If This Is Even Close to Correct, Lots of Job Openings Soon at The New Republic
[Posted by WLS]
PajamasMedia has an unbeliveable takedown of L’affaire de Beauchamp.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/how_the_new_republic_got_sucke.php
The long-and-short of it is that all signs point to TNR being suckered by a sociopathic wannabe, whose goal in life was to be a writer for TNR, and it could fairly be characterized that he married his wife — the fourth women to whom he had been engaged between the ages of 18 and 23 — mainly because she was a fact-checker at TNR, and he joined the Army merely so he would have some interesting things to write about.
A couple of the astounding points gleaned from an interview with his ex-financee’.
Beauchamp met his ex-financee’ Priscilla through one of his Army buddies — Priscilla was the buddy’s sister, and was living in Germany with her parents, describing herself as “half-German, half-American.” The article doesn’t say exactly how long they were dating before Beauchamp proposed to her, but he did so in Aug. 2006. They were going to be married as soon as his deployment to Iraq ended.
Priscilla said he always wanted to be a writer for TNR, and he thought an “Iraqi Diary” while serving there would be a good start, and lead to a gig continuing to write for the TNR after getting out of the Army.
Beauchamp’s first column for TNR ran in Jan. 2007 — while he was still engaged to Priscilla. It turns out — but the piece doesn’t nail down when Beauchamp learned this (he may have known it all along) — that a girl that Beauchamp knew from college, Elspeth Reeve, was one of only three factcheckers at TNR.
In Feb 2007, after his first piece ran in TNR, Reeve started e-mailing Beauchamp in Iraq.
Remember, that Beauchamp proposed to Priscilla in Aug. 2006, just before shipping out to Iraq, and by Feb. of 2007 he was emailing with a TNR fact-checker whom he would later marry — someone he had known in college but had never been involved with.
But, even more bizarre, and an insight into Beauchamp’s twisted pursuit of his goal, he never let on to his family or Priscilla.
After 8 months in Iraq Beauchamp got R&R to Germany. Beauchamp’s family arranged to come to Germany to meet Priscilla and her family while Beauchamp was there, so that plans for the wedding could be finalized. This had to be somewhere in the timeframe of March or April 2007, according to Priscilla’s account.
Beauchamp never mentions to anyone in his family that he’s having second thoughts about marriage. The interview with Priscilla isn’t specific about when he broke it off with her, but she says that he simply came to her hometown in Germany “one day” and told her he “wasn’t ready for marriage” but that he still loved her.
She says he spent a week in France after leaving her in Germany, and then went back to the United States and married TNR factchecker Elspeth Reeve.
TNR still has yet to address the question of whether Reeve served as factchecker on any of the Beauchamp pieces run by TNR, or what she told TNR’s editors about him based on her having known him in college, and later marrying him.
After the Stephen Glass episode, its stunning that the same publication could be so blinded by its own ideological perspective to allow such a low-rent slimefest to take place right under its collective nose, and then stick its head in the ground like an ostrich to avoid the fallout.
Wow.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 2:46 pmHaha, Pajamasmedia.
Is Ledeen still workin’ there after he declared that the leader of Iran was dead?
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 2:56 pmLink broken, btw.
Al (b624ac) — 8/20/2007 @ 2:59 pmHee-Haw if you want to, Staunch Brayer…it won’t change the truth about Beauchamp.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:00 pmOne of the good outcomes from this is that I have more to share with my elderly, liberal (but very sharp-minded) father-in-law. An honest man, he can’t deny the foolishness and deception in the liberal media that I am showing him. I know that it is troubling him.
Been challenging him to come up with specifics as to why Karl Rove is Darth Vader–he’s hard pressed there, too. Sadly, (and like many I’ll bet) he’s been believin’ what he’s been hearin’.
ManlyDad (22e85d) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:00 pmNor will it change the truth about TNR.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:01 pmEditor Foer and Alphie are the kinds of guys who would stop a Humvee in a river of sewage in Baghdad in a hostile neighborhood (per one of Baron Von Munchausen-Beauchamp’s stories) and get out and change the tire. Not too bright–and Alphie, I’m a bit sorry if I offended you by suggesting you aren’t any brighter than Foer–it may be an unfair comparison. But then again, it’s probably not.
