Just how long does it take to pen a retraction? I only ask because it’s been roughly a month since The New Republic had their first solid chance to interview Scott Thomas Beauchamp since he returned from duty at COP……

Fingers crossed!

If you have any reason to think Beauchamp is allowed to contact the press (other than your feelings), what is it?

The reason is that the military have said that he is allowed to speak to the press.

If you have any reason to think Beauchamp is NOT allowed to contact the press (other than your feelings), what is it?

And the words of proven liars such as TNR do not constitute a reason.

On October 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm, lgm said:
OK, maybe I missed by Wheaties this morning, but I don’t see anything in MM’s post or the links she provided that contradicts the claim that Beauchamp is forbidden to contact the press.

Apparently lgm, you missed more than your wheaties… You apparently forgot to turn on your brain today…

Since then, he’s been online–hence, available–at least several days every week, including today. Beauchamp even had time to talk with Laughing Wolf from Blackfive as recently as September 30. Why not TNR?

Right there. Not even from a link, right there in Michelle’s main article. He is not unable to talk. TNR is just not talking to him.

Care to try again, moonbat?

With every Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Dan Rather, and Scott Beauchamp incident, the inconvenient truth that the Treason Media is irreparably biased and dishonest spreads a little more. Didn’t these twits read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in school and learn its lessons?

When the DVD of “All The President’s Men” came out last year, many reviewers took the opportunity to fawn over how it was great to see brave reporters “speak truth to power” (read: take down Republicans) and blah-blah-woof-woof. In the extras, they had Treason Media stalwarts poo-pooing the Blogosphere as being inferior to their vaunted elite cadre. Yeah, right.

The actual lesson they should’ve taken is that there was once a time when reporters REPORTED the news; not worked to “make a difference” or “set the agenda.” After the movie came out, hordes of liberal axe-grinders flooded the newsrooms with the hopes of being able to get their own GOP head on the wall and have themselves played in the movie by George Clooney or Julia Roberts. So, they marry government officials, cultivate leakers of secrets, and generally seek evidence that fits their agenda to destroy conservatives while ignoring actual malfeasance in plain sight. “Sorry, but I don’t have time to look into the New Republic because I’m trying to get proof that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen.”

But, look at the bright side: When Hillary! is elected, it will bring an end to the leaking of government secrets in the Treason Media. Perhaps the war will start succeeding because proper control of the military is in place. The half-empty glass will become half-full overnight and it will be Morning in America now that the dark night of Republican fascism as passed.

Yeesh. I hate being right.

You need to re-read my post. You also need to adjust your sarcasm radar. Laughing Wolf was being sarcastic.

OK, maybe I missed by Wheaties this morning, but I don’t see anything in MM’s post or the links she provided that contradicts the claim that Beauchamp is forbidden to contact the press. To be sure, he is allowed to sound off to his fellow soldiers, but we do not know what sounds he made (add snark here).

If you have any reason to think Beauchamp is allowed to contact the press (other than your feelings), what is it?

josetheguerilla said (#26):

The Marines are kicking A$$ (in Anbar (lgm)).

Where did you get this? Even General Petraeus doesn’t say this.

On October 5th, 2007 at 9:00 am, Boomer said:

It amazes me how the folks on the left can’t admit they are wrong even when offered irrefutable facts.

It’s fairly simple: Think of a garment with a hanging thread. Pull on it, and the whole thing eventually unravels. Think of an onion: peel away the layers, and it doesn’t emerge but vanishes.

That’s the Left. They don’t dare admit that they could be wrong in one instance, because that’d raise the question of, “…and what else might I be wrong about?”

My moonbat sister is a classic case. At one point, when her libertine lifestyle was threatening not only her but the rest of the family, we did an intervention – part of which was to arrange for counseling. She only went to one session. When I asked why, she said, “But what if I find out that I really am a bad person?”

It’s just easier for them to erect avoidance mechanisms than it is to undertake the strong medicine of an honest self-appraisal. That’s why TNR and Foer are so tenaciously clinging to their defense of Beauchamp’s fabulations. They fear not only the short-term consequences but also the long-term implications.