Tuesday, August 07, 2007
|
|
Time To Show Foer The Door
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
1:58 AM
|
|
Posted by Generalissimo
Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard has just broken news on the Weekly Standard that can only result in the firing of, at the minimum, Franklin Foer, editor of the once-respected New Republic. You simply cannot publish anti-military stories, inflammatory and controversial on their face, without subjecting the wild claims to the most strict fact-checking measures possible. Yet Mr. Foer, it now appears, did just that.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the husband of a New Republic staffer who previous to his military service posted anti-war material on a weblog, volunteered to recant the stories that were published in The New Republic on the very first day of the military's investigation, according to sources to Goldfarb, the very day that Mr. Foer was simultaenously walking away from one proven Beauchamp lie and doubling down on the rest of the allegations in the three stories. Beauchamp's recant was made under oath.
Now Mr. Foer is in a no-win situation. Either Beauchamp lied under oath to military investigators, making him a liar and destroying his credibility, and taking down the credibility of the editorial staff of the New Republic, and that of the magazine itself.
Or Beauchamp got caught in a lie by military investigators, and when confronted, agreed to recant, making him a liar and destroying his credibility, and taking down the credibility of the editorial staff of the New Republic, and that of the magazine itself.
Whichever is the case, Mr. Foer, as long as he remains editor of TNR, will be the Dan Rather of the political magazine world, a laughing stock caught up in trying to publicly maintain an obvious lie as truth. Mr. Foer complains that the military's investigation process has hampered the magazine's abiltiy to get to the bottom of the scandal and decide for themselves what veracity, if any, there is with Beauchamp's claims, which raise questions that Mr. Foer does not have the standing anymore to be able to answer satisfactorily.
If the magazine didn't get the fact-checking right the first time, how are we to trust that they will get it right the second time, regardless of whether or not the military is "interfering"? Since Beauchamp is now allegedly under oath admitting he fabricated most if not all of his claims, who was in charge of the fact-checking of the story? Who else in Beauchamp's unit corroborated his allegations?
Transparency is the only thing that can save The New Republic, a trait that is not imbued in Franklin Foer as demonstrated by the way he has handled the Beauchamp affair from the beginning. It is time for him to go.
|
|
...you're,as expected,a pygmy. Mike,you're wasting air with that dweeby KosKid.
raeroach:A little homework assignment.."Saddam's Bombmaker" by Dr.Khidhir Hamza (2000 Touchstone/
Simon & Shuster)...Oh,and review the ariel videos
of thousands of poisoned Kurds...Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Follow up with Richard Butler's,"The Greatest Threat" (2001 Perseus Books,NY) He--FYI--headed UNSCOM befor the sorry Blix.
Mike...There I go wasting air and evidence on him,as well.Sorry for the lapse! |
|
rae said:
"*A bridge collaspes in America exposing the failing infrastructure and the lack of proper domestic policies to keep our nation safe.
--Your tax cuts at work, my friends."
Federal spending on transportation under Bush has gone from $41.5 billion in 2000 to $65.7 billion this year, an increase of 58.3%
While it is possible that the money was spent on the wrong things in "transportation", it is obvious that "tax cuts" played absolutely no role in reducing bridge maintenance if such reduction occurred. NO ROLE. NONE.
As far as the effort to increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is concerned, that program has absolutely nothing to so with the health of “ our nation's least wealthiest and most vulnerable“ as you claim. The least wealthiest and most vulnerable are covered under Medicaid.
SCHIP was invented under the excuse that those “just above” the poverty line still couldn’t afford health insurance for their children. Under current funding, people with incomes up to $46,000 a year qualify for SCHIP. It’s utterly ridiculous to claim that someone making $46,000 a year has a right to shift the responsibility for his children’s health car off to the taxpayers. And what Hillary and her fellow looting legislators want is to increase the funding enough so that people making up to $80,000 a year qualify. They’ve agreed for now to settle for raising it to $65,000 a year, with the understanding that it will be increased again next year.
So this program has nothing to do with helping the “least wealthy”. It’s nothing but another attempt to plunder the upper income taxpayers in the hope of buying a few more middle class votes.
