As the misconduct of The New Republic’s editors gets coverage from the Washington Post, editor Franklin Foer tries out for Dancing with the Stars:
While Beauchamp “didn’t stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn’t recant his stories,†Foer said in an interview. “He obviously was under considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the room with him.â€Â
While the discussion “was extremely frustrating and engendered doubts,†Foer said, Beauchamp defended his story in a subsequent conversation that was conducted with no superiors present.
For those of you scoring this dance at home, please note that Michael Yon found Pvt. Beauchamp’s CO to be quite protective of the man. Also note that any supposed coercion by the Army would exist regardless of whether the CO was in the room. If — as Foer claims — Beauchamp later defended his story, he could be subject to further disciplinary action… as Beauchamp certainly knew.
That is one reason why Foer’s claim about the later conversation is suspect.ÂÂ
The second reason to doubt Foer is that TNR seems to have made no effort to record any of its supposed re-reporting of Beauchamp’s stories. The transcript we have is from the Army. We are to believe that TNR had no record of the Sept. 7 conversation, or of the alleged later conversation, mentioned without any date or other detail.ÂÂ
The third reason is that the record we do have is one of Foer injecting Beachamp’s wife into the conversation, despite the fact that Foer said he was uncomfortable doing so.  That could be construed as Foer’s admission that he knew it was not ethical to invoke Beauchamp’s wife to try to push Beauchamp into reaffirming his fables, but did so anyway. (Whether Beauchamp’s wife actually held the view Foer attributed to her is a separate, but interesting question.)
The fourth reason to doubt Foer is that his unsupported assertion appears in the Washington Post, just as his prior response appeared at the New York Observer. Doesn’t Foer have his ownforum for publishing the response for The New Republic? As I write this, there is still no mention of the developments on the Beauchamp front at The New Republic. Perhaps the editors have yet to figure out how to explain to their readers and subscribers how they had these conversations with Beauchamp — including one in which Foer now claims Beauchamp defended his story — but sat on the results of their failed CYA effort investigation.
Update: A less-than-swift anonymous troll stopped by in the comments to note that I did not mention Foer’s claim of five corroborating witnesses. That is just as much of a fairy tale as Foer’s current claims, a point underscored when a so-called corroborator can actually be found.  But I thank the trolls for reminding me of more reasons to doubt Foer now.
Is Jeff off mourning the fact that the Sox cleaned the Rox clox last night on Fox?
Again, I look forward to the Left explaining to us how the words we read on the paper do not mean what they mean.
The fact that this has not been retracted, apologized for, their “fact checking” revealed, etc … leads me to believe that there is not one ounce of integrity amongst those at TNR. I take that back, at least Chait admitted that the documents were authentic.
“I did not get a transcript of a call that I was a participant in, waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. This proves that our story was true, even if the author said it was not true, and the Army said it was not true”. For me, this was about Beauchamp and Foer, previously, but seeing the Left defend this crap makes it even larger for me. It is illustrative of how their casual lying become accepted truth simply by their repitition.
Actually JD when you say the left aren’t you limiting things a bit. Haven’t most journalists covered for the TNR’s behaviour or at least willfully ignored it. Haven’t some of those journalists doing the ignoring and covering been on the right? Isn’t this as more a guild problem than a political problem?
“Isn’t this more a guild problem than a politcal problem.” Sorry.
Frankie is thinking he is that guy who can set the terms of the debate. But Frankie, he is not that guy. Right now Frankie is that guy who should really think about getting a Fred Flintstone costume for Halloween cause every Halloween people wonder if Frankie will come as Fred Flintstone cause all year long they are thinking my god that head is so ginormous is like a Fred Flintstone head I wonder if he’ll come as Fred Flintstone this Halloween cause we’d have a yabba dabba doo time for sure.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp All But Recants…
Although all-but-recanting is not exactly the same as actually recanting, it’s the next best thing….
Kafka would have delighted in this story.
Corvan – You are absolutely correct. Usually, I would include the Left in this, but even conservative people like the folks at NRO seem content to let TNR off the hook on this one.
happyfeet – Foer may have a big head, but he has literally yards to go until he reaches the anvil-shaped ham sitting on Kennedy’s shoulders.
dick
oops – sorry – I should have refreshed first – my boss person walked in before I could hit the say it thinger so that last was just for Mr. Swift
JD,
Yeah, and when I see this sort of behaviour from the NRO I wonder what else conservative journalists have over looked just so they can get along. I realize that’s probably not fair, but given the context…
It’s poor scruples is what it is.
