…to my post yesterday questioning her analysis of the Beauchamp saga. In her first post, remember, Young took the position that, by attributing to Foer and Beauchamp a certain intent, some right wing bloggers were betraying a kind of ludicrous paranoia (an argument echoed by Ross Douthat at the Atlantic blog). To which I responded that Young infantilizes Beauchamp as a writer, and provides Foer with intellectual cover for what I don’t believe was a minor (or simple) editorial gaffe:
Consider: is it really “paranoid†to suggest that a writer working to establish credibility would be careful to describe the barbarism of “both sides†(and aren’t we always told that what separates “us†from “them†is that we do not behave like them, making the subsequent barbarism of the American troops reported in Beauchamp’s follow-up pieces all the more pointedly ironic)?
In fact, isn’t it that juxtaposition itself that gives the pieces their pointedness and, to some, their poignancy?
The idea that war turns us into what we are fighting is the “literary†conceit being serviced by Beauchamp’s collection of essays  and in the aggregate, his pieces are, in my reading, intended to supply this practiced layer to the anti-war narrative embraced both by Foer and (if we can believe his other writings, or view his political affiliations as “significant†with respect to his literary output) Beauchamp.
In her response today, Cathy takes me to task for the what I would call a macro view of the entire social text:
Sorry — I find it hard to believe that Beauchamp sought “juxtaposition” between an essay published in February and an essay published in July. People weren’t reading his essays in a collection of books, they were reading them in a weekly magazine, and except for a handful who were paying special attention to the “Baghdad Diarist,” I doubt that most even remembered that the “Shock Troops” article was written by the same guy who wrote about the insurgents cutting out a kid’s tongue. If Beauchamp wanted “juxtaposition” between the atrocities of the insurgents and the dehumanization of U.S. soldiers to the point of becoming “just like the enemy,” surely he would have made it in one article, not two different essays separated by months. Besides, especially compared to an atrocity like cutting off a child’s tongue, the behavior Beauchamp imputes to U.S. soldiers hardly qualifies as “barbaric.”
To which I can only respond that, perhaps it’s my paranoia flaring up again, but wouldn’t articles published in July link to other articles by the author (in the online incarnation, at least)? Or wouldn’t those interested in the latest article seek out other articles by the author?
Further, I find it hard to believe that Cathy finds it hard to believe that these disparate essays were meant to remain forever disparate.
A collection of “Baghdad Diaries,” with a pedigree of multiple publications in a respected policy and news magazine like TNR (once the in-flight magazine of Air Force One!) would almost certainly lend themselves to collecting and, ultimately, inclusion in a book. And given that Beauchamp himself seemed to think his writings, from a position of moral authority, would turn him into a notable (anti-war) author, is there really any doubt that he would have tried to secure such a book deal — or that others, who like Foer, were (at the very least) looking to publish “gritty” human interest stories, wouldn’t jump at the chance to publish them?
Beyond that, though, Cathy seems to miss the thrust of my earlier argument — specifically, that Beauchamp, the product of an MFA program, would be well-versed in how this literary game is played, and would be careful (in his mind) not to tip his hand by setting up such obvious juxtapositions in the short term that might destroy his credibility for the long term.
Which is to say, these essays had to take place over a “series” of dispatches, because to try to shoehorn these disparate efforts into a single piece would suggest that the “Diary” conceit was a bit to front-loaded with significant and suggestive material to count as a believable “Diary.” And what bolsters this reading is that Beauchamp simply made up the specifics — which would mean he certainly didn’t need time to experience the events he purports to experience before turning them into literary fictions.
Which means the timing of the pieces could have been planned — but even if they weren’t (and they likely weren’t, at least not with any kind of precision) I think it’s rather important to the framing of the pieces as coming from a “Diarist” that the essays be spread out.
After all, even readers of TNR expect that soldiers are busy doing other things in Iraq, and may not have time to give to polishing their fictions.
As for Foer, I doubt that he was unfamiliar with Beauchamp’s previous works. So the question, which I posed in one of my earlier posts on the subject (I didn’t really enter the fray until I critiqued Dr Barnes semiotic analysis of “Scott Thomas”) is why Beauchamp, and why now?
Again, Cathy seems to believe, despite growing suggestiveness to the contrary, that Foer was merely duped — and this is, to be fair, a scenario I posited early on, namely, that he was guilty merely of confirmation bias.
But such a reading, as I’ve subsequently pointed out, carefully brackets the internal relationships at TNR, Foer’s own attempt to take TNR to the anti-war side (and regain the confidence of “progressives”), and Beauchamp’s accessible body of work.
I guess a good question to ask Foer would be were Beauchamp’s pieces commissioned? And if so, on what basis?
Another: Does TNR even take unsolicited manuscripts?
I don’t know the answers (somebody may — I just haven’t seen them).
Young seems to believe that Foer had no way of knowing what he was going to get when he read Beauchamp’s initial pieces — that “Shock Troops” wasn’t a natural extension of his earlier pieces.
Perhaps.
But I think it more likely that Foer knew precisely what he was going to get, and that he thought it precisely the kind of thing that sells. Beauchamp’s dispatches are very “New Yorkerish,” if you will — and I think that’s precisely what Foer was after, and that’s what he made sure he got by selecting the person he selected
As to Young’s final point — that compared to the cutting off of a tongue, the behavior of US soldiers hardly seems “barbaric” — I think Cathy is far too clever to take this tack.
