehood? "The only thing that can tarnish them is their own actions." Then I guess there is no need for libel laws? No need to challenge lies? If you really believe that lies don't need to be challenged in order to protect reputations, then you are clinically stupid, but I suspect that you don't really believe this and are just lying. An experiment: Let's all start spreading vicious, defamatory stories about oaxaca and see whether he objects. "Challenge lies, certainly, but not out of cowardice" Who are you calling a coward, you trollish clown? As for your supposed respect for the American military, you sure don't sound like it. I suspect that it is entirely a sham intended to deceive the readers of this blog.

Posted by: pst314 at December 06, 2007 01:19 PM (OA547)

65 "I want to mention that I have spent over 10 years living and working in the third world" Everything oaxaca says boils down to insult and self-aggandizement. I've know people who did aid work in the third world, and none of them behaved like a bombastic bully. I have met such clowns, though, and they tended to be adolescents, losers, and partisan hacks. Adults who actually do something useful generally don't behave like that. Some of my military friends refer to oaxaca's style of personal interaction as "I've got the biggest dick in the house, so kneel down and worship me." Such an attitude doesn't tend to garner much respect from actual men.

Posted by: pst314 at December 06, 2007 01:33 PM (OA547)

66 the issue, again, is this is a nothing of a story from a magazine that has 60,000 subscribers, which would have been forgotten about long ago if not constantly talked about. Where is the real reporting about the ongoing negotiations between the Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans wherein the Iranians are buying the nuclear information from the North Koreans. Why are there no articles about the busloads of Iranian "businessmen" who land in Beijing and are taken to North Korea? Doesn't anybody find it suspicious that around the time that Sinopec signed the largest natural gas deal with Iran the Iranians stopped their nuclear program. hmmm... No, we are to believe the Iranians stopped their nuclear program out of the goodness of their hearts, when instead the Chinese simply said "why risk invasion, sell us gas cheap and we will let you deal with the North Koreans?" Now the US has an egg on their face when the NIE was published because we touted the Iranians own non-existent program. The Iranians ain't stupid, why spend the time and money on research when you can just buy it? Mark my words, in 2009 or 2010 the Iranians will have a nuke, North Korean built. But no, why should we investigate this. STB lied! If you want you can read about this it is in the Daily Telegraph. They, at least, know what is important. If the NYTimes or CBS news had put out the STB story then I agree challenge away, a vanity publication with 60,000 subscribers ain't worth the time, especially if you picked up and read something the lies in things like China Daily. You people are picking over a misquito bite when a goddamn tiger is bearing down on you. So when a North Korean built, Iranian purchased, terrorist smuggled bomb goes off in the US and if I am in that city, my last thought won't be STB lied, but I goddamn knew it.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 06, 2007 01:33 PM (ALRl0)

67 pst you really are an sad. I reference my experiences in the rest of the world because they have taught me a thing or two about the world. You insult me because you yourself have done nothing. You have known people who did work, but you yourself have not done anything. I am sick of people whose idea of supporting the troops is to run their mouths, instead of either joining them, or going there to work. Isn't is the least bit interesting that the email address for the Iranian Ambassador in North Korea is : MGANJIDOOST@IRANCHINA.ORG Iranchina.org. hmmm... Some people here give concise, intelligent answers. Others feel they must engage in insult when they are bested. I don't know pst, talking to you is like talking to a 4 year old, without the 4 year olds cuteness. Be honest, do you know a godddamn thing about the China-Iran-North Korean situation? Can you even name (without looking up on google) the names of the principal players? Oh, no, that doesn't matter you rely on CY to tell you all about the world, having no information to contribute yourself.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 06, 2007 01:45 PM (ALRl0)

68 I would like to add again how superior the posting of nichevo is. He addressed the issue and got in some well timed digs at me. Of course I am a pompous gasbag, this is the internet folks where our pompous gasbags can be set free, that doesn't mean I am wrong. Does anyone here really care about STB or TNR? No, for too many people this is just so much gotcha. You are wrong about this therefore I am right about everything. (I will give CY credit, I mean this is his job, and some of the other posters as well because they back up themselves with intelligent postings) Jonah Goldberg nailed this months ago, now it feels like it is just dancing on the grave. Foer was an idiot for even bringing it up again, calling a person on the same lie a thousandth time gets a little redundant don't you think? I agree, challenge lies, but not at the expense of taking time to search for more important truths. There are things that are far more important, which get little press. Like last years Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit where the Chinese and Russian leaders pointedly welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 06, 2007 02:04 PM (ALRl0)

69 oaxaca - This thread is not about China or Iran or North Korea or about your accomplishments as much as you would like to deflect the conversation in that direction. The only point I see you consistently making is that it doen't matter that TNR published lies about the behavior of American soldiers because their circulation is only 60,000. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable to me or to I believe a lot of the readers of this blog and many others. It's true there are others stories out there worth focusing on, but that is no excuse for ignoring this one. One of your other consistent complaints seems to be that only paying subscribers should be able to register displeasure over TNR's journalistic malpractice. Grow up and welcome to the internet as you so nicely pointed out in your most recent comment. Your attempts to control the discussion fool nobody.

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 06, 2007 03:03 PM (0pZel)

70 All this time, and still not a shred of fact. You must be nearly crazy with futile exhaustion.

Posted by: oogabooga!!! at December 06, 2007 03:54 PM (zpJBl)

71 oaxaca, daleyrocks has again said the pertinent point. And, according to your recent posts, I suppose I now am considered chaff in your eyes. (Personally, I don't mind being chaff... You want to bring up Iran/NK/China connections here? In this thread? NO, those topics are not the subject material. You want CY to bring them up, fine. Ask him to put up a post or compose one yourself and submit it to him. Ask him nicely if he would post it for you. Do not be surprised if he 1) tells you to go hang because it is HIS blog, not yours OR 2) refuses to post it because you don't have proper documentation OR 3) puts it up with a HUGE disclaimer OR 4) puts it up in with massive edits AND the HUGE disclaimer OR 5) puts it up in total (with small disclaimer) OR 6) some other option I didn't think of on the fly. Otherwise, stick to the subject matter at hand - journalistic ethics - honor - right&wrong - etc. If you fail to do stick with whatever thread's subject matter in the future I, for one, will ignore your posts in the future. This is my last response directly to you unless you follow that code. Buena suerte

Posted by: Mark at December 06, 2007 03:54 PM (4od5C)

72 PS: CY, I hope I have not overstepped my bounds with the above...

Posted by: Mark at December 06, 2007 03:57 PM (4od5C)

73 Mark, you are absolutely right, it is not my blog and I was wrong to suggest that at this we have reached the point that we are basically dancing on Foers grave, that I should never disagree with anything anyone says here because that is just not acceptable, and that the punishment for disagreeing is banishment. OK, I consider myself banished. One last thing, today in TNR they have a pro-Hillary piece called Hero-schmero, which has been universally panned by every subscriber. One poster tuvent08 said: I agree with the consensus position. This article is illogical, contrarian drivel. It perfectly captures the worst impulses of a magazine like Harper's - substance free, to clever by half nonsense. Some future suggestions: "How our country's addiction to oil is a good thing" "How the invasion of Iraq was actually executed competently and why we just don't realize it yet" "Thoughts on Bill Kristol: What if he's actually right about everything?" This is almost more Oniony than the Clinton camp's "Kindergarden" press release. Disagee with it if you want, but the posters at TNR are a hell of lot more amusing and freethinking than you robots here. The sad thing I agree with you that Foer screwed up, but I don't agree strong enough. OK, go back to your hosanna chorus, secure in your convictions that you are never wrong, I have been banished by you, to which you all will gleefully say: good riddance, we are cold and frightened.

Posted by: oaxaca at December 06, 2007 06:57 PM (ALRl0)

74 Oaxaca, for me, a trip to Iraq would be the equivalent of a death sentence. You see, I am a class B hemophiliac. Going to any third world country is essentially suicide for one in my position. I suggest you spend some time in soul-searching.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 06, 2007 08:02 PM (SoUge)

75 CCG - Did you notice that for the morally superior posture oaxaca keeps assuming, he strangely can't bring himself to honestly describe the arguments or positions of others. Dishonesty is not a trait to be admired in people holding themselves out as models of humanity and humility to be emulated. Personally, he sounds like he's related to someone at TNR the way he is defending them.

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 06, 2007 09:33 PM (0pZel)

76 I guess the view is distorted from the top of a self-made pedestal, Daley.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 06, 2007 09:48 PM (SoUge)

77 daley and CCG: I submit, he does bring up good points. The problem with them is that they aren't the subject of the thread. Argue/discuss as you wish, but stay within the thread is all I ask. This mental leapfrog and equating FF/TNR/STB's bad stuff by pointing to other bad stuff is nothing more than facile re-direction. I have no problem with talking about such salient things as "China is on its way to destroying the (fill in the blank)" or "NK/IRAN/China" nuke issues. Just not within completely unrelated posts. Why can he not understand that? Adressing his issue of "small potatos"... we've got to start correcting this stuff somewhere. I sure wish it could be the NYT or NBC/CBS/ABC or any other of the 'mainstream monster media'. Heck, I even have a few problems with FSN...very few, but still some issues. Unfortunately for TNR, they were the ones to print the STB stuff...and then FF's drivel apolgia...which only furthered his error. I wonder if oaxaca even read the 14 pages? I did and upwards of the first 270 posts. And I actually feel a bit sorry for FF. All he did was complicate the problem for himself and TNR with that load of manure. I would have considered cutting him some slack if he would have simply stated "sorry, we screwed up...we apologize to each and every member of the US military, past-present-and future...this will NOT happen again". With his 14 pages he nailed his own coffin shut.

Posted by: Mark at December 06, 2007 11:07 PM (P8ylB)

78 Mark, one also has to ask the question, if Oaxaca really doesn't care about Foer and Beauchamp and TNR, why is he spending so much time and effort in this particular thread? There are other threads here he could have commented on just as easily. Methinks he doth protest his "disinterest" far too loudly.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 07, 2007 12:02 AM (SoUge)

79 Mark and CCG - I agree oaxaca is spending a lot of time on a throw away matter for him given the weightier concerns of the world and his mission to save it that are pressing in on him. He also seems to be a very avid reader of TNR, being able to cite its contents in his comments. Perhaps I was mistaken in my comment about him being related to someone who works there. Maybe he works there himself.

