The New Republic’s Great Fall Has Arrived
Many of y’all doubted me when, on October 12, I wrote a post titled The New Republic Is Headed for a Great Fall. In it, I said:
One senses that, while the editors have publicly maintained a posture of defending Beauchamp, they have desperately scrambled internally — all the while wondering: just how in the hell is this happening?
. . . .
After weeks and weeks and weeks of stonewalling, it’s going to be hard to spin this as a tale of “he lied to us.” They should know that by now. And by not responding, they are lying to us, the public.
And if, as Power Line suggests, the content of their conversation with Beauchamp becomes public, and it suggests that what I have said above is true — that despite a public face of confidence in their story, they were actually trembling with fear over their reputations — then the fallout will be very ugly indeed.
Fast forward to today’s Drudge Report:
The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that “I just want it to end. I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really.” The editors respond that “we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece” without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he “doesn’t care what the public thinks.” The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.
Please don’t doubt me again.
UPDATE: Not all of you “get” the playful gloating tone I’m using here, consistent with the title and motto of my site. But, undeterred, I will continue to speak in that voice, and note what I consider one of the key passages from the conversation:
Now, remember what I said on October 12:
Where I suspect this is headed is simple: the editors can’t hide forever. Sooner or later they are going to have to address this. And if they can’t get something solid from Beauchamp, then they are going to have to retract the story.
If they do that, they will throw him overboard. Count on it. The story line will be: it was a guy lying to his editors. How could they have known?
When this happens, I’ll remind you that I told you so.
Consider yourself reminded.
UPDATE x2: You probably already know this, but Michelle Malkin has links to the documents that Drudge has since taken down.
You can’t keep a lid on stuff like this once it goes up, Drudge — as the recent Howard Bashman episode showed — so why take them down?
UPDATE x3: Ace is asking the same question I am asking:
Why did the editors decide not to report on Beauchamp’s September 7 phone call, in which he steadfastly refused to re-affirm his stories, despite TNR’s pressure that without such re-affirmation they would be forced to retract?
Like I said on your previous thread, Patrick, careers should end over this.
Michelle Malkin has wall-to-wall coverage of this with plenty of links to many other bloggers that have covered the story.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:30 pmNow really…
How can you make this post without adding Foer’s “rebuttal” to the NY Observer?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:30 pmDrudge took down the PDFs because of pressure from TNR. But Franklin Foer, at least indirectly, admitted in an interview that they are accurate.
Just so, you know, people know before AlphieTroll and his sidekick Andrew J. Troll come in and try to run interference.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:32 pmSurely someone saved them before they were taken down??
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:33 pmThere’s way more than that, Scott, which is why I linked Michelle’s site, which has the transcripts of the call between Foer and Beauchamp.
I love this line, which Michelle points out:
What, he couldn’t get a transcript to his own call?
Are you kidding me???
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:35 pmSurely someone saved them before they were taken down??
Michelle’s got ’em, Patrick. So does Charles Johnson at LGF.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:36 pmSeveral places, Patrick. I’ll toss you a link…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:36 pmScott, I hope you were kidding. The stuff the Army “leaked” and Foer supposedly cannot get hold of in this instance is Foer’s own telephone conversation with Beauchamp.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:37 pmThey’re all over the blogosphere. I’m pretty sure Malkin has up screenshots of everything Drudge posted.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:38 pmSorry, Paul. Man, you’ve got to be quick on the draw on some of these threads.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:39 pmScott, I hope you were kidding. The stuff the Army “leaked” and Foer supposedly cannot get hold of in this instance is Foer’s own telephone conversation with Beauchamp.
No he wasn’t, NK.
Pathetic, isn’t it?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:39 pmNo nk.
Foer actually said that stuff.
You’ll note that Foer didn’t deny the accuracy of those documents. Just that the were leaked.
I fully and completely believe that STB released those docs to TNR. The have them, I have little doubt.
I also have a personal suspicion as to who got those docs to Drudge.
Hint: It wasn’t the army.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:40 pmMan, you’ve got to be quick on the draw on some of these threads.
You’re right. You just returned the favor. 🙂
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:40 pmI hate it when that happens. We need a chat room…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:47 pmI wish the Army would just come out and say, “Yeah, we leaked the docs to Drudge. Deal with it you bitches at TNR.” The Army isn’t in business to soothe the sensibilities of anyone who might object to “leaking information,” the Army is in the business of winning wars. Something that TNR intended to make harder by publishing the lies of Beauchamp.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:47 pmHey, Staunch Brayer, we don’t have to wait for Beauchamp to get out of the military to hear the true account anymore.
Aren’t you glad?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:48 pmSo what happens next at TNR? Selective firings, widespread dismissals, someone falls on their sword, nothing, or some combination of the above?
DRJ (970b3a) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:50 pmI think of their job more as “Kill people and break things”.
Winning wars is usually just the result.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:53 pmFranklin Foer has just been promoted to five-star scumbag.
If he expects TNR readers to believe this, he must think they are grotesquely stupid. Is he right?
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:54 pmYou guys are missing the point of my post.
Namely, I WAS RIGHT!
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:55 pmOK, just so we’re all on the same page, I think and I think that Paul thinks and Scott thinks that Foer is a crapweasel for blaming the Army for not giving him a transcript of his own conversation with Beauchamp so he could … err, he doesn’t say.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:55 pmYou guys are missing the point of my post.
Namely, I WAS RIGHT!
Cool. So?
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:57 pmI’m reading the transcripts now, and will post excerpts when I can — concentrating, of course, on those that show I was right all along.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:57 pmYou guys are missing the point of my post.
Namely, I WAS RIGHT!
Patrick, most of us didn’t need this post to know that…myself among them. We knew TNR Was Headed For A Great Fall before you wrote the first one.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:58 pmJacobs,
What drivel you write…
Disciplinary records are explicitly exempt from FOIA requests/disclosure. Surely such intellectual powerhouses as Foer, et al…know that. Just one more attempt at misdirection on their part.
Unless Foer is arguing that the Army withheld information concerning a telephone conversation that FOER PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED IN!…in which case Foer is counting on people like you to continue to buy into their specious, and patently ridiculous, arguments.
mjn99999 (6e1275) — 10/24/2007 @ 6:58 pmIf you look at Alexa and compare TNR with Hotair and MichelleMalkin.com you will notice that until the Beauchamp story TNR lagged noticeably behind the other two sites. With the story they briefly passed and then stayed pretty even with them.
voiceofreason (0706b5) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:02 pmYes Patterico was right and I think their hits will fall back to “pre-Beauchamp” levels in short order.
mjn99999,
Scott was practicing subtle irony. Even I caught it eventually but I’m glad to see that you’re even denser than I am. I really hate being the dimmest bulb in the chandelier on this site.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:02 pmLMFAO.
So how is what I write “drivel”?
I merely quote what the man said in an article…
It sounds like you agree with me, and yet, you start out so ignorantly.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:04 pmWho knows what pressure the Army is putting on Beauchamp.
I seem to remember some recent disdane expressed towards the F.B.I. interrogation methods here.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:04 pmNK,
You forget, I’m dense and retarded so I’m not even a dim bulb on the chandelier. However, I am smart enough to realize that PATTERICO WAS RIGHT.