Mike Myers (2e43f5) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:02 pmWhat is the “truth” about Beauchamp, Paul?
Besides getting the base wrong in one of his stories…everything he wrote checked out.
Don’t tell me you are chalkin’ this up as a win?
Haha, remember Jamail Hussein?
How embarrasing for the “truthseekers” on the right.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:06 pmI saw this, and I couldn’t stop laughing…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:06 pmYeah, amazing that Jamail wasn’t someone that should be talking to the media at all, and lied about almost everything…
He’s a lot like STB…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:07 pmBesides getting the base wrong in one of his stories…everything he wrote checked out.
Oh really, Staunch Brayer?
Like what?
His first two names were on the articles?
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:12 pmIgnore, Alphie. He’s gone from speciousness to outright mendacity.
nk (e3412b) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:22 pmGreat post. It’s stunning to imagine that Beauchamp did all this to get to TNR, that TNR would let itself be used like this, and that so many would fall for it. But that’s nothing compared to how stunned Elspeth Reeve Beauchamp must be.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:23 pmWhat are Beauchamp’s current employment opportunities? He seems overqualified to be a liberal arts professor, a Democrat activist or Congressional staffer.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:23 pm…everything he wrote checked out.
Absolutely untrue. As a matter of record, nothing he wrote that was challenged has been substantiated by TNR or STB. Moving his story from Iraq to Kuwait deflected some direct confrontation over one of his fables, but it could not be substantiated there either.
Alphie, this one is a no win as far as whether STB was lying. The issue at hand is how calculating his dishonesty appears to have been.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:24 pmJPT,
I get it…smear anyone…even soldiers…who don’t barf up neocon talking points.
What’s the holdup on swiftbating these six 82nd airborne guys, btw?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Their oped piece has been out a whole day.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:42 pmWhat’s the holdup on swiftbating these six 82nd airborne guys, btw?
Simple, Stauch Brayer, they told the truth.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:45 pmYes, they did, Paul:
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.
Best to just ignore them here in the middle of the “surge is working” propaganda push, eh?
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:49 pmnk, it was not a long trip.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:52 pmAlphie, the thread is about how fact checking Beauchamp has revealed how calculating his dishonesty was. The thread is not about Jamail Hussein or the 82nd Airborne. STB smeared STB and the self-destruction of his credibility and by extension and collusion TNR’s credibility does not reflect on other soldiers.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:53 pmSing along with me to the tune of Moonshadow:
The thread’s been infested by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
Derailing attempt by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
And if he tries to tick me off,
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 3:55 pmWith his rambling addled scoff,
And if he tries to tick me off,
O wheo wheo wheo whe
I’ll mock him like the troll he is.
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.
The difference between objective journalism and editorial opinion is seemingly impossible for liberal to grasp. Your quoting of that line proves it, Staunch Brayer.
While yo are contemplating that chestnut, maybe you can explain why Carl Levin is praising the surge and why Rep. Brian Baird, just returned from Iraq, says the US Military is “making real progress” in Iraq.
Gotcha.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:03 pmSo, Staunch Brayer, how about proving the stories Beauchamp wrote are true? Or are you braying at the moon on top of a hill again?
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:05 pmFace it, Staunch Brayer, anybody that defends Beauchamp and his cold, calculating ways to create such a narrative is using the “fake, but accurate” defense.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:11 pmGeez, Paul,
It’s a story by Pajamas Media.
Falsely claiming the leader of Iran had died while the rest of the world laughed at them is one of their lesser “journalistic” screw-ups.
I mean, come on, quoting a disgruntled, anonymous ex-fiancee?
How…perfect.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:17 pmThere is an article in the current issue of Neurology (Vol. 69, No. 6, August 7, 2007, pp. 586 et seq.) which names alphie:
“Paroxysmal extreme pain disorder (previously familial rectal pain syndrome)”, more commonly, “born pain in the ass”.
nk (e3412b) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:17 pmHey, does someone have enough access to Patterico’s account to at least ban alphie as a troll until Patterico gets back?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:23 pmI mean, come on, quoting a disgruntled, anonymous ex-fiancee?
