Michelle Malkin » Bombshell…TNR ‘fesses up: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap

Bombshell…TNR ‘fesses up: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap

By Michelle Malkin • December 1, 2007 03:48 PM

A Christmas gift for the staff of TNR, courtesy of Borderpundit:

***
Well, well, well. Ready for your weekend schadenfreude? At long last, TNR ‘fesses up to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle. In an act of grace and professionalism, the magazine has thanked its critics and apologized to the military. No, just kidding about the thanking and apologizing part.

Read the whole thing here and watch TNR’s defenders (and advertisers) weep. The maxi-mea culpa runs more than 10 pages and thousands and thousands of words (self-pitying, rationalizing, messenger-blaming), but this is the belated bottom line: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap. Franklin Foer’s conclusion:

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.

Buh-bye, Franklin Foer.

Stay tuned for more…

Update: Pay special attention to this admission in Foer’s windy piece…

Fact-checking is a process used by most magazines (but not most newspapers) to independently verify what’s in their articles. Beauchamp’s anonymity complicated this process. Because we promised to protect his identity, we were reluctant to call Army public affairs to review his claims. What’s more, the fact-checking of first-person articles about personal experiences necessarily relies heavily on the author’s word and description of events.

But there was one avoidable problem with our Beauchamp fact-check. His wife, Reeve, was assigned a large role in checking his third piece. While we believe she acted with good faith and integrity–not just in this instance, but throughout this whole ordeal–there was a clear conflict of interest. At the time, our logic–in hindsight, obviously flawed–was that corresponding with a soldier in Iraq is logistically difficult and Reeve was already routinely speaking with him. It was a mistake–and we’ve imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest.

It was blogger Ace of Spades who first reported on this gobsmackingly obvious conflict of interest and pushed it persistently. He and others were derided as “ludicrous.”

Who’s ludicrous, now?

Update: Foer discloses an instant-message exchange with Beauchamp about the non-existent disfigured civilian female contractor whom Beauchamp claimed he had taunted while on the battlefront in Iraq–supposedly a sign of how war dehumanized him and his fellow soldiers. When challenged, you’ll recall, Beauchamp then claimed that it happened in Kuwait. Before he had gone to war. Here’s the moment of emblematic moment of discovery:

tnr: where did you see the crypt keeper?

Beauchamp: are you there?

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the last thing i got was “where did you see the crypt keeper”

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the dfac on falcon or chow hall, as it IS commonly called

tnr: what about kuwait?

Beauchamp: brb [be right back]

Nine minutes of silence

tnr: you there?

Ten minutes of silence

Beauchamp: ok just did a sworn

statement

tnr: about?

Beauchamp: saying that i wrote the

articles

tnr: ok

Beauchamp: theyre taking away my

laptop

tnr: fuck is this it for communication?

Beauchamp: yeah and im fucked

tnr: they said that?

Beauchamp: because you’re right the crypt keep WAS in Kuwait

FUCK FUCK FUCK

***

Update: Check out the comments section at TNR. Scorching…

“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.” So you took 15 PAGES to say that you were WRONG, and even then lacked the courage to actually confess to error. You long ago added intellectual cowardice, to the usual helpings of intellectual dishonesty, but did you really have to take 15 pages to so clearly prove the points made by your opponents. Could you not simply have said — “We screwed up. We apologize.” Guess not. And I really appreciated this one passage — “Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that.” That was classic on so many levels. Even better than the petty uncalled-foer, drive-by, ad hominem slur against Matt Sanchez. You must be ever so proud of that sleazy, cowardly, remark. I know I would be. Actual STANDARDS in the New Republic. Who would’ve thunk it ? ROTFLOL.

| Posted by brooklyn red
5 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
so you lied?

| Posted by Joe Humphrey
6 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
After four and a half months of utter nonsense about recanting and re-recanting and hearing from many thousands of honest warriors you spend countless words across 14 oages to finally admit that you are standing down from drom the Beauchamp fables. Amazing, simply amazing! You should be ashamed.

