 |
 |
 December 1, 2007
By: LEBANON UPDATE....David Kenner, a young, right-leaning journalist (and student) living in Beirut, comments on W. Thomas Smith's post at NRO last September claiming that several thousand Hezbollah gunmen had been "deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut":
NRO promises that in the future it will provide more "context and caveats" in Smith's reporting. However, if Kenner is right, the question isn't context and caveats, it's whether or not Smith was just flatly wrong. I suspect other journalists in Beirut might be weighing in on this in the near future. UPDATE: More here from Thomas Edsall, who talked to four experienced Mideast reporters about Smith's claims. Their verdict? "Insane." "He's a fabulist." "It never happened." "Hilarious." So far, NRO's response to all this has been a few paragraphs dumped on their blog late Friday afternoon. By comparison, Frank Foer has 7,000 words today in the New Republic explaining in painstaking detail the feeding frenzy over the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair, in which Beauchamp was accused of making up stories about playing with bones and running over dogs. It's instructive. The Smith affair will undoubtedly get less traction, despite his errors being considerably graver than Beauchamp's, because (a) the liberal blogosphere just won't go quite as crazy over it, and (b) we won't have the U.S. Army egging us on, as they quite plainly did with the conservosphere in the Beauchamp affair. TNR made some mistakes with Beauchamp, and they deserve flak for it. But Foer's piece makes clear a couple of things. First, they spent a lot of time trying to run down the accuracy of Beauchamp's first-person account. Second, the Army did everything it could to keep them from doing it. Beauchamp may not be a choir boy in all this, but the Army comes out looking a lot worse. Which leads to this: Will anyone seriously follow up on the Army's conduct in this affair? Do I even have to ask? —Kevin Drum 1:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (131)Comments
Waiting for Captain Ed, Michelle Malkin and all the others who jumped on TNR for the Beauchamp debacle to comment.... crickets chirping. Posted by: Teresa on December 1, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINKHowever, if Kenner is right, the question isn't context and caveats, it's whether or not Smith was just flatly wrong. Kevin, I think you're wrong here. Smith was wrong here in not providing the context about who gave him the report about the 5000 Hezbollah soldiers. He was certainly not wrong in reporting it because it's an important story if true. Airing the story is important because it gives people the opportunity to deny its veracity so that we can set the record straight. Well, this contributes to hyping the Islam-o-Nazi Menace as the worstest thing in world history, so Smith will not be punished by any right-wing organ for his infantile rumor-spreading. Presumably, Al is joking. Hey Al, sources told me that George Bush is on the payroll of al Qaeda, and he invaded Iraq on direct orders from Osama bin Laden. Also, Mitt Romney is rumored to have said that he would personally waterboard US soldiers if it somehow gave him a two-point bump in Iowa. Chase those reports down, willya? Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg on December 1, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINKSmith was wrong here in not providing the context about who gave him the report about the 5000 Hezbollah soldiers. If by "context" you mean disclosing the fact that he's simply "reporting" a rumor, then by all means, provide your context. He was certainly not wrong in reporting it because it's an important story if true. This just in -- we're getting word that Vice President Cheney will be indicted shortly on charges of raping a disabled goat. Thus far the Vice President has refused comment. Airing the story is important because it gives people the opportunity to deny its veracity so that we can set the record straight. Correction -- the goat isn't, technically, disabled, but has been seen around town wearing a diaper. It's not yet clear whether the diaper was necessary before or after the alleged rape by Cheney. Stay tuned for details. It is the job of reporters to report would could be happening especially in important areas of the world like Lebanon while it is the job of readers to decide if it accurate or not. Breaking news -- sources at Bethesda Animal Hospital reportedly overheard discussing the viability of human-goat fetuses. More as this story develops. I don't see Smith or NRO as being wrong at all. [This is the troll Marc posting under a different name.]
Correction: aforementioned discussions related to human-goat fetus viability were in reference to a separate situation involving an as yet unidentified Republican junior Senator from a Bible Belt state. Sources are now telling us that the victim in the alleged Cheney goat-rape is male. To clarify -- reports of Vice President Cheney as the defendant in a goat-paternity suit cannot, at this moment, be confirmed. Posted by: junebug on December 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKNRO is not doing so well lately, huh? Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on December 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKDon't have too much fun with this one -- it's not that big a deal, and making it into more than it is makes US look worse for bigger mistakes. The comparison with Beauchamp is especially unwise: Beauchamp was lying about American soldiers for being savages, which TNR found disgracefully easy to believe. Smith simply didn't understand Lebanon, which HIS editors don't understand, either. Ignorance ain't as bad as malice. Going from a preemptive defense of TNR and Beauchamp, to silence (as Kevin has done), and then to a gleeful 'see, you do it, too!' is NOT the smartest approach. Better to say to National Review: 'there, there, good thing nobody takes your reporting seriously or you might have actually been embarrassed, and we're sure you will do better next time.' Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKNote that David Kenner didn't claim to have a source. His phrase "Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Lebanon knows..." is an excuse for not having actual evidence. At this point, we have (alleged) anonymous reliable sources on one side and no sources at all on the other side. I'm keeping an open mind. Posted by: ex-liberal on December 1, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINKIn fact, I would say that NRO has ceased to be a serious news outlet, and is instead a periodical anthology of fictions. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on December 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINKActually no. I know Marc VERY well you might say. [I traced your IP] Posted by: Brett on December 1, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKI love the selective nature of the open-mindedness of the resident conservatrolls who see their contributions as offering something here besides comic relief. Posted by: Isle of Lucy on December 1, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKI'm keeping an open mind. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you the comic stylings of ex-liberal. Posted by: junebug on December 1, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINKBarely one hour into the comment thread, and we've already got sock puppetry about the inconveniences of sourcing in blog posts, Al pitching "caveat reader," & tA spouting off about how criticizing Smith & NRO on this one makes "us" look bad. Credit where credit is due -- they get their talking points out to the membership quickly. Posted by: junebug on December 1, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist -- Agree with your punchline, and that comparisons between Beauchamp and Smith are questionable. Taken individually there's not much to argue with... (1) "several thousand", yes, there are; (2) "heavily armed", yes, some are; (3) deployed in "Christian areas", yes, undoubtedly a few. However, taken as a whole, the picture goes beyond ignorance to hyperbole. ex-liberal -- You need a source to confirm or deny what you see every day? When knowledgeable observers (and not just Kenner) who live there say Smith is wrong, and all evidence suggests Smith is wrong, then Smith needs to show otherwise; he was given the opportunity to do so, and he did not. Moreover, if what Smith reported was true, we'd expect it to still be true today, unless subsequent events show otherwise. You heard of Hezbolla withdrawals from the areas that allegedly thousands of heavily armed fighters occupied? No. If that had happened, you'd hear of it. Posted by: has407 on December 1, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKLOL -- if you think I get talking points from the Right, you don't know much. The most effective critics of ANYTHING, are the folks who aren't hypocrites. If the Weekly Standard (f'r instance) took off on Smith's reporting in National Review, that would be a point in their favor BECAUSE they had bitched so consistently about Beauchamp and TNR. But Kevin (just to pick on him) had posted a pre-emptive DEFENSE of Beauchamp's bullshit -- predicting that critics would find a couple minor errors in his work, and blowing that all out of proportion. And since it turns out that literally nothing the guy said was true, Kevin has had nothing to add to his utterly discredited take on TNR's role in this fiasco. This doesn't exactly qualify him as a media critic. So to whack National Review for a different, and lesser offense, ESPECIALLY with the glee reserved for catching the other guys for making the same mistake that your side, um, er, never exactly sorta kinda admitted that maybe, aahhh, well, you know, and besides it's old news, and LOOK! they do it, too! is not smart. In the end, Smith did what most journalists are at least close to doing at some point: you don't really know that much about a situation, somebody tells you something that seems both juicy and plausible, and you run with it -- only to find out that you got suckered. (Happened to me once when the husband of a bankruptcy lawyer told me the other side was churning the file to run up the bills: I learned to question WHY I was being told stuff.) Reporting that thousands of bad guys had moved into Beirut when they hadn't is embarrassing, but not that big a deal: this isn't Judith Miller reporting about Iraq's WMDs on the front page of the NY Times. You COULD try to make it about how the Right will believe anything, but that's a dog bites man story. So it's LESS significant than the Beauchamp story, cuz that is about a guy lying about how savage the Iraq War is making the American military, AND how easily a magazine that was once the flagship of classy lefty journalism bought into his crap. I don't want THAT to be a dog bites man story, that folks think OF COURSE the left thinks the American military is a bunch of savages: do you, Bug? Then why do you imagine countering it is a wingnut talking point, as opposed to, say, recognizing early and loudly that Beauchamp was full of shit? If you're gonna crow about the crap in the corner of National Review's eye, remember the cowpie Kevin's left in your own. Wash your face, already. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINKMe, I just love caveats on toast, but I can't afford it that often. I'm glad NRO will be supplying more, gratis. Incidentally, the editors of TNR finally admitted that they cannot stand by Beauchamp's articles. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32 Posted by: ex-liberal on December 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKBTW, I'm starting to get a tad concerned about all those spy satellites we supposedly can see somebody's liscence plate with from space. Er, Americanist: do we really need to mention yet again that Beauchamp's very first story for TNR ( http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=a420fc77-246f-4dc9-b62c-8cc98b6f1109 ) was on an Iraqi boy who supposedly got his tongue cut out by vicious insurgents for befriending American troops -- and then continued to befriend them anyway? Not a peep from our fact-checkers about that one at the time (although they started questioning its details AFTER the "Shock Troops" piece came out) -- presumably because by itself it proves that the rightist argument that Beauchamp and TNR were trying to Discredit Our Troops with his stories is hogwash. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKI think you're making too much of this. What Smith gave us was the unvarnished truth about what people were telling him, without the attendant biases that go along with actually having any clue what one is talking about. The important thing is that Smith had a fresh, clean mind, unsullied by any specialized knowledge of Arabs and the Middle East which would have put him at risk of saying something inappropriate for publication at NRO, would embarrass Jonah Goldberg, and which their readers would have had no interest in. Posted by: Tyro on December 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKUm, Moomaw: every time you raise this 'point', that Beauchamp's FIRST story was bullshit, I find myself curious as to just what you think it proves? The PRIMARY thing about Beauchamp is that his stories were bullshit. It is secondary that the TNR was evidently particularly gullible -- first, about the kid with his tongue cut out, then about pretty much anything that Beauchamp fed 'em. WHAT Beauchamp fed 'em, though, is important. The guy didn't start out by bragging about how heroic he and his comrades were, and wind up making up stories about rescuing Iraqi virgins from Sunni torture chambers. (Anybody think TNR would have bought that?) What he DID do, was go from the kid with his tongue cut out to making up stories about mocking a wounded comrade, etc. And TNR bought it all, lapped it up like it was whipped cream and Tupelo honey. So did Kevin. So did most of the posters here. Anybody remember the mighty Elmo threatening me cuz I said it was bullshit? So here we are. Look at the utterly PATHETIC way Foer ends his thousands of words of rationalization: "...in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories." That's just pitiful. How about "we fucked up and we apologize to the soldiers we believed capable of what this asshole sold us?" If Kevin and progressives more broadly had had the common sense to see through Beauchamp's crap earlier, and condemn it promptly and loudly, we'd be in a better position to bitch when National Review publishes a one-anonymous-source squib like Smith's. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINKSee, the Americanist is doing the classic whinefest of "Gosh they did it first! No Fair, waaaaaaa!" I love the rightwing argument of trying to cancel out a story because something similar happened on the flip side months ago. How utterly pathetic! But it's no wonder wingnuts constantly strive to keep these stories alive, because it's all they've got to prove that the whole evil librul media hates teh troops and it's completely OK if this idiot Smith published complete bullshit. No problem, because Beachamp lied OH NO!!!!!