If she backed up his BS, she’d have Absolute Moral Authority from the Left.
Admit it. You know it’s true, Staunch Brayer.
NOw stop your moonbraying or I’ll taunt you with another verse.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:26 pmI’ll give Staunch Brayer this, Christoph…at least he’s back on topic.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:28 pmThis is an American soldier who served in Iraq we’re talkin’ about, Christoph.
For people who claim to “support the troops,” you guys sure have a funny way of showing it.
You’d think he would at least get the benefit of the doubt against cowards like Richard Miniter and the other chickenhawks who are smearing him.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:30 pmChristoph,
My authority is limited to tattling on Alphie when Patterico gets back.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:37 pmHow dare we “smear” a soldier in his own, criticism-insulated smearing of his fellow soldiers.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:39 pmThe problem for Beauchamp, Staunch Brayer, is that millbloggers have sources currently serving in Iraq, or they themselves are serving in Iraq. They could fact-check his assertions, and found them to be simply untrue, no matter how much you or anyone else wants these stories to be true.
If Scott “Walter Mitty” Beauchamp didn’t want to be “smeared” he should have told true stories.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:44 pmother chickenhawks who are smearing him
Feh.
Judging by your commentary, Staunch Brayer, you wouldn’t make it through boot camp.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:46 pmI’m still more than a little surprised that Beauchamp made it through boot camp.
Boot camp is not that difficult to complete, the intentional illusion is to make it appear so, while getting everyone through. But manipulators like Beauchamp usually are spotted there.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:52 pmPaul,
Perhaps you could link to a milblogger who served with Beauchamp who “proved” his stories were “untrue?”
Besides the Kuwait mixup, that is?
The ones I read corroborated his tales.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:54 pmI warned you.
Verse Two:
The thread’s been infested by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
HuffPo talking points by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
And if he spreads some leftist lie,
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 4:55 pmWith an attempt to dignify,
And if he spreads some leftist lie,
O wheo wheo wheo whe
I’ll refute him like the troll he is.
Perhaps you could link to a milblogger who served with Beauchamp who “proved” his stories were “untrue?”
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an attempt to narrowly define the the “accepted” proof, simply because my debate opponent, Staunch Brayer, sensing that I have him by the you-know-whats, hopes to summarily disqualify my entire argument.
The ones I read corroborated his tales.
Yeah, and I can dunk on Ben Wallace.
If you think I’ll swallow that line, Staunch Brayer, you’re more intellectually challenged than I thought.
Paul (f54101) — 8/20/2007 @ 5:18 pmActually Paul, it also shows that the blogroach did not actually read the linked article – since that has several responses to his faux challenge.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/20/2007 @ 5:20 pmPaul,
You wrote: They could fact-check his assertions, and found them to be simply untrue
I just asked you for a link to one of them.
Got one?
Speaking of fiancees…here’s Richard “I think you can see why I’m not serving in Iraq” Miniter with his:
http://dchs.blogs.com/photos/dc2005/richminiterandheathgoldcup.html
She worked on the Bush-Cheney campaigns.
Wonder if she influences his work?
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 5:37 pmBut manipulators like Beauchamp usually are spotted there.
They certainly spotted him later on, likely by bad behavior. He claims to have left Germany as a PFC, but he returned to it a PV2. So he got some reasonably serious admin slapdown BEFORE he was outed. Had he simply kept his head down and his nose clean, he should have been coming back an E-4 Spec or CPL. Instead he got demoted from PFC. That takes talent, and not the good kind.
He gets the Blue Falcon Award just for dumping his buddy’s sister like that. But I bet he won it much earlier.
Tully (e4a26d) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:08 pmI wonder what would happen if STB asked alphie for a $10,000 loan, secured by his good word alone. Think alph would write the check? Didn’t think so.
I'm Geekier (9efea5) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:27 pmPerhaps you could link to a milblogger who served with Beauchamp who “proved” his stories were “untrue?”
This is an absurd statement/request. Demanding ‘proof’ of the absence of something is a logical fallacy. It is not the opposite of proving something to be true like you seem to think.