My on-going question to liberals like you is simply this: Do you care about the facts at all -- or are you content to be a useful idiot for the left by mindlessly regurgitating their talking points? |
|
|
Foer did declare, did he not? that he was getting on the spot corroboration from other soldiers. But at this point, was Beauchamp not already on record otherwise? Did Beuachamp answer the phone as Elmer Fudd and corroborate his own stories to Foer OR did Foer just make up his claims to corroboration. Certainly, his statements were utterly devoid of hard facts or sourcing. Is Foer the biggest boob ever to hold such a tasty perch in publishing or is he just a liar? Somehow, after debrief and consultation with his attorney, I don't think even Beauchamp would have been stupid enough to continue the charade with Foer. Franklin, we look forward to YOUR biopic. Maybe Leo will play you. |
|
Someone has their tin foil hat on a little too tight this morning!
|
|
"I can't think of anything bad enough to call him."
How about John Kerry.
|
|
"Winston, I still would not be shocked to find Beauchamp on the lecture circuit in 5, 10, or 20 years claiming (or strongly implying) that he had been forced to retract his allegations"
We've still not heard from the "five sources" The New Republic claimed had "corroborated" Beauchamp's fantasies. At some point TNR will be forced to either identify those or admit they don't exist. If, as I expect, they don't exist and TNR is forced to admit it, the last shred that Beauchamp could cling to at some future date while claiming his tales were true, would be vanish.
I think it's obvious now that Beauchamp went into the service with an large agenda, to aquire "credibility" and endear himself to the left-wing media by weaving a tale that would conform to the narrative the left assumes of the military(and thus feather his employment opportunies post-military service). That's all for naught now. He's an admitted and sworn liar.
And he's also an individual devoid of not only honesty but of honor. A man who set out to slime his fellow soldiers in a time of war, all for selfish, personal gain at some future date.
I can't think of anything bad enough to call him.
|
|
|
I hear you brother. But look at what Rae did above (just scroll up). They are shifting tack and saying the Beauchamp story does not matter because Bush and the Republicans are worse. Don't fall into the trap. Sure everyone makes mistakes, but this is the New Republic's mistake now and until they admit it and apologize they are nothing. Don't get sucked in by the bait, use your mential Akido to deflect and redirect their blows against themselves. |
|
|
I notice that our good friends manfred, toady, themechanicaleye, etc. are conspicuously absent on this thread. They have usually chimed in by now. I wonder what's keeping them? |
|
|
|
Winston, I still would not be shocked to find Beauchamp on the lecture circuit in 5, 10, or 20 years claiming (or strongly implying) that he had been forced to retract his allegations. Could the military even then reach out and punish him? Maybe, but would they, in practice?
And in the meantime, he won’t have to put the idea out there himself, as there will be plenty of dupes on the left willing to do it for him, for which he can't be made to pay.
Joe, I’m not trying to defend the crude and cruel conduct that Granier and Englund and the other louts engaged in at Abu Ghraib. I just didn’t think that dragging AG into a supposed apology about a completely unrelated matter was a classy thing to do. If I apologized for falsely accusing you of vandalism yesterday, I’d have no business taking a swipe at your brother’s thievery of last year in the same breath. |
|
BrianHarris was indeed a gentleman, and whenever that happens, it's proper to be a gentleman back, and accept the apology. That isn't the time to pile on and make the apologist feel worse about the situation....
Same with Beauchamp. Now may be the time to extend an olive branch so that guy (hopefully) can start putting his life back together. The same cannot be said for Foer or TNR. They've yet to apologize (or even admit their huge mistakes). |
|
“Beauchamp originally told the truth, but was then forced to lie under oath to military investigators. He cut a deal and will be “punished” for the initial so-called lie, but not as harshly as he would have been if he’d stuck to his original true story.”
He better not have lied on his sworn(under oath) confession to the military.
This is what he faces in the event at some future time he comes out and says, "I just told them what they wanted to hear(i.e. I lied on an official document)
False Official Statement = 7 yrs max confinement, Dishonorable Discharge
Failure to Obey General Order = 2 years max, DD
The other Art 92 offenses (failure to obey other order and dereliction of duty max out at 6 months and a Bad Conduct Discharge (i.e. less than a Dishonorable Discharge).
The New Republic can't imprison Beauchamp for lying to them. The Army CAN and WILL so if he has any sense at all, he better not have lied on his recantation.
My guess is he'll get short confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge which will follow him the rest of his life.
|
|
...which permeates and wafts for so far and wide an area.
For many who do not "cling" to websites such as this one, those who casually hear of the ugliness and nastiness of stories of the Scott Beauchamps, they may not ever hear of the wrong done and the correction.
For still more, this story will be simply filed under, "more of the same", right up there with the way in which the LEFT portrayed Abu Ghraib as being endemic to the entire military.