Look at the utterly PATHETIC way Foer ends his thousands of words of rationalization: "...in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories." I suggest that people look at the linked to article at TNR, and judge for themselves whether TNR had a right to believe that a good portion of Beauchamp's accounts had some pretty good independent verification. As usual, theAmericanist can't seem to do anything but distort in his account of TNR's actions and justifications. (Which, for what it's worth, certainly in my book makes him a lot less credible than Beauchamp. Beauchamp at least has the excuse that the Army has been heavily on his case and that of his fellow soldiers, and so won't do anything to further verify his assertions.) As far as I can make out, by far the most sensible approach to Beauchamp's stories is to wait until he and his fellow soldiers get out of the military, or at least out of Iraq, and then find out what they have to say, and what can be verified. For reasons best known to him, theAmericanist doesn't seem to have enough sphincter control to wait that long. Posted by: frankly0 on December 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist: Look at the utterly PATHETIC way Foer ends his thousands of words of rationalization... That's just pitiful. How about "we fucked up and we apologize to the soldiers we believed capable of what this asshole sold us?" While the short answer may be "we fucked up", closure demanded much more, and Foer shouldn't be faulted for providing it. Yes, there's some rationalization in there, but no one comes out looking good. FWIW, it was painful to read, and it was undoubtedly painful to write. If nothing else, I would hope and expect that other editors--including those at NRO--learn something from it. Posted by: has407 on December 1, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKUm -- frankly, Beauchamp's unit is not in Iraqw. He's s been in Germany for some time. Any other bullshit you want to throw in before you recognize that neither the author, nor the "factcheckers", nor the "editors" nor the publisher stand behind the articles that you evidently still believe in? Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINKFrom the point of view of sheer craft, this is my objection to Foer's post: he buried the lede. The LAST graf in the piece should have been the first, and the rest of it should've been organized around the lede: "we cannot stand by these stories" should've been the first six words. Not that I'm a paragon of this stuff, but I once wrote a memo to my boss at the time titled "Why I Should Be Fired", cuz I had fucked up over something significant. Report your own bad news is generally pretty good advice -- it doesn't get better if you deny that it's news, much less that it's bad. It's not just character, it's craft. Think about it -- if Foer had led with "we cannot stand by Beauchamp's stories", he wouldn't have spent a dozen pages explaining why the stories were, too! properly vetted by, um, er, policies on factchecking that we've changed cuz how the hell were we supposed to know that our factchecker had MARRIED this bullshit artist??? I mean, puh-LEEEZE: Foer's piece shows no class whatsoever, with innuendo and outright accusations against the Army, the Bush administration, and their media and blog critics because... they arrived at TNR's conclusions months before Foer finally realized they were right and Beauchamp was wrong? A shout out to Blue Girl who called these 'war stories' right away: and Kevin, where were YOU? It's like I said about hypocrisy: if Kevin had caught on early that Beauchamp was full of shit and SAID so, he'd be in a better position to point out that National Review is full of shit now. And frankly, well: he's just an idiot. If Foer had put all of the stuff that makes him and TNR look bad in the first graf of his piece, he'd have been better off, viz: 'We cannot stand by Beauchamp's stories. We should never have run them in the first place. When we DID run 'em, and people questioned 'em, we gave him every chance to stand up and defend them, and we stood by him. We can't keep doing that. So it's not about him anymore, not about the Army, not about our critics. It's about US. It's about OUR standards. We failed, and we apologize. We will walk through our whole sorry performance now, and draw the lessons. We don't want anybody ELSE to get the chance to be our harshest critic...' Folks oughta try it. Believe it or not, it gets easier with practice. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist, you really have WAY too much time on your hands, you know that right? Single much? Posted by: Joey Z on December 1, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINKAw, Smith didn't make up any stories about our heroic men and/or women in uniform running over dogs, so what difference does it make? Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on December 1, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist at 6:14 PM...it gets easier with practice. The comparison with Beauchamp is especially unwise: Beauchamp was lying about American soldiers for being savages, which TNR found disgracefully easy to believe. Americanist, you need to shut the hell up. TNR has been n othing but a rabid, ignorant booster of the Iraq war, and you know it, and the only sources reporting "confirmation" of Beauchamp's reports being false was The Weekly Standard. Smith was just a right-wing propagandist beating the drums of war for a violent, ignorant right-wing audience back home. Your outrage is disturbingly selective. That you cling to the right wing naratives about Beauchamp also says some creepy things about you. Posted by: Tyro on December 1, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINKI see the idiot poster claiming to be an "Americanist" still thinks that the military, who terrorized the civilian population of Baghdad with four-hundred bombs in an failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein, is above reproach and that somehow the "Thomas" stories were beyond the pale. What's beyond the pale is that the United States Military is still, more than four years after the brutal and unprovoked assault on the citizens of Iraq, behind this unjust and sickening war. Hm...mocking a disfigured woman? No, military discipline would never allow something so horrific. Dropping 1000 lbs of ordinance on an innocent woman and child in the hopes of killing a suspected (not convicted) bad guy? Let's start handing out medals! Compared to reality the "Thomas" stories were trivial. Those who fetishize the military want to focus on those stories and the question of whether they are 100% factual because looking at the known facts about what has happened in Iraq undermines their fairytale version of the troops. Posted by: heavy on December 1, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINKMike and heavy eagerly prove my point. "Only fools would claim that Iraqis are not being abused or that Iraqi children have not suffered horribly..." -- Mike ""Americanist" still thinks that the military, who terrorized the civilian population of Baghdad with four-hundred bombs in an failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein, is above reproach.." Never said anything REMOTELY like either one. What I HAVE said, is that Beauchamp was full of shit. I have ALSO said (it's my primary point in this thread) is that folks who aren't hypocrites are more effective critics of the media. F'r instance (as I noted), if the Weekly Standard took a whack at National Review over the Smith story about Lebanon, it would be a point in its favor: going after someone on 'their side', the same way they went after someone on the other. Going too fast for you guys? The thing is, folks like Kevin blow the credibility of progressives broadly when we defend bullshit stories of a particular sort, and then GLEEFULLY say -- well, there the RIGHT wing goes, just the way... um, somebody on our side was, er, accused of doing, not that anybody actually PROVED anything, of course.... It makes it HARDER to go after genuine atrocities and stooopidly cruel policies in Iraq, when we've swallowed bullshit like Beauchamp. This is too complex? Read it again: and pull your heads out of your ass, willya? Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK"There are plenty of people willing to feed a naive journalist fake news....." Shouldn't that read "an ideologue passing him self off as a journalist while pushing his agenda"? Posted by: Chris Brown on December 1, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK"Facts, schmacts! Why, you can prove anything even remotely true using facts!" Posted by: homer simpson on December 1, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINKYou know, if all you binary (you're with us or against us) thinkers would refrain from commenting here the rest of us wouldn't have to wade through your tit-for-tat crap. Posted by: Chris Brown on December 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINKcb: wade through your tit-for-tat crap. then it wouldn't be a blog.. would it? Posted by: mr. irony on December 1, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist: do cut the gibberish, okay? Beauchamp's first piece shows that TNR is guilty (at most) of not adequately fact-checking (at tremendous length) two stories which together prove that the magazine is NOT trying to ruin Our Boys' reputation. NR's failure to fact-check Smith's article MAY just prove equally sloppy fact-checking on their part (or sloppier, since Smith's "facts" -- as Kenner says -- were a lot easier to check). Of course, since National Review has yet to get caught running a comparably erroneous ANTI-war piece, the case for Suspicious Bias on their part is a lot stronger at the moment than the case for it in TNR. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 1, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINKUm -- frankly, Beauchamp's unit is not in Iraqw. He's s been in Germany for some time. Then how about waiting until he and his fellow soldiers get out of the military -- you know, past a point where they can be subjected to a court martial if they don't keep their mouths shut? Why would that just kill you, theAmericanist? You afraid that your whole case against Beauchamp might fall apart if you don't have the military around to make sure that Beauchamp doesn't freely speak his mind on his story? Posted by: frankly0 on December 1, 2007 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINKit's whether or not Smith was just flatly wrong. I I believe the word you are looking for here is "lying." Posted by: craigie on December 1, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINKThe big difference to me is that NRO corrected the problem in one day - TNR took four and a half months before realizing stonewalling wasn't going to work, then trying to throw up a lot of dust about out-of-work porn actors and the meanies in the Army press office... Posted by: mr insensitive on December 1, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINKtheClownist demonstrates that he is guilty of exactly what he accuses his critics of doing. There has been precious little defense of the "Thomas" stories, but at every opportunity theClownist brings it back into the discussion. Why? Because, as he has done numerous times, he fetishizes the troops and wants to pretend they are above criticism. Did he engage in that specific behavior in this thread? No need. Here he use the distraction of the Thomas story to pretend that everyone is doing the same thing equally and thereby exonerate the liars on the right (actually, when he laughably claims that Thomas' stories show the military in a bad light but then ignores how reality shows them in a far worse light he is doing exactly what he pretends he did not). His commentary also intimates that I have, in some way, defended the veracity of the Thomas stories. He is, of course, lying. No one has swallowed the stories. A lot of us have pointed out that his accusers have a history of falsehoods (wow, isn't it amazing that the military keeps exonerating those accused of war crimes - Haditha springs to mind) and therefore make less than credible witnesses, but very few have ever said "the Thomas stories are true." And, it appears, none in this thread. Face facts Clownist. Whether or not the Thomas stories are true, the fact remains that Iraq is a clusterfuck of stunning proportions and that every order given from the moment of the terrorist bombing of Baghdad has been illegal and, consequently, a war crime. That the United States Military is so corrupt as to acquiesce to these criminal acts swamps any and all falsehoods by the pro-war New Republic. Stop focusing on the mote in someone else's eye while ignoring the massive fucking beam in your own. The military has gone along with an unprovoked, unnecessary, and ill-advised assault on the people of Iraq. No misreporting by the neo-con supporting New Republic changes that. The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis do not thank you, Clownist, for your attempts to switch the focus to trivia. Posted by: heavy on December 1, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINKthey get their talking points out to the membership quickly. Fake Al's comic point was pointed up in the very next comic. "Important story if true" is, of course, a ludicrous rationale. Fake Al's sense of the ludicrous/horrifying in right wing thinking is positively uncanny. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on December 1, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKHave the uberboys at the Corner apologized yet for the NR's cover and general stance on the Negro problem and their despicable treatment of MLK? Accepting a mistake made by a third grade unknown blogger can hardly be accepted as a sign of any sort of ethics or morality. Posted by: gregor on December 1, 2007 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINKBTW, I'm starting to get a tad concerned about all those spy satellites we supposedly can see somebody's license plate with from space. They can't see tons of yellowcake being delivered to Iraq,The diffraction limit for a 5 meter spy telescope (rather big for current launch vehicles, unless the spy agencies have managed to do multiple-mirror space telescopes, that look down, sigh) is about 5cm from looking straight down from a 250Km orbital height. I'm not aware of any ways to beat the diffraction limit from space but who knows. At maximum resolution they are looking at a fairly small area. I don't have any clue how often they would look at a particular spot at maximum resolution - that information would be extremely classified. Clouds and gaps in satellite coverage (known to opponents) are additional problems. Then interesting features need to be identified, etc. Posted by: Bill Arnold on December 1, 2007 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK "Going from a preemptive defense of TNR and Beauchamp, to silence (as Kevin has done), and then to a gleeful 'see, you do it, too!' is NOT the smartest approach." Since you're lying about Kevin, forgive us if we don't take your long dissertations seriously, particularly since they are entirely off topic. Back on topic, is anyone surprised at this? NRO has long been interested in "news" that fits their bias, even if they have to make it up. Posted by: PaulB on December 1, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINKCome on, didn't you hear that the Republican candidates got asked a question by a democrat? Posted by: asdf on December 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINKMr. Insensitive: First, TNR's statement consists entirely of saying that -- while they can't positively nail down Beauchamp as telling the truth -- they DID find corroborative evidence on every point except the dining hall being in Kuwait instead of Iraq, on which they nailed him (after extensive investigation) as lying. On every other point, as they say, the Army has thrown up so many roadblocks to investigation (hardly surprising for anyone who knows the Army) that even after months of investigation on their part there's simply no way ever to know who was telling the truth (except for that limited corroborative evidence from other witnesses). Not exactly a major journalistic sin on their part. Second, regarding NR and Smith: Kenner mentions on his new entry that back on Oct. 23 he also reported Smith making a personal claim that, for sheer ludicrousness, puts any of Beauchamp's stories totally in the shadows. http://davidbkenner.com/2007/10/sometimes_americans_are_stupid.html : "W. Thomas Smith of the National Review struck a blow for freedom the other day: " 'I snatched a Hezbollah flag -- the yellow banner with the green fist and rifle -- from one of the enemy's strongholds in Lebanon recently. And when I say stronghold, I literally mean a strong, heavily defended battle position where the Lebanese Army and police dare not enter, and I had to enter covertly.' "It's hard to decide what is most grating about this post. Maybe it's his description of the dahiyeh as a'"heavily defended battle position' that he entered 'covertly.' What were his James Bond-worthy techniques? Hopping into a taxi and saying 'Haret Hreik?' " "His commentary also intimates that I have, in some way, defended the veracity of the Thomas stories. He is, of course, lying." Yup. He lied about Kevin and he's lying about everyone else here. Nobody here really "defended" Beauchamp. What we did was point out that we didn't know the truth and neither did his accusers at