STB made what he represented as factual accounts. It is up to him to substantiate them when challenged. All anyone else can do is investigate his claims and if no evidence is available to independently corroborate them, challenge him to substantiate them. That is what happened and he could not substantiate them.
Another point to make is that although it’s true Miniter has not served in the US military, he was a boots on the ground correspondent at the sharp end covering several wars over 10 years or so. Calling him a coward is contraindicated and crass.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:31 pmalphie wrote: “Besides getting the base wrong in one of his stories…”
But the whole point of his stories was to show how being in the war in Iraq was dehumanizing him and his buds. He then moved the IED victim to Kuwait, where he was BEFORE he ever got to Iraq.
kaf (daaf87) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:40 pmThis wasn’t a small mistake, this was the central theme of his writing turning to a big pile of crap.
Pretty neat, JPT.
This is an absurd statement/request. Demanding ‘proof’ of the absence of something is a logical fallacy.
Hey Saddam, prove you don’t have any WMDs!
Cant do it?
Here we come…
Half a trillion dollars and tens of thousand dead later…and you rubes finally realize we went in based on a logical fallacy?
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:44 pmHey Saddam, prove you don’t have any WMDs!
He wasn’t asked to prove any such thing.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:50 pmWow, JPT.
Complete intellectual bankruptcy?
Why don’t you go smear some more soldiers, eh?
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 6:52 pmLots of Job Openings Soon at The New Republic …
I think there won’t be heads rolling. Why? Firings are certainly justified BUT if management was going to clean out the responsible parties they would have already done it. This has gone on long enough that I can see management’s plan – they’re going to try and ride it out.
It’s a dumb thing to do. It makes the magazines reputation even worse but I guess they’ll settle for a subscriber base of True Believers from now on.
Arthur (8344e8) — 8/20/2007 @ 7:02 pmLook it up.
Irrelevant to this thread anyway. As I’ve already said, the issue at hand is how calculating STB’s dishonesty appears to have been. Not about whether he was lying. It’s a no win as far as whether STB was lying.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/20/2007 @ 7:02 pmI don’t see why anyone at TNR would get in trouble.
Nepotism is the way Liberals do things.
It’s certain that TNR would not be interested in the writings of any soldier absent a personal relationship with one of it’s staffers, who also fact-checks articles.
No one in the media as a matter of course advances on merit. They advance because they know someone, are related to someone, are having sex with someone. It’s the same withing Liberal circles in the government. You don’t think Valerie Plame got her way in the CIA on merit now do you?
She’s a blond woman with only one language, who’s expertise seems to be marrying an important Democratic campaign contributor and dilletante diplomat (Wilson like all Ambassadors bought his Ambassadorship it would seem through campaign contributions).
Of course the story was a phony as all get out. No one expects FACTS from TNR any more than advancement on merit not a romantic-sexual relationship in media and political circles.
[The same may well be true of Conservative politicos, after all they form the same Ivy League, related class. GWB is not that far off in manner, class, interests, background, and outlook from say, Nancy Pelosi. And no it’s not meant as a compliment to either of them.]
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 8/20/2007 @ 8:35 pmAlphie – Links to those corroborating milbloggers of yours please! If you need to catch up on the story, and it certainly sounds like you do, try Confederate Yankee. He owns it.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/20/2007 @ 9:11 pmHere ya go, daley:
“There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport.”
http://tinyurl.com/2tfxue
Confederate Yankee?
Isn’t he the part time Wal-Mart goober who embarrassed himself in the right’s Jamail Hussein fiasco?
Please…please tell me he went to Iraq to “investigate” the Beauchamp story!
I could use a good laugh.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 9:44 pmAlphie – Was the childrens’ cemetary the military relocated the mass grave Beauchamp was referring to in his story? There is confirmation of the relocation of a cemetary, no one has confirmed a mass childrens’ grave to my knowledge. What are you attempting to confirm here? No one is questioning the cemetary. Did the abuse of the childrens’ skeletons incident take place merely because there was a childrens’ cemetary there Alphie? Was his whole platoon watching as he indicated, even though the Army has flat out said there was no truth to the story after interviewing the entire platoon? Who did TNR confirm the story with Alphie?
You’re just spitballing again, aren’t you?