| Posted by Chris Christner
7 of 72 | 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 George Croft
8 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
The real culprits are your editors and your management. The anti-soldier stories were “just too good to check” and you eagerly went to press with pure garbage from an anonymous, lying, neophyte writer. Don’t dare blame it all on Beauchamp. He just created the garbage. YOU SERVED IT UP. George Croft Argyle, TX

| Posted by Suspended Disbelief
9 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
Congratulations. You’ve reached the conclusion that the rest of us reached months ago. Good luck with the upcoming staff purge and loss of advertisers.

Flashback: Just wanted to remind you of Foer’s pathetic attempt to “control the story” as exposed in the Army transcripts leaked in October. It’s all about the CYA at TNR:

***
Instant reax:

Patterico: “I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the fallout. In fact, I think it may be just beginning.”
Bob Owens (update - and more from Bob at PJM)
Allah and Bryan
Glenn Reynolds

And watch for reax from Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, who started the ball rolling and endured much abuse from the TNRites and the nutroots for calling B.S. and tapping open-source intelligence in the blogosphere–especially among milbloggers–to expose the lies, distortions, and attempted cover-up.

Scott Johnson at Power Line dubs TNR’s evasion and blame avoidance “The Fog of Foer.”
Dan Riehl notes Foer’s snitty ad hominem on Matt Sanchez.
Q&O: TNR pulls the eject handle
Karl at Protein Wisdom rips Foer for continued lack of disclosure:

Foer complains about leaks from the Army, but further fails to inform TNR’s readers of the results of the Army’s official investigation, which found, for example, that Beauchamp admitted he did not witness the targeting of dogs and saw only animal bones near Combat Outpost Ellis (except to imply that Beauchamp was coerced into the latter, though even TNR’s version carefully leaves open the more likely possibility that it was only animal bones).

Foer now admits that having Beauchamp’s wife, Elspeth Reed, fact-checking one of his stories was a conflict of interest, but he fails to note that Foer himself injected her plea for Beauchamp to stand by his stories into a September phone call between TNR editors and Beauchamp – which reads much more like pressuring Beauchamp than any of Foer’s innuendo about the Army – even while admitting doing so put him in an “awkward” position. And while Foer reassures TNR readers there are new policies in place to prevent this in the future, he does not mention that Reeve is apparently no longer in the employ of TNR.

Foer also engages throughout in addressing the suspect stories in a disjointed, fragmented narrative, which allows him to avoid having to account for what Beauchamp actually wrote. For example, Foer never states whether TNR has any confidence at all that Beauchamp saw a “Saddam-era dumping ground,” though even TNR’s prior statements on the case suggest that they know it was not.

Of course, at this point, no one had any reason to believe that TNR would be any more straightforward in its modified limited hang-out than it was in its Potemkin re-reporting or its initial publication of the Private’s fables. The only real surprise was that they did even this much, rather than remaining in their bunker, hoping memories of the smears they published would fade. Had Foer chosen to be more open and honest with its readership — even at this late date – I could have offered more than the sound of one hand clapping.

Posted in: Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (78)

trackbacks (35)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On December 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm, brooklyn red said:

HA HA HA!

Too bad 82.4% of the country will never know…
#2

On December 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm, ajmontana said:

Well bust my britches and slap my cow!
It’s about time… sheesh.
#3

On December 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm, MDH3 said:

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
#4

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pm, MrScribbler said:

Pretty weak-kneed “retraction” there, Franklin baby.

Maybe the next person at your desk can talk straight.
#5

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm, Dave from Flint said:

My, my. Who woulda thought???
#6

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm, DesertLover said:

It took 14 pages of mumbo-jumbo trying to cover their backsides and they still never said outright what they should have …

We were wrong and the whole thing was untrue

Wonder if the same investigators did the background check for Jihad Jane Nada Prouty)?
#7

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm, DubiousD said:

On Nov. 27, Bob Owens reported that Scott Beauchamp had rotated out of Iraq and was now headed home. Quoth the Confederate Yankee:

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.