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 07, 2007 12:09 AM (0pZel)

80 Good points, CCG and daleyrocks. Possibly a bit snarky, but well deserved. After re-reading his recent stuff again, I find his OT info to be nothing but mis-direction and attempts at subject changing. I don't have a problem with the subject matter he proposes...just not in this thread. Maybe he's just a "high-quality spammer", I don't know. For the life of me, I thought several of us had very gently pointed out what was bothering us in his posts...others, not so gently. Is this what debate and discussion has come to? It makes me weep for the good old days of Lincoln-Douglas in high-school. *realization* That's it!!! He's running a "squirrel case"...circular argument with repetitive info. Man, am I out of practice or what!? (shakes head sadly)

Posted by: Mark at December 07, 2007 04:44 AM (P8ylB)

81 Mark, Daley, what Oaxaca was attempting to do is perform what passes for thought among lefties. It was first explained by the one and only Thomas Sowell... I'll paraphrase as best I can. Modern leftism/liberalism is based on the concept of "Good People." Basically, the leftymedia has convinced a significant segment of the population that if you want to be a Good Person, you must believe what other Good People believe... and the Good People are always folks like Algore, Barbra, Hanoi Jane, etc. It's actually an old advertising trick, like putting athletes on cereal boxes to give the idea that if you eat the cereal you'll immediately become a star athlete. Anyway, Oaxaca was probably posting all that blather to establish his credentials as a Good Person, after which he no doubt expected us to agree with him--since whatever a Good Person says simply has to be right in the lefty worldview. He may even have successfully used that trick on TNR's forum, Kos, or DU. What he failed to reckon with is that conservatives are interested in facts, not fame. And we're not so shallow as to believe that just because someone does Good Things in third-world countries he's automatically an expert on everything... assuming that Oaxaca actually did those things in those countries; for all we truly know he could be a pimple-faced 13-year-old typing on his computer in his room. I suspect if he reads this he'll come back with a whining diatribe against me, but I can handle it.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 07, 2007 10:02 AM (SoUge)

82 Agreed. The universal curse/blessing of the internet is..."implied anonymity". Personally, if anyone has a beef about my opinions or statements, they can contact me directly. The information is available... right there ↓

Posted by: Mark at December 07, 2007 11:55 AM (4od5C)

83 Considering how dishonest oaxaca continues to be, using ad hominem attacks, changing the subject, and so on, why should we believe anything he says about himself?

Posted by: pst314 at December 10, 2007 01:02 PM (OA547)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Franklin Foer may be telling the truth when he said "no one at TNR has asked him to" resign. Because smart employees rarely tell their bosses such things, of course.

Commenters to his 14-page non-apology were a bit less restrained:

Posted by Chris Christner
7 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
You broke every rule of journalism and in the process slandered our military. At the very least you owe them an apology. If you had a shred of integrity and respect for the reputation of TNR, you'd also submit your resignation. It's obvious that you waited until the last possible moment to retract Beauchamp's stories, only doing so now because the new TNR book on Election 08's just come out. However, regardless of your blame-the-messenger retraction, the Beauchamp affair is still going to hammer your book's credibility along with that of TNR. As it should.

...

Posted by Hey, Pierre Salinger!
25 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin Foer, your petulant whine about the bad ol' Army and the stressed-out Beauchamp are less than believable. You were had because you WANTED to be had. Get over your self-pity and resign, already.

...

Posted by slp
32 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin: It is time to resign.

...

Posted by tdneeley
56 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
I always suspected Beauchamp's stories were crap. I've already canceled my subscription, after 13 or 14 years. Anyone involved in this debacle should do the honorable thing and resign. You people have very nearly destroyed a great magazine, one I enjoyed reading back when Foer and company were going to keggers and sleeping through Journalism 101. What a disgrace. Goodbye.

...

Posted by redherkey
60 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin, While your efforts to explain this certainly must have taken considerable energy, it does not address the fundamental issue which allowed this myth to be published: the lack of management controls enforcing organizational policy and adherence to both company and journalistic codes of conduct. As a competent manager would explain, the outcome you experienced is what is expected when organizational controls are ignored. This is the default condition to which management is empowered to correct. We do not have spouses or even parties related through means other than the job conducting reviews, fact-checking, etc. We do not verify anonymous sources with other anonymous ones. In fact, anonymous sources are never primary sources except in shady journalism due to the inherent uncontrolled abuse it facilitates. We maintain higher tests when accusations are more significant. Having attempted to effect an outcome that damages national security and disparages the U.S. Army, a very high standard is required. Instead, TNR's efforts would not suffice at a junior high school newspaper. This is a management failure, not a complex trickery of a confused young man. Given the track record of TNR, this is also an institutional failure. TNR simply does not have controls sufficient to produce credible, objective non-fiction publications and does not appear capable of self-reform. Should you and the editorial staff and senior management of the publication seek to provide TNR with an opportunity to continue, resignation is the only appropriate action. CanWest should either clean house and refocus this damaged brand or terminate it and write it off as a lesson in corporate governance and oversight.

...

Posted by Cody B
68 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
"The Plank The smartest blog on the web. Period." No dude, you were busted by many, many blogs who are much smarter than you and don't have an agenda. You should resign right after you apologize to our brave men and women serving our country.

...

Posted by FOER-THE-LIER
75 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
FOER: Well, it depends on what the word "LIE" means!! Can you imagine how much time this little dweeb has spent the last month trying to write this? How NIXONIAN. Tricky Dick never weaseled around more. Notice how the libs, when caught in their own morass slither around just like Tricky Dick. Foer - just remember when people look at you now - they are thinking - "There goes that guy that swallowed harder and longer than Monica ever did." Like one other poster said, it couldn't happen to a nicer, more arrogant bastardi. RESIGN NOW.

...

Posted by C. Pruett
78 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
To borrow and paraphrase: Let us not assassinate these lads further, Mr. Foer You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Obfuscatory tripe. Check. Refusal to accept responsibility. Check. Failure to sincerely apologize. Check. Complete lack of integrity. Check. Mr. Foer, an honorable man would resign. Accordingly, I expect you to stay on.

...

Posted by klfoster
81 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Foer suggests that the Army may be guilty of suppressing Beauchamp through intimidation, thereby holding out the slim hope for himself that one day he and Beauchamp will be cleared of all charges. Foer has not offered an apology. He is as misleading in this regard as the meandering Beauchamp story. The owners of The New Republic have a responsibility to their readers, the public and the Army to make management changes at the magazine to restore its credibility.

...

Posted by Gerry Shuller
91 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Is there an ounce of integrity left at TNR? Of course, Foer and other have to go, but more importantly, the next issue of TRN must not only feature an abject apology, but have POSITIVE stories about the American military that is fighting Islamo-fascism in Iraq.

...

Posted by Cato the Elder
99 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Now I see why it took your honest effort so many months to reach a conclusion: it must have taken at least a quarter to come up with and write 14 pages of self-serving garbage. Why is it that a magazine with a history of publishing fakes, lies, forgeries etc. continues to be duped by Q-list fabulists? Do you not learn from your mistakes? Why are the editors of TNR still employed? Take a tip from Howell Raines and go write about your dogs for Field & Stream. This episode shames Franklin Foer, CanWest and a once great magazine. In a better world Mr. Foer would open his stomach immediately after issuing a straightforward correction. Mr. Foer's demonstrated lack of honor precludes his taking that honorable step and Carthage must be destroyed.

...

Posted by Jim C
110 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You slandered our military, lied to your readers about experts that supposedly corroberated Beauchamp's story, and now you have the nerve to pull the "hey, he pulled the wool over our eyes too" card? I hope canwest gets rid of every last one of you. Jim C

...

Posted by fmfnavydoc
122 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
As a member of the military, your apology, Mr. Foer, isn't worth the damn paper it's written on. You and your magazine violated every rule of journalistic and even personal integrity by publishing Scott Thomas Beuachamp's tripe - you have become the latest poster child for "journalistic integrity" - right up there with Dan Rather, CNN and the others that have used the media to spew their vitriol against those that they see as being "inferior" or not holding the same viewpoint. 14 pages to tell the world "we screwed up" - that has to be a record, especially for a journalist. Your actions brought TNR to the level of a gossip mag, or better yet, to a level lower than that seen at a junior high school student paper. Mr. Foer, you need to do the following: 1. Say the following phrase, "I screwed up"... 2. Submit your resignation, effective immediately. 3. Find employment elsewhere - like a fast food restaurant.

...

osted by Thom Walker
153 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Agreed. Resign. Better yet, fold TNR. It's time she died, and newer breaths were heard.Even if - and it's a big IF - 75% of Beauchamp's stories turn out by some miracle to be true... or even 'fact-based'... it doesn't excuse this shoddy attempt at journalism, and it absolutely does not excuse this multi-page non-apology. (I can't remember the last time a public figure even offered a GENUINE apology, vs a "Gosh, I'm sorry if YOU were offended" snake-in-the-grass escape from self-ownership of an issue - and sadly, this article is lower than the average snake's belly.) Thank the great American military - by their amazing self-sacrifice, you're free to publish this tripe anytime you want. Just please, from now on, file it under pulp fiction. Better yet, don't bother.

...

Posted by Richard
159 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
This is absolute garbage. Come clean, Franklin, and then fall on your sword. Confession is good for the soul. Admit you made an egregious set of editing errors and compounded them by initially standing by your story, and then stonewalling for months. And then do the only honorable thing you've done since this started, and resign. Thank you, by the way, for the $6.00 check you sent, refunding the remainder of my subscription.

...