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/20/2007 @ 10:01 pmAlphie – Why does the left insist there is embarrassment over Jamil Hussein when there isn’t. The AP hasn’t fessed up to using a pseudonym, which is against their policy unless disclosed. Jamil Hussein is not the source’s real name according to the Iraqi Minister. Also the stories of the ubiquitous Mr. Hussein were largely uncorroborated and in many cases turned to out to be flat fabrications. It is the AP and the left who should be embarrassed, but it’s full meme ahead, fake but accurate, I guess.
I get a good chuckle out of it time I hear the left say the right should be embarrassed over Jamil. It just ain’t so, and they don’t want to admit it.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/20/2007 @ 10:08 pmWhere did the Army say “there was no truth to the story,” daley?
I remember some Army propaganda guy leaked that spin to some wingnut sites…but then backed down when he was asked to make the claim “on the record.”
As for the Jamil Hussein fiasco, remember that mosque with the blown up dome and fire damage that the right said “was still standing?”
Comedy gold.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 10:34 pmMinor quibble. Priscilla was the best friend’s girl friend’s sister.
“Beauchamp has a history of disappointing those around him. Beauchamp’s best friend in the Army (who now no longer speaks to him) was dating a local girl and he encouraged the budding young writer to meet her sister. That is how he met Priscilla.”
#25 Anonymous ex-fiancee? Her name is Priscilla (according to STB) and if you have followed the story you know she and her sisters have MySpace pages. At least one of them allows public access. How do you think they tracked her down?
jeff (b6d2cc) — 8/20/2007 @ 10:43 pmAlphie – As I thought, you need to familiarize yourself with the Beauchamp story. No Army spokeperson has backed down from anything to my knowledge. The left asked a Public Affairs Officer about a document he was unfamiliar with and took his lack of knowledge as a refutation – it’s called projection.
You also need to reread the Jamil saga, you are deluded there as well.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/20/2007 @ 11:15 pmdaley,
You guys will declare anything a “victory” (Jamial Hussein, Iraq, Beauchamp, even Vietnam!), so I doubt the effort would be worth it…I don’t have the special rose colored glasses to see these “victories.”
But…now that disgruntled ex-wives, fiancees and mistresses are considered legitimate news sources by the right, all I can say is…the Republican presidential battle is gonna be a very entertaining losers bracket.
alphie (015011) — 8/20/2007 @ 11:27 pmAlphie – I guess it must be hard to comment without knowledge and then get called on it all the time. Spewing garbage just to get a contrarian viewpoint out there doesn’t get you much respect if it doesn’t make any sense, which most of your posts don’t.
I think all the sources debunking the Beauchamp story have gone on the record, including ex-fiances, except the Army source about the recantation. None of the TNR sources have been named or their fact checking procedures described. Who has more credibility at this point?
You describe these matters as victories. I would rather describe them as efforts to report the truth. For the left, the truth doesn’t seem to matter much these days.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/20/2007 @ 11:41 pmdaley,
Let’s review the Beauchamp saga:
1. Soldier anonymously tells a few mild tales about life in Iraq.
2. Wingnuts clam he doesn’t exist.
3. Anonymous soldier comes forward.
4. Wingnuts forget previous claim…move on to the standard “he’s lying” smear…uncover one small factual error in his rather tame stories…declare victory.
5. TNR stands by story (and corrects small factual error).
6. Wingnuts print anonymous Army spokesmodel “confirmation” that soldier made stories up.
7. TNR asks Army to state on record soldier retracted his story…Army spokesmodel declines.
8. Wingnuts dig up ex-fiancee of soldier and smear him with her tales of his “bad character.”
9. Rest of world needs shower for even reading that crap.
Let’s not forget that actual American soldiers have been convicted of crimes like rape and murder they committed in Iraq…and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered during our occupation…we’re gonna debate about whether some guy ran over a dog!
Scary dumb.
alphie (015011) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:04 amSay, did anybody click the link that Staunch Brayer posted in #52?
Now that’s true comedy gold…because he actually refutes himself!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:05 amAlphie – I don’t buy your revisionist version of the history of the Beauchamp saga.
Beauchamp writes three fantasy stories about how the military and war dehumanizes people and attempts to pass them off as fact.