Shortly after Owens makes this observation, TNR finally stops stonewalling and says “Oopsie!” Coincidence?
#8

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm, Larry L. Sharp said:

It is tragic TNR chose to fight this for so long rather than being honest and admitting that Beauchamp was a liar and that they helped perpetrate his lies by publishing them as truths.

However, on the bright side, it should encourage bloggers to continue blogging and holding MSM outlets as well as other bloggers accountable for their reporting.

All too often people think they are powerless because they are just one person. That is only true if you succumb to that belief.

I personally believe that one person can and must make a difference.

Look at the positive difference Michelle Malkin has made in the blogosphere.
#9

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:10 pm, Lifeofthemind said:

Arrogance on TNRs part. It sounds like the “Fake but Accurate” Defense driven into a corner.
#10

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm, ajmontana said:

It’s windy as heck here but I could have sworn I just saw a pig fly by my backyard.
#11

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm, trinitytim said:

Faithful to the end. TNR can never again be viewed as a reliable publication. They have done a disservice to their readers, the American Militar, and the public in general.

Losers.
#12

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pm, gollumclone said:

when will the AP join them in admitting they print BS? I enjoyed Rick Moran’s take on the fawning report of just how Presidential Hillary looked after the campaign worker hostage crisis.
http://www.rightwingnuthouse.com
#13

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm, zorro said:

In an act of grace, the magazine has thanked its critics and apologized to the military.

No, just kidding about the thanking and apologizing part.

You’re showing a great sense of humor Michelle! I’m still laughing.

And thanks for the follow up. Mr. Foer will probably show up on Hillary’s campaign staff. It’s a perfect fit.
#14

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pm, brooklyn red said:

Think Foer will get to ask a question in the next debate?
#15

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

AJ, Faux news alert weather in hell?

Duh statement of the year.

They admit to what we all knew!

T-hey’re
N-ot
R-eliable
#16

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm, Brian Paasch said:

Who was that terrible reporter… er, blogger… umm, stalker? who had that audacity to show up at their office with a Video Camera!!! Oh my, how awful.

Foer’s missive reminds me of a two year old in the full roar of a temper tantrum.
#17

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm, countrybumpkin said:

Something in the water? First Murtha admits the surge is working and now this.
Will the Clintons start telling the truth next?
#18

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm, right_on said:

Why did I even read those 14 pages of anus protectus bullcr*p? No admission of duplicity…nada!

What I learned:
1) You can’t trust the ARMY. They “force” soldiers to put in writing, falsehoods, which exonerate them of any wrongdoing.
2) TNR and Foer did nothing wrong. However, they may have or have not been duped by Beauchamp, but they believe what he wrote was true, but they won’t stake their reputations on it.
3) The US ARMY encourages covers up.

So, I’m basically unconvenced that TNR fessed up to anything, except to being frustrated they couldn’t confirm or deny SB’s stories.

Huh??
#19

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pm, nbarry said:

With regard to Elspeth Reeve, she left the magazine in September.
#20

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm, purplepeep said:

One of the fun parts in the post mortem is trying a search for “Beauchamp” at nutroots sites, e.g. the Koskids, DU.

Crickets.

How embarrassing, heh.
#21

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm, Lifeofthemind said:

nbarry #19

Where do people like these end up? My guess is they both become public school teachers. Their punishment will be spreading self pity and envy to young people at a combined income of over $100,000 per year.
#22

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm, MagicalPat said:

“It’s not our fault. We got duped by that woman and her husband.”
#23

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Will the Clintons start telling the truth next?