We expect a certain kind of barbarism from terrorists. Stories of beheadings and torture are too numerous to deny, so the trick, for a writer, is to use that material to his advantage. And besides, the tongue-cutting incident had the double effect of showing how, regardless of the (perhaps) laudable intentions of US soldiers (before their inevitable dehumanization), their very presence put Iraqi children in danger of having their tongues lopped off.
Acknowledging the barbarism of terrorists, as I noted yesterday, provides Beauchamp with credibility, and helps establish a trust between he and his intended audience.
But I never said that the barbarism Beauchamp attributes to US troops (and to himself) was OF THE SAME KIND as that of the terrorists. Rather, I suggested (and perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been) that the barbarism of US forces was meant to be juxtaposed against the barbarism of the terrorists and, understood from worldview of Beauchamp’s perceived audience — the liberal/”centrist” readers of TNR — would fit in nicely with the kind of soft moral relativism that often passes for nuance in certain ideological circles.
For that worldview that Beauchamp-as-author was targeting, look at what we get: the humiliation of a disfigured woman (Andrew Sullivan might even call such a thing “torture”), the wearing of a child’s skull as a hat; and the intentional and largely nihilistic murder of dogs.
Women. Children. Dogs. Giving offense.
Think Beauchamp knew which buttons to push?
Think Foer wasn’t slavering over the pushing of those buttons?
Come now, Cathy. I ask you.
****
related: See Dean Barnett (h/t CJ Burch)
Has TNR deleted “Shock Troops”? If so, why?
****
update: Via Hot Air, here’s TNR:
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.†He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.†When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.â€Â
Allah comments:
Fox News covered it 20 minutes ago and confirmed that the DoD investigation found Beauchamp’s allegations to be false. They didn’t have any info on the alleged recantation, though; for that they cited Goldfarb.
The one new detail here: since there’s no evidence of criminal conduct, he’ll face administrative punishment only. That jibes with what [Hot Air commenter] “armylawyer†said last night about Beauchamp having had little incentive to lie to investigators given that lying to them would have exposed him to harsher penalties than simply copping to the incidents in TNR. Which makes the now-disputed fact of his recantation that much more important.
Looks like the ball is back in the court of the WS’s Michael Goldfarb.
Meantime, I await another post by John Cole stating how he was right all along. Which, conveniently, would seem to match any potential outcome. Because the only “crime” here of any significance was NUTTER OUTRAGE!
In any event, Fox News — a different kind of whore than that icky gay porn guy and his gay porn cock of lies — is now confirming the results of a DoD investigation.
One wonders if the DoD would have concluded its investigation without bringing charges against Beauchamp had he not, in fact, recanted — because his disputation, even were it based solely on his own testimony, would still be grounds for declaring the investigation ongoing, given that it is impossible to disprove that Beauchamp himself didn’t taunt a melty-faced woman if he continues to insist he’s done so.
Or am I off base here?
****
update, redux: The SMEARS and ATTACKS, they just keep coming.
****
ongoing tennis match of update: The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb picks up Franklin Foer’s gauntlet and, after sniffing it, declares it foul smelling:
The editors of the New Republic have responded here. Three points:
(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp’s stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: “An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.”
(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army’s conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?
(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?
Dance, monkeys!
The guild is mother. The guild is father. The guild must be defended. I wish it weren’t that simple, but it is, and has been for some time. And, no, there will be no common ground. Even as the last newspaper goes out of business Cathy ( who is otherwise a sensible person) and all other journalists ( and journalist wannabes) will be telling you that you are the problem, Jeff. And that your greatest mistake is lisenting to anyone out side of their cocoon.
Liberal War Porn.
Speaking of porn, I have to go do a workout called “Core Synergistics”.
I expect lots of gyrating.
Uh Oh. Frank F is risen. TNR has spoken – again.
A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS:
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
–The Editors
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739
It is what was predicted – Who has STB lied to – TNR or the military?
Maybe I need to read Cathy’s post several more times. “Where exactly is my defense of TNR?” she asks. I would say it lies in her refusal to ascribe any but the most neutral motives to Freddie’s editorial decisions. “I think they’re guilty of shoddy journalism, but not of trying to undermine the war.”
I think corvan has a good response, but I think the answer to this lies in TNR’s reaction’s to date.
It’s inherently adversarial, and Cathy’s down with that. She just refuses to give the Military the same benefit of the doubt she extends to Frankie. And, well, it wrinkles up her argument is all.
I heard Foer on “Left, Right, and Center,” an NPR program airing on Friday (and available via podcast). He was a guest analyst. At the end of the show, each analyst gets to make a 15 second “rant.” Foer’s was about how his publication was attacked by bloggers incorrectly and he would like an apology….that was at 5 pm Eastern on Friday. Apparently, Foer believed his fact-checking.
I obviously did and, though, I don’t think the subject completely closed (too many weird parts) I would like to offer an “oops, I jumped the gun a bit.” I stand my criticism and belief that Matt Sanchez is as unreliable as the day is long, since he is banking on his credibility and his credibility is besmirched by his prior history as a prostitute and current accusations that he bilked people for cash.
Nonetheless, keeping the door slightly open to the fact that Beauchamp recanted tot he Army to save his ass, I offer a mea cupla.
Also, it looks to me like Foer believed him. Sad for him, he seems like a bright guy and one wonders if he isn’t cleaning out his desk as we speak.
So, two main points: I think Jeff is wrong about this fitting a TNR anti-war narrative (mainly because they are not anti-war and Foer believed this kid) and I was wrong to triumphantly act like an ass for you guys.