DRJ (970b3a) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:05 pmYou guys are missing the point of my post.
Namely, I WAS RIGHT!
Yes yes…
I’ll be impressed when something different and new happens. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:05 pmUnless Foer is arguing that the Army withheld information concerning a telephone conversation that FOER PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED IN!…in which case Foer is counting on people like you to continue to buy into their specious, and patently ridiculous, arguments.
I would bet $50 that Foer recorded the conversation. That’s why I think his argument is so pathetic.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:06 pmThat didn’t take long…
I guess Staunch Brayer missed where STB admitted to Foer that he’d lined up interviews with Newsweek and the WaPo…
Such pressure!
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:07 pmI seem to remember some recent disdane expressed towards the F.B.I. interrogation methods here.
I was wondering when you were going to show up!
Staunch Brayer, don’t you have any sense of embarrassment? Have you, at long last, no sense of shame?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:08 pmHe had one to start with?
Why was I not informed of this shocking developement?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:09 pmPaul,
Comment 14 to the previous thread said: “The many commenters who think that TNR will just stay silent – and get away with it – are probably right.”
It wasn’t obvious to everyone, I don’t think, that the contents of the conversation would become public and show that the editors themselves doubted the story — killing their credibility.
Was it?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:09 pmOK, I have posted in an update what I consider to be the key quote.
I have labeled the file “Karnak” for obvious reasons.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:15 pmvor: “compare TNR with Hotair and MichelleMalkin.com you will notice that until the Beauchamp story TNR lagged noticeably behind the other two sites …”
I’ve had a sneaking suspicion all along that TNR was milking this thing for some much-needed web traffic. A buttload of hits, all looking for explanations that weren’t there.
But that just seemed so … petty and sleazy. Like taking your pants off in public to get attention.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:19 pmIt wasn’t obvious to everyone, I don’t think, that the contents of the conversation would become public and show that the editors themselves doubted the story — killing their credibility.
Patrick,
I did’t comment on it at the time because I really didn’t have anything to add to your analysis, but explosive detailed transcript documents like the Foer-Beauchamp phone conversation–in this age of high-speed, available-instantly-all-over-the-globe information age–are very difficult to keep a lid on.
All it takes is one leaker with access to a scanner, Adobe Acrobat and an internet connection.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:20 pmPat, I don’t recall telling you that you were wrong then. 🙂
As I said, so what, you’re right.
Let me know when something new happens. Like you aren’t/
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:22 pmYou guys take all the fun out of gloating.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:28 pmAnd the commentors who think TNR is staying silent to prevent any more punishment coming Beauchamp’s way, Paul?
Let’s wait until he’s discharged from the Army and out of harm’s way and see what he says.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:29 pmPatrick,
The only part you didn’t get exactly right was how much of a crapweasel that Foer was through all of this. You’d think that the Editor-in-Chief would make such idiotic blunders that pale to the ones you listed. Neither did I.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:29 pmLike what?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:31 pmPatterico — check your email.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:33 pmLet’s wait until he’s discharged from the Army and out of harm’s way and see what he says.
We already know that, Staunch Brayer. We have the transcripts to Foer’s own conversation with Beauchamp that Foer claimed he couldn’t get access to…that the Army blocked the release of his own conversation, that we know damn well he recorded.
Are you claiming Beauchamp didn’t say what he said? Are you really this stupid?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:36 pmI did. I’m not convinced those parts are as strong as what I have posted.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:37 pmAnd you know this will be a rigorous review, too.
Ellie and Scott’s divorce decree will be final before any further word.
steve (dee63e) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:37 pmLike what?
Claiming that the Army blocked the release of his own conversation, for one.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:39 pmWell, I’m not sure he did that, specifically, did he? There was another document published besides the conversation.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:40 pmPatterico — c’mon, the guy says “you need to stick by your story because your wife tells me its important to her.”
Wouldn’t that appeal apply whether the story was 100% true or 100% BS?
I thought TNR wanted to find the truth? Not with an appeal like that. And coming from the managaing editor????
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:40 pmI am surprised that the rest of the Leftists are not dropping by to tell that that the documents do not say exactly what they say.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:43 pmThe whole appeal to the wife and the request to cancel the other interviews just stunk of desperation – not a good cologne.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:45 pmI am surprised that the rest of the Leftists are not dropping by to tell that that the documents do not say exactly what they say.
I think only Staunch Brayer is foolish enough to try and demagogue such BS, JD.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:46 pmI do it out of kindness, Paul.
This case sems weaker than the case against the Holy Land Foundation, if that’s possible.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:51 pmPaul – Despite your hopes, the alphtard seems hell bent on living down to, if not below, any already incredibly low expectations one might have.
I will bite, alphtard. What is weak about what case? Beauchamp lied, a lot. TNR and Foer lied a lot, if not more.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:55 pmThis case sems weaker than the case against the Holy Land Foundation, if that’s possible.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, Staunch Brayer. I needed a good laugh.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:55 pmAlphie. STB tried to sidestep his ability to release the reports involving him, and his SSG piped in and said “You can release those”.
The Army WANTS him to talk.
He’s had his little “Come to Jesus” regarding his asshattery.
That you think there mightstill be some truth to it all shocks me not one bit.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 7:58 pmJD,
I think anything Beauchamp says now is about as credible as anything any other Middle East hostage says at the behest of their captors.
And you guys know it, too.
That the Army is playing this grubby little game with one of their soldiers just convinces me more that it should be disbanded and built over from scratch.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:00 pmI think anything Beauchamp says now is about as credible as anything any other Middle East hostage says at the behest of their captors.
Beauchamp is a Middle East hostage? Who knew?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:04 pmI am totally convinced that alphie’s sole purpose in commenting here is to degrade this site’s comment threads. Patterico is being too lenient to a saboteur in my view.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:04 pmAre we expected to believe that the guys who lied about Rusty Tillman’s death are above spinning this story, nk?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:06 pmScoblic comes across as a real jackass in the phone call – c’mon Scott, we’re your buddies, we’re your pals, you have to give us something to hang our lying butts on and we don’t give a shit if you don’t want to talk. WE NEED SOMETHING FROM YOU OR YOU WILL NEVER WRITE AGAIN.
Funny thing though, the subject of all that great fact checking that TNR did never comes up – whether Scott can confirm or deny all the things TNR supposedly verified with the vast multitudes of sources they talked to to research the story. You would have thought with all that fact checking they almost wouldn’t need Beauchamp, so I find the absence of references to that TNR process, which they mentioned so often, very curious.