Posted by Takekaze
168 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
When I read those "stories" the first time my reaction was "What the hell?" My brain was screaming "BS alarm!" Let me explain why. I'm not American, but I have served in my country's military for 8 years. I held a rank equivalent to either Staff Sergeant or Master Sergeant (I always mix them up). I was a tankie. When I read about M2 Brads running over dogs as if it was the easiset thing in the world, I was wondering how the hell one would achieve that. Agreed, we don't have Bradleys, but we do have APCs and I seriously doubt that even our best drivers can run over a dog like this (I know my driver can't do it). When I read about "Mandrake's Bride", my only conclusion was: this story is crap. I know that no NCO or officer would allow such behavior in the mess tent. I would bite off my soldiers' heads for something like that. I would make them regret such behavior. As for the pieces of skull on the head. Oh please, such stories come up all the time and they are usually never true. Oldest propaganda. Apart from that, any NCO or officer would stop it right away. In my eight years of service (four active, four in reserves) I had to deal with US troops a few times. They were usually Marines. And, judging from those men and women, I would, without hesitation, put my hand into the fire for their integrity and honor, because I know they would NEVER behave in the ways described in those ridiculous stories. Now, the way I see it, you, the editors, owe the US military and it's men and women an apology. I think you should fly to Iraq, travel from base to base and apologize to every soldier, every marine, every airman, every sailor, every tankie, every grunt, every pilot, every medic, every driver, every NCO, every officer you meet there and then thank them for their hard work in Iraq and A-stan and for protecting your right of slandering them... I mean, your right of free speech, oh those evil typos. You also owe the American public an apology for lying to them.

...

G. Lutz
174 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
To me, the "re-reporting" and quasi retraction of these stories smack of the same mistakes made in the Killian documents debacle. The editors at TNR decided to print the Beauchamp stories with no serious regard to their veracity simply because they fit into their political milieu and it's narrow minded view of the war in Iraq, and the conduct of the American soldiers fighting that war. Further, your report and retraction of the stories, much like the Dan Rather retraction, appears to state that while the articles in question may not be accurate, you still stand by the basic premise of the stories themselves, thus exposing a base partisanship and lack of journalist integrity at TNR. I am disgusted and saddened by the half hearted retraction, and the utter lack of an apology to the men and women of the United States armed forces. TNR just confirmed all the horrible things it is accused of by the "right-wing" blogosphere. When reporting on weighty issues with such far reaching implications one must take extraordinary diligence to ascertain the veracity of any and all claims made. TNR obviously did not do this, as allowing the new wife of the author to fact check the pieces clearly shows. The lack of professionalism with which TNR has conducted itself throughout this lengthy affair is astounding. One can only hope that it leads to some major changes in personnel in your organization.

...

Posted by Roy Mustang
175 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Mr. Foer has proven that is not trustworthy enough to hold his current position. This 15 page intelluctually dishonest editoral only serves to highlight this fact. If TNR ever wants to regain the public's trust, it needs to start with the removal of Mr. Foer.

...

Posted by JPLodine
227 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
For Chrissake, resign already.

...

Posted by Shyron M. Beavers
238 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
As a veteran your I am infuriated that your obvious lies and pure hate for America and the POTUS, this yellow journalism put our fighting men in harms way and the support troops. Next time just say we lied, I'm sorry, and I resign!

...

Posted by Steve
246 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
What a convoluted way of saying, "We lied to you." Remember when people used to be noble and just resign when they majorly screwed up? How can anyone ever believe another word printed by your magazine? It's time to clean house or close down.

That is just halfway into the comments section, but I got tired of cutting and pasting. There were also quite a few comments from former TNR subscribers—and future former TNR subscribers—in the comments, but I didn't attempt an accounting.

Ultimately, it will be Canwest that does that... via advertiser feedback, of course. In the end, I'll be surprised if Mr. Foer's wild ride won't end up costing Canwest millions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 2474 words, total size 14 kb.

It took fourteen pages--13 of those geared towards Franklin' Foer's attempt to keep his job--but here's the punchline:

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

Stay tuned. I'll have much more later, including why Franklin Foer said nothing to justify keeping his job.

Update: As promised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:24 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

1 without yourr efforts this wouldn't have happened at all. everyone who respects truth and demands it from the MSM owes YOU a debt of gratitude. THANK YOU!

Posted by: reliapundit at December 01, 2007 03:46 PM (ji18q)

2 This is (at best) strike 2 for TNR. Foer aside, I don't see how TNR stays in business after this. Your headline is very prescient. Thanks for your perseverance.

Posted by: capitano at December 01, 2007 03:46 PM (+NO33)

3 Hope you lead the outrage against National Review for publishing the lies of W. Thomas Smith Jr. with the same vigor you showed against TNR! Let us know who advertises at National Review so we can start boycotting them!

Posted by: tachyon at December 01, 2007 03:48 PM (WNde0)

4 About freaking time. Nicely done, Bob. Kudos to Mike Goldfarb as well. tachyon, you got a case to make?

Posted by: Pablo at December 01, 2007 03:53 PM (yTndK)

5 I'm always amazed at people demanding OTHERS cover stories they think are important. You can get a free blog, tachyon, so you can do this for yourself.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 01, 2007 03:54 PM (FX4AI)

6 Shut up tachyon.

Posted by: Kaitian at December 01, 2007 03:55 PM (S5mm4)

7 tachyon, What the hell are you talking about? A troll without bait is just an idiot mumbling to himself.

Posted by: open_channel_d at December 01, 2007 03:56 PM (OlDcQ)

8 Someone should do a word count, to see how long it took to get to what is the whole story ". . . we cannot stand by these stories." Still disregarding the first rule of holes at TNR. PS - nice try Tachyon, but have read NRO's statements?

Posted by: Interested Conservative at December 01, 2007 03:57 PM (sfS+u)

9 Tachyon: Blogger offers free blogs. Spew your hatred of conservatives there. But be sure to tell me the name of your blog, so I can go there and post things like this post in your comments section to make you look like a complete fool... unless and until you ban me for making you look like a complete fool. Okay, enough feeding the trolls. Bob, congrats! Got a silver platter handy for Foer's head?

Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 04:08 PM (SoUge)

10 The final nail in the coffin for the phony tales of a real (disgraced) soldier. I hope we have seen the last of these for this war. Too many phony soliers and phony and exaggerated stories all aimed at hurting the war effort. The saddest thing of all is that most of it originated not from the enemy but from our own side, or at least our own countrymen I should say.

Posted by: Sam at December 01, 2007 04:13 PM (JMLfo)

11 Where are W. Thomas Smith Jr.'s lies, tachyon? Please, enlighten me with a few. Otherwise, keep you unfounded ad hominem entertainment in your pocket.

Posted by: Steve Schippert at December 01, 2007 04:15 PM (dk6Rv)

12 You are THE MAN!

Posted by: vanderleun at December 01, 2007 04:19 PM (ULUsu)

13 "Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more " He REGRETS the allegedly high standards of his publication?

Posted by: jmurphy at December 01, 2007 04:22 PM (CYuxe)

14 Keeping current on Foer's malodorous efforts to escape responsibility for TNR's self-induced Beauchamp follies reminds us that seditious libel and slander should entail moral if not economic or legal consequences. By now, we're entitled to consider CanWest an accomplice in this sad-sack's ongoing campaign to deny the undeniable. Foer and his Know Nothing ilk deserve exposure at every opportunity. Your service is invaluable: Thanks.

Posted by: John Blake at December 01, 2007 04:23 PM (RoXf8)

15 For the Smith controversy, see the statements by Mr. Smith and Kathryn Jean Lopez. That NRO's standards are much higher than TNR's will be evident to any fair-minded reader.

Posted by: Tom Veal at December 01, 2007 04:24 PM (CAzoA)

16 After 30+ years in the newspaper business it still amazes me how childishly peevish journalists are when caught fictionalizing their accounts. His homophobic epithet thrown at Matt Sanchez is the sign of another lib who never graduated, emotionally, from 4th grade.

Posted by: Don Surber at December 01, 2007 04:26 PM (YkgNr)

17 NOW they can't stand behind the story? NOW?

Posted by: MagicalPat at December 01, 2007 04:28 PM (98Uei)

18 Thank you for the continuing efforts that ultimately forced The New Republic to admit their negligence. Unfortunately in journalism and politics (to name a couple of occupations) we are witnessing an increasing amount of lying in order to justify the desired ending. It is dedicated people like you who are our heroes.

Posted by: Larry at December 01, 2007 04:40 PM (Ssr0C)

19 Hurrah for the Confederate Yankee!

Posted by: Looking Glass at December 01, 2007 04:46 PM (p3bw6)

20 "Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that." Would TNR please publish those standards? I looked quite a bit at the time of the story's original publication and couldn't find them. Until such point the operative assumption is that they have none, or make them up as they go along.

Posted by: ajacksonian at December 01, 2007 04:52 PM (oy1lQ)

21 I plowed through the entire TNR story and it seems like they still can't quite believe a bunch of redneck good ol' boys enlisted in the Army could pull this over on them. I mean if they were smart, stayed in school and worked hard, they wouldn't be stuck in Iraq, right? So how did they pull a fast one on such obviously better-educated, sophisticated city slickers? Huh? I wonder if the staff spends most of the day answering emails from Nigeria just waiting for the millions to be wired transferred to their accounts. At best, they were gullible and careless beyond belief.

Posted by: jmurphy at December 01, 2007 04:53 PM (CYuxe)

22 Woot. Good job, Bob!

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 01, 2007 04:53 PM (mPkJd)

23 GOOD WORK, BOB! Perhaps a letter writing campaign to TNR's advertisers telling them what we think of its editorial practices might be in order? I sure wouldn't want my goods or services affiliated with such sloppy (at best) journalism practices... If I put out a product like theirs, I'd be out of business before long. A word to the wise???? (and while we're at it, a letter to NYT advertisers too...) might be enuf to push both publications over the financial cliff... Andrea

Posted by: Andrea Shea King at December 01, 2007 04:54 PM (1JIVC)

24 in 14 pages tnr makes numerous allegations about bloggers and other writers - where are the links to these bloggers & other writers. Does tnr expect us to just believe them because they say so without any evidence. My guess is that tnr does not want to use any links so that they 'hit & run' with their allegations.