Sorry, no. That’s a genetic defect.
#24

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm, corkie said:

It was the beginning of a project that, for long stretches, superseded our day jobs

But conservative bloggers who were fixated on this controversy–one arrived unannounced at tnr’s offices with a video camera

It seems as if TNR was fixated on the story. Why shouldn’t bloggers be also?
#25

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:57 pm, purplepeep said:

I think the exchange immediately after TNR’s f- f- f- exclamation is even funnier:

============
Sir Thomas Beauchamp:
“this is bad isnt it”

TNR:
“yes”
============

What total idiots.
#26

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pm, Crazy Horse said:

I thought Hurricane season ended yesterday……….hahahahaha

Last named storm franklin
#27

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:01 pm, bear1909 said:

The corruption in the media knows no bounds.

And the largest pigs in the trough are going to get their just dues—like Foer at TNR.

Sooner or later the NYT is going to have to face up to the facts about Iraq and the future of Iran because of the recent developments there.

If major media was lying through Beauchamp, then how else have they been lying?

Bilal Hussein for the AP?

The faux photo people?

I think a nice “year in review” piece could be written with a roll call of this material on fake news and media collusion with IslamoFascist media stringers and handlers.

TNR was emboldened to lie and scam— it was a climate of deceit that pushed them to try and pull it off.

So what else have these scurvy knaves been up to?
#28

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm, bear1909 said:

On December 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm, MagicalPat said:
“It’s not our fault. We got duped by that woman and her husband.”

Wait! Are you bringing up Valerie “Outie” Plame and her drab husband?

I thought this thread was about Beauchamp and his bride?
#29

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pm, Rational Thought said:

It’s fitting, I suppose, that The New Republic chose to disclose yet another fabulist in its midst via one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever endured. They didn’t just bury the lead, they ran it as the very last paragraph of an otherwise interminable piece of high school level writing.

Franklin Foer deserves to lose his job, both because he still refuses to take responsibility for publishing fiction as fact, and because he hasn’t the writing, editing, or reporting talent of a 5th grader.

I’ll add, however, that there’s something sad and awkward about watching someone’s total fraud of a life be exposed, petal by petal, till there’s nothing left but a quivering naked stem of a man screaming “It’s the other guy’s fault!”

If he had fessed up in the beginning, showed righteous indignation at the dishonesty of his writer, this pitiful man might still have a career. But, alas, hubris shows she’s still a wicked mistress.
#30

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm, centralcal said:

Rational Thought, I completely agree with you. It is sad and awkward, but only because it didn’t have to be this way.
#31

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pm, FloridaBill said:

When asked to apologize for smearing bloggers questioning his, and Beauchamps, credibility Mr. Foer replied:

Don’t Faze me Bro
#32

On December 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pm, right_on said:

Elitism at it’s worst…
#33

On December 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm, reutersrutter said:

Franklin Foer had to fess up now or lose his job as Chief Homines of Uber Media Persons, ‘CHUMP’ of Hillary Clintons 2008 strategy group called, Hillarys Chavista’s USA!
#34

On December 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm, Boomer said:

This reminds me of the old Napoleonic French bulletins issued as propaganda on the conduct of his many wars and the common citizens statement, “to lie like a bulletin.” Too bad TNR felt compelled to go the way of the New York Times and the old Napoleonic bulletin.
#35

On December 1st, 2007 at 7:48 pm, josetheguerilla said:

MM, thank you for covering this story.
#36

On December 1st, 2007 at 7:52 pm, basuraboi3 said:

Congratulations Michelle. I don’t think without your persistent pressure this wrong wouldn’t have been righted. I just think it sucks they had to drop this on a Saturday. Oh well, we know you won’t let us forget about this, that’s for sure!
#37

On December 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm, Yiddish Steel said:

Absolutely no surprise at all! Foer and TNR were on the defensive and trying to backtrack and cover from the moment the blogsphere said “boo!”
#38

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:00 pm, navywife91 said:

MM, thanks for being a ~~stalker~~, for uncovering the truth!
#39

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm, shooter said:

