Tuesday, August 07, 2007
|
|
The New Republic Is Running The CBS/Dan Rather Playbook
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
4:05 PM
|
Posted by Generalissimo
Just a short time ago, in response to the Michael Goldfarb story in the Weekly Standard citing a high level military official saying that anti-war reporter Scott Thomas Beauchamp has signed a sworn statement denying the stories that the New Republic supposedly fact-checked and ran, the editors of the New Republic posted the following:
A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
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
So instead of saying Houston, we might have a problem here, the editors at the New Republic are walking further out onto the plank. They have no problem wanting you to believe that they have their unnamed sources to back up Beauchamp's claims, and that they still are sticking by their story, much as Dan Rather did in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and yet they are reacting to the Weekly Standard's unnamed source with a knee-jerk reaction that it can't be trusted. You can't have it both ways. You'd think at this point, Franklin Foer, the beleaguered editor of the New Republic, would start to realize how far out over the water he is walking, and that he might want to think twice about doubling down and blindly backing his stories. The further out on the plank you walk, when you do eventually get wet, the harder it is for anyone to reach you with a life preserver.
|
|
Fergus on Manfred on Fergus
1.) So Fergus, in his unbridled elation includes manfred's name in an otherwise incomplete list of LOSERS who made every effort to bring attention to chastising Dean Barnett's claims against a FRAUD. Fergus' deemed a "doofus" (yeah, me too).
2.)manfred claims, "I DON'T CARE" on damage done by the TNR's "out there" in the junk they report. CBS took a "I DON'T CARE" attitude in smearing Bush's name in the heavily defended FALSE letter intended to discredit the president before the 2004 election. The LEFT says, "I DON'T CARE" in the innaccuracies of Al Gore about Global Warming. Most of Gore's details are false--no concern to the LEFT. Other TNR-type stories have been fostered and circulated by the "I DON'T CARE" LEFT, as they "think" a greater good is being served by the consequences of such bulls**t. And it's "ANECDOTE", not, antecdote.
3.) Manfred's blurred observation, "Christ, people complain about trolls when dissenters DO comment, and they complain about their absence when they DON'T." I read Fergus as no complaining at all-----AS A MATTER OF FACT, I READ HIS COMMENTS AS ONLY THOSE OF ELATION.
He uses terms such as, "just so very sweet", and "lovely silence" in describing the absence of leftist spew. Hardly a complaint---not to the rational among us. But with such sensitive skin, I suppose, anything is going to be received as a "complaint".
Finally, I love manfred's reference to "dissenters". If it was simple "dissent", why such hate filled speak, and, nonsensical spew, as is so often seen from so many leftists, liberals, and progressives?
Granted, a few democrats visit this site offering productive counter points---however, it's all too rare.
Fergus, I do agree, it is, just so sweet, and the silence is lovely. And for those like you and me----IT SPEAKS VOLUMES!
|
|
|
Hope you can swin. The water is getting deeper |
|
|
(with apologies to Forrest Gump) |
|
|
|
Is it possible that we're falling into the same trap that we think TNR fell into: Relying on only the version of facts that fits OUR preconceived notions as to how the Treason Media operates. We think they're all agenda-driven liars and they think our soldiers are nutcase psychopaths.
They're staking their credibility on what they say they know, but offer no proof, but what do we really have but one reporter saying that he spoke to a source who says that Beauchamp has taken it back.
Why am I getting the feeling that we're getting set up like the "Obama attended madrassas" story that dinged Fox News? (Admiral Akbar sez: "It's a trap!") It won't even matter if Beauchamp made up most of his stories if the Treason Media can prove the Weekly Standard report to be erroneous.
"See?!? They were trying to smear us!!!", will shriek Foer, "I told you so!!! We've been vindicated!!!" Nevermind that they wouldn't be proven truthful; all they need to do is discredit the Weekly Standard story to claim victory for their cause.
In the same way that the isolated crackpots who harm abortionists are used to tar every single Christian in the world as murderous lunatics, if the Standard is wrong about the recant story, they THEY will be torpedoed and the NR gets to skate away without every having to prove themselves accurate themselves. |
|
|
agree with your concern..goldfarb etc can put this to rest permanently by producing the sworn statement and all specifics around it (signature verfication, spokesperson info etc). else...hewitt, dean hyperventilation and emotion aside, this still becomes a he said- she said. |
|
|
Excuse me, but at this stage there are nothing but rumors and un-named sources. I'd suggest not investing in any particular conclusion until more information gets out. Otherwise, as Mr Belig says, some people are going to look awfully dumb. |
|
|
|
You are such a perfect example of the lafty kos robot, you really should be in a museum.
Too funny.....