that time. Many of us were simply amused at the importance that his accusers attached to the story and the hissy fits they were throwing. In the case in question here, it appears that NRO hasn't been applying common sense to their reporter's stories, much less fact checking. Again, is anyone surprised by this? Posted by: PaulB on December 1, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINKMan, you guys are dumb. What PaulB (et al) say to prove my point: "He lied about Kevin and he's lying about everyone else here..." What Kevin said about Smith: "the question isn't context and caveats, it's whether or not Smith was just flatly wrong..." What I noted about hypocrisy: "folks like Kevin blow the credibility of progressives broadly when we defend bullshit stories of a particular sort, and then GLEEFULLY say -- well, there the RIGHT wing goes, just the way... um, somebody on our side was, er, accused of doing, not that anybody actually PROVED anything, of course.... "It makes it HARDER to go after genuine atrocities and stooopidly cruel policies in Iraq, when we've swallowed bullshit like Beauchamp." What I said about Kevin's approach to Beauchamp: "Going from a preemptive defense of TNR and Beauchamp, to silence (as Kevin has done), and then to a gleeful 'see, you do it, too!' is NOT the smartest approach." The LAST thing Kevin said about Beauchamp: "Like a Kabuki story, though, you can already see how this is going to play out. Not only will Thomas's character be dragged savagely through the mud ... but eventually some small part of Thomas's account will turn out to be slightly exaggerated and... " What else IS that, if not a "preemptive defense"? Yo, Kevin: some small part of Beauchamp's account will turn out to be... exaggerated? How's that working out? Thus -- from a preemptive defense, to .... silence. (cue crickets) Methinks the question isn't context and caveats, but whether TNR was flat-out wrong. And whether Kevin, and a whole lotta you guys, are so hypocritically screwy it is a wonder you piss in a straight line. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 1, 2007 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINKBob Owens has been following the Beauchamp story closely. His reponse to Foer's article is at http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/12/the_new_republic_tries_to_come.php It finishes with: As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just"ShockTroops"— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in "War Bonds," to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder "Dead of Night" that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search. The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions. Even to the end, Foer continues to blame everyone else for his continuing editorial failures., penning a fourteen-page excuse without a single, "I’m sorry." The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic. It will be interesting to see whether or not TNR replaces Foer as editor. Posted by: ex-liberal on December 2, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINKAmericanist: "Yo, Kevin: some small part of Beauchamp's account will turn out to be... exaggerated? "How's that working out? Thus -- from a preemptive defense, to .... silence. (cue crickets)" Actually, I don't think Drum needs to answer you, snce (as I pointed out above) his prediction has worked out just fine. TNR has found corroborative witnesses for most of Beauchamp's story -- including the Disfigured Woman Soldier incident -- but the latter stated that it happened in Kuwait rather than Iraq, which is the only part of Beauchamp's stories disproven so far. As for Bob Owens (and, by the way, just how much attention should we pay in any case to someone who affectionately calls himself "Confederate"?): see my reference above to Kenner exposing Smith as a downright ridiculous fraud 39 days ago, during which time NR's fact-checkers didn't bother to respond. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 2, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINKNever trust people named Kenner. They tend to be antisemites and Nazi sympathizers, and the authors of pretentious, crappy, messy, unreadable books and articles of mystifying renown. Posted by: Anon on December 2, 2007 at 4:47 AM | PERMALINKSorry. Could not afford the time to go through the posts, but anybody over 30 years old pretty much knows how devided this city/nation is, how intrusions are rejected, and how unbelievable his story is. Of course, whe've seen how US forces react to the same misinformed or deliberAtely misconceived directive, punishing innocent people. How you like that? OT, as usual: The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: A Tutorial in Orwellian Newspeak H.R 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 recently passed by the House -- a companion bill is in the Senate -- is barely one sentence old before its Orwellian moment: It begins, "AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes." ... [Emphasis added. By all means, read on in the original for some rather disturbing revelations.] Moomaw, you are WAY in denial. TNR just published a 14 page explanation of why they no longer stand behind the stories -- but YOU still believe 'em? Is THAT how you want to be remembered on this one, Kevin? Is TNR demonstrating the standards for your profession that you live by? The kinds of things Beauchamp got caught for aren't minor -- his claim that combat made him cruel, f'r instance, evaporates when he ADMITTED that he lied about mocking the wounded soldier. If it happened at all, it happened BEFORE he saw combat. So the whole premise of his war stories vanishes BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. What part of this is unclear to you, Moomaw? Like I said, this really shouldn't be about Beauchamp anymore, nor the Army, nor TNR's critics who were right to blast Foer, et al, for gullibility. It OUGHT to be about the standards that professionals insist on for a 'zine like TNR (or the Monthly, for that matter). But burying the lede in the last graf isn't just about craft, it's about character, too. That's why I'm calling Kevin out on it: either he believes, like Moomaw, that his prediction was right, that TNR has backed off Beauchamp's stories for, er, not being "exactly" accurate because of all this right wing pressure over 'minor details'... .. or he knows now that Beauchamp was full of shit, but he simply won't say so. Contrast National Review: What Smith did, in 'reporting' that 3,000 gunmen had deployed to part of Beirut, was bad journalism. We OUGHT to be able to apply the same standards to Beauchamp that folks want to apply to Smith, right? So just walk through these: Why was it bad? First and most importantly, cuz it wasn't true. How did something that bad get written? For Smith (but not Beauchamp) it was relying on anonymous sources who fed him a line that he swallowed whole. (He's probably lucky they didn't tell him "and they have nukes, too!!!") For Beauchamp (but not Smith) it was trying to become a Writer, the Hemingway of the 21st century. How did something that bad get published? For both Smith and Beauchamp's "editors", it was relying on the author's professionalism and integrity. In Smith's case, because it was an online entry rather than a paper article, there was no buffer of a factchecking process: the guy did an unprofessional job. (It seems a bit much to figure he contacted an elaborate lie about Hezbollah in Lebanon: game ain't worth the candle.) For Beauchamp, the factcheckers simply didn't check facts even at first, and rapidly developed a personal relationship with the guy that meant TNR published what he told 'em, UNCHECKED. He demonstrated a lack of integrity, but nobody ever expected him to be a professional journalist, which is precisely WHY the TNR editors fucked up so bad. THEY were the ones with professional responsibilities. How did these two different 'zines react? National Review cleared this up in a matter of days if not hours: as soon as they realized they'd been had, they 'fessed up and promised to do better. Note that this isn't necessarily a fatal thing for either the writer or the editors: shit like this happens from time to time, ya learn and move on. Next time, Smith is likely to wonder why he's being told something so juicy that nobody else has reported, AND the editor is likely to ask: did you check it out? But TNR spent MONTHS trying to weasel out of their responsibility for publishing bullshit. I read Foer's 14 pages, just like I read TNR's rationalizations for Glass, and even McGaughey's health care hit piece they ran long ago. I don't think they've learned a thing. In this case, they pretended that they had 're-reported' the Bradley stuff -- but the guy they talked to, whom they did not name but critics found and DID name, explained that they had done only the most cursory sort of confirmation. When he saw the actual article, the guy said: no way. Those aren't 'minor details'. They're the fundamentals for integrity in this biz: are you trying to tell the truth or cover your ass? One more time: this is about HYPOCRISY. The good guys would be in a LOT stronger position to criticize National Review for fucking up on Lebanon (just once, and in a minor way), not to mention the next time we get fed a line about something bigger, if more of us had seen through Beauchamp earlier, said it was bullshit louder, or at least after all this, yanked ourselves outa the Nile where Moomaw is doing the backstroke. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK Poilu: All American legislation includes the phrase "and for other purposes", and always has. It's a convention, because otherwise some idiot might claim that the bill is limited to the effect of its title. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK"One more time: this is about HYPOCRISY." Since you've basically been lying about Kevin and about everyone else this entire thread, you have yet to establish that there has been a single instance of "HYPOCRISY" from anyone here. Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINKOh, and "theAmericanist"? Give it up. You've been digging that hole deeper and deeper this entire thread, going off on inaccurate and off-topic rants that nobody here gives a rats ass about. You don't have your facts straight, about anything associated with this topic, which means that what you're writing says far more about you than it does about anyone here. Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINKGot nothing else to add, PB? Kindly show me anything that I've said in this thread that wasn't true. Use quotation marks. If you don't know how that's done, read the post where I noted Kevin's "preemptive defense" of Beauchamp -- then quoted what Kevin had said, word for word. The method beyond you? Seems simple to me. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINKBob Owens has been following the Beauchamp story closely. ... Perhaps, ex-liberal, you can explain what this post has to do with Beauchamp. Posted by: Tyro on December 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINKWhat's it got to do with Beauchamp? Hypocrisy -- raised in the very first post, by Teresa. TRY to keep up, Tyro. Her point ought to be well-taken, BOTH ways, cuz it's mine, too: she kvetched that Malkin, et al, should go after National Review the way they went after TNR. I'm noting that we'd be in a far better position to go after National Review if more of us had seen through Beauchamp earlier, said so, and held TNR to professional standards. LOL -- and for that, we get Moomaw's denial, and PB insisting that I'm lying for quoting Kevin's preemptive defense of TNR, verbatim. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINKA right-wing journalist lying about events in the Middle East? Shocking! Who would have heard of such a thing? Democrats need to put Bush under constant assault, with impeachment, lawsuits, eggs and rotten vegetables chucked at him constantly and keep him from doing any more harm in his godawful presidency!!! Hell, do a flying tackle as he walks to the microphone for a press conference and shatter his knees. Anything to keep this worm down for the count... Posted by: The Grim Reaper on December 2, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKtheamericanist, i read this thread in growing fascination at your mammoth stupidity, and since you ask: you mischaracterize foer's review; you mischaracterize kevin's position; you mischaracterize the NRO; and you mischarcterize by implication the relative importance of whether or not the TNR stuff is true vs. whether or not the NRO stuff was true. in short, as mary mccarthy so memorably said about lillian hellman, everything you say is a lie, including "and" and "the!" more seriously: the fact that war is hell and dehumanizes soldiers is so obviously true that people have been writing about it for several thousand years. that's why no one with a brain really cared all that much about the beauchamp stuff: it wasn't surprising in the slightest and it doesn't say all that much about whether or not we should be in iraq. in a word, this was all quite trivial, of substance only to moron right-wingers who live to express outrage and say stupid shit. on the other hand, the disposition of hezbollah in lebanon is mighty important and really does influence the debate in a substantive way: getting it wrong matters quite a bit (although, in the scheme of things, NRO being a source of zero credibility, it too was trivial in terms of the national debate). not that i would expect you to understand anything of the sort, and certainly not that i would expect the treasonous SOB bob owens to understand anything. Posted by: howard on December 2, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINKMay I cut in? I should like to make a proposal. I propose that people in The United States and Internationally start planning for the BIGGEST, and I mean the BIGGEST celebration EVER when (and if) this train wreck of an administration is finally GONE. Begin planning now. One stipulation: wait to hold the celebrations until after Jan 20, 2009. Hold them after election day may provoke some sort of brainless response from the BA everyone would regret. Aww, Howard: you can do better'n THAT, can't you? For one thing, what I "asked" for was quotes. You say that I misrepresented Foer's piece. I quoted it. You didn't. You claimed I misrepresented Kevin's take on Beauchamp, which I called a 'preemptive defense'. I quoted what Kevin SAID. You didn't. Where I come from, this makes you a liar, a fool, or a coward. If ya can back up what you say, USE QUOTES. Show us. You can't. The idea that war makes people hard wasn't Beauchamp's invention. I didn't dispute that people do bad stuff in war, nor that Americans are no different from other folks. Are you THAT thick? I keep noting something that OUGHT to be obvious, and it really is remarkable the extent to which you guys want to live in some parallel universe where it ain't true: folks who are not hypocrites are more effective critics than those who ARE. That was Teresa's point in the first frigging post in this thread. I simply took her point to the obvious conclusion that it applies to BOTH sides. She had observed that Malkin, et al, who had criticized TNR over Beauchamp ought to also take the same kinds of shots at National Review. I pointed out that it is ALSO true that folks who are whacking NR, would be more effective at it, if they had also seen through Beauchamp. If you disagree with that, say so. Cuz your bullshit attack on me simply shows you're clueless AND gutless. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINKSo Thomas Smith "bragged about stealing a Hezbollahi flag from the Dahiyeh." ...Sounds to me like this Mr.-Smith-Goes-To-Beirut guy has managed to bring new meaning to the term flag-waving! Posted by: Cynthia on December 2, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINKFor reasons best known to him, theAmericanist doesn't seem to have enough sphincter control to wait that long. Actually no. There is a level of fear that a good portion of B'champ's stories are correct. So they must pounce on him now, discredit as fully as possible w/out having all the facts so that the meme established. Then when all the facts come out, they no longer matter one whit. The story, right or wrong has already been established. The truth no longer matters. Posted by: Simp on December 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINKJust outta idle curiousity there, Simp: what would it take to convince you that Beauchamp's stories are bullshit? He's already admitted that the central premise (that combat made him cruel) is false: he mocked the wounded veteran before he had seen combat, if the incident happened at all. He's admitted that he is shockingly unreliable, confusing whole COUNTRIES, not to mention that whole before and after thing. Those strike you as minor errors, like publishing color spelled with a "us"? TNR tried to defend their handling of the stories by insisting that they had, so! fact checked 'em beforehand. Then they went back to "re-report" 'em. If they were factchecked so well in the first place, why was that necessary? When somebody checked up on just ONE part of Tnr's "re-reporting", the interview with an expert at the company that manufactures the Bradley, turns out that HE wouldn't stand behind what TNR used him to verify. They had 'checked out' Beauchamp's stories with the expert THEY had picked (and cited) without, yanno, actually showing him the article with the claims he was supposed to be vouching for. When he read the article, he said: no way. And, oh, yeah: there's that detail about Beauchamp marrying the TNR person who was supposed to be checking his veracity. Finally, ya have Foer his own self after FOUR MONTHS and first going through fourteen pages of explaining just how reliable the stories are, really, honest, f'r real), saying "...in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories." So, serious question: what WOULD it take for you to say, yanno, this guy's stories are bullshit? Set a benchmark. Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKNot sure why I'm trying, but just for the heck of it "we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them" is not the same thing as saying the stories are bullshit. The quote certainly implies that the events did happen in some manner. I don't have time to (or the desire) to check out the famous 14 pages. But it seems that if the editors thought his story was false, they would have said so. Posted by: tomeck on December 2, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKWell, it's quite obvious that the most important thing that has happened in the past several years is whether one guy relating yet more "war is hell" stories was 20%, 90%, or 5% factual. This is a far more important issue than some asshole warblogger drumming up hatred for Middle Easterners in an attempt to foment ever more war. I mean, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians pales by comparison with the location of a soldier mocking a disfigured woman. The terrorist bombing of Baghdad? Less important than that stuck pixel on my five-year-old camera's LCD. No, what really matters is whether it is possible to use a fighting vehicle to run over a dog. What the hell is wrong with you people that you think we should care about more lies designed to increase the body count? There are more important things at stake! /theClownist Posted by: heavy on December 2, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINKOf all the many unfounded things Meck has said, this ranks high: "it seems that if the [TNR] editors thought his story was false, they would have said so..." And what is your evidence for THAT, pray tell? We're talking about the New Republic here. Look, when you're caught on the fishhook of your own gullible hypocrisy, STOP WRIGGLING. A fishhook is designed to cause more damage when you wriggle. You're about to rip out a gill. (patiently)Objections to the contrast between National Review's reaction to Smith and TNR's to Beauchamp fall into a couple broad categories: First, there are folks who did NOT object when Teresa (and Kevin) made the contrast first -- cuz THEY were talking about how Malkin, et al, were unlikely to whack National Review for publishing bullshit, the way Malkin, et al, had whacked TNR for publishing Beauchamp. These folks are plainly hypocrites cuz they necessarily accept the comparison between Smith's piece and Beauchamp's stories when it suits their purpose (bashing TNR's critics), and NOT when it holds them to the same standard (cuz they want to bitch about National Review, but not TNR -- at least, not in THIS case). This is a classic bit of hypocrisy where the doubletalk is unmistakeable. Second, ya got folks who insist that TNR's reaction to Beauchamp's bullshit is NOT the same as National Review's reaction to Smith, because (so these folks insist) Beauchamp's stories might still be true, while Smith was obviously wrong. These folks are simply in denial to the point of delusion. The single most important thing about Beauchamp's stories (that combat made him cruel) has been ADMITTED to be false, by Beauchamp himself. Hell, TNR itself made a big deal about this in their transcribed conversation with Beauchamp, the Army, and a TNR lawyer (ahem, 'for' Beauchamp). And the whole thing just cascades from there -- the NAMED sources the Army cites that Beauchamp is full of shit (including, um, Beauchamp himself), his refusal to provide those documents to TNR (which TNR itself notes that he can do any time, but won't), TNR's blubbering about the personal lives of their critics, ye gods. When the guy who ran the stories sez he can't say they happened "exactly" as they were published, give it UP, already. Third, you have folks (like Kevin, I suspect) who understand that for all their sins, National Review realized they'd fucked up and promptly resolved the issue, while TNR fucked up and spent four months trying to weasel out of it, finally making a truly bizarre 'they-a culpa' for fourteen pages. These folks are basically ashamed, and can't figure out a face-saving way out of a contrast between National Review and TNR where NR looks good and TNR looks bad. They're sorta like the enabler for the drunk who just passed out in the living room... again. Finally, ya got folks who want to look past the obvious parallels, that BOTH National Review & TNR published bullshit pieces, to claim that in National Review's case this was a Very Significant Fuckup, consistent with its longstanding record of being fuckups, while it doesn't actually matter than Beauchamp's stories are full of shit, because after all, We All Know That War Is Hell and this one was unjustified, and besides Abu Ghraib really happened and... THOSE are the folks who are the most wrong here. God forbid there is some grunt out there who sees something seriously wrong, and thinks he should turn to the New Republic, or ANY other progressive publication, to get the truth out. Take yer pick: are you a pure hypocrite, a denialist, too shamed to speak up, or just too dumb to realize that trying to change the subject is why the barb just goes deeper? Cuz you guys are pissing away our credibility on bigger matters that count for more. For what? theamericanist, you don't seem to understand: i don't need to do "better than that." your demand for "quotes" doesn't move me, because everything you have written is, to some degree, a complete work of fantasy, admittedly spittle-flecked in a kind of interesting way, given that you have no sense of nuance at all. but more significantly, you don't actually create arguments at all: you simply scream and shout and bluster and spew nonsensical "observations." you mis-represent foer because, in fact, what foer says is that many of the details check out, some don't, the army has made it exceedingly difficult to verify further, and therefore, TNR won't stand behind the full articles. you mis-represent kevin becuase you can't understand the english language. you mis-represent NRO because you claim they responded right away, when they did nothing of the sort. and you still don't seem to grasp the essential triviality of your comments: the difference between (potentially) embroidered anecdotes that war is hell, written as a first person account, and a total exaggeration of hezbollah in lebanon, written as a news account, is apparent to all people with a brain. bottom line: for hypocrisy to be present, someone has to be hypocritical. that is, they have to reverse their stand when the exact same circumstances arise again. when you find some hypocrisy, come on back, y'hear? otherwise, your high-school taunts (i'm "gutless?" what the fuck do you know about anything? you actually think you're someone whose opinion i give a good god-damn about?) may pass muster in right-winger comment circles, but among the adults of this great land, they're treated as the simplicities of an angry stoop. Posted by: howard on December 2, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKtomeck: The quote certainly implies that the events did happen in some manner. I don't have time to (or the desire) to check out the famous 14 pages. But it seems that if the editors thought his story was false, they would have said so. Tomeck, I did read the entire 14 pages. It's 13 1/2 pages of self-serving bull, followed by a brief retraction. As you say, the wording of the retraction implies that the story might not be totally false, but I no longer have confidence in Foer's integrity. Instead of dealing with all the alleged inaccuracies in an organized way, the 14 pages jump around and ignore many of them. Rather than read the 14 pages, I recommend reading the comments at TNR's site The low point concerns a reporter who got information from the miltary that TNR didn't get. That's because he asked for it and TNR didn't, which TNR doesn't mention. TNR points out that he was once a porn actor. This slur is reminiscent of the Joseph McCarthy "Have you no shame?" incident. Posted by: ex-liberal on December 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKEx Lib I don't read TNR and have no opinion one way or the other on Foer. But I do agree with the other opinions here that this is a minor issue. There are plenty of examples of journalists, talk radio hosts, editorialists, bloggers etc. getting things wrong either intentionally or unintentionally. Posted by: tomeck on December 2, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK(snicker) Howard, you're dumber than I thought you were. The ARMY didn't make it difficult for TNR to verify Beauchamp's bullshit. For one thing, there's a WAR going on in Iraq. Beauchamp's unit was in harm's way. Perhaps the most breathtaking thing about the whole sorry incident is how utterly out of touch TNR shows itself to be from that simple fact of life. For another, the Army has sworn statements from a very long list of named soldiers that establish Beauchamp is full of shit. It is central to Foer's rationalizations that he can't stand behind Beauchamp's bullshit anymore -- cuz BEAUCHAMP won't let him see those sworn statements. Not "the Army". Beauchamp. Because these concern HIS privacy, it is not up to the Army to release 'em. It's up to him. He won't. LOL -- it may not matter much to you, Howard, that I've concluded you're a chickenshit idjit, but the folks of whom you are typical oughta care a LOT what folks like me think of you: or haven't you noticed? Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKSome loser said "but the folks of whom you are typical oughta care a LOT what folks like me think of you:" That's the funniest thing I've read all week, thanks american idiot. yes, we care SO MUCH what obsessive failures such as yourself think. You've stunk up this thread long enough, try getting a life if you can. Posted by: Ringo on December 2, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKA number of people here predicted that Michelle Malkin was unlikely to whack National Review. Well, she just did. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/02/and-now-for-some-shoddy-war-reportingfrom-an-nro-milblogger/ Malkin wrote: Kathryn Lopez, to her credit, immediately disclosed the controversy to readers. Contrary to the TNR editors, she thanked the reporter who first questioned Smith’s account, instead of trashing critics. snip Smith’s work in those posts was not “good” or “brave.” And “the nature of blogging” doesn’t excuse the phenomenal errors. Given Smith’s admissions, “reliable” is not a word that should attach to his Lebanon reporting. We are all fallible. We all make mistakes. But these were not small mistakes. They were XXL ones. LOL -- it just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Look -- I'm not particularly impressed that National Review reported a whopper out of Lebanon, cuz I dunno that ... National Review???? is a media outlet most folks would rely on to figure out what's going on in Beirut. It's bad journalism, but it doesn't move much. But it IS a major problem for progressives that we are perceived to reflexively believe the worst about our military. So Beauchamp's bullshit is more consequential than Smith's, the same way it's worse when a guy with three DUI's on his record leaves a bar and gets into his car. You might want to be extra fair and note that this doesn't MEAN he was drunk -- but when he drives over the curb and through the newspaper boxes, it's a clue. Most of you guys keep insisting that the looooong list of named sources, etc., don't amount to evidence that Beauchamp is full of shit: which is just nuts. So I'm seriously disappointed in Kevin: just what exactly did the Army do wrong, here? One of their guys wrote up some bullshit under a pen name, accusing his unit of serious lapses of discipline. They investigated it. They have a list of sworn statements under oath that none of it ever happened. They cooperated with every news source that I've ever heard of in this incident; it's Beauchamp who won't let TNR see what they've asked for. TNR's response to one guy who asked for something that THEY didn't ask for, is to slur his character. Just how is this mess the Army's fault? Posted by: theAmericanist on December 2, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKDid you actually READ Foer's piece, Americanist?(At this point, by the way, you'll pardon me for concluding that your references to having liberal sympathies are approximately as believable as O.J.'s determination to pursue the real killers.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 2, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK"Kindly show me anything that I've said in this thread that wasn't true. Beauchamp was lying about American soldiers for being savages Going from a preemptive defense of TNR and Beauchamp, to silence (as Kevin has done), and then to a gleeful 'see, you do it, too!' is NOT the smartest approach. But Kevin (just to pick on him) had posted a pre-emptive DEFENSE of Beauchamp's bullshit In the end, Smith did what most journalists are at least close to doing at some point Reporting that thousands of bad guys had moved into Beirut when they hadn't is embarrassing, but not that big a deal So did Kevin. So did most of the posters here. The thing is, folks like Kevin blow the credibility of progressives broadly when we defend bullshit stories of a particular sort, and then GLEEFULLY say... Man, you guys are dumb. And whether Kevin, and a whole lotta you guys, are so hypocritically screwy it is a wonder you piss in a straight line. That will do for a start. I got tired of copying and pasting, since most of what you wrote in this thread is either willfully inaccurate or a deliberate lie. "But it IS a major problem for progressives that we are perceived to reflexively believe the worst about our military." Why is that a "major problem" when it is not even remotely true? The only "problem" here is that you seem to believe your own bullshit. Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK"LOL -- it just gets worse and worse, doesn't it?" Yup, because you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, and keep babbling away on a topic that none of us cared about then, none of us care about now, and that is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK"One of their guys wrote up some bullshit under a pen name, accusing his unit of serious lapses of discipline. They investigated it. They have a list of sworn statements under oath that none of it ever happened. They cooperated with every news source that I've ever heard of in this incident; it's Beauchamp who won't let TNR see what they've asked for. TNR's response to one guy who asked for something that THEY didn't ask for, is to slur his character." Every statement in this paragraph is false. Maybe you should actually look into this matter before you make yourself look even more foolish? Now what was that you were saying, "theAmericanist"? Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK"The ARMY didn't make it difficult for TNR to verify Beauchamp's bullshit." ROFL.... And another deliberate lie. Man, you just don't know when to quit, do you? It's clear you know nothing about the Beauchamp case, nothing about what any of here thinks of it, nothing about the latest NRO case which is, after, the topic of this thread. So tell me ... why are you here again? Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK"That's because he asked for it and TNR didn't, which TNR doesn't mention." ROFL.... And another deliberate lie, this time from one of our usual trolls. Geez, guys, can't you be bothered to actually keep the facts straight? Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK"Cuz you guys are pissing away our credibility on bigger matters that count for more." No, dear, we aren't. You, on the other hand.... Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK"Take yer pick: are you a pure hypocrite, a denialist, too shamed to speak up, or just too dumb to realize that trying to change the subject is why the barb just goes deeper?" ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony.... I wonder if our dear chum realizes just how well he has described himself? Project much? Posted by: PaulB on December 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINKPaulB, the Andrew Sullivan post that Kevin's post linked to ends by saying: "The alleged factual inaccuracy - reporting 4,000 Hezbollah gunmen when they didn't exist - dwarfs any alleged incident Beauchamp reported for TNR." Kevin agreed: "The Smith affair will undoubtedly get less traction, despite his errors being considerably graver than Beauchamp's", From the get-go, this post was a comparison of the two errors. Bruce Moomaw wrote (to the Americanist): At this point, by the way, you'll pardon me for concluding that your references to having liberal sympathies are approximately as believable as O.J.'s determination to pursue the real killers. For Bruce, it seems that "liberal sympathies" means favoring liberal people rather than favoring liberal principles. Posted by: ex-liberal on December 2, 2007 at 3:45 | |