Content off the stories dishonors those servings with Beauchamp in Iraq.
People call bullshit on the stories, including former and active duty military, as well as conservative bloggers. People objecting to stories believe soldiers would have been disciplined or stopped from behaving the way Beauchamp describes in real life.
As he is close to discovery Beauchamp outs himself, TNR reaffirms its story. Army commences investigation.
TNR corrects critical incident, rigorously fact checked prior to publication, actually occurred in Kuwait rather than Iraq, before Beauchamp was dehumanized by war, confirming he was just an asshole fabricator.
ARMY PAO confirms Kuwait melted face mess hall story just an urban legend to both TNR and Confederate Yankee. TNR neglects to mention this fact.
Weekly Standard mentions that Army source has told them Beauchamp has signed a statement recanting content of stories.
Two separate Army PAO’s go on record saying investigation has been completed and virtually no truth to the stories.
TNR claim that Beauchamp is being held incommunicado is debunked by the Army.
Confederate Yankee reveals communication with Bradley manufacturer detailing impossibility of events detailed in Beauchamp’s stories.
Glock pistol portion of Beauchamp story repeatedly debunked.
TNR continues to stonewall on the details of its fact checking and sources while standing by its stories.
Alphie – the above is a summary. I could add more. I think your summary was dishonest. Let me know if you think mine was and if so, how.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:38 amHey, does anyone have access to the account to check if Alphie and Paul are the same person? I conjecture that Alphie is worried that people are on to him and will stop responding, so he makes up an alter ego to carry on the endless pointless arguments with and continue to sabotage the comments.
Come on, four comments in a row to argue with Alphie? Who but Alphie could be that obsessed with Alphie?
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:43 amHaha, Doc,
Anything can be true if you believe it, eh?
Daley,
I just can’t bring myself to look up some blog written by a guy who names himself after traitors.
Link to an offical U.S. military press release that states Beauchamp recanted his story, okies?
I’ll be happy to read anything an Army spokemodel is willing to stand behind at a Congressional hearing.
alphie (015011) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:55 amDoc, I can guarantee that Staunch Brayer and I are not the same person.
You see, I’ve actually written thoughtful commentary here. Unlike
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:17 amthe moonbat trollmy opponent.I just can’t bring myself to look up some blog written by a guy who
names himself after traitorswrites the truth.There. Fixed it for you, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:19 amThere’s no dates on the stories from the 6 members of the 82nd airborne and no use of the word ‘surge’ which tells me they probably left before the surge was in full effect if not earlier.
jpm100 (d5518b) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:52 amjpm100,
Your speculation as to when the members of the 82nd airborne were in Iraq allows your opponents to move the goalpost and claim that the members of the 82nd airborne must be right, as long as they can show a recent presence in Iraq, which seems as likely as not to me. Your speculation is thus as counterproductive to your position as that of those who speculated on whether TNR’s sociopath was even a soldier or in Iraq.
Further, the letter from members of the 82nd airborne is irrelevant to the question at hand: the truth or falsity of the specific claims made in TNR. Why allow the “defenders” of TNR to change the subject, especially as their evident need to do so is itself evidence that they know they have no leg to stand on?
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 8/21/2007 @ 4:05 amI think patterico must be enjoying his vacation, if he hasn’t shown up in this thread. Good for him and his family.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/21/2007 @ 4:41 amPaul: Great song you’re working on.
Alphie: Great work in the mental gymnastics – being able to defend Beauchamp (and claiming his obvious factual errors as “correct”) as more and more objective facts come out has got to be a 8 or 9 in Difficulty, but your routine is spot on and you’re really sticking that landing!
Just be sure to stretch before the routine, a pulled brain can take weeks to rehab. You might even end up in the hospital, forced to watch something not-with-a-script!
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 8/21/2007 @ 5:14 amAmazing. Alphie says that as if anything said during a military investigation isn’t given under oath.
Alphie, the second TNR names the “several” soldiers who backed up STB, I’ll be concerned. TNR has the burdon of proof here since so, so very much of every word they printed from STB was riddled with factual holes.
In a couple of years, file a FoIA request about this, and get the docs. The military is prohibited by statute from sharing the documents.