WHAT HAPPENED TO TNR’s FACT CHECKING?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:06 pmYou guys are missing the entire point of this thread, which is ALPHIE IS ALWAYS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:07 pmnk – This is a truly remarkable effort on his part. Truly. He is now stating that Beauchamp was tortured into lying about his stories by our military.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:08 pmdaleyrocks – From the beginning, was there really any question that TNR did no fact-checking, despite their claims?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:09 pmalphie your deliberate stupidity on this subject is amazing even for you!! you think the military is pressuring STB to not talk about these minor violations of discipline. if what STB alleges did actually happen its not some major breach of law. but you think the army wants to keep the lid on this? they have been very proactive in prosecuting crimes in iraq. here’s one example. and didnt STB give his statement under oath? if he tells a different story later wouldnt that be perjury? the story here isnt STB telling lies, his comrades have taken care of that. its the behavior of foer and TNR that is the big deal in all this.
chas (4661dd) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:09 pmI was right, too. With a more reasonable explanation than alphie’s.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:12 pmTwo of these guys are dead now, jd:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:14 pmnk – Don’t your fingers hurt from typing alphie. and reasonable in the same sentence?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:15 pmYou truly are one despicable person, alphtard. That type of accusation, or in your case, just a veiled insinuation is fucking irresponsible, on a good day.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:17 pmHaha, JD,
All it would take is for one of the Army guys to suggest to Beauchamp that he gets to spend the rest of his tour driving an unarmored mobile IED detector around Baghdad unless he shuts up, right.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:20 pmalphie,
I don’t care what Beauchamp says in these transcripts.
What I care about is what the executive editor says. See my quote in the first update. He says that if Beauchamp can’t stand by the story, neither can the magazine. Beauchamp doesn’t tell them he stands by his story. Where was their retraction?
The focus should be on what the editors said.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:21 pmWhy must I keep repeating myself?
“Let me know when something NEW happens”
This is old stuff…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:21 pmYeah, cause THAT wouldn’t get out to the press.
We can’t keep fucking secret programs secret at the DOD and NSA. What makes you think coding a lil bitch like STB wouldn’t leak?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:23 pmalphie your a piece of shit. take those comments over to dkos where they are welcomed
chas (4661dd) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:23 pmLet’s calm down.
It should be allowed for someone to raise the possibility that Beauchamp is being pressured by the military.
But alphie, answer my question about the editors.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:27 pmThe link is broken, Patterico.
Maybe Drudge won’t stand by the transcript now?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:28 pmalpee reminds me I need to invest more in companies that make tinfoil, cause he’s driving the demand curve to a hockey stick.
Karl (e49d52) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:30 pmJD – I just want to rub the fact checking part in because TNR needs to come clean on exactly what they did there since thet repeatedly made a big deal about it.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:34 pmalphie,
Now you’re trying my patience. The transcript is all over the Internet, including in links in the updates above. I’ll bet the farm that they’re genuine. If your contention is that they’re not — because you couldn’t answer my questions if you admitted they are — we have nothing to discuss here and I’ll bid you: Good Day!
I’ve told people to calm down and be polite to you, and to consider your point as possibly legitimate. Now do me the courtesy of answering my question.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:34 pmMaybe Drudge won’t stand by the transcript now?
The transcript PDFs are posted all over the blogosphere, Staunch Brayer. I posted links way back at nearly the beginning.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the comment thread before you barged in here with your ridiculous commentary?
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:35 pmSorry Patrick, I see we cross-posted.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:37 pmOK,
I believe you, but when I clicked on the Drudge link I got a 404 error.
I clicked on the link to Malkin’s site, but it is as unintelligible as a 12 year old’s MySpace page.
Got a clean link to the transcript?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:39 pmThere’s no evidence that STB was pressured by the military. The transcripts, otoh, are chock full o’ evidence that TNR was pressuring STB.
Karl (e49d52) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:39 pmYet another link to the documents, for those challenged by too much information on a web page.
Karl (e49d52) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:44 pmalphtard – Chait confirmed the accuracy of the transcript. And, I just went to Druge and had no problem with that link.
Patterico – That idea could be reasonable, except there is not one single piece of evidence suggesting that the US military pressured Beauchamp to recant, other than the minor inconvenient fact that he published demonstrable lies. Still, knowing that, the military has no reason to pressure Beauchamp, he has been thoroughly discredited all by his own doing. Why pile on?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:44 pmYou’re stalling, alphie.
JD,
Didn’t the military get Beauchamp into trouble over the story?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:47 pmStaunch Brayer,
Michelle has them here, here, and here.
Here they are at LGF also.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:48 pmPatterico,
With respect, nk is absolutely correct when he says that alphie only tries to degrade and derail threads. He adds nothing to a discussion and constantly acts the troll. I know you don’t like to ban people, but I would sincerely like to see that happen in his case if only to discourage trollish behavior from others. Your house, your rules… just my opinion and I would understand whatever you decide.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:48 pmI dunno. I may let it be a test to see how he handles this. I rarely engage him, but I have asked him a question and I want an honest answer.
Generally I think people on sites that lean one way are too quick to denounce as “trolls” those who lean the other way. I don’t like seeing Alphie derailing threads, but if he’s making a contrary argument I want to hear it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:55 pmJD,
The “Memorandum of Concern.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:55 pmI read them, and it sounds worse than I thought they’d be.
Yikes.
Some kid in a room in the middle of Iraq with his handlers…right out of the Soviet Union.
Beauchamp didn’t want any more discussion about his stories and it looks like TNR is respecting that wish.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 8:56 pmYup, there’s the total evasion of my question I expected.
Well, this is a waste of time. I have a movie to watch.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:01 pm*Sigh*
Allow me to quote Malkin:
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:03 pmHaha,
What is it that you think TNR should do in this case?
How is this any different than the F.B.I. agent threatening the guy’s family if he doesn’t give a false confession?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:05 pmSome kid in a room in the middle of Iraq with his handlers…right out of the Soviet Union.
Exactly alphie; and I am sure that poor Stephen Glass also was pressured into denying those true stories that caused trouble to so many people. And that completely honest Janet Hook was probably also forced into a retraction, just because she is a black woman or something. And that Central American woman who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, she also got bullied into denying her work.
JVW (552a3f) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:06 pmAlphie,
The point isn’t what the military did or didn’t do. The point is the way TNR editors tried to deep 6 the story.
DRJ (970b3a) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:09 pmWhat is it that you think TNR should do in this case?
Retract the story immediately after this call was made, since Beauchamp didn’t stand by it.
How is this any different than the F.B.I. agent threatening the guy’s family if he doesn’t give a false confession?
Only you would make such a ridiculous comparison.
Now I’m off to bed. Good night.
Paul (146bba) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:10 pmAny honest statement TNR made about the diarys would likely get Beauchamp into even more trouble.
Shame on you guys for supporting Soviet thought police tactics.
This is America, remember?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:12 pmPatterico – He got in trouble with the military for disclosing his units deployment date on his blog, and received a local administrative punishment. I have not heard of anything beyond that. And, he got himself into trouble, the military did not get him in trouble.
alphtard is just being alphtard, except he/she/it is almost making a point tonight. Usually he/she/it just dances around almost making a point. Tonight, he/she/it seems hellbound to point out that the US military is torturing one of their own for political considerations.
I wrote earlier that I wondered how the Left would tell us what we read was not what we read. alphtard is not even doing that. He/she/it is just throwing feces, and tossing some fairly serious allegations towards the US military as well.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:13 pmWe have yet to see an honest mistake by TNR in this entire process.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:14 pmWhy would you ban Alphie? If you were going to ban anyone, why wouldn’t you ban the people who keep engaging him? I mean, he’s clearly an idiot, but is idiocy a banning offense?