Man, I’ll be happy when this whole Pvt Beauchamp issue is forgotten..
Who cares whether it was true or not? He said they mocked a disfigured woman.. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.. Young guys spewing dark, rude humor against a backdrop of stress and fear of the unknown, Callous? Yes. Criminal? No. They ran over a dog on purpose .. or messed with some bones.. Hardly another My Lai ..
Beauchamp wrote what we used to call “..and this is no shit” stories… Events often blown way out of proportion and heavily dramatisized to entertain or thrill the listeners.. (and of course to get free drinks at the bar and maybe get laid by the mesmerized young coed hanging on your every word..or in this case, get his writing published in the national media)
Put the issue to bed and let the guy alone.. Let him finish his tour and fade into obscurity…
And TNR? Just more lefty scumbags not even worth discussing..
Ok. Um, no. I live for this shit.
Corvan – That is an entirely rational reaction to this. 10 years ago, this prolly would not have been known without the blogs.
happyfeet – Since I could not tell if he was being sincere, or sarcastic, I will withold judgment. However, I am leaning towards your assessment.
The reason is that we let the Left set the definite narrative last time during a prolonged conflict (Vietnam). Example: read about how the term “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” came into being.
We don’t push back, 15 years from now the narrative would be “Iraq was so terrible. You’ve heard about those stories, man? The ones where the soldiers mock cripples. Yeah, it was like that.”
I didn’t like his tone.
happyfeet – ditto. Plus, that junk at the top about relying on Rush and Hannity for his news. I sense that he is not the conservative he claims to be. Moby.
Techie – I could not agree more.
ABU GHRAIB!!
Can you tell what “phony soldiers” means?
PS Notice how Karl doesn’t mention Foer’s comments that he had independent corroboration from five of Scott’s pals. I’m thinking Foer stands by his story, which is what he said he did. I’m just sad this important issue is still discussed. It takes away from Karl’s tourism advocacy for the New Iraq: “A Garden on the Euphrates. Timeshares still available!” Karl’s work spinning Iraqi causality figures is much better fiction than anything Beauchamp ever wrote.
More cleansing of the record.
Hey, asswipe . . . I don’t hear Foer denying the legitimacy of these documents in his piece with Howard Kurtz, do you? I’m just sayin’.
Anonymous folks still defending Foer and Beauchamp. Amazing.
Incidentally, Karl didn’t mention those anonymous corroborators in THIS post. But they’ve been mentioned in a host of other posts here.
But let’s face it, Foer has given us no reason to believe they exist — or that if they do, they are any more reliable than Beauchamp has proven to be.
By the way, I’m just sayin has previously posted under the name Chris Chittleborough, and has made remarks about Dan’s Catholicism and his being from Vermont.
I suspect Timmy is sneaking on here again.
Can’t seem to tear himself away. Which is odd, given that you’d think all the time he spends Googling my name and Dan’s, then going and leaving denigrating comments about us on whatever blog happens to mention us would leave him spent.
But then, I guess Timothy J in the home of the 500 hasn’t much to do during the day.
I notice how you take Foer’s claim at face value. That’s what I notice.
“Can you tell what “phony soldiers†means?”
Do you need instructions on a sack of balloons? Because that seems fairly self explanatory to me.
I know what I think “phony soldiers” means. It means what it means. Not genuine or real soldiers; fake soldiers.
What it doesn’t mean, absent contradictory evidence, is actual soldiers. Hence the word phony. How some people can’t seem get this is way beyond my ability to comprehend. The people insisting this means what it manifestly doesn’t mean are making absolute fools of themselves.
Well, if you’re going to make yourself a balloon fence, probably instructions might be a good idea.
“The second reason to doubt Foer is that TNR seems to have made no effort to record any of its supposed re-reporting of Beauchamp’s stories”
Easier ti check facts when there’s no facts to check.
Yes, it’s the defeat caucus that seems to have a problem grasping the concept.
Oh, I missed the accusation that I’m spinning the Iraqi casualty figures. Tell it to the Iraq Body Count.
Can you tell what “phony soldiers†means?