Then there are the bloggers who've entered sites like this one. Represented by a dozen, or two, like the little pipsqueak of a rugrat who kept fouling up the posts with his/her running comments about, eating some such "sandwich".
To say they're irritating is too simple.
They've yet to show up here and "chime in" on this latest revelation, and that, for many I presume, is among the sweetest resolutions to be derived from all of this business.
I also know, as expressed by Thaale, the level of accountability from the left will be negligible, at best. |
|
The US handling of Abu Graib was a bad thing. There is no point saying otherwise (even though Saddam was 1000 times worse).
BrianHarris ate some crow, even if he equivacated. Now it is Franklin Foer's turn. |
|
the positive comments from TH posters reveal much more than the general view that lefties have no manners.
Even the smallest expression of humility is greeted with AMAZED gratitude! |
|
His conditional apology doesn’t merely include one minor equivocation. It includes a major provisional clause – that he’ll accept this story when it’s proven true by someone other than the military. Since the entire investigation was run by the military and all the counter-evidence was collected by them, I’d be surprised if this condition were ever satisfactorily met, barring an unlikely full retraction by TNR.
And the “apology” also included a gratuitous Abu Ghraib reference (which probably did not refer to the actual dismemberments carried on there under Saddam’s regime or the stupidity of the US putting a clueless affirmative action general in charge of the facility). In fact, BH has chosen merely to smear the troops another way than STB did, claiming falsely that it is Abu Ghraib rather than melted-face-gate that proves that American soldiers are sociopaths. |
|
First to Michael Goldfarb and the Weekly Standard, Ace, Allah, Malkin, and the Military Blogs for tiredlessly following this story.
Then to Dean who was central at Town Hall with running with this story.
Then to the Corner for following up.
And thanks to BrianHarris for being a gentleman. You have eaten enough crow. Pass that platter to Franklin Foer and The New Republic. |
|
I don’t agree with your two choices, Hugh:
“ Either Beauchamp lied under oath to military investigators, making him a liar and destroying his credibility…
Or Beauchamp got caught in a lie by military investigators, and when confronted, agreed to recant, making him a liar and destroying his credibility...”
In theory you’re right, but we all know from bitter experience (and the one very conditional backtracking seen so far on this thread) that the left narrative will be:
“Beauchamp originally told the truth, but was then forced to lie under oath to military investigators. He cut a deal and will be “punished” for the initial so-called lie, but not as harshly as he would have been if he’d stuck to his original true story.” |
|
|
Though we can disagree on many things, maintaining credibility and intellectual honesty is crucial to having substantive and good-faithed debate. Thank you for the lesson in humility. |
|
There have been a number of whistle-blowers during the Iraq conflict that have not generated an instant and intensive rallying cry of "BS" by the blogosphere, especially from the milblogs. What that tells me is that they are not simply reflexively poo-pooing on every accusation that is made. As a former military man who grew up in the military family, I understand why the outcry was so profound.
I think the lesson you should absorb during your crow-eating session is that, in spite of our differences, the "other side" is not necessarily without virtue or credibility.
Thanks for standing up quickly to admit your error. You missed a perfect apology by only one minor equivocation. Not bad. |
|
Another lying agenda-driven lefty nutball is just what they need. Maybe he can produce Keith Olberrmann's show- they're running out of made-up hate speech against republicans- they can switch to the military!
Why just last night Tucker had a TNR staffer on as an 'expert' talking about republicans!! You can't make this stuff up! |
|
Foer made mistake upon mistake, compounding the effect.
1) They engaged a young guy to give them an "account" of his experiences in Iraq without taking steps if his account was in any way representational of the troops as a whole. Dean holds this as the big crime on TNR's part because it was a hit piece from the start. I think it is okay to send a critic of the war to report on it, but they have to be honorable and fair. Beauchamp was neither.
2) They published stories bound to be deemed controversial without fact checking them. This was reckless.
3) When challenged the New Republic got defensive, claiming they did fact check them. That was a lie. It is at this point that Foer could have saved his reputation if he just stopped digging that hole for himself.
4) The New Republic then went and verified the story, but did the unforgivable in cherry picking what they were being told by the Army (misrepresenting the "facts" all over again). The Army told them information that should have made them realize they were in serious trouble, and they held that back.
If confronted with a story that may be false, you do not get defensive. You promise to check into it. You check into it and if wrong, admit it. The New Republic brought this on itself and as Mark Steyn so aptly put it--Private Second Glass indeed.
|
|
I anxiously await The New Republic's explanation of who the five soldiers/sources were that they claimed "corroborated" Pvt. Beauchamp's fiction during their rigorous "fact-checking". That should be priceless.