Not Rhetorical (2c6478) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:14 pmYou have several left-leaning folks who comment honestly (aphrael, kishnevi, among others). A contrary argument isn’t the problem, it’s the dishonest sniping. If all alphie claimed was that Beauchamp might be pressured into staying quiet, that would be a fair claim for discussion, despite the mounds of evidence that this isn’t the case. Throwing in references to Pat Tillman, the FBI interrogation, the Holy Land Foundation trial, comparing STB to a middle-east hostage (while calling for the Army to be disbanded), and speculating that the Army is making death threats against STB (unarmored IED detector) all show his typical posts. He drags your threads down and enjoys doing it. Please consider banning him.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:15 pmStashiu,
You didn’t find it chilling that “free to speak” Beauchamp was on speaker phone with two Army members present in the room with him?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:21 pmYou didn’t find it chilling that “free to speak” Beauchamp was on speaker phone with two Army members present in the room with him?
Damn, alphie, in your world is Beauchamp never supposed to be confronted with his lies, er, allegations? Does he live in a magic fairy tale land where his only interrogators are supposed to be sympathetic journalists? I’m sorry, but if he was really telling the truth I would think he could do so in front of members of his unit. I read the transcripts, and I don’t find anything in there to convince me that Beauchamp was intimidated or bullied.
JVW (552a3f) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:28 pmIf it was just being stupid, he could be educated. His behavior is willful.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:32 pmAlphie – TNR claimed they fact checked the articles. Why haven’t they laid out their proof of the veracity of the articles for all the world to see? They don’t even need Beauchamp’s statements if they’ve fact checked everything the way they claimed, do they?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:33 pmGeez, JVW,
The “right” has become exactly what they claim to despise.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:34 pmI know what TNR should do! They ought to hire Alphie as Assistant Executive Editor–he’d fit right in there. Every paranoid tin hat fantasy that Alphie has would wind up on the pages of TNR.
Mike Myers (d015a6) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:36 pmAlphie – TNR claimed to have witnesses. Let’s hear from them if Beauchamp doesn’t want to talk.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:37 pmNow I get it. Having no coherent thoughts makes you invisible to the thought police. Shame on me for not thinking of – damn, there I go again.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:47 pmThe “right” has become exactly what they claim to despise.
More avoidance of the question. My troll feeding is done for the night.
JVW (552a3f) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:48 pmSure, daley,
The incentives the Army has provided to any soldier who backs up Beauchamp’s mild diary entries must be hard to resist.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 9:51 pmAlphie – They can be anonymous statements Alphie. We haven’t even seen what they have. Why won’t TNR reveal their fact checking? Nothing says all the facts had to be checked with soldiers, right Alphie? If they are facts, their is nothing to fear.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:01 pmI don’t really pay much attention to alphie, but his response to this thread proves he is either really dishonest or really stupid.
I don’t think he adds anything — but I think an atmosphere where people are free to be idiots is generally better. I gave him a chance to prove he is not an idiot in this thread and he blew that chance. I say people should just ignore him.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:05 pmWell I see that alpo has been up to his usual tricks.
In the space of a single comment thread alpo has said that the United States military is indistinguishable from not only Islamic terrorists of the head-chopping variety – something so barbaric that even the Islamic terrorists gave it up, so the only conclusion left is that alpo is saying that the US military is actually worse than they are – and the KGB/NKVD/Cheka/GRU/whatever Soviet repression agency you want to throw in.
It’s really great to see a paranoid mind going in full bore. Not only is Beauchamp being threatened with jumper cables attached to his balls or worse since the military is comparable to Beria’s torturers or the murderers of Daniel Pearl, Alex Johnson, and others – but the Army investigation, you know, that one that unequivocally stated that all three stories were fabricated, whose results were leaked, logically, has to be the result of a sinister conspiracy, the same as Pat Tillman’s! Because, you know, we’re all fascists. So says alpo anyway. It’s really weird how with all these fascists running around, the people who are alpo but with national reach don’t end up shot in their apartments or something. The Kremlin whacks journalists like it’s a hobby and the best we can do over here in America, apparently, is have some probably fat racist NYC bartender feed Rhandi Rhodes too many Bloody Marys so she can fall on her face after she gets out the door.
Fellow fascists, I am ashamed of us. We are just so inept at this jackboot thing. We’re Nazis, but hell, the Nazis knew what they were about. The best we can do is a bunch of whiny alpo-types booking all the shrinks in town and considering moving to Canada (maybe French Canada? It’s the best Canada!) after Bush was re-elected. Himmler would be ashamed of us.
I’m pretty sure having to take some Zoloft because the Chimpler is president really isn’t comparable to Kristallnacht or cramming over a hundred people in a single cattle car on a train of hundreds of cattle cars for a nice trip to a Zyklon B shower, but alpo, geez, we’re trying! Don’t be so harsh, we’re trying.
Alpo, my poor little troll, in that whole transcript, the only people telling Scotty not to talk was Foer! Why would Franklin Foer tell Beauchamp that TNR would like it if Scotty didn’t talk to Newsweek and the Washington Post?
Alpo, is Franklin Foer a double agent for the fascists?
Because if he is, I’m pissed off that I wasn’t informed. Ever since Karl Rove retired I’ve been out of the loop, and it’s pissing me off. Time to write an angry letter to Cheney.
God damn Patterico but sometimes the stupidity from this guy is just too massive to be funny.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:07 pmAlphie – What are you going to believe, throw away comments made to twenty-something antiwar know nothings sitting in air conditioned offices thousands of miles from Iraq or staetments made under oath as part of an on-site military investigation?
No need to answer.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:13 pmHe is both and too many people engage him which drags down your site. I’ve said my piece, thanks for listening.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:26 pmThis whole… I refuse to say kerfuffle… is really kind of boring. Beauchamp lied, no one but cranks denies that he lied. Franklin Foer has admitted that the documents aren’t forgeries and didn’t try to contest their veracity.
So, alpo, besides complimenting me for my witty repartee above, I wonder if you would honor us with your opinion on this?
Maybe Osama needs some Zoloft.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:27 pmdaley,
TNR has been one of the most vocal pro-war rags since 9/11.
I don’t mind seeing them beng subjected to some far right smear machine friendly fire at all.
I just don’t think anything Beauchamp says while in Army custody in Iraq should be considered uncoerced.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:30 pmBecause the Army is indistinguishable from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Lavrenti Beria, according to you.
You must not have been reading TNR for the past three and a half years.
Hilarity!
But really, alpo, come on! What about your buddy Osama being all depressed? Personally, if I was Osama, I’d sit back and pack that hookah up instead of pouring out my troubles to an uncaring world. Osama bin Laden, a scene kid. Who would have thought? I bet al-Zawahiri doesn’t let him go out clubbing Saturday nights anymore or something.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/24/2007 @ 10:36 pmHaha, chaos,
Are you really saying Martin Peretz is some kind of anti-war librul hippie?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/24/2007 @ 11:14 pmalphie thinks that the editors of TNR went on about how they couldn’t stand behind the story if STB didn’t . . . because they were trying to protect him.