Posted by: pippolino at December 01, 2007 04:59 PM (fz90b)

25 Sadly, leftists are pretty good at denial, even to themselves. So unless the head office sees otherwise good chance is Foer will pay any consequences for his bull headedness. The other question is of course what of Beauchcamp's wife? She was front an center as to the cause of this flap. Does she get away scot free?

Posted by: johnmc at December 01, 2007 05:00 PM (zAUn9)

26 Thanks for the pursuit... I noted that no comments were posted at TNR... Censorship-? Whatever. It's their website. I posted and urged them to read the MilBlogs-and PAY the milbloggers for their tales-After fact checking. That is -IF- they truly wished to report on the war in Iraq. The question is not about keeping a job. The question is about maintaining a business. How many liars, fabululists, dreamers, wanna-be Norman Mailer drunks-and-wife-beaters, can they peddle and still meet payroll-? There is a role for the Establishment Media to use their reach and expand the tales of truth and honest horror coming forth in the blogs. Read it and see America's youth in action. This generation of military is better trained, better equipped, better educated, smarter and better led than any military we have ever fielded before. These are amazing people... They are also the tip of the iceberg of a new type of American taking over the nation. These are the idealists. They are not motivated by money... They value honesty very highly. They are cynical, skeptical, jaundiced and play by different rules. Their attitude towards authority is more respectful and rebellious-at the same time- than the Boomers. They value and respect honest integrity more than the Boomers ever did. TNR and the NYC/Hollywood Establishment (media and entertainment) do them a tremendous disservice by portraying them as a continuation of the Vietnam era cultural battles. It fits a familiar pattern. It's comfortable. The outcome is known. The good guys are identified and the bad guys are the same... BUT that was yesterday's war... This is a new world. New enemies. New dangers. New weapons. New potential unpleasant outcomes. They say that "Generals always fight the last war"... It looks like the whole Eastern -Yankee- intellectual establishment is fighting a war that was over 35 years ago... Boomers are no longer the center of attention. Squawking and whining, lying and deceiving, will not change that... Keep up the good work...

Posted by: AndyJ at December 01, 2007 05:15 PM (8U3dx)

27 Well done, Bob, (and can't forget Mike Goldfarb). The two of you owned this story, and you've pwn3d Foer so thoroughly that Jesse Jackson will be advising him on filing a slavery-reparations lawsuit against you. Did you notice, in the IM exchange selectively released by Fabricating Franklin, the charming nickname Fab Frank uses for the (nonexistent, actually) disfigured woman? "The Crypt Keeper." Given that Foer was perhaps the only man on Earth who still believed in the existence of a scarred, unhappy woman, the nickname is a beacon into the mineshaft depths of his character. Only in a world where Scott Beauchamp is a brilliant author, could Franklin Foer be a class act. Another little detail worth noting is Foer's belated admission that using Ellie Reeve to "factcheck" Scott was an issue. Uh, ya think? Foer, in fact, did all he did to keep this "fact" from being checked by anyone outside the cozy embrace of TNR-dom, including a spite-firing of the employee who disclosed it. Class act, squared. (Compounded by apparently making Reeve walk the plank in Foer's stead). Can we go for a cube? Sure we can. Remember the Foer hissy outrage (amusing, like a drag queen emoting over a broken nail) when someone dared to release the transcript of discussions with Scott I-Wanna-Be-Hemingway that showed that Foer had been dissembling about his "investigation?" Upset over publishing fabrications: nil. Upset over people unearthing his carefully buried evidence, evidence that he knew he was standing behind fabrications: boundless. Irony: priceless. And let's just throw one last one in there. How about the "re-reporting" which was exposed as, having Ellie Reeve and the TNR "fact checkers" call and mislead people into giving quotes that could be misrepresented as supporting Beauchamp. Class act to the fourth power, that's Fabricating Franklin Foer. I can honestly say I haven't followed a link to TNR on any subject since this broke. Why should I? Who can trust them not to just make stuff up like Glass, Eve Fairbanks, Beauchamp and Foer have systematically done? It's not like there aren't alternative sources of opinion on the net -- any random blog chosen by lot is likely to have higher standards than Peretz/Zengerle/Foer. I particularly salute you for wading in that cesspool for all these months, waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at December 01, 2007 05:18 PM (LkeNv)

28 So, do we know for certain if Foer's job is actually in jeopardy here? I know it should be, at least in a sane world. Of course, in a sane world, Dan Rather would have been fired for journalistic incompetence (not to mention crappy ratings) sometime around 1985.

Posted by: OregonMuse at December 01, 2007 05:21 PM (JpJT3)

29 Notice what Foer did not say in his fourteen pages of rambling. - He offered no apology to anyone. - He mentioned no plans for disciplinary action against anyone on the TNR staff. Apparently they are all blameless victims who were overwhelmed by Beauchamp's Jedi mind tricks. None of this fiasco is their fault. - He promised no corrective measures to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. (Yes, he did say "we've imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest." But he provided no details. This amounts to nothing more than "Trust us, we've fixed the problem.) Pathetic.

Posted by: Pat at December 01, 2007 05:29 PM (0suEp)

30 While it's nice to have closure and confirmation that TNR has finally caught up with what independent blogs had concluded for quite some time, there's still the matter of accountability for TNR's material breach of journalistic ethics (not to mention its unsubstantiated damage of the U.S. army and other institutions). The immediate termination of Foer and TNR editorial staff is mandatory. Foer placed the responsibility for fact-confirmation on a highly controversial and potentially disparaging story lacking normal controls into the hands of the writer's spouse. Corporate governance standards (and I'd presume TNR's corporate policy statement on the behavior of its officers) normally dictate that these controls, separation of duties, etc. be administered by management, and the failure to oversee these management controls is grounds for termination. It's CanWest's governance responsibility now to remove these managers and clean house.

Posted by: redherkey at December 01, 2007 05:31 PM (kjqFg)

31 Congrats, Bob! Alas, I still don't think it will do that much good. With one little clarification, I still stand by my prediction: * Foer will issue some weasel-worded statement to the tune of "We have not been given any information to change our original assessment of the story. The U.S. military continues to stonewall on releasing the results of its investigation, and Beauchamp is not free to speak. Beauchamp stands by his account, but because we cannot corroborate every minor detail of his story, we must adhere to our ever-so-high journalistic standards and withdraw our support (although, c'mon, you know they're really true)." The departure of lower-ranked TNR employees will not be mentioned. [Check!] Foer will keep his job. [TBD] * Beauchamp will continue his "no comment" policy, and will more or less keep his nose clean while in the Army. * At some point in the future, Beauchamp will receive an honorable discharge. When he is beyond the Army's reach, he will loudly proclaim that his stories were true, dammit, and that he was being coerced by evil superior officers to keep silent. * Vast numbers of left-wing true believers will take up his cause, and he will become yet another hero who Speaks Truth to Power. The media will report his drivel without criticism; if they mention the controversy over the TNR articles' veracity at all they will attribute it to "an attack squad of far-right-wing bloggers." Beauchamp will write a book and an op-ed piece for Newsweek. I wish it weren't so, but that's how I believe this will play out. I will say, though, that I didn't anticipate Foer's "Our critics are gay!" defense.

Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at December 01, 2007 05:39 PM (qmdN5)

32 Bob, I join all the others who have congratulated you on all the hard work in covering this story. I can't help noticing the actions of one of Mr. Foer's predecessors, Andrew Sullivan, and his reaction to all of this. In the past 24 hours he has put up three posts attempting to draw direct parallels between this TNR real scandal and the faux NRO scandal. He put up today at 5:30PM, per his timed blog post, another item that provided Links to his prior three posts on the NRO "story." He fails to note one major difference (among many) between the TNR and NRO situations. Nearly 5 months after issues are raised, TNR puts out these 14 pages of mush. Within hours of being apprised of potential problems with material posted on their blog, NRO issue this: "We owe him and our readers better — we should have gotten you more context and information before a post or two went live. It's understandable how it happened — the nature of blogging being what it is — but given what an underreported tinderbox we're talking about, especially, we owed you more. We weren't blogging about Dancing with the Stars there." Readers of TNR have yet to see even a tiny scintilla of such an apology for their demonstrated editorial and fact-checking deficiencies, not to mention outright lies.

Posted by: Terry at December 01, 2007 05:43 PM (d/RyS)

33 How can you say this clown didn't "justify his job"? A boring, oblique, logorrheic 7,000-word hedge that not one in a million outside the wonkosphere will bother to read or understand is a masterstroke! The guy is brilliant and deserves a raise.

Posted by: Dan Friedman at December 01, 2007 05:45 PM (h58qq)

34 Congratulations and a big well done to you, Bob.

Posted by: Sara at December 01, 2007 05:47 PM (QWlxD)

35 I was expecting Foer to conclude with, "And if it wasn't for you meddling milbloggers we would have gotten away with it too!" Fine, fine work, Bob! BTW, we've have a screen capture of Franklin retracting his support for Beauchamp: http://exurbanleague.com/2007/12/01/franklin-litella.aspx.

Posted by: Exurban Jon at December 01, 2007 05:54 PM (3GwKL)

36 Thanks again for all your work, Bob. One thing that gets lost, after so long, and since so much hard work was required to drag this grudging admission from Foer, is that those folks, veterans mostly, who insisted from the get-go that the stories just didn't ring true, were not deluded, lying, fooling themselves, Pollyannish, or even partisan. They were, to put it simply, correct. They knew know more about our troops in Iraq, because they know more about our troops. And that so many knew so quickly, even before the indisputable case was so carefully made by Bob, shows how out-of-touch Foer & Co. were and are with what is really happening in Iraq, and how our military actually operates, and for that matter, what combat actually DOES do to change a person.

Posted by: notropis at December 01, 2007 06:12 PM (gmGTc)

37 Great job, Bob! And YES, TNR did used to have high standards and I wrote for them. But I have written for them in awhile and there's a reason.

Posted by: Michael Fumento at December 01, 2007 06:13 PM (YeBm1)

38 Yes, congrats. I re-linked your interview on the BFV in my take at Protein Wisdom.

Posted by: Karl at December 01, 2007 06:23 PM (MRuOu)

39 Agree with you, Dan Friedman. I slogged through the entire piece wondering when it would come to a conclusion stronger than, "DID NOT!". I have been truly shocked at the depths to which some formerly decent and honorable (though mistaken) cultural/political opponents have sunk. I will be in error someday and this whole episode has further confirmed the essential character trait of humility. Please God, let me be right. But if I can't be right, let me be righteous.