I’ll leave it to the PW community to determine if I was acting like an ass, or….well, I don’t want to take the fun out kicking my carcass
Is that the same Major Steven F. Lamb who was reported assaying yesterday that:
??
The TNR doubles down, again. Could they do that if any of them, other than solitary Goldfarb, were making any effort to actually investigate this story. Could they do that if even one journalistic enterprise was doing anything other than holding their hands over their eyes and hoping, praying, wishing it would all go away? The guild protects the guild. No matter the price. No matter the story. Will it work? I don’t think so. I think it has all ready failed. But I have to admit it worked for the AP in similarly ridiculous circumstances. Mostly because journalists (and those who want to be journalists so very badly) let it.
timb:
Good on ya, tim, although I still think the Matt Sanchez criticism is wrongheaded and a little bigoted. And, yes, you were not so much acting like an ass as showing your ass. Carcass kicking done. Let’s wait for Army confirmation.
On a lighter note, The Mighty Malkin has a Jeff Goldstein link right on the top story! He has been cleansed and is now, once again, worthy of mention!
Maseltov!
Timb’s apology is nice. But it misses the point. This is how journalism works. Becuase this is how journalists want it to work. They sell influence not facts. They are the world’s biggest, most successful, least regulated and least studied lobbying group. They know it, ( all of them from Kurtz to Spruiell) and they will protect that influence no matter how foolish it makes them look. It’s all just politics.
1. Sanchez was right on the money here. He was absolutely right.
2. There are no current accusations against him. The “investigation” lasted all of 9 days and closed on March 30th.
3. What are you doing here? Are you truly that dense?
I thought timb’s mea culpa was admirable too. And I have to say I hope the WS keeps running this recantation down and sources it better really soon.
I have to disagree with timb though, on this — there’s a definite antiwar worldview that’s granted greater currency or poignancy by stories like Beauchamp’s, even as we all stand in the presence of facts like the Spielman conviction over the weekend (and none of those facts are in dispute). Beauchamp was obviously and explicitly positioning himself to influence the framing of the war, and we all have to be careful about investing our own credibility in people with similar intentions.
On not quite the same subject, the “Hammer” interview at Totten’s place threw up a flag or two for me. The story would normally confirm what I already believe to be true about AQI, but there are parts of it I don’t think I’d report if I couldn’t nail them down better.
Did I tellya about the time me and the fellas were screwing around and accidentally killed the drunken hobo we were carving our initials into?
I did?
Oh. Ok.
It is sort of like a Mony Python routine at this poiont. Watch to see who many journalists continue to prop TNR up. You’ll be surprised. The too close to call meme is about to reappear.
Is Frankie a regular on that “Left, Right and Center” show, or did NPR just happen to pick this week to bump his profile up in a friendly setting? (3 libs and the toothless Tony Blankley)
Yes, Foer is on a rant now, claiming he’s owed an apology because he can’t get a confirmation of the recantation. Yet, as noted above the vactioning TNR found time to post… essentially a repeat of their prior non-corroboration, while omitting that Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb — the very person with whom Foer spoke — has announced that the investigation proved the allegations false.
Heckuva job, Frankie!
Check the front page at hot air. http://hotair.com/ The scroll on the clip reads Blogger fabricates etc. etc.
The Guild.
perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been
No. It’s one of the simplest, most obvious points you’ve ever made.
There’s a phrase you might remember from somewhere:
cynical distortions of truth [erected] in homage to their own (perceived) superiority
No amount of begging Young to understand your arguments–and render yourself useless as a foil for her Solomonic grandiosity–is going to make it happen.
Stop punching yourself.
I meant Frankie, not Freddie. Frankie, the guy who said, “”The New Republic deserves its self-seriousness, in part because it has a long, rich history of argument and a very keen moral sense.”
“He reminds me of Michael Kinsley because he has an editor’s head,” Mr. Peretz said.
Heh.
I agree it isn’t that Cathy doesn’t understand, it’s that she doesn’t want to, and proabably never will. But someone out there reading her reasoning and seeing how oxygen thin it is might change his or her mind.
We absolutely cannot leave out the fact that Beauchamp was “family.” If you were a wannabe fiction writer whose wife was on the staff of a national magazine, wouldn’t you ask her for an “in”? Wouldn’t you say, “hey, I can get you guys some serious stuff hot off the front lines. Interested?”
Who wouldn’t say yes? And as Ace pointedly repeats, Foer didn’t want to accuse Elspeth’s husband of being a liar. If Beauchamp had been some schmoe off the streets, TNR would probably hang his carcass out to be picked clean by the vastRWconspiracy.
Jeff,
“Shock Troops” is online here: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307
I found it through Google.
Shorter response to Cathy Young:
Q: Why didn’t TNR run pieces from Michael Yon? Greyhawk? Bill Roggio? BillInDC?
A: For the same reason they went with Beauchamp (plus nepotism) — they knew generally what they would get. It doesn’t take intent to the level of conspiracy; it requires only groupthink.
Am I the only one who can’t help but think of TNR conflated with NR as “The National Republic”?
I am?
Okay.
I got the pretty clear impression the Beauchamp was trying to describe the dehumanizing effects of war, not just this war, but war in general. That doesn’t excuse outright lies, and really bad war movie dialog, but YMMV.
I may be wrong. Also, I believe the intent of the author was to make money and get famous as a romantic hero.