Let’s collect money for a tinfoil hat.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/24/2007 @ 11:43 pmTinfoil hat, Patterico?
Does that mean y’all are gonna make “Jack Dunphy” start posting under his real name?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:05 amHe doesn’t make general comments. He directs baiting thread jacks at specific commenters in as supercilious a way as short comments will support. That sort of persistent in your face idiocy is hard to ignore. Once someone gets annoyed enough to point out the obvious, alphie’s taken control of the thread.
I visit a range of blogs to read on topic coherent treatment of issues from both sides of the fence. Alphie’s intention is to disrupt the coherency of any conversation not being channeled his way.
It’s your place and your decision but alphie is a wannbe thought policeman. Allowing him a forum is not bemused tolerance of idiocy but rather an insult to your other readers. Usually when I see him chime in into a thread I go to another thread immediately or leave.I suspect I’m not the only one doing that.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:32 amWow.
Once again, Staunch Brayer proves his writing is its own punishment.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:43 amNow now Patterico, there’s no reason to be limiting…
He could easily be both.
Just wondering why you allow it to continue. It’s not like he ever has anything to add.
Well, nothing worthwhile.
“The other side of the argument” is all fine and good, but I really think he’s just contrary to be contrary.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:01 amI don’t think TNR has a leg to stand on, but the Beauchamp transcript reeks of coercion. He agreed to the interview to dispel rumors the Army was censoring him and then proceeds to say nothing. All the while checking answers with someone in the room.
While the magazine faces a come-to-Jesus reckoning, it’s a stretch to conclude that Beauchamp – in a post-deployment setting – would incriminate himself or disown his narrative. Nothing in it for him.
steve (fae6c2) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:12 amYou left this comment on Balloon Juice:
“Regardless of the content of the story, that is an issue of media integrity that matters—at least if anyone is going to take this magazine seriously.”
And I wonder…are you really that concerned with TNR’s reputation as a magazine?
Or is this fascination with Beauchamp something else?
I only ask because it doesn’t seem that the question has occurred to you.
James (8fc7e7) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:30 amSure it has. If you want to concede that it has no credibility, then we’re done and can move on to the next topic. It’s people who want to defend the credibility of a magazine with a circulation of what? around 60,000 (about the same as “Reason,” I think) that I have a problem with.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:21 amAnd “this fascination with Beauchamp” is a fascination with credibility and accuracy in the media. Get it?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:22 amTNR has deleted every reference to Beauchamp on their website.
dave (095afa) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:24 amA shame all those bits and pieces have been saved by others. They were so close…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:29 amNow I’ve read that all searches produce zero hits on their website. Also, if you do a google search on a topic and TNR you will get hits but the links produce this page cannot be displayed message. Not a good way to run a website.
dave (095afa) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:37 amApparently the search function is down.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:40 amWell of cource it is!
They haven’t finished the purge yet! 🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:49 amThey wouldn’t give any documentation to the New Republic but the army leaked to Drudge
“Foer said the Army has refused to turn over supporting documents in the case, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, and then “selectively leaked” material to Drudge. In an e-mail to the magazine yesterday, Army spokesman Maj. Kirk Luedeke said he was “surprised and appalled that this information was leaked” and that the military would investigate.”
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:57 amTNR has deleted every reference to Beauchamp on their website.
I just ran the search myself. I got
So the search function works, but all references to Beauchamp have been removed.
I also ran a Google search on “The New Republic Beauchamp” and besides getting blogs, Drudge and the Weekly Standard, I got a hit on a TNR article called “A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp.” When clicking the link, I got
It then reverted to the TNR home page.
Unfortunately for TNR, a cached version still exists on Google. For now.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:58 am“Foer said the Army has refused to turn over supporting documents in the case, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, and then “selectively leaked” material to Drudge.
Blah, the documents are a transcript of his own call to Beauchamp.
As I said earlier on this thread, I’ll bet $50 that Foer recorded the entire conversation.
Read the thread this time…and try to keep up.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:03 am#124 Patterico:
Nah, I highly recommend Velostat® rather than tinfoil. Much more effective.
Stashiu3 and Just Passing Through are correct when they note that alphievictim isn’t here to engage in honest discussion. It’s here to deliberately steal prestige from you.
alphievictim is a class A troll, and while I firmly believe that it really ought to hurt to be (or pretend to be) that stupid, sadly the world doesn’t work that way. (C’mon, Beauchamp is “in Army custody in Iraq” because he’s a soldier being required to continue doing his job? Gimme a break.) As Stashiu3 and JPT also note, it’s your house, your rules…but you are suffering damages by its presence here.
FWIW, there is always the chance that ‘av’ is here simply for attention it receives, so I would suggest that all here simply GAZE upon it in stupefaction when it drops its pearls of dung.
My twelve dinars.
Oh, and alphievictim: you are really outclassed whenever there is an adult in the room, like say a nine year old.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:09 amNo dear, the documents are from the army’s investigation.
I’m not a big fan of Marty Peretz, a lot of people aren’t. If you want to think he’s a Comsymp feel free, but the rest of us will shrug.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:18 amStill the army’s behavior raises some “red flags” as they say.
I get it…I get it. I have no quibble with being interested in credibility and accuracy in the media.
But there are questions of scale we should be concerned about in this TNR/Beauchamp blow-up.
If we’re so worried about lazy inaccurate reporting from a tiny sparsely-read wonk rag, shouldn’t we also be concerned about the National Enquirer, which has a much bigger reach, in both revenues and readers? They’re publishing weakly-sourced libelous stories about a guy running for President of this great nation.
Have we expended all our outrage about credibility and accuracy in the media on Beauchamp that we can’t reserve some for the National Enquirer?
Who cares if the guy is a Democrat? It’s about a credible media, not politics.
Right?
James (14eba1) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:20 amPS. I forgot to say that I concede TNR has no credibility.
I also don’t think any of this Beauchamp stuff does either…
James (14eba1) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:21 amNo, because the reasonable person don’t think the NE is actually reporting real news. It’s called a “tabloid” for a reason.
See the difference?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:23 amNo, Scott, they do not see the difference. Though maybe once they get tired of running around with the goalposts, they will take a look at what TNR and Beauchamp did, and realize how offensive and dishonest it was. We can only hope.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:40 amThe New Republic has been tanking for while. The Nation, TNR’s main competitor and which I’ve read for years, is doing fine.
It’s also much more to the left. But it’s reporting is solid, and Pat doesn’t spend much time attacking it.
None of says anything about the army’s behavior.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:44 amPray tell what behavior you are referencing, with sources, please.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:47 amPaul: Any word you put in the TNR search engine comes up a blank. The same with google. You’ll get hits, e.g., TNA and Hillary, but clicking on the link brings you to an error message.
Is Foer complaining that the Army wouldn’t give him the same documents Beauchamp wouldn’t provide TNR?
dave (095afa) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:48 amI’ve got to side with blah here. The transcripts of the telephone conversation that I read have no markings on them. Its just as reasonable to conclude that someone in the room with TSB recorded the conversation as it is to conclude that the conversation was recorded in NY.
So it may be true that all three documents are part of an Army file.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t change what Foer and the other TNR representatives say in the conversation.