The
News
Retracted
#40

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:23 pm, RetFireman said:

Ultimately, even if every word he had to say was true, it was not an indictment against the United States or the military in general, but an indictment about what a low-life, scum sucking, dirt-bag, low-foreheaded, knuckle-dragging, mono-brow, mono-syllabic, bastard this guy was. Not only that he had done the things he was claiming to have done before he had even seen any action but that he had supposedly become “desensitized” to it prior to even going in. He had committed attrocities and then had no compunction in telling not only people, but anyone who would listen about them. This puts him on par with a sociopath wwere they to have been true. the fact that this publication went ahead and glamorized these tales alleged tales of a sociopath, allowed him to have a voice that gave him permission for what he claimed to have done and was doing. It allowed him to be proud of it and want to do more.

Then, to find out that it was all a lie moved him from the sociopath column to the narcissist column. he went and sacrificed the good name of his country, them men and women he served with, he put their very lives at risk and cost the lives of unknown fellow soldiers as a direct result of these stories. There will be more lives that will be lost, for the murderers of Allah, while quick to use any news that shed a bad light on Islam, never reads or hears the news that claims it to have been false. Instead, they say it was a lie and that the original story is the truth and they keep on killing for years. The damage that this sub-human and his enablers have done has been complete. It will continue for years to come. Regardless of what justice that BeaCHUMP encounters as a result of his actions, it will never equal the damage he has caused and the damage that is still to come from his lies about the brave and honorable men and women who he served with.

I would recommend a firing squad staffed by those who knew him best and who were actually harmed by him, but that is just me. After all, I am fraught with “emotional diatribes”. However, this will be just another case where these Liberals will just start screaming about their First Amendment rights and how he was just telling a fictionalized story and that the ends justified the means and what he was saying was “factually correct” even if what he said was a lie, etc., etc., etc. and nothing will ever happen to him. Eventually this will either be a movie of the week, a mini-series or some mid-year box office filler, and he will make a few hundred thousand for it before he fades into obscurity after being the Liberal darling at parties for “Speaking Truth To Power”

If it doesn’t make you sick, you really have no inner moral compass.
#41

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm, Keith said:

Just a short note: Michelle and other conservative blogs had it right from day one. So why is TNR still in business? For the same reason National Enquirer is? I cannot believe that people buy into crap like this.
#42

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:35 pm, davenp35 said:

What a glorious day!
#43

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm, behiker said:

Did anyone else happen to see a banner on The New Republic website regarding a section of their site called “The Plank”. It said… “The Plank, The smartest blog on the web. Period.”

Priceless! I wonder how smart they feel now.

Thanks Michelle for staying on top of this.
#44

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm, nbarry said:

If Beauchamp grievously smeared the good name of the U.S. military and put his comrades at risk, why is he still on active duty instead of being consigned to a brig or handed a bad conduct discharge? Just a thought.
#45

On December 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm, TXRose said:

Whatever happened to having at least 3 sources before
you publish? Doesn’t anyone in the MSM check sources anymore?
#46

On December 1st, 2007 at 10:05 pm, ajmontana said:

Fog of Foer photoshop is outstanding.
#47

On December 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm, zorro said:

The photoshop update is great. I would add a silver platter with a large serving of roasted crow for Mr. Foer…
#48

On December 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm, Walldog said:

I’ve been told that being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. I guess Foer proves it.

.
#49

On December 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm, BrianNY said:

Has Moyers, Brokaw or Cronkite given their assessments of this current leftist-media imbroglio yet?
#50

On December 1st, 2007 at 10:37 pm, TobyPetzold said:

The bit where Foer didn’t get the organ donor joke made me guffaw. What a tin ear!

When are they gonna throw him out on it?
#51

On December 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pm, 29Victor said:

Keith #41

So why is TNR still in business? For the same reason National Enquirer is? I cannot believe that people buy into crap like this.