I think the next installment would have had him severely wounded and hooked on ultra-pure heroin smuggled out of Afganistan in Pat Tillman’s body bag by a secret cabal headed up by Dick Cheney in an attempt to finally finish what Katrina started via multiple massive overdose. There’s even an environmental twist, Cheney wants New Orleans gone in order to rebuild habitat for migratory waterfowl so he and his Halliburton buddies can finally bag some whooping crane that isn’t farm-raised and tied to a stick with significantly obvious yellow ribbon. This will naturally cause some tension during the climactic gunfight in the Senate chamber when Scott Thomas (as played by Matt Damon) has a bead on Cheney (Ned Beatty, reprising his role from Shooter) and Cheney hides behind a Senate page (the kid from Drake and Josh) and Cheney pleads with Thomas to, “think of the environment. We are doing Good here, like rebuilding the Iraqui marshland!”. Thomas of course will hesitate, after all, how much carbon would the total restoration of the Mississippi Delta offset? But Cheney will, in that pause, sense weakness and will push the hapless Senate page at the gun in Thomas’ hand and run for the door where Thomas’s plucky girlfriend waits with the microwave from the Republican Caucus room, turned on full blast with the door open (hey, it’s a movie), blowing out Cheney’s brand-new defib device and saving the day.
But again, I may be wrong.
“I’ll leave it to the PW community to determine if I was acting like an ass…”
I vote no, you weren’t acting.
That, and jackasses eventually can be persuaded, even if it takes more than one whack with a 2-by-4.
No you won’t. It’s Jeff’s blog; he invited you to go away. So do it.
I’m just bummed this all blew up now. If we’d just waited a little longer, maybe we could have read how female American servicemembers were baking brownies leavened with the blood of Iraqi children.
Maybe, LMC. But if you managed to get that published in a (semi) reputable major publication I wouldn’t want to jump the gun and go overboard asking if any of it was fact checked. Cause that would just be a bit drastic. Maybe if you could just have a close relative vouch for your character. Or would that be too much of a bother?
You can’t fact-check that! The government lies man! If you need confirmation just leave an empty bottle of Yoo-Hoo in the closest concrete planter to 4th and Jefferson Streets in Louisville at midnight. You can pick it up the next morning by eight. If it’s a confirmation
Imy source will have marked it with an X.Oh, that sounds way too cloak and dagger for me. I was thinking something a little more journalist-y. Maybe a long lunch at nice Manhattan restaraunt, one with the right clientele, where the waiters are sassy, but not too surly.
TW: comprised reside
Yes, birds of a feather and all that…
I can’t for the life of me figure why TNR choose to do the slow, painful bleed.
Wow, is this a democracy now? Do I get to vote?
I’ve always had a hankerin’ for bread and circuses. Except for the clowns, I mean.
If any of TNR’s remaining defenders would like to whip up a good, thumping online petition denouncing anonymous sourcing across the board, I daresay most of us here would be happy to sign it.
Speaking of which, my anonymous sources tell me that the Melted-Face Woman has run off with the One-Armed Man.
“Comment by amos on 8/7 @ 2:11 pm #
I’m just bummed this all blew up now. If we’d just waited a little longer, maybe we could have read how female American servicemembers were baking brownies leavened with the blood of Iraqi children.”
That’s story’s being saved for the next go round of war funding talk in Congress. Murtha will insist that if the Female Servicemembers were in Okinawa where they should be, there would be no Iraqi children’s blood to use.
Corvan,
I think that you will find this piece an interesting read. It ain’t just “journos closing ranks”. Antonio Gramsci must have been grinnin’ ear to ear when Foer’s “merit” was “discovered”.
Dr. Steve and BJ, when I’m wrong, I have to admit it and I thank you for recognizing it as good faith. The following is also in good faith:
Actually, I never read what Pablo linked to. I made my point and hadn’t returned until I clicked on Pablo’s link…
So, anyway, I had no idea Jeff so politely asked me to leave. Since that is the case, I will just request that you can kiss my ass, Goldstein, you little baby. You called me homophobic and even had little Pablo’s help. Did I respond with a bunch of profanity? No, I made a point. A rebuttal, no less, to your silly, self-righteous accusation. Seriously, is there anything more ironic than a bunch of bigots (that would be you and Pablo) lecturing people on tolerance towards gays? ‘Cause you can spin your semantic argument of civil unions versus marriage as much as you would like, but the reason it requires ten thousand words is because it’s bull. Your position is “separate, but equal” and the separation is completely based upon where a person, in your prosaic construction, “houses his cock.” It’s not even difficult to see the intellectual dishonesty there, and you know it.
Back to the main point, how typical of you to take criticism like the overly sensitive little boy you are.
Lastly, in the moments since I read a succinct post (FINALLY), free of your usual intellectual chaff, it never occurred to me for a moment that your immature, petulant, profane rage was an act. No, I recognize spittle spraying right wing rage. It rang very true.
I leave you to the shambles of your website. Oh, here’s a classy idea: claim to to just swamped and threaten to retire so all the good folks can hit the tip jar. It’s been almost a month after all.
P.S. While you’re chasing down Beauchamp, make sure you once again can forget to post on the verdicts of actual war crimes trials…raping and murdering a 14 year girl vs. running over a dog. I guess Beauchamp is more detrimental to the “morale” of the American people.
Desperately unhappy, filled with rage and self-loathing, seeking to constantly prove how manly you are…it’s not often one discovers a self-loathing narcissist (maybe you can make it into the DSM-V?)
Good luck with the persecution complex.