Patterico is correct in this — once they said to him words to the effect of “If you can’t stand behind your story then we are going to have to retract it”, and he refused to confirm the accuracy of his story — however he might have done so — they had an obligation to report to that development to their readers and retract the stories.
With these transcripts on the street, I predict Foer will resign by COB tomorrow.
wls (fb8809) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:50 amblah – As far as I can see the Army has not accepted any responsibility for leaks. During the whole process, the only thing off record from the Army was the statement to the Weekly Standard about the recantation. What you are seeing is Greg Sargent’s ridiculous interpretation of last night’s NY Observer piece with Foer reinterpreted by Howard Kurtz in today’s WaPo. Sargent should really be writing for the National Enquirer with the way he stretches the truth – it’s a habit with him.
Here is the Observer from last night:
THE OBSERVER on Scott Beauchamp
TNR’s Foer: Drudge’s Documents Could Have Come Only From the Army
Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge posted this afternoon—and removed several hours later without explanation—could have only come from the Army.
Mr. Foer said he called TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:07 amwls – Why does Foer need a transcript when he was a participant in the conversation?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:41 amWhy doesn’t someone ask Foer if he had the conversation transcribed or recorded? Or, if he knows of anyone who did?
dave (095afa) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:51 amWhy does Foer need a transcript when he was a participant in the conversation?
Which has been my point all along…since near the beginning of this thread.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:52 amDon’t hold your breath waiting for Beauchamp to get out, he’s staying in for awhile
LarryD (feb78b) — 10/25/2007 @ 9:19 amDang, the link doesn’t work.
LarryD (feb78b) — 10/25/2007 @ 9:22 amIf STB is allowed to re-enlist, I’m gonna have to rethink my position of “The Army is Sane”.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 9:25 amJD — that wasn’t my point.
One question is the origin of the documents that appeared yesterday on the internet — two are a transcript from the telephone interview. The third is a portion of the Army’s investigation.
My point is that everyone seems to have assumed that the transcript was made by the TNR, and was leaked by someone with access to it.
Foer is saying the documents were leaked by the Army. I’m just saying that its possible that the documents came from the Army and the transcript was made from a recording that was made by the Army in Iraq, and not by TNR in their office.
A different issue is what TNR/Foer complains about the Army not providing to them in the FOIA request. I think TNR wants two things — they want copies of the two sworn statements that Beauchamp gave to the military investigating officer. These are the statements that they ask him for during the conversation, and they brought his lawyer into the conversation because Beauchamp said his lawyer could probably get access to them faster than Beauchamp since Beauchamp was occupied with his job duties in Iraq.
Those statements were not among the documents leaked yesterday, so I don’t think that is what Foer is complaining about. I think what he is complaining about is the Army Investigating Officer’s report of the investigation into the claims Beauchamp made in his “Shock Troops” piece. Foer is now complaining that this was leaked by the Army even thought TNR has tried for several weeks to get it through a FOIA request.
Releasing the the transcript of the phone conversation is more damaging to TNR, in my opinion, than the Army’s report. Its pretty much been an accepted fact for a couple months that Beauchamp’s stories were largely or completely fabricated.
The transcripts show that TNR has known for some time that their author has real credibility problems, but rather than admit to the public their own reservations AND continue to investigate, they adopted a too aggressive defense posture for the facts as they knew them, standing behind their author until someone else disproved what he wrote.
Its really Rathergate all over again. Rather and Mapes continued to believe what is was that Texas wacko told them and the documents he provided them even when the whole story was burning down around them.
I suspect there are lots of closed door meetings going on today in TNR’s publishing suite, and Foer’s tenure beyond 6:00 pm tomorrow is in great doubt.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:04 amwls – Gotcha.
All along, couldn’t Beauchamp have secured the documents himself, or signed a release to allow TNR access to them? That he has not, to me, seems rather telling.
The perfidy of TNR, and especially Foer, has been remarkable.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:09 am” Its pretty much been an accepted fact for a couple months that Beauchamp’s stories were largely or completely fabricated.”
No it hasn’t. It’s been acknowledged that the army has shut him down. We have no idea what sort of pressure he’s under, since he hasn’t been willing or able to speak publicly without a minder present.
That’s not to say he did not fabricate events, though some of those events have been corroborated by others. But in the long run, it’s faair to say that the interest in Beauchamp is primarily a distraction (or diversion). Let’s talk about Blackwater and the other mercs and scammers. How many billions lost? Beauchamp is as much a diversion as the attacks on Stark or Move On. Patreus used bullshit numbers and Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment in context and with the full transcript -sorry pat but please stop lying- was pretty clear.
It would be nice to talk about the bigger picture, but you’re not interrested.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:28 amAm I the only one here who just read blah and am thinking…
“What the blah was that?”
I’ll give him a chance to explain….before I make any opinion…
Something TNR hasn’t done….explain…
reff (bff229) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:40 am“blah”
The fact that there is a disagreement between over the meaning of Limbaugh’s comments does not make one of the parties a liar. I’ll give you a chance to take that back.
Patterico (9f8711) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:42 amblah — you’re simply wrong.
Once it was clear that the incident involving the could only have happened in Kuwait and not in Iraq — and the Army’s investigation has concluded that was entirely fabricated — Beauchamp’s entire alleged motivation for writing the story and TNR’s motivation for publishing the story, i.e., to show the degredading effects of warfare on the humanity of the young troops sent to Iraq, was completely undermined.
IF it happened in Kuwait, it symbolized nothing other than a bunch of immature imbeciles — reminding me of my 4 year old pointing and starin the first time he ever saw someone with a handicap.
IF it didn’t happen at all, as the Army says, well it didn’t happen at all and Beauchamp and TNR are laughingstocks.
The faults in that story necessarily infect the other stories, which can only be accepted based on the assurance of an author and magazine badly lacking in credibility. None of the so-called corroborators have explicitly corroborated the accounts as related by Beauchamp quite vividly in his piece.
So, AT BEST, this is another “fake but true” defense on the part of a left wing rag.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:44 amblah — its obvious that Beauchamp and TNR’s efforts to malign the moral integrity of the US war effort are NOT a distraction from any issue concerning the war.
Many of the subjects you raise are a basis for legitimate debate, except the “phony soldiers” canard which has no foundation at all except for the explanation that it was a vehicle for 25 Dem senators to try and take the heat off themselves for having voted for a resolution condemning MoveOn.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:47 amAnyone who says that they don’t think TSB’s stories just that, stories, not recounts of actual events, is either lying or just massively ignorant. The man claimed to have either grossly violated regulations or witnessed gross violations of regulations, all without an NCO or officer stepping in, changed the location of one of his stories, regaled us with details about being in an armored vehicle driven in such a way that the armored vehicle in question simply isn’t capable of driving, it goes on and on.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 11:59 amOk blah…
I’m waiting….but, it seems that others smarter than both of us have done it for you….
thanks for playing….
reff (bff229) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:04 pmblah…and while I’m at it, it seems it is not the Army that has shut him down….didn’t Foer and TNR ask him not to talk to other media outlets???
Why???