Posted by: Trish at December 01, 2007 07:04 PM (7xtYi)

40 Thanks, Bob. You and Goldfarb did something that I couldn't, forced the people trying to besmirch the honor of the young men (and now women) wearing the uniforms that we used to wear.

Posted by: Peter at December 01, 2007 07:09 PM (AiJXe)

41 I think that my favorite part was his description of the conversation with Major John Cross: "Bradleys, he told us, unintentionally hit dogs. Indeed, dogs flock toward Bradleys. We weren't sure what to make of these statements." Um, yeah, ok -- Foer thinks that if he can prove that dogs really do get hit by motor vehicles (*gasp* who knew?!?) that this would bolster Beauchamp's credibility?

Posted by: cathyf at December 01, 2007 07:21 PM (fe6fb)

42 Good thing you weren't a porn star in a previous life.

Posted by: Patrick Carroll at December 01, 2007 08:02 PM (1NFF8)

43 In your earlier note (TNR's Last Stand?) http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/247672.php you said > Foer's story needs to include only three key elements to be successful, and without these three elements Franklin Foer's career and the integrity of The New Republic is shattered. Big Fail on all 3. He mostly ignored the skull wearing. He tried to justify the Dog-killing Bradley stories by finding soldiers who said that a dog might have been run over. Big diff between a dog getting run over and a driver TARGETING dogs and killing many. (others have covered the mess hall incident)

Posted by: Arthur at December 01, 2007 09:11 PM (H4LjR)

44 Thank you for the link to TNR's 14 page pusillanimous explanation of why, through no fault of their own, they can no longer stand by the Beauchamp stories. They have obviously been a victim in this whole saga. What a crock of BS they are trying to peddle. Time to grow up Franklin. You screwed up, other people didn't screw you. Great job and persistence on this Bob.

Posted by: daleyrocks at December 01, 2007 10:04 PM (0pZel)

45 Daley, Daley, Daley... the core of the lefty worldview is that lefties are never wrong, it's always someone else's fault, thereby making them the innocent victims. This actually started before George W. Bush was elected, he just provided a convenient new bogeyman for their blame-seeking. So, Foer is just doing what he's been taught to do through decades of being a lefty.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 10:33 PM (4g5mr)

46 Congratulations, Bob. This is as big a victory for you as it is for anyone else. You deserve a lot of credit for keeping the pressure on these guys and keeping us all informed. I admit, I never thought I would see the day they...but your fortitude has been well rewarded!

Posted by: T.Ferg at December 01, 2007 10:49 PM (j64ME)

47 I read through a good portion of the piece. It reads like a sob story. Hey, he pulled the wool over my eyes too... don't fire me! It also looks like he is still trying the fake but accurate line in regards to what war does to ones sense of humor. Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at December 01, 2007 10:57 PM (ON55K)

48 Franklin Foer mentioned you specifically, and not with what you could call fondness. Consider this a compliment of the highest order. Although with FF's lengthy self-justification fluffing up the article, you may have to excerpt it yourself and mail it to your mom. Shorter FF: "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"

Posted by: Mitch at December 01, 2007 11:42 PM (rdGSr)

49 Where have I been? Just got caught up on the controversy regarding Smith's reporting at The Tank. So, I owe an apology to tachyon. Whatever the discrepancies - appears to me Smith embellished a bit what he saw - I do not think them intentionally misleading but rather the anxious mind in a dangerous spot translating what the eyes saw reinforced by people he trusted. That and the fact that Smith was describing the enemy he saw in possibly inflating terms (he appears to have seen a 'tip' and his sources and March 14 protectors described an 'iceberg' which he ran with), while Beauchamp and TNR were writing outright fabrications denigrating our own servicemen. tachyon makes an important point about treating all sources with the same standards. With these two examples, however, let's just not go crazy and suggest they are equal in scale and scope. It isn't even close.

Posted by: Steve Schippert at December 02, 2007 12:28 AM (dk6Rv)

50 With these two examples, however, let's just not go crazy and suggest they are equal in scale and scope. It isn't even close. And we also see an example of how you should act when you've got a story with problems. You come out and correct it, and apologize where applicable. You don't attack the people who point out your failings. Push the button, Frank.

Posted by: Pablo at December 02, 2007 05:09 AM (yTndK)

51 While it's nice to have closure... Closure would be Foer in the unemployment line.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 02, 2007 08:03 AM (yaQ0s)

52 Congratulations Bob, Your work on TNR and Foer should be used in Journalism schools as an example of what can happen to you in this age when you resort to using your paper/blog/show to deceive the public on what is really happening in the world. As for Foer's 14 page manifesto, that was nothing but mental masturbation on his part - "I was lied to, and made bad decisions, but I'm speaking TRUTH TO POWER". If TNR's parent company has some balls, Foer would be cleaning out his desk today, and they would be closing up shop by the end of the month. Foer and Beauchamp can stand proudly next to Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Jayson Blair and the other "stalwarts of journalistic integrity" that have been pwned over the last couple of years. Bob - you need to have some theme music. How about "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen?

Posted by: fmfnavydoc at December 02, 2007 10:17 AM (I6QiV)

53 Great work, Bob! I look forward to your upcoming contributions to the Thomas Smith scandal brewing at NRO!

Posted by: dogbot53 at December 02, 2007 02:43 PM (9I+0q)

54 Dogbot is a good name for you, since you're following the pre-programmed instructions coming from your lefty friends. Mr. Smith, and Ms. Lopez, the editor, have done something Mr. Foer took 4 months to do: admitted error and apologized. Lopez did so here, Smith did so here. Please read those two posts very carefully. That's how you take care of a published mistake, not the way Mr. Foer has been handling it. In short, your feeble attempts to draw parallels between the two incidents is failing the logic test, not to mention the laugh test, miserably.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 03:52 PM (4g5mr)

55 I look forward to your upcoming contributions to the Thomas Smith scandal brewing at NRO! Brewing? It's not brewing. Errors were made, acknowledged and corrected. Apologies to all were issued. That's how it ought to be done. No one expects perfection. We do expect honesty.

Posted by: Pablo at December 02, 2007 05:56 PM (yTndK)

56 I look forward with real regret to the demise of the New Republic. It was a good magazine under Marty Peretz; although I usually disagreed with almost everything they wrote, I enjoyed it. In Foer, they have sent a boy to do a man's job. I hope he joins the unemployment line soon.

Posted by: miriam at December 02, 2007 10:46 PM (Zp7CU)

57 14 pages of fairbanksing. My comments at TNR are posted as 'Shooter' from Mr. Right. At least, I was the only person using that handle before making this comment here. How on earth anybody can compare this to the National Review deal is beyond me. But, David Weigel at Reason hipped me to a point, that Smith's work is in question and he is still posting in "The Tank". I am not convinced that this is a valid point, especially since his posts since this came up have been about the Army/Navy game and comments on news articles.

Posted by: Guy Montag at December 04, 2007 06:52 AM (otDb3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, rotated out of Iraqi several weeks ago to their home base in Schweinfurt, Germany. This included noted fabulist Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Whether Beauchamp is still in Germany or has been allowed home on leave is rather irrelevant; he matters quite little now that he has established that he will not support his dark fantasies on the record.

What does matter is that Franklin Foer and The New Republic have lost yet another excuse in their continued failure to account for the actions of the magazine's editors since "Shock Troops" was first questioned July 18, over four months ago. Now that Beauchamp is out of the war zone and back in western civilization, Foer is unable to claim that he military is muzzling his communication or that of his fellow soldiers.

Rumor has it that Franklin Foer is presently attempting to pen his final justification of the story, and that it will be published in a December editor of the magazine.

Foer's story needs to include only three key elements to be successful, and without these three elements Franklin Foer's career and the integrity of The New Republic is shattered.

Names.
What is the name of the fabled woman with the melted face? What was the name of the other soldier in the chow hall that participated in this alleged verbal assault along with Beauchamp against this woman? What is the name of the soldier that wore a fragmented child's skull on his head? What was the name of the Bradley IFV driver who ran over three dogs in one mission?

Will Scott Thomas Beauchamp stand behind his stories on the record, or not?

Dates.
How does the magazine justify standing behind the central theme of "Shock Troops"—that war made the author into a horrible person—when the magazine itself now claims that the alleged verbal attack took place before the author ever entered combat?

Why has it taken so long for the magazine to mount a defense for an article that the editor claims was fact-checked prior to publication?

Places.
Where is the "Saddam-era dumping ground" filled with, "All children's bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades"?

It All Comes Down to This.

Does The New Republic have the solid factual evidence to support these stories?

Did the editors of The New Republic act unethically by burying collected testimony, deceiving their readers, misleading and hiding expert witnesses, and falsely attacking the military as it conducted a formal investigation?

Franklin Foer's next article on the "Shock Troops" scandal needs to contain names, places, dates, and unimpeachable justifications for unethical behavior that have been sorely lacking in the nearly five months up until this point. If he cannot provide these details, this next article in The New Republic should be his last.

I'm sure TNR's few remaining advertisers will be watching.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:08 AM | Comments (55) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting (my bold):

The New Republic is looking for an assistant editor to fill an immediate opening in our Washington, DC office. The assistant editor will be responsible for guiding the magazine's fact-checking department (including overseeing the reporter-researchers), along with writing stories for the magazine and the website. Ideally, you'd be coming into the job with 1-2 years experience fact-checking and reporting, some solid clips, and a passion for the kind of long-form magazine reporting we do. Experience with specifically political journalism is, of course, a major plus — attention to detail and strong research skills are a prerequisite. Send cover letter, resume, and 4-5 clips to Britt Peterson at job@tnr.com with "assistant editor application" in the subject heading.

Looking at the masthead, the Assistant Editor that TNR is replacing seems to be Keelin McDonell, who was the longest-serving of TNR's most recent crop of assistant editors.