TNR also neglected to mention Zengerle’s contact with Major Russo in Kuwait, who could not provide any confirmation of the melty face incident.
timmah – Good on you. Well done.
Then you proceed to show your ass and be an ass all over again. Bravo.
timmah – What do Sanchez’s prior choice have to do with his reporting? Is he wrong on the facts? Did his experience as a gay porn star color his vision, distort his view? If not, and absent your ability to show that being a gay porn star necessarily does those things, then the Left’s vehemence and vitriol vis a vis Sanchez strikes most sentient humans as being born of bigotry. You certainly were not tossing those idea around to give him additional credibility.
BECAUSE OF THE GAY PRON COCK OF LIES !
Wow – I thought timmy liked the shambles on this website, which was why he kept coming back. Hypocrite!
tw Reichsrat
Congratulations, timmy. You’ve turned yourself into PW’s own herpes blister.
Thomas,
Tell you what, I’ll bring the Yoo-Hoo bottle to the restaraunt, that way we can expense it.
Timmy diagnosed all that from a blog comment. His genius at pointing out the baseness in other people’s characters shouldn’t be seen as presumptuous or preening, though.
Think of it as a curse.
DON’T HATE TIMMY BECAUSE HE CAN SEE INTO YOUR VERY SOULS!
So long, timmy. And be thankful I’m not the guy you say I am, or I’d post all your fawning emails to me, juxtaposed against your final rant.
But that would almost be like kicking a retard in his helmet — and, well, that’s just monstrous.
“Desperately unhappy, filled with rage and self-loathing, seeking to constantly prove how manly you are…it’s not often one discovers a self-loathing narcissist (maybe you can make it into the DSM-V?)”
You know, tim, that describes your own behavior much better than Jeffs. Why else would you keep coming back?
You know, tim, that describes your own behavior much better than Jeffs.
The irony, it is delicious. Who’d have guessed that dimb was such an excellent confectioner?
[…] linen trousers make my fabulous ass look ever more fabulous, if such a thing is possible…!* Posted by Jeff G. @ 3:50 pm | Trackback Share […]
Shorter timmah: “How dare you ignorant, rage-filled assholes point out my hypocritical, yet oddly politically convenient, bigotry! And then to ask me to leave when I crap on the carpet! GOOD DAY!”
It’s funny how lefties are always able to diagnose the emotional problems of others while denying the implications of their own behavior. If you’re fixated on the attacking someone’s credibility based on something that does not impeach their credibility, expect people to question your motives. PARTICULARLY when it appears you’re doing so on the basis of a legal, admitted act.
And, hell, I wonder how many people who keep bringing up Sanchez’s history to attack his credibility would also say Clinton was impeached “over sex”.
So long, timmy. And be thankful I’m not the guy you say I am, or I’d post all your fawning emails to me, juxtaposed against your final rant
Oh please, just do it anyways.
I’m liking the Franlin Foer Dead Pool Dean Barnett set up this afternoon over at Townhall. Sweet.
Oh please, just do it anyways.
Hear, hear!
To help us determine intent and what have you.
spittle spraying right wing rage
I love it when you talk dirty.
QUICK, THREE TIMES FAST !!!
daley – here’s a link.
It’s just so big.
I am honestly perplexed by the swooning and breast-clutching on both sides over this whole episode. It all seems like some surreal publicity stunt. I understand the objection to TNR attempting to manipulate the pathos surrounding the Iraq war by publishing a maybe real, maybe not account of the shocking depravity in wartime. Then there’s TNR’s furious tapdance and sudden “gone fishin'” stance. And then Matt Sanchez, of all people, straps on his manly laptop and inexplicably materializes in Iraq to ferret out the truth. Of all the more credible people on the ground, it’s Matt Rentboy Sanchez who’ll save the day.
Add to that the military’s coy way of handling this: “We have refuted Beauchamp’s accounts! But no, he himself hasn’t officially admitted he was lying!” It’s like getting fourth generation copies of a bad fax.
It all leads me to ask, why is Beauchamp on some kind of double super secret probation? Is he in a brig or dungeon somewhere? Why can’t he or someone who actually has first-hand knowledge of the purported stories speak for themselves? My conclusion: everyone involved in this is a character in a larger fictional melodrama, and somehow uploaded themselves onto the internet.
And for what this is worth, I don’t think you should bounce timb. Too much purging is a bad thing; just ask my bulemic co-worker.
Timmy made a rebuttal? By himself? Unbelievable. I’m gonna call your mommy, timmy, to make sure you didn’t get help with your homework from a parent.
cynn, you are of course correct — but only on the surface. What is being debated, by proxy as it were, is the credibility of the Press, and what interests us on the Right is that, by our standards, the defense being offered by the Left and the Press itself makes things worse for them, not better.
Specifically: Foer’s defense, and others’ support of it, doesn’t hold water. There are lots of exciting and interesting stories coming out of Iraq, and whether Beauchamp is telling the truth or not it’s pellucid that Foer selected that particular set of stories over others based on ideology and preconception. Either TNR is not a “centrist” publication, or Foer doesn’t want it to be. Furthermore, and again without reference to whether or not Beauchamp is lying in any specific sense, it’s clear that there are, at minimum, serious questions about his credibility which Foer clearly got blindsided by, which leads to the musical question: “If you have all those editors and researchers and fact-checkers, what in tarnation do they do all day? It clearly isn’t what you’re paying them for.” The very least you can say about it is that it’s incredibly slipshod reporting.