BTW, why aren't you in Pakistan.....? |
|
|
|
|
Colonel Boylan (see my post above) sure has his neck stuck out there with Goldfarb. |
|
|
only those serving in the military can have a voice overs affairs military. guess that means there is no civilian control of the miltary. |
|
Before the Iraq campaign actually started, the usual extremist Lefties at one forum I frequent were constantly hurling the tired, "If you think this war is so important, why aren't you over there putting your neocon [butt] on the line? Huh? Huh?!?" meme.
I replied, "If you think Iraq is so worth defending, why aren't you over there helping protect them from the imperialist invaders or does the idea of fighting alongside the REPUBLICAN Guard cause your knee to jerk too much to be of use to Papa Saddam?"
(No, they didn't appreciate the backatcha aspect of my retort.) |
|
rae: "Why haven't the rabidly pro-Iraq war {for other people's children} Joe LIeberman, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani sent their kids into this battle if it is so life or death for our country?"
Such a trollish comment, one that assumes parents can "send" their adult children into the military, as if the parents' political stance affixes itself to their children. But rumor has it that one of Rudi's kids is a B. Hussein Obama fan. Should Rudi "send" her, rae?
But hey, maybe we can get Romney to "send" one of his kids --- as long as he gets a personal bodyguard, a non-combat MOS, and his tour of duty reduced to five months rather than the standard twelve, as Al Gore's Senator dad arranged when he "sent" Junior to Vietnam to get his political ticket punched.
Would that do it for you, rae?
|
|
A clever trap or the first stage of grief (denial). Yes, D'Nile is not just a river in Africa.
In light of Hugh's friend who just switched to Team Rome, let me use a metaphor (or analogy, I can never get them straight). Catholics do not believe in a chosen elect. Free will means what it says and anyone can be redeemed. Foer should say he screwed up and this would eventually be forgiven (although not forgotten). But now he is committed to total melt down. |
|
Brob
Were Edward Teller and Henry Kaiser chickenhawks?Robert Oppenheimer? How about Alfred Loomis? Know him? He was rich and didn't serve a day in the armed forces. Chickenhawk?
There are some who will enlist, others who deliver their patriotic duty in another way.
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/loomis.html
It's a big world out there Brob. Same as it was in WWII. Get on your knees and thank whoever you thank that, for example, those men and women who spent WWII in places like Oak Ridge Tennessee did what they did....if you know what that was..... |
|
|
...means "assume nothing, verify everthing." Good advice for lawyers, journalists, and the rest of us who would endorse as "facts" second-hand information about military investigations. Before you make someone wear it on their face, make sure it's an egg. |
|
The chickenhawk trope is illogical on its face.
Brob, you and many other lefties say the war in Afghanistan is the one we "should" be fighting, in order to capture or (much more satisfying) KILL OBL and his top guys.
So....when are you and your Kossack buddies signing up to fight? You could make an Afghanistan assignment a condition to your enlistment, you know...
And....you ignored a previous poster's reminder that in our government the civilians run the military. Nothing in the Constitution says the President, the CINC, has to have seen previous military service.
FDR didn't serve in military. Did that disqualify him from being CINC in WWII?
If you say, "Well we were attacked..."..
Then where did Clinton get the requisite "wisdom" of prior military service when he sent our soldiers and airmen into Kosovo and Serbia, which certainly didn't attack us?
If she's elected, how will former FLATUS (First Lady of the United States) Hillary be able to send soldiers into battle, since she hasn't served? After all, she could have enlisted during the Vietnam era..
Just askin' is all.....
I expect you will scamper away as you always do, rather than reply. |
|
Err...ummmm...John Murtha never saw a day of combat in his life. He was in the Marines during the Korean war, but never actually made it to Korea. He spent a year in Nam, as a staff intelligence officer --- no combat for him. He was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam case. Some hero!
Kerry saw combat (as he tirelessly reminded us), but we also know now that he basically awarded himself his PH's for minor owies, that he "upgraded" his Bronze star by adding a spurious V for "valor" to it, that TO THIS DAY he will not release his service records to prove his claims of injury and heroism.
We also know, war hero or no, that Kerry is a dunce of major proportions.
The guy's been in the Senate for years, and what major legislation has his name on it ---as the initiator of the bill, not as someone who co-sponsored after the bill seemed destined for passage? Nada.
Even liberal dems in Massachusetts admit privately that he is vain and vapid. NO ONE VALUES HIS OPINIONS ON ANYTHING.
Oh and btw: REAL war hero John McCain is a staunch supporter of the war. Where does he fit into your pretzel logic?
Lt's parse it, shall we...?
If you haven't served, but support the war, you're a chickenhawk.
If you haven't served, but oppose the war....your *ss is genius!
If you have served, and oppose the war, your *ss is DOUBLE genius!
If you have served, and support the war, you are......errr....ummm.... a jack-booted fascist and a fool!
That about sum it up, brob?
|
|
So, if I can't be in favor of the war without serving in the military, what right do you have to oppose the war when you're not in the military? If military service is a prerequisite for an opinion on the war, it should apply both ways shouldn't it?
Jim C |
|
|
|