If she was indeed the "responsible for guiding the magazine's fact-checking department" during the period Scott Beauchamp published three articles with glaring fact errors in them, it would seem just cause for the magazine to find a replacement.

It would in no way, however, excuse the multiple, high level ethical breaches of more senior editors who seem intent on swearing to the veracity of this proven false fabulist to their very last breath.

(h/t Just a Canuck)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:26 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

From Tony Jewell, media contact for Astrazeneca, via email:

Good afternoon and thank you for giving us a chance to respond to your concerns.

We last bought an advertisement in The New Republic in late May, though they ran a free ad as part of a promotion last month. We currently have no plans to advertise in The New Republic for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:35 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

At least two of the leading advertisers for The New Republic are reconsidering their advertising relationships with the magazine in the wake of the magazines handling of the Scott Beauchamp "Shock Troop" scandal.

Kathy Leech, Director of Brand Communications for BP, stated via email that "We are very aware of the allegations against the New Republic and are reviewing the situation prior to making a decision about our advertising."

In a follow-up email, Leech stated that BP did not "need any further information."

When asked on when they might make a decision, she stated, "We are reviewing the situation as we speak, so we're likely to make a decision shortly."

BP's decision will be an internal decision, and will not be made public. The only way the results of the decision will be known is by whether or not BP is still advertising in The New Republic in the months ahead.

According to reliable sources, at least one other key TNR advertiser is re-evaluating their relationship with The New Republic in the wake of the magazine's handing of the Scott Beauchamp "Shock Troops" scandal. The scandal developed when the author, an Army private in Iraq, made allegations of brutality against his fellow soldiers that were found to be false in a formal U.S. Army investigation.

Though apparently unable to produce any evidence to support the claims for almost four months, The New Republic continues to stand by the story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:30 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Along with at least one other person who contacted Canwest Global CFO John McGuire as part of the letter-writing campaign, I received an email from Elisabeth Sheldon, publisher of The New Republic.

Dear Mr. Owens,



Thank you very much for your interest in The New Republic . Your concerns were forwarded to me from John Maguire in our corporate offices.

While getting conclusive information on the Beauchamp file has been challenging, the editorial team posted an update on the website last Friday, October 26.

You will have a complete response soon.

From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.

Please be assured that we share your interest in transparency and in clarifying TNR's position as soon as possible.

Once we publish the final findings of our investigation, we hope that your confidence in The New Republic will be fully restored.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Sheldon
Publisher

I responded to Publisher Sheldon and CC'd CFO Maguire:

Publisher Sheldon,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond.

I do agree with you on a major point in your letter: getting conclusive information on the Beauchamp file has indeed been challenging, which is why, as an ethical publisher, you no doubt understand that when a part of a story, and entire story, or entire series of story contain elements that cannot be verified, it is incumbent on the publication to immediately retract some or all of those stories, even if conditionally.

We saw examples of how this should be addressed by publishing professionals last summer, when photographs taken by Adnan Hajj were discovered to have been manipulated on August 5, 2006. By August 7, after other discrepancies were found, Reuters "killed" all 920 pictures of Hajj's they had for sale, and by January 18, 2007 a top Reuters photo editor had been fired.

Reuters retracted the initial Hajj photo the same day it was discovered, and the next day disassociated themselves from the disgraced photographer after more evidence of doctored photos was found. 48 hours later, as a precautionary measure, they killed all of his work. A little more than five months later, Reuters fired the photo editor that let these manipulated photos slip into publication.

The comparisons between the Hajj case and the Beauchamp case are quite dissimilar.

When Michael Goldfarb challenged Beauchamp's story "Shock Troops" for the first time on July 18, his immediate responses came from soldiers in our military--experts, if you will--that strongly disputed the claims of the author, along with military vehicle experts. The New Republic had every reason to conditionally retract all three anecdotes in "Shock Troops" pending re-verification of the contentions of the author no later than the evening of July 18.

We all know, of course, that this did not happen. The story stayed up.

By July 20, it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the author fabricated key elements of a previous story, "Dead of Night." In that story, the author claimed to have found a kind of pistol cartridge which does not exist. He also ascribes a murder to the Iraqi police because, "The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

Had the editors of The New Republic made even a passing attempt at fact-checking this story, they would have quickly noted that there is no such thing as a square-backed 9mm cartridge. They would know that the Glock pistol chambers a standard 9mm NATO pistol cartridge, easily the most popular and reproduced pistol cartridge on planet Earth. They would also have known, if they had even bothered to try so much as a Google search, that the Glock, far from being a weapon only provided to the Iraqi police, is among the most widespread handguns in the country of Iraq.

Likewise, it was noted that the author's first story, "War Bonds" was predicated on the author meeting an Iraqi boy while pulling security for a Humvee that was having its tire changed on a urban patrol. Because of the threat of ambush, it is standard operating procedure to tow vehicles that are disabled. There is also the not so minor detail that Humvees are all equipped with run-flat tires, a fact published no later than July 25.

At this point a responsible publication should concede to grievous problems with the three stories they published by this author, conditionally retract all three of them, and explain that this was done to ensure that this was done out of a respect for the magazine's readers, and that an investigation would be conducted quickly and competently.

Of course, we know that didn't happen.

Instead, Franklin Foe claimed, and has claimed, that "Shock Troops" was "rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published," a statement disproven by Foer when he had to shift the time of one key claim months into the past, and into another country. Doing so demolished the entire premise of the story, and again, should have necessitated a full retraction of this article. Once again, the editors of The New Republic failed their readers.

It has gotten worse, of course.

On August 2, "The Editors" attempted to claim that in attempting to "re-report" this story they interviewed:

...current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers...

We know that multiple Army Public Affairs officers told The New Republic that the story was false prior to this publication, including Major Kirk Luedeke at FOB Falcon and Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons.

Since then, quite a few more experts have come forward to deny this story, as I noted earlier this week in a comment elsewhere:

Col. Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Multi-National Division-Baghdad. Beauchamp's CO. "He [Beauchamp] did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place."

Major John Cross, the investigating officer of the formal investigation which found all claims to be false.

First Sergeant Hatley, Beauchamp's Sgt, who stated from the beginning "not a single word of this was true."

Major Kirk Luedeke, FOB Falcon PAO.

Major Renee D. Russo. Kuwait-based PAO, called the burned woman claim an "urban myth or legend." Told that to TNR's Jason Zengerle months ago. TNR refused to print it.

William "Big Country" Coughlin, civilian contractor, Camp Arifjan Kuwait. Said such a woman never existed, other words unsuitable for print.

Doug Coffey, Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, manufacturer of the Bradley IFV. Debunked the physics/mechanics of the dog story. Also killed TNR's credibility when it was revealed TNR purposefully refused to provide him details of the story, in order to create their whitewash of an investigation with their "re-reporting."

Richard Peters, Iraq Veterans Against the War (formerly stationed at FOB Falcon in 2005-2006) who called Beauchamp's claims "elaborate lies" and Beauchamp himself a "loser."

There were, of course, more. There was a formal military investigation completed, and all of the claims made in "Shock Troops" we found false. Not just uncorroborated: false.

How have Franklin Foer and The New Republic defended their inaction to date?

They've failed to provide a single on-the-record statement by any expert or soldier to corroborate the author's claims. In fact, one of the experts interviewed by The New Republic, Doug Coffey, Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, revealed that The New Republic did not show him the claims made by Beauchamp at all, and once he did review the claims made in the story, found them highly unlikely.

In addition to failing to support the story, there is evidence that they have attempted to orchestrate a cover-up for the fact that they did not fact-check a single one of the author's stories prior to publication, even though claims made in those stories include acts of barbarity, cruelty, and even an spurious allegation of murder.

"Shock Troops" should have been conditionally withdrawn by the evening of July 18, and all three of the author's stories should have been withdrawn no later than July 20.

The Editors of The New Republic passed this point over three months ago. Since then, the editors in this story have only further dishonored themselves and the magazine as they concealed testimony, hid interviews, attacked the military, and other critics, and misused experts.

I would ask you, Publisher Sheldon, just how seriously you regard The New Republic's obligation to act within a framework of journalistic ethics, and to what standards you feel the editors of The New Republic should be held accountable.

Sincerely,

Bob Owens

It will be interesting to note how she choses to respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 1483 words, total size 10 kb.

1 It will be interesting to note how she choses to respond. I'll put $5 on "she chooses not to respond, at least not directly."

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 09:19 PM (ysloH)

2 Bob, I'm sure you noticed that your response from Elizabeth Sheldon was word for word the same as a response received by a commenter here. As one of the primary investigators of this sordid little mess that TNR has dug up for itself, one might have thought TNR would do you the courtesy of a personalized response. TNR knows who you are. CanWest knows who you are - they've been a-visiting here, so you've mntioned. And yet this is the response you get. Sure seems completely dismissive to me.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 09:29 PM (hgxwr)

3 Well, yeah. I'm just a little blogger, and they're a respected magazine. They've got nothing to fear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 09:33 PM (HcgFD)

4 Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM (a8C6P)

5 I learned how long ago. Putting it into practice is admittedly spotty at times...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 09:59 PM (HcgFD)

6 I believe you have received their response. It think it's telling when she states "the baghdad diarist represent 3 pages out of 1,100 editorial pages." The company line will be "you right wing nutjobs are blowing this all out of proportion. Move along."

Posted by: Tim at October 31, 2007 10:00 PM (qi6HT)

7 From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response. She seems to be mystified by this. How amusing. I will be surprised if she answers with anything more than yet another evasion. Good for you for keeping the pressure on!

Posted by: Teresa at October 31, 2007 10:12 PM (rVIv9)

8 i agree with Tim, Bob. you have heard from the TNR folks all you are going to hear. the only thing you will hear from that publication going forward is the sound of wagons circling. THEY believe Beauchamp, and they believe the worst about the troops and the allied mission in Iraq. Thus you will not hear from them again, imho.

Posted by: mike d at October 31, 2007 10:23 PM (9m/wk)

9 You're doing great work, Bob, bless you. I've personally gotten to the point where I don't care, anymore. I don't trust anything these people report, anyway, so why should it matter to me whether they retract this Beauchamp b.s. or hunker down and hope that it blows over? Unfortunately, I think that they are hoping that all of us adopt the same attitude. So, I guess that the moral of the story is: Don't be like me. Keep fighting.