The Press’s defense boils down to “of course it’s all true, because we only print what we believe” — which amounts to an admission that they’re deliberately stirring the pot based on ideological preconceptions. The Left’s defense boils down to “they’re allowed to lie in order to communicate the REVEALED TRVTH,” which for all practical purposes destroys any utility of “the news”. It’s fun to watch them squirm as they try to say that while phrasing it in such a way as to conceal their argument while making it, and those of us on the Right are enjoying it tremendously.
Regards,
Ric
No, you didn’t. You flashed your ass.
Shorter Timmah!: How dare you question my homophobia! I slam the gays because I care!
Shorter Pablo: Fuck you, Timmah! Ya bigot.
tw: stalwarts largely
Indeed.™
I did not clutch any breasts; I just stumbled and my hand just landed there. I swear.
Thank you Ric, for making me have to look something up.
Sweet. Way better than that other Ric.
Did you secretly tweak the sacred output knobs of public opinion?
Not to pick on you cynn, but this is echoey of Cathy’s “pox on both your houses” thinger.
Her template doesn’t seem to fit very well because it glosses over the responsibility Frankie had of setting a tone of honest journalistic inquiry. I’m not going to aggregate cause that’s been done ad nauseum, but the truth is that Frankie gave the signal for the wagons to circle, and circle they did. There’s been no corresponding figure on the right. I was thinking yesterday that it’s not hard to imagine that Rumsfeld would have pushed this into the MSM with some coy formulation at a press conference. This Gates guy? Not gonna happen I don’t think. Tony Snow could have but didn’t.
So I think corvan’s analysis is in many respects an encapsulation of how this should be characterized. There’s a synechdochical dealio here where the diarist is the media. And the free hand the media has given Frankie to handle this with almost textbook smug arrogance is what’s defining and driving this “proverbial tempest in a teapot” – it’s not a left-right thing per se at all.
Compare Foer with Imus. Not to say that the arc of the story needs to be the same, but the media were on Imus like a chicken on a cheeto. Foer? From her tone, we’re to believe it just barely crosses the threshold of Cathy’s notice, say nothing of the AP.
That’s wrong.
well crap. What I meant to say is “What Ric said.”
Ric: I understand your argument and would accept the underlying assumption that regardless of whether or not Beauchamp’s accounts are true (it doesn’t matter to me; I put him in the Pat Dollard camp), they are presented as an underhanded way to sway public opinion on the war. In that case, TNR should be chastised for shoddy vigilance of its editorial policy and oversight of its contributors, wifey and all.
The problem I have with the right here is the roaring chorus that this is affirmative proof that any negative news of Iraq, is necessarily, false. Doesn’t follow.
Glad to be of assistance, Pablo.
It’s one of my favorite words. On the surface it’s an emphatic version of “clear”, plus the connotations from its containing the word “lucid” (rational, conscious, awake, able to correctly process input.) Damned useful at times.
Regards,
Ric
tw: judication 1907. Don’t tell me that crap’s being appealed.
Why do you all cower so much in the face of this little Foer? He’s a baby; knock him out and be done with it.
petit foer?
um, you have some links to back that up? cause I think most of us has said that simply isn’t the case. Why make things up when there are actual events?
That’s not a straw man. That’s, like, a straw Godzilla.
Find me one person who has made that argument, Cynn, and I will eat a cat. Fur and all.
It does affirm that any negative news of Iraq is not necessarily true.
The problem I have with the right here is the roaring chorus that this is affirmative proof that any negative news of Iraq, is necessarily, false.
I don’t suppose you’d care to quote a bit of that, would you, cynn?
tw: tainties manus
I won’t pretend to know what that means, but yet it seems apropos.
Sorry for the overlap, maggie.
No metaphor there. No sir.
I’d have gone with “I will eat a pussy”.
But that’s just me.
“He’s a baby; knock him out and be done with it.
No, he’s a baby meme builder. First the baby meme has to be strangled in the crib (it’s really better that way), then the meme builder is dragged around the stadium behind a chariot so that the crowd can pelt him with whatever comes to hand, then the finishing off begins with the end dependent upon the crowd’s pleasure.
There’s still a bit of fun to be had with Frankie.
No, it doesn’t. Would you then agree that the converse is true — that, if Beauchamp’s allegations turned out well-founded, it’s not affirmative proof that any negative news of Iraq is, necessarily, true? Think before you answer, and factor in your response to, e.g., Abu Ghraib. I don’t think you can truthfully agree, though I confess the possibility of being mistaken; I know damned well that there are a host of people on “your side”[1] who might agree if challenged, but whose behavior would make it clear that they weren’t honest about it — they would be, as happyfeet so colorfully put it, “on it like a chicken on a Cheeto”[2]. Or, as Jeff put it,
It’s rather like the Global Warming debate in the face of this remarkably cool summer and chill Southern Hemisphere winter; the protests of “…it’s just weather, and doesn’t prove anything!” ring hollow in the face of the certain knowledge that, had this season been uncomfortably warm, the cries of “this proves it! SUV owners up against the wall!” would have been loud and sustained.
So when you hear a particularly loud voice arising from the chorus, just do a little cut-and-paste to convert it to a Kos Kidz diatribe from the opposite set of assumptions. If the result doesn’t make you uncomfortable, you’re part of the problem.
Regards,
Ric
[1]scare quotes intended
[2]as long as we’re thanking people for vocabulary, profuse thanks for that one, happyfeet
it’s quite alright. and I love a good Godzilla mention. eatin’ cats, not so much. and now to bring it all together, my kitties are currently hunting a gekko. yay! summer!
that’s from my friend Buffy who also said “Mom and Dad just somehow knew I wasn’t gonna be no lawyer.”