You hit the nail on the head. TNR is in business because, just like the Enquirer, TNR published fake “facts” that its readers wanted to believe.
They published “reports” that were believeable only to those who were either stunningly naive or who already had an anti-war/anti-military prejudice (or, probably, both). That was their target audience.

Just like every group before them that ever pushed a demonstrably false stereotype, they believed a story that re-inforced their prejudice because it agreed with their pre-conceived notions about the subject of the story. Then they passed that story on to their readers who did the same thing. And, once again, a prejudice winds up reinforcing itself.

The point of these articles was to prove that the war in Iraq was having terrible effects upon the psyches and souls of members of our military, (apparently, at least according to certain reviewers, the same motive behind the movie Redacted). And this is exactly what they did.

And it doesn’t really matter now that TNR has admited that it was wrong (four months later), the idea is out there, the prejudice has been reinforced, the job is done.
#52

On December 1st, 2007 at 11:33 pm, slp said:

Joseph Welch speaks from the grave to Franklin Foer on his continuing enmity to the bloggers who caught him:

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?

h/t C. Pruett
#53

On December 1st, 2007 at 11:57 pm, corona said:

I wonder if that punk at the L.A. Slimes - Timothy Rotten - reacts to TNR’s fold.
#54

On December 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 am, meatpieandtatters said:

Not a spine among these weaklings.
#55

On December 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 am, Bogtrotter said:

I read all the pages of the article.. I came away with the impresion they (first) laid blame on the wife. Then they complained endlessly about the military not giving them what they wanted. The only thing missingt was a “Yes, but there is a “larger” truth here” explanation.
#56

On December 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am, collinb said:

You Forgot:
DEFENDED BY THE LEFT
* Crooks and Liars’ Nicole Belle
* Max Blumenthal
* … and a host of others

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=beauchamp+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
#57

On December 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am, Laree said:

Doesn’t MSNBC have TNR folks on all the time? They will probably be covering this report right? NOT!
#58

On December 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 am, Larraby said:

Where to start with Mr. Foer? First, he uses the phrase “close proximity”. Proximity means closeness or nearness. So why he is using the expression “close proximity”? That is redundant. There is no such thing as “far way proximity”.
To more serious criticisms. Mr. Foer still claims that the story might be true because he (Mr. Foer) listened to soldiers on the telephone who verified the Beauchamp story. What? Mr. Foer places credibility on unknown soldiers that he never saw or met. He assumes the credibility of someone who is handed a phone by Mr. Beauchamp and Mr. Foer assumes to know their identity, their background and their credibility.
Then there is the unbelievable story that Mr. Foer accepts at face value of a soldier digging up a human skull and wearing the skull into battle. That is preposterous for so many reasons. First, the commanding officer would never allow a soldier to wear a human skull into battle. Mr. Foer never once asked the soldier for the name of the commanding officer to see if the story is true. Second, the skull would fall off the first time the soldier ran or walked fast. Would any soldier constantly stop in battle to pick up a fallen skull top? Third, unless the dead guy whose skull Beauchamp’s buddy dug up had the same size head as Beauchamp’s bud, the skull would not even fit. And incredibly, Beauchamp says that the soldiers said the skull was like “a yarmulke”. How many young soldiers even know what a “yarmulke” is and are familiar with and how a Yarmulke is used? Very few, I think. And if he knew anything about “yarmulkes” and ever wore one, he would know that it is small and falls off the head constantly if one is moving. That is why people who wear one all the time use a hairpin to keep it in place.
I have an idea for Mr. Foer. The Washington Post had a series some years ago called “Jimmy’s World”. TNR could reedit the series and give us an update.
#59

On December 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 am, JohnnyNJ said:

Victor #51

Spot on. I wish someone on this thread(Michelle will you?) make a list of the top 5 or 10 fabricated, false, fake, foney(sic) stories that various MSM degree toting “Journalists” have published over the past couple of years…..Please