Yes, it refers to guys like the electronics teacher at my high school who woofed big shit about being Special Forces in Vietnam and turned out to have a short unillustrious stint in the Air Force. Phoney.
Timmy has a cabana boy too?
Maybe Timmy bought some sockpuppets from the Gleen(s) spare personna ranch!
Is there any likelihood that this question is not purely rhetorical?
Any chance Foer is the one who is being ‘supressed’ by his superiors regarding this most embarrassing issue and so is resorting to outside channels to relay his personal spin?
Has anyone approached Foer’s boss for comment?
timmah is a dick. The proud state of Indiana is embarassed to have him as a resident. I fart in his general direction too. Is it at all surprising that the likes of timb and alphie still cling to the idea that Beauchamp was telling the truth?
You know how it is, JD. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a reason to whack yourself on the head.
Thanks, pcachu, that was hysterical. Every time timmah makes up a new handle and starts posting, I will just picture him beating himself in the head with a hammer.
One of the hallmarks of military justice is that once you’ve owned up to the crime and paid for it, the clock resets. It is awfully hard to explain how this works to a civilian – and it doesn’t work unless both the miscreant and the command stick to the spirit – but I served with guys who were privates two or three times and still turned out to be great Marines. You screw up, you pay the price, you get on with the duty.
My prayers go out for Pvt. Beauchamp (and his squaddies) as he stands his watch. If his CO and platoon sergeant thinks he’s worth having on the line, that’s enough for me.
The staff of TNR? They have cemented my perception of just what REAL journalists are these days. When you get right down to it, who needs facts as long as the Narrative is obeyed? Not.
Just read the update….you’re using blog sources to accuse Foer of outright lies? Blogs as sources….Fascinating.
Trolling: “someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response”
Rebuttal: “form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party”
Karl, please learn the difference.
Definitions from Wikipedia; snark from me; insanity from right wing commenter criticizing pro-war magazine for printing stories no one except Michael Goldfarb ever read.
Someday yeah we’ll walk in the rays of a beautiful sun.
Timmah 500? Is that you??? PARANOIA!
Note sure who Timmah 500 is. I forgot I posted under Chris before, but I thought this nickname is better. Sorry for the confusion.
Rebuttal: “form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party—
That’s great… except you never provided anything even close to a rebuttal. Unless you are saying that Foer’s claim that there are corroborating witnesses is evidence that they in fact exist. And if this is the case, I suggest you spend less time trying to educate others and more time pulling your head out of your ass.
SoCal Dave – I think we all prefer it when his/her/its head is firmly planted inside its ass.
Frankie says that someone said it was true. Therefore, it is true! Dammit. How much simpler can I make this for you?
timb is a dick.
IJS apparently thinks the fact that something is written by a blogger discredits it per se. Which is about the best he can do, given that Bob Owens actually contacted one of TNR’s supposed sources, who told quite a different story from the one TNR claimed.
As for the so-called corroborating soldiers, I myself explained why they did not actually corroborate Beauchamp in the very thread where Timmah was booted from PW. So the odds are pretty good that IJS already knew that.
Yeah, that was powerful, Karl. The other soldiers said it was 2:20 Tuesday and not 2:30, ergo Beauchamp lied and Franklin Foer just won’t admit it, because the press is so good for TNR.
I have no idea if Beauchamp lied or not, but I do know that the only important thing about this story is that certain goofs continue to imagine it’s important.
With all that is going bad in the world, this saga continues to rivet you? This? While ignoring whether the US Army selectively leaked reports (reports it will not give to TNR despite a FOIA request) to Drudge for partisan gain…
Oh, well, priorities
Yes. Swifboating — worthy of national coverage and it’s own verb; Beauchamp lying about atrocities and essentially denigrating his fellow soldiers? What’s the rumpus?
Relax, warmongers. It’s only one little narrative. Why get your panties in a bunch? We got millions more of ’em.
And oh. The Army is “partisan.” They were looking for “partisan” gain.
BUT WE LOVE THE REPUBLICAN NEOCON BABY- AND DOG-KILLING TROOPS!
Not terribly observant, are you?
You confuse The Army™ with someone in the Army. Again, not terribly observant, are you? You’re also overlooking the possibility that that someone in the Army might well be Scott Beauchamp, in which case, it wouldn’t be a leak at all.