What’s funny to me is that while the entire blogosphere (left and right) has figured out the game ( the story is crap) and moved on to debating what it means now that we know it is all crap, vast swatchs of the MSM are still clinging to the vai hope that it might all be true, that perhaps Beachamp was coerced into changing a story that was perfectly reasonable and plausible. If you don’t believe me go read Howard Kurtz.
Somehow this offends me even more. A corrupt but effective guild I could at least respect. (The baseball players union, for example) A corrupt and ineffective guild is just sad and bloated and pathetic.
WHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Read Kurtz at corvan’s link:
TNR just forgot to put that in its new statement.
Nice catch Karl. Like I said ineffective and corrupt.
Foer is having trouble getting his head around this. Understandably.
BTW the Insty’s site pointed me to Kurtz. The passage Karl is talking about is in paragraph ten, I believe.
Rick Ballard: Beauty language. You eclipse by far both Beachamp and Sanchez.
You know Happyfeet could be right. Foer on top of all his other problems might just be scared and dumb as a box of rocks. Sort of like an under aged hood dragged into juvenile court. Time will tell, but at this point it is pretty clear that there is a more to corroborate the WS than TNR. And it seems to be getting clearer every time Foer opens his mouth.
We all — not just the Right, but the honest Left, to the extent it exists — ought to be grateful to Beauchamp. (That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ply the silly geek with a Percussive Attitude Clarifier and Organizer, given the chance.) The situation he has precipitated has allowed us to begin discussing the applicable meta-question, viz., what good is “news” when it’s “olds”? The fact that Beauchamp’s output is obviously fabulation and confabulation, whether or not it contains factual elements, brings the real issue into sharp relief: given a choice of tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of available stories, Foer chose one that supported his ideological predilections and relied on those predilections to substantiate it. If, as many of us charge, this is a near-universal pattern, it explains loss of readership/viewership of the MSM news without needing to cite competition from the blogosphere. Simply stated, if we know going in that what we see in the paper is selected bits and pieces chosen to support a particular viewpoint, with any contradictory data elided or suppressed, it’s useless even to people who agree with that particular viewpoint. Therefore, why pay for it?
Regards,
Ric
Kurtz’s column illuminates all that is wrong with the media in a short amount of space. He, via some journalism prof, asserts that there is a cloud over the military as a result of this, and implies that IF Beauchamp recanted his stories under oath, that it was due to coersion.
Why don’t they call on TNR to show their work in their fact checking prior to publication, and show their work since in their re-reporting? Since they were the ones to publish it, and the information published has been legitimately called into question, is it not their burden of proof to show that what they published, in fact, happened?
As the Army has all of the resources avilable to them on the ground, and has indicated that their investigation failed to confirm Beauchamp’s fables, I am far more likely to believe the military than TNR or Howie Kurtz.
Ric,
You said it better than I have or than I ever could.
Yeah Kurtz seems to say that the burden of proof is on the slandered, not the journalist doing the slandering…but really did you expect better?
Corvan – No, I do not expect much better. I do find it refreshing when they air their biases so publicly though. At least Kurtz is being kind of up front about it, though it is kind of weenie-ish to hide behind the comments of some journalism professor, rather than just coming out and saying it himself.
I’m wondering about that statement made in paragraph ten of Kurtz’s article. Any military guys out there have any idea what it could have been that Beachamp signed?
#34 by Topsecretk9
I can’t for the life of me figure why TNR choose to do the slow, painful bleed.
This has been a feature (bug) on the left for many years. To them surrender to the right is never an option. That tells you who they think is their real mortal enemy.
Foer continues his legalistic parsing of language without really saying anything in that Kurtz piece in the WAPO.
“Thus far,” he added, “we’ve been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have.”
Frankie is a victim because the military won’t show him what they’ve got. Gee Frankie, do they have any freaking obligation to show you a fucking thing about a fucking investigation. Oh, I forgot, they must NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!
Pretty lame there Frankie. You got nothing and want to see everybody else’s hands for free.
Ric: you can count me in on this whatever you’re proposing.
Frankie – You did get evidence, Major Russo, the PAO in Kuwait, told Zengerle that the melty face story was an urban legend, but you haven’t mentioned that contradiction from the military yet.
756!
OH FUCK, NO THEY DIDN”T?…I fucking HATE it when liberals employ their time honored dis-honest coward ass prove a negative bullshit. Seriously, how do these people sleep at night? This statement alone proves to me that Frank Feor is a slimy, lying piece of crap with not one fricken ounce of integrity…he also doesn’t mention that it’s pretty much long standing military policy to NOT provide lying pieces of crap or ANYONE “evidence”, that the Army said that fuckwad Scott is FREE TO DICUSS THE MATTER and the Army says they CAN’T discuss the details to PROTECT FUCKWAD LIAR STBeauchamp what a total fucking asshole, what a total loser half a man – somewhere Jason Leoplod is having a party because he’s a bit more on the “smidgen of truth” said than Frank Feor.
At this point, Franklin Foer would probably be best served to do what I originally thought they would do, and just no longer address this, and hope that it would blow over during their 3 week vacation. Every time he speaks of this, it gives more evidence that they either willfully ran with this despite or in spite of the obvious flaws.
He essentially says that they stand behind their story because the Army has not provided him with the documents that he so richly deserves, which woud serve as his fact-checking for his re-reporting. The statements from the Army directly contradict Foer’s statements, and only serve to make Foer look like a willful participant rather than having been hoodwinked by Beauchamp.