Foer's scalp hanging prominently on the Wall of Journalistic Shame can keep Dan Rather's scalp company.
|
|
|
sBrian, thanks for eating some crow. I can repect people who admit they make a mistake. Want some true reporting and backed-up stuff? Head over to my blog and scroll down to "The truth is out There" and donate to Laughing Wolf, headed to embed in Iraq after issuig a challenge to Paul McCleary of CJR. It should be worth every penny. |
|
Writes Colin in the comments above: "In short, THE NEW REPUBLIC's conduct was altogether so un-serious that it doesn't even rise to the level of sophomoric."
No kidding. Only the most absolute basic sense of right and wrong was needed. How can you screw that up? You either have to be so blindly driven to get to a specific result, or psychotic - maybe they are one in the same. |
|
|
I'm sure he'll be a featured guest commentator on MSNBC. Military expert. |
|
|
|
I'm going to set aside the "married to staffer" problem and associated conflicts of interest, since it's not clear exactly when Foer or whoever was responsible for the assignments became aware of the relationship, which at the very least proved embarrassing.
Foer's most glaring mistake was in accepting the "Shock Troops" stories in the first place. At that moment his editorial staff showed it wasn't ready for the big leagues, since any grown-up could tell that, contrary to Foer's statements on the subject, they in fact smelled terrible.
Foer's second and possibly most critical mistake oddly enough has to do with accidentally telling the truth. The moment he told the WEEKLY STANDARD's Michael Goldfarb that the soldier was based at FOB Falcon, exposure became inevitable. At that moment, he "Scott Thomas" was for all intents and purposes hung out to dry. It was only a matter of time before the identity of the writer was broken wide open. If he had in fact been handling an authentic whistle-blower, he should never have given such telling details away. Also, while we're on the subject, a grown-up probably would have selected a better pseudonym, too.
In short, THE NEW REPUBLIC's conduct was altogether so un-serious that it doesn't even rise to the level of sophomoric. The affair may also say something about larger swathes of the left - its typical impulses and blinkered worldview - though it's unfair and also a mistake to identify the left strictly with its most incompetent representatives (or most childish internet trolls). On that note, it will be interesting to see whether the magazine's allies in the recent controversy will finally realize that the position is lost, and not worth their further embarrassment. "Teachable moment," anyone? |
|
|
|
As soon as this is confirmed from a source besides Goldfarb and the military. Preferably, I'd like to hear it from TNR or Beauchamp himself. Regardless, I have to admit that right now it looks like I and a lot of other people have been duped. I hope the others have the sack to man up and admit it too when the time comes.
This is a disturbing incident, and much as Abu Ghraib illuminated a great deal of what was wrong with the culture of the US military, this incident along with Hurricane Katrina serves to illuminate some of the failings of the MSM. I'll look forward to more analysis from Hugh and Dean. |
|
It was people with military experience, especially, that could smell this garbage a mile away. In the military, you don't have nearly as much privacy or freedom of action as Beauchamp portrayed in his little tales from Iraq. Obviously TNR didn't have any staff with the relevant military experience, or consult someone outside TNR with the relevant military experience, that could read the stories and decide if Beauchamp's accounts rang true. And if Foer did consult someone (besides Beauchamp,) he must have ignored the cautions because Beauchamp’s stories were “too good” to pass up.
|
|
Simply pathetic...
Undermining our Nation's Bravest in Harm's Way, for some cheap personal ambition and partisan greed.
If Conservatives showed the same outrage for the unethical Democrat efforts, as the Illegal Immigration issue, Democrats would be running for the hills.
Just because a Republican President is at the helm, these Liberal Partisans are willing to debase a mission involving the Liberation of formerly oppressed Millions of Iraqis.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and the New Republic should be sued by everyone in the military, (then deported to Iran).
These Democrat Partisans simply sicken the stomach, and the MSM who pushes their dishonest garbage.
Hillary has lied repeatedly about her vote to authorize force in Iraq.
She is also rather quiet about her plans to leave a small force in Iraq to combat al Qaeda.
Revealing just another unethical Democrat contradiction, as Pelosi repeatedly lied about the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq.
I am surprised the Liberal Partisans don't question her retreat plan, with intention to leave some force behind, as some conspiracy for the OIL.
But the only way to make them eat the daily deceit they push on the American Public, is to strongly rebuke their folly at the poll this 2008.
Send them packing...
|
|
|
|