As a sentence for their crime, the TNR should be sold only at the “Fiction” table of your local bookstone for a period not to exceed 12 Months.
#60

On December 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 am, gollumclone said:

At the time I read the then 175 blog responses to Foer’s litany of self-pity mea culpa, the reactions were overwhelmingly negative to TNR. A few moonbats brought up free speech and #15 one Carol Herman was in full Bush Derangement Syndrome mode. Someone chastised that loon for referring to Prez as Dubya and asked how she’d like to be referred to as “crack whore”.
So, enquiring minds wan to know whether Scott Beauchamp will be on The View, Oprah and also obtain a fat book deal?
#61

On December 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 am, Boomer said:

What Beauchamp really deserves is the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts Martial with a reduction in rank to pay grade E-1 allowing him a few years with the Marine guards at Ft. Leavenworth, KS turning big rocks into gravel. It will give him plenty of time to reflect upon when he begins his civilian writing career after his bad conduct discharge.
#62

On December 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm, MagicalPat said:

I hereby dub this ‘retraction’:

Foer your misinformation.
#63

On December 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm, SarahW said:

It was obvious from a brief review of Beauchamp’s personal blog, available to all, that his war stories should not have been accepted uncritically.

So Foer met his Wickham; but the former shows no sign of acknowleging how he courted his own prepossesion, vanity, or willing ignorance in the matter. Yet he assures “it” won’t happen again.

By now he knows he’s busted. But I’m not sure if he knows the “it” means knowing when to doubt that which flatters one’s own outlook, and that “truth in all his looks” is never good enough fact checking for journalism.
#64

On December 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm, 3Angela said:

Uh, is this Foer individual still employed? Has Elspeth Reeve found a new job? Where do people go after something like this?
#65

On December 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm, fugazi said:

Every second that Little Frankie stays on as editor is an insult to the readers and advertisers. He must be fired, yesterday. I can’t believe that his 14 page rant didn’t end with his resignation. This man has no honor. An honorable man would admit his error, apologize, and resign quietly. Little Frankie is digging his heels in, lashing out.

How sad. Funny, but sad.
#66

On December 2nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm, zorro said:

Great post Michelle, you’ve covered this story like a blanket. The Army transcripts are damning. Love the relentless follow up. This is first class coverage by any measure. Thanks.
#67

On December 2nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm, Olaz said:

I’m not sure why this is a big deal. How many people actually read this mag? The world is full of people who lie to advance their agenda. Not just in politics either.
#68

On December 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm, mytake said:

I guess Beauchamp and Foer have been “Swiftboated”. And I mean that in a positive way, Clinton’s and Kerry!
#69

On December 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm, mytake said:

Correction: Clintons
#70

On December 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm, Sergeant Tim said:

Foer wrote:

By the weekend, the Standard’s editor, William Kristol, published an editorial that, without evidence, pronounced the Diarist an open-and-shut case. Kristol wrote, “But what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops…”

“without evidence.” That’s rich.

TNR so wanted a scoop about troops out of control. Beauchamp’s tales reeked of blatantly public behavior (within his community) that would have had to been ignored by NCOs and officers. Foer must have never marched to the old Army cadence, “Everywhere I go, somebody’s watching me.” It was, as many others have said, a story too good to check.
#71

On December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm, RetFireman said:

Picture Michael Palin:

Oh I’m a Liberal Troll
And I’m OK
I spread lots of lies
that’s how I earn my pay

I hate Bush
I hate my home
I hate the militry
I write for raggy papers
And walk with pomposity

Oh…
I’m a Liberal Troll
And I’m OK
I spread lots of lies
that’s how I earn my pay

I saw a gimp
She made me laugh
Or so that’s what I said
Don’t ask me bout my sources
I’ll tell you that their dead

Oh…
I’m a Liberal Troll
And I’m OK
I spread lots of lies
that’s how I earn my pay

Did I say I was there?
Well may be I was
Or maybe I was some place else
You can’t trust me to tell truths
When I lie oh so well

EVERYBODY!!!!