Oh, and you’re also missing that the FOIA requests from TNR, Bob Owens and others are not yet completed. Haven’t does not equal won’t. Again…
I came back to add that attacking blogs as a source is rather ironic when one is sticking up for TNR — the mag that has boasted luminaries like Stephen Glass and Ruth Shalit. But I see IJS has replied, so I’ll add this:
To IJS, getting an entire nation wrong, and telling entirely different stories about the squashing of dogs with a 35 ton vehicle are minor discrepancies. M’kay. Perhaps IJS never stopped to consider that the theme of Beauchamp’s fables was how the Iraq war was coarsening him and his buddies, when (if the “melted woman” story is true) they were coarse jackasses in Kuwait, before they set one foot in Iraq.
But IJS doesn’t really think that the contradictions are minor, as evidenced by the fact that he’s now rolling out the “no big deal” and “blame the Army” talking points.
As to the first point, IJS is suggesting that it does not matter whether the media lies to him… which doesn’t surprise me.
As to the second point, when someone leaks from other government agencies, do you think IJS claims the entire agency is acting for partisan gain, or does IJS reserve that sort of smear for the Army?
Jeff G & Pablo are quick on the draw!
Bonus: Bryan points out at HotAir that Beauchamp in fact recanted major aspects of two of his fables.
I’m just sayin’.
The Recent Comments feature is the bomb.
timmah is a cock. I’m just sayin’
IJS’ ideological blinders are firmly in place. The melted woman story is an urban myth, even in Kuwait. The vehicles could not and cannot do what he reported them to have done. He did not change a tire in a river of shit, did not find a mass grave, and did not wear part of a skull inside his helmet.
You guys are too nice. IJS is pushing the lies that Beauchamp wrote, and TNR published without anything close to fact checking. They are fucking liars for nothing other than demonizing the soldiers and pushing their Narrative. Fuck them. May they awaken with a goat tea-bagging them, and their own tiny little cocks super-glued inside the cornhole of a porcupine. May they have perpetual pinkeye from the goat jizz and may they all walk with a limp so we can see them coming.
But JD, what do you really think?
IJS runs the classic scam. “What about all of the important things you should be paying attention to?” This can be translated into “Crap, TNR is going to take it on the chin and the narrative of the evil war is going to be drowned by this idiot Hemingway wanna-be and his clunky. badly realised prose.”
Move along, ‘thugs, nothing to see here.
Karl – I edited that 3x to remove the offensive parts. I really did restrain myself. Scary, huh?
BJ – You are giving IJS waaaaay too much credit. It’s a fucking lying crapweasel, with all due apologies to crapweasels everywhere.
BJ, Karl, etal. Serious question. How in the hell do you remain civil to these mendacious fucks? I am no longer physically or mentally capable. Every time I see Caric, timmahM etc … show up, I just want to flip them off, piss on them, and then walk away. They are not content to be wrong, but they fucking lie about and distort everything. They take our words and mutate them into something that can no longer be recognized. They have used up all of the good faith assumptions I have. I would rather eat Michael Moore’s shit after he gorged himself at an all you can eat Mexican buffet than to try to civilly engage these amoral, unpatriotic (yup, I went there), poor examples of Americans. The best part of them ran down their mothers leg.
I just do not know how to be nice to them any longer. Any suggestions?
Think of them as a piñata and proceed accordingly. That’s the only way I’ve found to enjoy engaging them.
Think of them as those small blow up clowns. you wack them and they just bounce back up. you know short, blowup midget clowns…
[…]
Um, never mind…
BJ – The end result of your suggestion would either be me in a straightjacket in a room with heavily padded walls, or something involving a May Pole, my M700-APR, cocktail weenies, and a goat.
JD:
Stick with the pinata image, although breaking one open probably showers one with monkey feces and used bong water.
I’d just be careful.
I wish I could say that I am always civil, but I make an extra effort when folks are commenting to one of my posts, particularly on the main page. Partly because I wouldn’t want to give a troll the satisfaction of getting a rise out of me. Partly because I take the “guest” part of guest-posting seriously. I don’t want some Lefty nutbag to impugn Jeff with some post I authored, even if that would be unfair.
Karl – You are a better man than I.
Most women would likely disagree.
Karl–How about some (topical?) music video action for a Friday night?
Beauchamp is a lying crapweasel, and so is timmyb.
uecytvphb byxczif ypmohqrf rtnpvibh uctzo yaeqmnohl slicxj