Wednesday, August 08, 2007
|
|
The Army Speaks; Foer Dissembles
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:58 AM
|
From the New York Times:
An Army investigation into the Baghdad Diarist, a soldier in Iraq who wrote anonymous columns for The New Republic, has concluded that the sometimes shockingly cruel reports were false.
“We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”
New Republic editor Foer falls deeper into Mapes-Foer Syndrome:
In an e-mail message, Mr. Foer said, “Thus far, we’ve been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have,” adding, “We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy.”
Foer is demanding evidence from the Army, but won't offer the public his "evidence" for believing Beauchamp. His statement challenges the Army's truthfulness, but given his willingness to stand by Beauchamp even after Beauchamp admitted that the badly burned woman he imagined hadn't been in Iraq, this isn't a surprise. There isn't any way to describe this except Foer has decided to take the magazine with him on the long ride down.
Nothing from any of journalism's bravehearts at The Plank. Status as a TNR writer/Foer protege --that must really be worth a lot, given what these writers are sacrificing for it.
Would any MSMer who believes Beauchamp's original story, or anything like it, and is willing to stand side-by-side with Foer please make themselves known? No doubt Eason Jordan, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, and TNR alum Stephen Glass have sent along notes of encouragement and solidarity to Foer, but I am interested if any pundit, reporter or editor is willing to publicly say "I think Franklin Foer is right to demand evidence from the Army while refusing to reveal his own and to stand by Beauchamp's story --the modified version that is." Any dean of any journalism school? Anyone not of the hysterical anti-war fringe?
|
|
You'd think one of the exalted leaders at TNR would look down from the crown of this rotted out tree and see Foer the numbskull down there with a chainsaw and take it away from him.
"creeaak" Oops! Is that a slab starting??? |
|
Hugh Said:"Foer is demanding evidence from the Army, but won't offer the public his "evidence" for believing Beauchamp."
Hugh...this is typical of the left. Newspapers and leftist activists DEMAND that our government PROVE to them that they aren't using Foreign Surveillance, otherwise known as "Domestic Spying" for purely domestic surveillance. (as if any of them have taken the time to understand the data mining and threat determination processes in the first place)
They won't rest until EVERY LAST SHRED of National Security Intel is handed over for analysis by the The Ol Grey Lady and the KosKidz.
Sure, it'll leave us wide open for attacks...but AT LONG LAST...the left will be able to GET BOOOSH!
|
|
Join the Army....you'll have a LOT of surprises, believe me.
I wouldn't expect the Army to be looking to do any favors for TNR about now..... |
|
Don't worry...the Army will deal with Pvt Beauchamp! NJP (non-judicial punishment)is the best he can hope for I'm afraid. The Army has a thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). They have their own laws, and they don't need any F'd up civilians telling them what to do.....(their words).
One of the worst things to come out ot the Woodward and Bernstein generation is the notion that we are somehow entitled to know everything we want to know about whatever we choose. This has resulted in the reckless press tripping all over itself trying to get a story....ANY story.
I'll never forget the Seal team hitting the beach only to find reporters and cameras waiting for them. Clearly, this endangers our troops. I believe this out of control press endangers all our lives with their "Right to know...." |
|
all emotion aside - each side is claiming that they stand behind their reporting. It seems the Army has the report etc that can conclusively prove this issue. Hugh wants us to beleive WS and the Army, because...they are WS and the Army.
All well and good, but not good enough - show the evidence. It hurts when each side quotes the same source, but with conflicting statements. Let the public decide. Any why is the Army just suspending the cell phone and laptop if this is all falsehood - why not a more severe rebuke given the magnitude of what this Beauchamp guy said and did? Why not take legal action action against TNR etc...
|
|
|
Oh, I see, you are Kimberlick incarnate; another streaker, trolling through with naked nonsense. Unable to dialogue or answer to your sweeping comments. Man, this is all too predictable. |
|
The lefties are simply silent. Their logic and the facts tell them that TNR's Beauchamp stories are BS . . . but their hearts want all of Beauchamp's lies to be true.
The only reaction they have is to ignore the whole dust up and pretend they don't have a dog in this fight. But they do, it's called journalistic integrity, and one of their own, TNR, just lost it all. It doesn't reflect well on the rest of them. |
|
|
|
Tell THESE people how much better life was under Saddam, jackass. I dare you to look at every page:
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
Mapes-Foer Syndrome was originally known at Criswell Syndrome, in the mid-20th century, when it was first identified in the movie Plan Nine from Outer Space:
"Can you prove it DIDN'T happen?"
|
|
Finally, your statement that "I wouldn't be particularly surprised or upset if some GIs among the 160,000 who are stuck in an unwinnable war in the sweltering heat of Mesopotamia crossed a line now and again. I don't judge them too harshly." In case you missed the memo, Beauchamp lied. He made up the stories. They're not true!
Warren, facts are a terrible thing, I know. They have a way of either supporting your argument, or ripping it to shreds. In this case the facts just ripped your argument to shreds. You might want to read up on things before you open your mouth and look stupid next time.
Jim C |
|
To respond to your absolute nonsense.
I guess I'll start with the chickenhawk meme. If I can't have a pro-war opinion on the war without servinin the military, why do you get to have an anti-war opinion on the war when you aren't serving.