Because the stories were false….the only possible conclusions based upon the facts known…and the fact that TNR did NOTHING TO FACT CHECK THEMSELVES….
Sorry we had to play the game again….thanks again for playing….
reff (bff229) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:08 pmEveryone:
Michael Yon has a new post up about the Beauchamp scandal: Beauchamp and the Rule of Second Chances.
So much for the Army “Middle East Hostage” fantasies.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:26 pmI’d say Beauchamp is closer to those pigeons with their wings clipped that Cheney proves his manhood against down Tejas way.
The preferred target of manly right wingers everywhere.
Can’t take on anyone who is actually free to fight back, right?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:39 pmGood for Beauchamp. I hope that his comrades accept his decision to stay and make it up to them and don’t shun him too much.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:39 pmAs I’ve said elsewhere…
If STB isn’t barred from re-enlistment, I’ll have to reconsider my view of the Army as sane.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:40 pmhttps://patterico.com/2007/10/24/the-new-republics-great-fall-has-arrived/#comment-293992
That is just a completely unacceptable comment no matter how lenient Patterico is. It’s nothing more than a taunt. You want someone to get mad and call you names in response. To fight, in other words. On the internets. Lame. Patterico, ignoring alpo is not sufficient. He’s deliberately disruptive. He should be banned.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:42 pmI think anything Beauchamp says now is about as credible as anything any other Middle East hostage says at the behest of their captors.
Are you aware of the specific problems with his story that have been identified? If so how do you fit that into your apparent continued belief in the veracity of his TNR piece? Or is that not relevant to a moonbat?
Gerald A (add20f) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:46 pmScott,
I think you are being too harsh. Read the new post by WLS.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:50 pmCan’t take on anyone who is actually free to fight back, right?
That’s cute coming from someone that uses an alias in cyberspace, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 1:09 pm“The fact that there is a disagreement between over the meaning of Limbaugh’s comments does not make one of the parties a liar. I’ll give you a chance to take that back.”
—
“Haha alphie,
You are the one pushing a phony transcript — a Media Matters edited apologia for the smears against Rush. It rips out the context and is dishonest.
Haha.” Comment by Patterico — 10/20/2007 @ 4:00 pm”
Now considering how clear it had become by then who had and who had not edited the transcript, that comment kind of blew me away. Either you hadn’t been paying attention or you assumed others weren’t. Pick one, but no apologies from me.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 1:34 pmblah, on a good day, you are tiresome. At least I can picture alphtard chuckling when he/she/it types its drivel. You seem positively mad, and serious, which is even more unappealing.
Please, direct us to the evidence that shows that Beauchamp’s stories were – 1) confirmed by anyone other than Beauchamp, 2) fact checked by TNR, and 3) found to be anything other than outright fables or gross exaggerations.
We will not hold our breath waiting.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:47 pm“So, AT BEST, this is another “fake but true” defense on the part of a left wing rag.”
“Left wing rag.” Marty Peretz comsymp! What a joke. You don’t attack the left, you attack the middle by calling it the left, and they wimp out and believe you.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:16 pmNo, blah, try again. Frankie Foer does not get the benefit of the doubt any longer. Names, statements, etc … Frankie claiming “I swear, someone confirmed it!” is not enough. Every single aspect of the quote you provided has been proven to be false many times over. That was not even a good effort on your part.
blah – When was the last time you read TNR?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:20 pm“When was the last time you read TNR?”
I told you when I read American political magazines I read The Nation.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:41 pmMarty Peretz? Andy Sullivan? Have a ball kids. Rilly
blah,
Media Matters transcript was deceptive and left out the context. alphie is the one who was being dishonest.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:56 pm“Media Matters transcript was deceptive and left out the context. alphie is the one who was being dishonest.”
That’s bullshit Pat.
Get a grip
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:16 pmThat’s bullshit blah. Get a grip.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:40 pmThat’s bullshit blah.
Get a grip.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:41 pmThe issue is not the length of time, but providing the Jesse MacBeth context.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:45 pmLimbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment in context and with the full transcript -sorry pat but please stop lying- was pretty clear.
Would you explain what in there indicates he was talking about anything but literal phony soldiers. Media Matters decrees that the 1-1/2 minutes establishes the context was referring to real soldiers. I just don’t see it. It’s an Emperor’s New Clothes situation in Moonbatville. Identify the sentences that establish the context. I’m not holding my breath.
Gerald A (6b39c1) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:51 pmCALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.
CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but —
LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.
CALLER 1: — you know, really — I want you to be saying how long it’s gonna take.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
Pat, I got used to thinking of you as being sort of bright but not very curious and definitely scared of ambiguity, but this is getting to be a bit much. Phoney soldiers, fake republicans, you’ve got another losing case with any jury not made up of dittoheads.
blah (74fc41) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:19 pmThat’s all that matters. Again, have fun
Left with his argument, if it can be called that, in shambles, blah turns to the very same thing he earlier condemned – that is, cherry-picking transcripts – in order to reassure himself of his intellectual superiority by insulting the intelligence of everyone else, both directly and through his horrible attempt at deception.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:27 pmWow. That flameout was anything but blah.
Paul (f4626d) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:36 pmNice set of quotes. The caller sounds like our staunch Republican friend alphie.
You have no idea how important it is to me that I am liked by some guy on the Internet who calls himself “blah.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:37 pmPatrick – Look on the bright side. At least blah doesn’t sound like one of the Balkobots all the time.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:53 pmHeh. I cut them off today. I did a cutting post about Balko and just didn’t turn on comments — because I knew what they would say, and they’d already said it all before. I invited them to leave comments on one of the old threads if they just couldn’t restrain themselves.
“Dude” tried to leave a comment on an inappropriate thread having nothing to do with Balko. He was practically crying on his computer keyboard that I wouldn’t publish it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:58 pm#193 Patterico:
You, you, you Mr. Meanypants!
/Oh, sorry. Channeling my preteen daughter…
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:27 pmI think it went something like this: “Boo Hoo. I want to say you’re mean and Radley Balko rocks but you won’t let me!” I forget exactly, ’cause I deleted it. But I think that was the essence of it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:28 pmThat is about as much attention as dude, and alphtard, deserve.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:43 pmPatrick – I read the post on Balko and knew they’d be going nuts that they couldn’t comment on it. I didn’t notice them trying to slip posts in on other threads though – the heartache, the desperation!
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/25/2007 @ 8:51 pmWell, the comments of “Dude” were already going into moderation for review. I think I had approved them all up until that point, but I forget.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 9:00 pmSomeone explain to me why I should ban a commenter because the commenter annoys you. Why shouldn’t I just tell you to ignore him?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/26/2007 @ 5:54 amBecause he’s deliberately disruptive? If we were all in the same room talking to each other alpo would have been tossed out a long time ago. Just because we’re communicating through text and we can just scroll past his trolling doesn’t mean that he should be allowed to do it.
You aren’t going to get a situation where everyone ignores the troll all the time. All it takes is one person finally getting fed up with it, or a new commenter, or whatever, to bite on alphie’s hook and the comment thread is ruined. You have commenters here saying that they consider a comment thread over as soon as alphie posts, that they stop reading and move on – how can you just say “ignore him” to that? He’s hurting your blog by making people want to not comment once they see he’s arrived.
