Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
October 15, 2007
It's the coverup that kills you, part 2
Its been another week without word from the New Republic on the status of its "investigation" into the columns of TNR Baghdad Diarist Scott Thomas Beauchamp. "The editors" have not spoken on the matter since their August 10 update. At that time "the editors" spoke grandly of their "commitment to the truth" and their efforts to resolve the "legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy" that had been raised by the critics of Beauchamp's TNR Baghdad Diarist columns. They also said they took those concerns "extremely seriously."
Nine weeks later, however, they have produced no new information and their promises seem empty. Indeed, TNR's August 10 statement and the silence that has followed become increasingly dishonest with each passing day. Then TNR said that the Army was "stonewalling" its investigation and that the Army had "rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp." We now know that TNR editor Franklin Foer spoke with Scott Beauchamp on September 7. Of course, it wasn't TNR that reported this call, but rather blogger Bob Owens, who learned of the call from an Army spokesman.
Further, "the editors" responded to earlier reports that Beauchamp had recanted and no longer stood by his "Shock troops" column by saying, in TNR's carefully worded formulation, that "it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them." TNR did not deny the report, but neither was it conceding the fact.
Five weeks after speaking with Beauchamp "the editors" have not contradicted the report. And its accuracy has since been confirmed on the record by Beauchamp's commanding officer, Col. Ricky Gibbs. TNR has made no effort to challenge Gibbs's account either.
On August 10, after assuring their readers that they had "not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches" (notwithstanding the fact that the mistaken "key detail" made nonsense of Beauchamp's "Shock troops" column), the editors asked the Army to allow them, "or any other media outlet, for that matter," to speak with Beauchamp. This statement is particularly galling in retrospect, as we now know that it is TNR -- not the Army -- that has gagged Beauchamp. On September 7 "the editors" asked their author to cancel interviews he had scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Given their "commitment to the truth," one wonders why they would make such a request. But do they deny that they did?
TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic seem to think that they can keep up this charade indefinitely, but it is only the indifference of the MSM that has let them get away with it for this long. "The editors" closed their August 10 update by saying that they refused to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves -- virtually the only honest statement weve ever gotten from TNR on this matter. But it should not be the last. At some point theyll have to say something on the subject, only then the questions wont be about Beauchamp. They will be about "the editors."
UPDATE: Bob Owens comments here, John Podhoretz here.
Short story, lies of wannabe soldiers of truth. Lots of links, if anyone really cares:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018759.php
I think there is a phrase in the military: "war stories".
I stand to be corrected by our military people here, but is it not the case that when a talkative serviceman, or vet, starts telling credulous civilians hair-raising tales of his war experiences, that any other vets who happen to overhear get a certain kind of smile on their faces?
and so we have another "LESS" than worthwhile thread.Somteimes I even chuckle out loud!
and so we have another "LESS" than worthwhile thread.
and so we have another "LESS" than worthwhile thread.
Don't you have some aluminum can's to pick up along side the road somewhere?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
and so we have another "LESS" than worthwhile thread.