Posted by: SWLiP at October 31, 2007 10:45 PM (PqwKs)

10 From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response. You can always use the classic "6 sigma" approach... So it's okay to have 3 pages of over 1,100 pages that are complete lies? I guess it's okay to have 3 patients die of mysterious causes in a hospital with 1,100 beds. Of course, she also skews the stats by mixing pure opinion editorial content with this content which is pure narrative.

Posted by: JFH at October 31, 2007 10:48 PM (/bUQy)

11 "Skip the rush to judgement, rush to boycott." Er . . . what rush? Did you not understand a single word that Bob wrote? The entire point of his article is that the TNR editors have had three months to respond to these charges. That is far longer than Reuters needed to respond when Adnan Hajj's chicanery was exposed. TNR's critics have been far more patient than the magazine deserves. Franklin Foer and his staff have failed to provide an appropriate response not because anyone is "rushing" them, but because Foer and company have chosen to stonewall, spin, and lie rather than admit that they screwed up. How much longer is Bob obligated to wait, in your view? Another three months? Six months? A year?

Posted by: Pat at October 31, 2007 10:50 PM (0suEp)

12 Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing. Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM This has to be one of Mr. Grammar/Spelling challenged by day - sock puppet by night Glenn Greenwald's editors I presume?

Posted by: Timber at October 31, 2007 10:51 PM (ryO1F)

13 "Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing. Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM" Snotty Jake here has his eye on the prize. It doesn't matter how strong, how dispositive your evidence. What REALLY matters is making sure one uses "who", "that" and "which" correctly on a blog, where typically nothing is proofread.. Granted, I'm all for proper grammar and syntax. But fer GAWD's SAKE, Jake, can't you offer any opinion about the article itself, instead of giving us prissy comments not about what the author said, but how he said it?

Posted by: fulldroolcup at October 31, 2007 10:52 PM (NT2Kh)

14 That was odd. The comment I was replying to disappeared while I was composing my response. What happened?

Posted by: Pat at October 31, 2007 10:53 PM (0suEp)

15 I agree with the above, Bob. These people have an entirely different concept of Truth. What advances their agenda, and makes them feel good about themselves is "truth." It was Rather, I believe, that in all seriousness advanced the notion that something could be false, yet accurate. There is just no dealing with such people. Their time has passed, but they don't see it. Time, Newsweek, and the old, gray woman are physically shrinking before our eyes, and yet they still believe...something. Ms. Sheldon, Your goose is cooked, but you can't see that it is plucked, and so are you.

Posted by: Bill Smith at October 31, 2007 11:03 PM (qCN0l)

16 ...represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year... Only 1097 pages left to fisk. I wonder how many more errors we will find.

Posted by: MagicalPat at October 31, 2007 11:12 PM (Rs/R9)

17 Reading that "3 [out of] 1100" comment I couldn't help thinking (I don't know why) of John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln. After all, Wilkes' bullet was just one out of millions fired by those supporting the Southern cause, yet "it accounted for a hugely disproportioned [sic] amount of time in trying to deal with the response." Sometimes size is irrelevant to importance. Also, I'm with Jake on the grammar. It can make a huge difference in giving a professional appearance and can carry one a long, long way in getting taken seriously. It's not too much to ask when writing to a magazine to make an effort to get the grammar (and spelling) 99.9% correct. It's in any writer's best long-term interest. As an example, Ms. Sheldon needs to bone up on the difference between "disproportioned" and "disproportionate". (As well as the difference between good journalism and shoddy journalism.)

Posted by: kcom at October 31, 2007 11:12 PM (JIczq)

18 Three of 1,100 leaves 1,097 stories still waiting to be fact-checked.

Posted by: J. Roth at October 31, 2007 11:24 PM (xrZlH)

19 Nifong tried the same game. He said he had "evidence." And, the defense wasn't allowed to have this presented to them in an organized manner. Instead, one defense attorney, buying a book on reading DNA, sat with these thousands of entries, spread out on a conference table. To decern what Nifong tried to hide. For this reason, in RULES OF EVIDENCE, the defense can have their own experts. It might not look like a mistake, now. But the US ARMY did have control of Beauchamp. And, he was not made available to TNR. Then? Well, you get the Nifong presentation. You can buy it. Or not. But for the US Army's PR machine to go after TNR, and ask them to surrender; overlooks the fact that our army should not be engaged in destroying liberal magazines. That's just a difference in points of view. So far, this Iraqi engagement has cost us $3-trillion dollars. Maliki doesn't like Mr. Bush. And, we have troops in harm's way; among arabs who wouldn't mind killing our kids. We've had to learn protective measures. This should not include going after a publication. Not without giving Franklin Foer the first thing he asked for: ACCESS. ACCESS DENIED. IS JUSTICE DENIED.

Posted by: Carol Herman at October 31, 2007 11:37 PM (q0Srt)

20 aside: Is calling her 'Publisher Sheldon' the appropriate way to start your letter, Blogger Owens? Might be, but it sounds pretty funny .

Posted by: Kevin at October 31, 2007 11:45 PM (f0QzP)

21 I see that Ms. Herman hasn't been paying attention.

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at November 01, 2007 12:19 AM (Ef+b7)

22 Oh, Ms. Herman has been paying attention, but Ms. Herman is attempting a bit of misdirection, and chaff flinging. Bob has TNR nailed, and everybody knows it. What Nifong did, how Maliki feels, and the U. S. Army did NOT do, Ms. Herman, has zip to do with the facts presented. Ms. Harman is trying the Rather defense: Our facts were wrong, but WE are right. Whatever...

Posted by: Bill Smith at November 01, 2007 12:56 AM (qCN0l)

23 Carol - The U.S. Army is not making allegations against TNR. Their only actions were against Beauchamp. Check your facts. If TNR has already 100% fact checked and rechecked the articles as they claim, they should not even need Beauchamp to prove the veracity of what they printed. Let them lay out their case. There is nothing they should be waiting for based on their prior statements.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 01:07 AM (0pZel)

24 But the US ARMY did have control of Beauchamp. And, he was not made available to TNR. Er, no, Carol. The only claim that "Beauchamp was not made available" was made by Franklin Foer. In every one of Foer's claims about this case that has been subject to independent examination, from "fact-checked before publication" to "we have been unable to speak...", Foer has been demonstrated to be lying. The only things that Foer, TNR, and this Sheldon broad have come up with from their side are anonymous (nonexistent?) sources and unsourced and unverifiable allegations. Stephen Glass at least tried to dummy up some evidence when he started TNR down the path of fabrication upon which others (serial fabricator Eve Fairbanks and now Foer hisownself) have kept the magazine. They talk about the Army stonewalling, but consider the secrets they kept: * the Beauchamp-Reeve connection * the absence of pre-release fact-checking * the phone call * Beauchamp's refusal to stand by the story(!) * Their own (Scoblic) conclusion that this merited retraction(!) * Scoblic's backpedaling from involvement with the story (throwing Foer under bus?) * the threat to Reeve's job in the phone call * the subsequent execution of the threat * the names of their corroborators (if any) * the names of their military experts (ditto) * the date, time and content of the FOIA filing (if any) Transparency, my eye. As an editor, Fabricating Franklin is a phony facsimile. In the phone conversation (which Fabricating Frank kept secret), Peter Scoblic says that Frank's reputation has been dragged through the mud. Sure it has, but only by Frank. If you lie, you get a reputation as a liar. Ms Sheldon seems to think this terribly unfair. As she climbs down into Franklin Foer's mud.

Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at November 01, 2007 01:10 AM (LkeNv)

25 I think your letter to Ms.Sheldon was too long. A shorter one would be: Ms.Sheldon Apparently when the "Weekly World News" ceased publication, you figured that the market niche for a publication that everybody knows is false had opened up. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your refusal to fire Franklin Foer so that his replacement can try to rebuild the shattered reputation of "The New Republic".

Posted by: Mark in Texas at November 01, 2007 01:33 AM (zoTIM)

26 How many of the 1,100 pages are advertising? Perhaps they can rebrand themselves as publishers of war porn fiction. A lurid picture of a dog being run over by an M1A1 should be good for their first cover. Sad eyes with an "I know I'm going to die" look would be perfect. I think (given the TNR attitude) that there is a big market for this stuff. Throw in a couple of "no shit, I was there when it happened" type phrases and you have a real winner.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:17 AM (eeb3t)

27 Carol, You are usually much better informed than you comment above indicates. Either some one has stole your nic or you are losing your touch. I vote for stolen nic. The above is too short for a real Carol Herman bit. Simon

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:28 AM (eeb3t)

28 "...represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year...hugely disproportioned amount of time..." If those other 1097 pages had nothing but stories about alien abductions, predictions from Nostradamus about polar bears and chickpeas and Hollywood celebrity nonsense glitter, Beauchamp would have just been more background static.

Posted by: Kerry at November 01, 2007 05:53 AM (/FA98)

29 Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response. In other words, "You people with nothing better to do are wasting our valuable time." To which I would respond, "And how much time was wasted investigating these scurrilous lies by an Army unit that has far more important things to do than you will ever, EVER have in your empty little lives?"

Posted by: DaveG at November 01, 2007 06:13 AM (0tHG6)

30 FYI, for anyone that is a long-time reader of Captain's Quarters, the above poster is not Carol Herman. The posters comments were a) completely understandable though deliberately false and b) she did not attempt to tie the topic in to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The real Carol has a distinctive style that is a challenge to follow and indicative of a person who has experienced things that most of us have not. This Carol Herman is a drably ordinary inverse sock puppet troll.

Posted by: Immolate at November 01, 2007 07:27 AM (qHyi8)

31 Hmmm. "The real Carol has a distinctive style that is a challenge to follow" You got that right in one buddy. It usually takes me a couple complete readings to unravel a real Carol Herman posting.