Leopold still holding on to that imminent Rove indictment ? LOL
“Add to that the military’s coy way of handling this: “We have refuted Beauchamp’s accounts! But no, he himself hasn’t officially admitted he was lying!†It’s like getting fourth generation copies of a bad fax.
It all leads me to ask, why is Beauchamp on some kind of double super secret probation? Is he in a brig or dungeon somewhere? Why can’t he or someone who actually has first-hand knowledge of the purported stories speak for themselves? My conclusion: everyone involved in this is a character in a larger fictional melodrama, and somehow uploaded themselves onto the internet.”
One thing to keep in mind, Cynn, is the military has more important matters to attend to than this little kerfuffle.
TNR? Not so much.
TW: 382,000 barked prophecy of a fall in Athens
And at the risk of beating the daed horse that is TNR, Foer has been provided with evidence that contradicts Beauchamp. His own so-called “corroboration” actually contradicts Beauchamp on the details of each story in “Shock Troops.” The melted woman is at the wrong table in the wrong country. What was “clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground” is now a graveyard (as the WS figured). The dogs are killed by an entirely different method than the two methods Beauchamp described.
Hypothetical: A murder investigation. The suspect says he has an alibi. He and his girlfriend were at the movies on Friday night. They saw “Becoming Jane” with Anne Hathaway. The girlfriend is questioned. She says she was with the suspect at the movies, but it was Saturday night, and they saw The Simpsons Movie.
Juries in courtrooms every day in this country would apply their common sense and conclude that the alibi is BS. TNR would conclude that the girlfriend “corroborates” that she and the suspect went to the movies.
Karl – That is a sensational analogy. I was just re-reading their statement, and what they claim to have corroborated simply was not. All their corroboration did was to show that the events were possible, not that they happened, and the facts that they did show flat out contradicted the stories as written.
It will be interesting to see what meme they trot out tomorrow in regards to this matter.
Why can’t he or someone who actually has first-hand knowledge of the purported stories speak for themselves?
because Beauchamp is a coward, perchance? as of at least August 3
” … little more is expected to be released unless PV-2 Beauchamp decides to discuss the matter further,*** which he is free to do.***”
Doesn’t that almost sound like a dare to Beauchamp? You can discuss this matter all you would like, but know that we can document your perfidy, and will gladly do so, should you give us a reason to.
JD — it sounds like a dare – go for it Private Beauchamp…WStandard has bet the farm on this and item number 3
and when thinking of the 2 publications…Ace commenter AD nails it
JD – Isn’t the correct phrase “That’s not a threat, that’s a promise?” Sounds like just a little reminder if decides to play the victim once he regains his phone and e-mail priveleges.
A- Wouldn’t the Army keep this investigation open to go after the people Beauchamp implicates – or if Beauchamp won’t implicate, wouldn’t that mean his punishment would be more than the administrative slap?
B- How is it that Feor knows anything about Beauchamp, up until today he’s been claiming – and did to Kurtz last interview – that the Army was hindering their RE-report?
C-I said at Ace – but TNR is doing and started to night by throwing beauchamp under the bus but still sticking with the soldier is a slow special brand of the liberal swiftboat – TNR is seeking sympathy and set the boy up so they can say -he lied to us too – and just kept lying, but because we are so patriotic we had to believe him – or some such liberal mush
Just speculation, but TNR may simply be setting up the he-said, they said meme, blaming the Army for not releasing the details of the investigation (though they may not be able to do so without Beauchamp’s consent — which he won’t give, natch).
Is there anyone who thinks the story about the boy having his tongue cut out isn’t just as bogus as all the rest? I could swear Beauchamp picked up the head swiveling bit (along with bits of almost everything) from milbloggers elsewhere. It makes zero sense that some suitably vague militia would make an isolated example of a single kid for fraternizing with the Yanks to start with. It makes even less sense that after a suitably vague interim allowing for “James Bond’s” full recovery, the same apparently unfazed kid is next spotted “mixed in with the throng of children who waded up to our convoy screaming for us to throw them chocolate or soccer balls.”
It gets even better though!
What’s really notable about that first piece (published at what must have been close to the beginning of Beauchamp’s deployment) is the difference between the title of the story and the title of the the browser window it opens in! The story is called “War Bonds.” You’ll note, however, that your browser calls it “My horrifying tour of duty in Iraq.”
“I’m wondering about that statement made in paragraph ten of Kurtz’s article. Any military guys out there have any idea what it could have been that Beachamp signed?”
DA Form 2823, Sworn Statement.
Allow me to take this moment to pat myself on the back:
No less an emminence than Howard Kurtz says in todays WaPo: “It is not clear whether investigators might have pressured Beauchamp into disavowing the articles by indicating that charges might otherwise be filed against him under the military justice code.” It’s a forced confession, Yes, Sir! Never mind that Beauchamp’s offenses probably never rose above the level of administrative punishment under Article 15, which he’s going to get one way or the other.
Looks like I was right about the “administrative punishment” too (read “latrine duty for the rest o’ yer life, Bubba”). I predict that Pvt. Beauchamp’s next treatise will be on Housemaid’s Knee.
[…] first problem with that is that the soldiers with whom TNR supposedly spoke did not corroboarate Beauchamp’s stories in any meaningful sense, however much TNR would like to pretend otherwise. The second problem is, as noted in the link to […]
http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ abroad study