Oh…
I’m a Liberal Troll
And I’m OK
I spread lots of lies
that’s how I earn my pay
#72

On December 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 am, Tantor said:

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find that lying is going on in the liberal media. Shocked!

How much lying do you think they did before bloggers came around to fact check them and hold their feet to the fire of accuracy? I’m thinking: A Lot. Heck, even when they were caught red-handed slandering the military in this case, they lied and denied, wailed and dissembled, stonewalled and alibied. They did everything BUT tell the truth. They had to be publicly flogged for months to even make a weenie half apology. Obviously, the only way to make the liberal media tell the truth is by pulic torture.

Here’s a last quiz question for you, kiddies: There has been a long string of liberal media outlets who have been publicly caught lying. Can you name a conservative media outlet that has been caught brazenly cooking the facts to make a story?

Take all the time you need to answer.
#73

On December 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 am, RevJim said:

A few observations.

1. Franklin Foer doesn’t know how to write a simple declarative sentence. That’s another way of saying he’s dumb, spoiled and insecure and never had a real job.

2. It’s not just Foer and The New Republic. MSM’ers lie. Mostly, they lie because, at root, they lie to themselves. Their first priority is to preserve their sense of themselves — vouchsafed by bearded English teachers in ill-fittng corduroy jackets — as special. They wouldn’t know the truth if it hit ‘em with a two-by-four.

3. Foer cites the high standards of TNR. If TNR has standards, it will fire him. If it doesn’t fire him, it has no standards.

4. Journalists think they’re smarter than people who can build a house, fix a car or fell a tree. That’s why they lie. They were born entitled.

5. Ain’t this a barrel of laughs?
#74

On December 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 am, T J Green said:

Borderpundit’s film poster is a classic and wraps up this TNR bull with the hearty laugh it deserves. Southpark Film Festival Selection indeed!

God Bless our Troops and their families!
#75

On December 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am, Larraby said:

I can’t help but love Mr. Foer’s use of the phrase “close proximity”. I was not aware that there is such a thing as “far away proximity”.
#76

On December 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm, Dimsdale said:

TNR’s editors join the ranks of Jayson Blair, Mike Barnicle, Dan Rather and all the other not-coincidentally liberal mainstream media types caught in fabrications and lies wherein they practice journalistic malpractice in order to make their political fantasies come true.

They keep getting caught, yet the masses of liberal sheeple still turn to them for “news” and believe that “if it’s printed, it must be true.”

Just another nail in that coffin!

I know BS when I CBS!!! LOL!
#77

On December 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm, RetFireman said:

Well, at least now maybe Rosie might have a shot at a new gig. Seems there might be a vehicle for her writing style and politics after all.
#78

On December 4th, 2007 at 4:44 pm, sfcmac said:

Well after four months of denials, changing their story, “checking facts” (something they didn’t do beforehand), and venting blame at the Army, Franklin Foer wrote a 14 page dissertation chock full of lame excuses and just plain bullshit. Not that TNR wasn’t told repeatedly of Beauchamp’s fabrications. Many military and former military personnel such as myself, pointed out his lack of credibility numerous times, and the response from TNR was to sidestep responsibility and blame the Army. His slanderous, feckless statements were a disgrace to his fellow Soldiers and created a distraction that his unit did not need.

Who, in their right f****ng mind makes up the kind of trash contained in the “Shock Troops” screed?
More importantly, the fact that TNR was so willing to publish it, indicates a serious lack of integrity.

The New Republic saw a chance to print an anti-military/anti-American/anti-war smear piece, and ended up getting hoisted by their own petard.

As for PVT Beauchamp, I don’t know what kind of “future” his Commander has in store for him, but it should be a Courts Martial, if not an expedited discharge.