Next, the war under false pretenses BS. In case you've forgotten, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and many others that are against the war now for political reaosns were for it before the invasion. Many of them stated on the record that Saddam had WMDs. Furthermore, many of our "allies" who are against the war now also stated that Saddam had WMDs. The fact that France and Russia were involved in oil for food says a lot about why they didn't want us there. They were making money hand over fist working with Saddam to foil the sanctions.
Next, the unwinnable war line. This war is winnable. The surge is showing great progress. I notice that you convienently forgot that little bit of information. Only the idiots in Washington, and anti-war zealots like yourself can defeat the US military. Actually, it's not so much a defeat as it's a surrender to those with a similar ideology to those that incinerated 3,000 of your fellow countrymen on 9-11.
Next, your claim that life is worse in Iraq than when Saddam was in power. Funny, this article from the Times online paints a different story. Here's the money quote so you won't have to go looking for it:
"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week."
The article is from March of '07.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
Jim C |
|
This is what happens when your knee-jerk egalitarian instincts kick in. To your way of thinking there is no difference in stature between US military and the pinko editorial staff at The New Republic. I would assert that Hugh, et al, are right to have a very high opinion of our military, and a very low opinion of lefty hacks like Foer.
Meanwhile: Marty Peretz seems to have taken a powder, no? |
|
Please endulge us with elaboration on your evidence that Saddam's ouster,
"which has made the country a worse place to live in than under Saddam Hussein.
A fair question to a sweeping comment. Please do not obfuscate or resort to tangential anecdotes. A focus on the specific question with detailed answer. Should you desire, feel free to incorporate germane address to the Hussein's folksy and widespread use of "rape rooms", extensive torture tactics, threats and violence on Kurdish region by Saddam, ignoring of civil rights, infrastructure programs, etc., etc.
Thank you. |
|
|
the stories. . . that is it. That is conclusive. It is over. If such a statement exists (and I believe it does exist), the Army should disclose that. If only because this is a public published story that is being refuted. |
|
|
Is in pure duck-and-cover mode now. His concern is no longer Beauchamp, or even the magazine. It's classic cornered sewer rat behavior - all mindless hissing and bared teeth - supported from a safe distance by the other sewer denizens who post here and elsewhere, collectively poised with beady gaze and twitching whiskers to flee into some dark recess until the threat passes. |
|
"What evidence could Major Lamb provide that the story is false? "
The Army could, but only with PVT Beauchamp's written permission, release:
1. Whatever affidavit or statement Beauchamp signed.
2. The statements given to Army investigators by each service member interviewed in connection with the matter. (probably subject to each of their individual permissions)
3. The official Army report of the investigation.
You can't definitely 'prove a negative' but you certainly can provide statements under oath from the people in a position to know the facts who say it didn't happen.
My guess is that at this point PVT Beauchamp does NOT want his formal statement or the results of the investigation to be made public; likewise he will be unlikely to want the results of his administrative punishment (Article 15) to be made public.
It's ironic that HIS privacy rights may prevent the public from seeing the evidence that HE is a LIAR. |
|
"...we control the vertical." "... so that we can resolve this discrepancy." TNR is demanding to know what the Army investigation learned so they, the authority on all of the mess they begun, can resolve who is telling the truth? The embedded assumption there is that the Army is lying...? If they are, then we should expect to hear very shortly from Pvt. B, saying as much, shouldn't we? If I were TNR, I'd be after my source with torches and pitchforks, a "We trusted you because we of course believe about soldiers and the military exactly what you wrote. Now we learn you might of made it all up! What the hell is this!?" But they aren't doing this. They are still trying to break the National Guard story.
|
|
What evidence could Major Lamb provide that the story is false? Proof of a live dog?
"I demand that you prove something didn't happen" !!1one!
Really, if Beauchamp backs away from his claims, there is nothing to dispute. |
|
simultaneoulsy-or simply shut up.
Major Lamb says the story is false
but won't offer any proof.Mr Foer says
he has no evidence proving the story is false-despite asking the Army for some evidence.
At this point neither man's word can be considered apodictic as neither has offered any proof.
But Hewitt just took the army's side because he is pro-war.
End of story |
|
|
|
Hey Briggsy: the Army general who failed to handle the Tillman death inquiry professionally has had his *ss handed to him. His career is over. His bungling of the case was not a "cover-up"; it was a f*ck- up. HIS f*ck-up.
Do you think Army private Beauchamp, who lied to the world about his made-up experiences and thereby libeled his fellow troopers, and by inference all the soldiers in the field in Iraq, should experience Article 15 justice or not?
Do you know what Article 15 means, oh Wise One?
If YOU, as I suspect you are, were one of a host of garbage-strewn cubicle dwellers answering Customer Service calls, do you think publishing lies about the morals of your fellow cubazoids--- and leaving enough hints about their identity to allow their friends and family to ID them--- would result in your employer firing you, and your fellow cube-dwellers having an old fashioned "blanket party" before they sued your butt into financial extinction?
Just askin'.....
I'd predict that you won't respond.
But everyone here knows you lack the onions AND the candlepower to defend your silly assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
|