Posted by: memomachine at November 01, 2007 09:44 AM (3pvQO)

32 The Publisher mentioned an editorial error rate of three-tenths of one percent. One may look at business operations and be extremely happy that 99.997% of transactions are correctly processed. I am a shareholder of a $2.2 billion dollar company with $2.0 billion in expenses. The 3/10 of 1% error rate applied to expenses means $6 million was not correctly processed. That is alot of shareholder money not sitting in my bank account.

Posted by: john43085 at November 01, 2007 10:31 AM (/GMul)

33 I respectfully disagree with commenters that believe TNR "screwed up" or "made a mistake" and should just admit it. The editors of TNR are fully vested - emotionally, financially and politically, in their own country losing a war. Accordingly, we MUST lose the war. Period. Beauchamp's articles fit the narrative. Why check them? The ends justifies the means. Plus, the Franklin Foers of the world just KNOW that the US Military is full of the types of people depicted by Beauchamp. Fake but accurate. TNR and the rest of far left that control the DNC will stop at nothing short of taking up arms themselves and fighting our troops to ensure that we lose the war. They just tried to alienate Turkey, a key ally, didn't they? They consistently lie about the war and our military don't they? The MSM are the enemy. That may be emotionally unpleasant for some Americans, but its the truth.

Posted by: BDT at November 01, 2007 11:04 AM (T0uPR)

34 M. Simon, nobody stole my "nic." As a matter of fact, I can prove to you that it is ME. Because you once sent me in search of BASIL LIDDELL HART. Remember? As to TNR's silence, I'm not so sure it isn't a winning device. Here. Let me show you why. One of the hardest things to do in selling, is "THE CLOSE." And, when people learn how do do it, well. They learn that as soon as THEY CLOSE, the shut up. To talk, is to weaken your position. And, you lose the sale. SO. No matter how long it takes. You don't say a word. ALL THE WORDS THAT FLOW FROM OTHERS; are on the losing side. You just hold your pen, available. SO you can get the contract signed. TNR? They asked to speak directly to Beauchamp, when the PR machinery of the Army went into full gear. Sure. This could work if a judge was incipid. If he didn't know what happened to Nifong, from a hole in the wall. And, he didn't know that in America, under the US Constitution, we have an ADVERSARIAL posture. So, the prosecution "rests." And, the defense is entitled to have ALL the information being used to "convict." As well as the opportunity to have their own experts. Beauchamp wasn't made available, though. So, TNR just "shut up." Some day, ahead, things will calm down enough; other issues will rise up. (Like the troubles Condi is having at State, now. With rebellion from diplomats who don't want to be forced into Baghdad.) Whole other issue. But it's out there. Seems Irak ain't paradise. And, more than dogs in the streets get run over. (Do arabs even have dogs? They hate them so. Being a dog in Irak must be awful business.) By the way, one thing we won't have from Irak, is either Paris. Or Saigon. And, the saud's aren't entertaining our troops, either. How come? Aren't the arabs supposed to be generous with hospitality? How come the saud's can treat our troops like crap. As if all they are ... are ass wipes for the Saud's grand plans ... without having a day of comeuppance?) You think I'm kidding? Oh, I'm not the only American fatigued by Bush's crappy maneuvers. And, Rice? I hope she gets it good right on the grounds where she's "da boss." She's certainly not respected! Rice or Beauchamp? Whose respected least? Nah. I don't care whom you choose.

Posted by: Carol Herman at November 01, 2007 12:34 PM (q0Srt)

35 You know, it's true. Most Americans don't like to read. Heck, to write a best selling book in our world, all you have to do is sell less than one hundred thousand copies. (And, some of those go to libraries. Stuck up on shelves. Going unread.)

Posted by: Carol Herman at November 01, 2007 12:36 PM (q0Srt)

36 Carol, If this thing with TNR was a 'business deal', you are completely correct in your analysis. However, since it is not, your 'closing' argument is based on fallacy and is, therefore, just as false. As for the rest...huh? What the *bleep* does that have to do with this topic other than being a nice distracting segue?

Posted by: Mark at November 01, 2007 12:46 PM (4od5C)

37 Keep at 'em Bob! Those that can not see the importance of holding TNR to account are simply ignorant of duties of the journalist, editor, and publisher. The fact that these people are earmarked by the US Constitution as bearers of our information indicates there is a responsibility. The fact that journalists, editors, and publishers/producers have shirked their responsibility to manufacture ani-US and Anti-Bush information is what this Beauchamp story and the TNR's refusal to retract is all about.

Posted by: mekan at November 01, 2007 12:54 PM (hm8tW)

38 Bob, have you seen this? http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/10/in-defense-of-1.html It looks like Beauchamp may not have made up the dog story out of whole cloth.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 01, 2007 12:55 PM (vMRk5)

39 "Beauchamp wasn't made available, though." I know it's pointless to respond, but, yes, in fact, he was. At first he, himself, refused to talk to TNR, or anyone else. A bit later on, he evidently DID talk to TNR (although they never let on that such a conversation had taken place.) You perhaps have seen the transcript of that conversation? (If not, check out: http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/stb1.pdf ) And Foer claims there was at least one more conversation. (No word on whether Nifong was present at any of these phone conversations, however....)

Posted by: notropis at November 01, 2007 12:58 PM (cP1DU)

40 john43085- It's worse than you state. 1,097/1,100= 99.73% correct. You are correct in stating that 3/10th of one -percent were incorrect, but that means that 99.7% were correct, not 99.997%

Posted by: Dave S. at November 01, 2007 01:02 PM (Irbkv)

41 You deserve a big pat on the back for your efforts, and keeping us updated on your blog - thanks, Bob. And in a world of words like "prioritize", "orientate", and "effectuate", I think you can be forgiven for your few grammatical lapses.

Posted by: Andy Robson at November 01, 2007 01:12 PM (Yddsb)

42 IMO, at least a part of the explanation for TNR's behavior is marketing. TNR's historically been a magazine of the liberal / left. Where Bush is concerned, though, TNR didn't succumb to BDS as quickly as its audience (and it paid a price for its apostasy). As I recall, on taking his post, Foer let it be known that he intended to "re-connect" TNR with its historical audience. Printing the Bea-chump stuff was just part of that 'reconnection'. So here's what's happened / happening: They ran with the stories initially because Foer, et al. knew they'd be welcome / prove popular with their target audience . . . consider them a "mea culpa" for being late to the party. Then they blew up in Foer's face. Now what? Given his business plan, TNR's painted itself into a corner: not only will the target audience welcome (and swallow whole) Foer's "Army coercion / stonewall" claim - in fact, I suspect Foer thinks it will ultimately be 'good for business' - they also know/believe TNR will be punished by the same audience if it "backs down." By Foer's calculations, the people who are offended by the fraud perpetrated by TNR don't read the magazine in the first place, so he's going to play to his audience. And that means continuing to insist it's true & accusing the Army of coercion / cover up.

Posted by: BD at November 01, 2007 01:13 PM (ezlAc)

43 Memo to Elisabeth Sheldon, cc: Franklin Foer Here's how to deal with a contributing writer exhibiting a now obvious lack of accuracy in the assertions they've published using your good name. It's something I thought I'd never post about HuffBlo, but here it is: Kudos Arianna.

Posted by: Justacanuck at November 01, 2007 03:32 PM (hgxwr)

44 Only 3 of 1100, eh? Good thing she doesn't run an airline. "Only 3 of 1100 flights have resulted in crashes. Aside from those, our safety record is perfect."

Posted by: Scott R. Lucado at November 01, 2007 05:32 PM (Xon+C)

45 I can't get TNR to cancel my subscription and return my money. Feel free to use my online access: mp@well.com, pswd: trashit

Posted by: M. Phillips at November 01, 2007 05:37 PM (kbeIu)

46 Hmmm. @ Grey Fox It looks like Beauchamp may not have made up the dog story out of whole cloth. Take it from someone who has spent a lot of time inside of armored vehicles. There's a HUGE difference between a hummer and an armored vehicle. So no. That link doesn't actually do anything to support Beauchamp. Sorry.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:12 PM (3pvQO)

47 memomachine, I think the point of the post was that troops occasionally run down dogs for fun. Hence the "whole cloth" comment. I think it has been pretty well proven that they couldn't run down dogs in the way Beauchamp described, so he was still making stuff up. And, running down dogs was the least of the things Beauchamp claimed, so it hardly validates Beauchamp even if every word concerning dogs was true. I just though that Bob might be interested.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 02, 2007 03:20 PM (hGVB/)

48 Michael Yon had an opportunity to interview Mr. Beauchamp but declined. Mr. Beauchamp was offered a chance to leave Iraq but declined according to Michael from an interview with his CO. Thus Mr. Beauchamp has stayed to face his fellow soldiers and continue the fight. Good for him. That could be a story in itself. He has more guts than TNR management in this situation.

Posted by: amr at November 02, 2007 09:17 PM (AiJXe)

49 AMR, you are correct. Beauchamp does deserve credit for making up with his fellow soldiers and finishing his tour of duty. Beauchamp seems like a guy who got in over his head and is now working on setting things straight. Therefore, and for that, I salute him.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 03, 2007 08:29 AM (PGjzz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And I love the key line from AdAge's Ken Whelton:

Of course, the news here is that The New Republic still had advertisers!

Not, for long we hope, but that depends on you contacting TNR's advertisers.

This isn't a matter of "pro-war" versus "anti-war" as many have tried to frame this story, but a matter of right versus wrong, truth versus fiction, and media accountability versus editors run amuck.

So agrees Richard Peters, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, who stated of Beauchamp back in August that "People like him really get under my skin," and referred to the fabulist as a "loser." Peters may be on the opposite side of the war from I, but both of us agree that Beauchamp "spread elaborate lies."

We—and you—agree that obviously false stories such as those in "Shock Troops" harm the reputations of all soldiers, whether they are military veterans who have come to be against the conflict such as Peters, or they are currently-serving servicemen who want to see the mission through, or they are veterans who have served our country with honor in the past.

And so I say to you: Pick an advertiser, and respectfully ask them if the sick fantasies told in The New Republic and proven false by a formal military investigation are worth supporting with their ad dollars.

My guess is that advertisers can reach this same demographic by advertising through similar magazines that still support our troops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.