I assume you’re referring to alpo, and if not, then I’m talking about him anyway =)
chaos (2a6b46) — 10/26/2007 @ 6:25 amI’ll answer your question, speaking only for myself.
If all alphie did was annoy people we would ridicule him and continue the conversation. Troll-whacking is part of the blogosphere and can be pretty entertaining. Unfortunately, that’s not all he does and the reasons have been coming hot and heavy the last few threads. There is a difference between having a clueless boob in the room and having someone pee on your leg, spit on your mom, and shout “LALALALALALALALALA” in your ear every time someone tries to speak. It’s pretty clear what the consensus is on which guy alphie is. If I can’t enjoy the conversation anymore, I’ll choose to step out of the room. The irrelevant tangents, dishonest arguments, libels, smarmy insinuations, never answering a question (even from you), and utter contempt for anyone whose opinion he considers is to the right of his own, is too disruptive to any discussion. Sure, if everyone ignored him it would be different. Unfortunately, he’s very good at drawing at least one person in with some outrageous statement which is enough to feed him and disrupt the thread.
Patrick, he’s on nearly every single thread and contributes nothing. If you don’t stop him, people are going to stop coming by, no matter how much respect we have for you. He’s literally trying to destroy your site and it’s credibility. That’s not hyperbole, I truly believe that is his intent. I’m very sorry you don’t see how serious this is and hope his true nature becomes clear to you soon. He has zero interest in persuading others or considering their opinions. All he wants to do is see where he can snag the next barb, hopefully someplace painful. I just refuse to be around it anymore.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/26/2007 @ 7:00 am“Why shouldn’t I just tell you to ignore him?”
You should. I like the open comments format, even if there are some off topic/inflammatory comments from time to time. I can choose to ignore them or not.
I used to post at hotair and the threat of banning stifled some opinions I think. One was never quite sure if their comment would be misinterpreted by the mods or in the case of one in particular, you catch him or her on a bad day and get bounced just because.
I like diversity of thought on forums. It challenges me to think. I don’t like sites that want lemmings.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/26/2007 @ 7:46 amStashiu3, Yours is both a well-reasoned argument and excessively agitated. Most here want to “snag the next barb,” especially as it ratifies the emerging consensus. I have no idea what Alphie’s “true nature” is, but overreacting to his counterpoints is just as revealing. Ignoring them is not so excessively complex. Does he insult more than get insulted? No. This too shall pass. Mischief-making on both sides is rarely out of season.
steve (0e1a2e) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:00 amPatrick – Unfortunately, the temptation to engage can eventually overcome the discipline to ignore and then the threads become all about Alphie. Alphie’s deliberate behavior here is the same as that which got him banned at Crittenden’s blog, Proteinwisdom and a number of others. Alphie will proudly give you a list if you ask. When he is eventually banned from a site, he finds another place to park until the host gets sick of sick of him. It’s a traceable pattern for him. Ask around. I’m in favor of banning because he adds absolutely nothing. Protein Wisdom has not suffered from his absence.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:05 amI would leave him on….Why? Because he does make all of us sure that our reasoning and logic makes sense….it is the only way to convince some others that their views are not necessarily solid or sound….
reff (bff229) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:23 amI’m not grasping how this is “hijacking the thread”:
The argument Beauchamp was coerced is all that stands between TNR and its complete humiliation. That aspect *should* be articulated and brought forward. Alphie is needling and inclined to quarrel. Is he the only one with those qualities?
steve (0e1a2e) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:31 amBTW, TNR has come out of hiding, and is apparently deciding to double down on it’s bets.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:44 amOh, my goodness….he’s back….alphie will be back….
Now, will the Army punish STB for contacting Foer without their permission or observation? Will alphie claim that there is no way Foer/TNR is simply covering their tracks, and just believe them outright, without any facts other than “they said?” Will STB’s wife now come out and speak publically about all the corecion and pressure on her husband?
Find out next….same bat-time, same bat-channel….
reff (bff229) — 10/26/2007 @ 9:06 amYou don’t see the unwarranted and offensive assumption there? Who exactly was it from Beauchamp’s unit that lied about Pat Tilman? Not to mention the unspoken assumption that not only were lies told, but that they were intentional and policy-driven. Responding to those aspects are not part of the thread and alphie knows it. That’s just one example… I’ve given about a dozen others recently, not to mention similar feedback from others. I’ve ignored him and told him in no uncertain terms that I don’t want anything to do with him, yet he still tries to draw me in. He does the same thing to everyone else and with only one objective, create turmoil. I’m not surprised that he’s been banned from multiple other sites, he’ll be banned from many more in the future.
BTW, glad to know who the decider is on what level of agitation is appropriate and what is excessive. I have been pretty clear about becoming increasingly frustrated with alphie’s nonsense and Patterico asked a question. I gave my honest opinion with the emotional emphasis appropriate to my level of frustration. I’m sorry it seemed excessive to you. I meant every word. Now, I’m not even interested in how this turns out… it’s not worth it.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/26/2007 @ 9:09 amWell … I’m going to be the last person in the world to tell Patterico how to run his site. If I could blog like Patterico I would not be blogging like nk. But whereas I was content to just not respond directly to somebody who insulted DRJ, I feel I should just stay away from threads where alphie introduces his noise. That’s just me.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/26/2007 @ 9:17 amI agree on the troll in question.
That said, if he amuses you, can you change the comments form so who’s writing appears at the top? That would make it much easier to ignore some who just annoy.
Dan S (c77713) — 10/26/2007 @ 9:28 amHow about we stop obsessing over what constitutes “thread-jacking” just long enough to consider today’s TNR published response to the very transcript we were debating?
Beauchamp’s “unmonitored” call to Foer is evidence of nothing, even as selected passages from the Army investigation are inconclusive.
[Beauchamp] also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us. – “A Scott Beauchamp Update” – TNR
Might be Beauchamp made up some what he wrote, but perhaps not all. His immaturity and eagerness to impress prospective bosses reinforce the tenet that such a diary should never have been published without some means of fact-checking. If Beauchamp was just giving them what they wanted to hear, it’s a knockout blow to Foer.
steve (0e1a2e) — 10/26/2007 @ 9:35 amAs soon as TNR shows us their fact-checking from the original article, they will make all of us look like fools…
Oh, wait, they haven’t done that yet? I didn’t know that.
Oh, OK, they’ll do that now, right?
reff (bff229) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:08 amI suspect 80% of those keenly following this had their minds made up at the outset.
For the rest, it’s frustrating to think the “jury” will be hung because it can’t navigate the contours of Army protocol or a deceptive editor. Everybody puts out just what supports their case – no comprehensive inquest can be rendered. Pride goeth before a brawl.
No chance Foer survives this, though. Nor should he.
steve (0e1a2e) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:31 amIts pretty clear that TNR is hoping that this thing will go away without them having to own up to their own incompetence.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:57 amIts pretty clear that TNR is hoping that this thing will go away without them having to own up to their own incompetence.
As always, the cover-up is worse than the admission.
Paul (f4626d) — 10/26/2007 @ 11:07 am