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 5:22 amLet me restate this is in an intellectually honest form.
Let’s review the Beauchamp saga:
Taking your points in order then…
1. Soldier anonymously tells a few mild tales about life in Iraq.
Uncredited stories appear in the TNR relating stories some of which are actionable under the UMCJ and others that defy SOP for troops in Iraq.
2. Wingnuts clam he doesn’t exist.
Events claimed to have occurred at specific locations are fact checked with personnel actually at those locations and the stories can’t be substantiated. TNR is under the gun to credit stories.
3. Anonymous soldier comes forward.
TNR decides to credit the author in response to number 2.
4. Wingnuts forget previous claim…move on to the standard “he’s lying” smear…uncover one small factual error in his rather tame stories…declare victory.
Pressure stays on for STB to substantiate stories. Army starts investigation of actionable offenses.
5. TNR stands by story (and corrects small factual error).
TNR backs off the most egregious falsehoods in a ‘false but accurate’ retrenchment.
6. Wingnuts print anonymous Army spokesmodel “confirmation” that soldier made stories up.
The retrenchment can’t be substantiated either. Two of the most ‘dehumanizing in a war zone’ stories characterized as urban legend type of rumors.
7. TNR asks Army to state on record soldier retracted his story…Army spokesmodel declines.
TNR asks for records of ongoing investigation. Army refuses to violate privacy restrictions but informs all and sundry that STB is not being held incommunicado as claimed and STB is not under those restrictions discussing his own activities and story. STB himself refuses to return TNR calls.
8. Wingnuts dig up ex-fiancee of soldier and smear him with her tales of his “bad character.”
TNR refuses to back off story. Independent fact checking of what is now just another ludicrous ‘fake but accurate’ continues. A nepotistic relationship between the stories’ fabricator and TNR’s fact checker is uncovered.
9. Rest of world needs shower for even reading that crap.
Nevertheless, TNR continues to stand by the crap even though they no longer have the author of the crap defending the crap, any independent corroboration of the crap,
Let’s not forget that actual American soldiers have been convicted of crimes like rape and murder they committed in Iraq…and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered during our occupation…we’re gonna debate about whether some guy ran over a dog!
Let’s not forget, though irrelevant to the issue at hand, that the armed services will try and convict members that commit crimes…many Iraqis died during the war and ongoing terrorist activities have targeted and continue to target more…the debate over the journalistic standards at TNR continues.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/21/2007 @ 5:26 amWho claimed he didn’t exist? Anybody I would have heard of?
Jim Treacher (12ed69) — 8/21/2007 @ 5:38 amThere was certainly doubt that he was a full on soldier, I know that much. But only because his terminology was not standard military, the term “square” was used to describe a pistol round, and nearly everything assumed that there was never a single authority figure around (which I’m given to understand is, shall we say, “rare”).
So there was doubt he wasn’t a soldier. After Macbeth and a couple of others, it certainly wouldn’t have been outside the realm of posibility for STB to not be active army, or not in Iraq.
Also, a lot of folks are trying to make hay out of “smearing STB with his ex-fiance”.
They forget the following:
– STB is MARRIED to a fact checker at TNR, which they never once admitted in any story.
– The article quoting one of three ex-fiances says up from that she is an ex-fiance, and that it’s possible it’s scorn and anger talking.
Which seems the more credible journalistic move?
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 5:52 amThe PM story is well-attributed and lets the statements from it’s named sources stand on their own merits while caveatting where necessary. TNRs articles, fact checking, and STB as a journalist stand in stark contrast to the professional standards Miniter brings to the PM article.
The person trying to change the perception of these factors is reduced to unsupported denigration of PM’s standards and calling the Miniter a coward. He can’t defend TNR or STB against the evidence of dishonesty on any factual basis, so he is reduced to attacking the people presenting the evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty on a par with TNR and STB.
What I find irksome is the constant refrain that STB is being smeared by anyone other than his own dishonesty. What I find even more irksome and gratuitously insulting to every member of the military is the insistence that exposing STB’s dishonesty and lying is equivalent to ‘smearing’ or not supporting his fellow soldiers. Whether alphie realizes it or not making that claim is an implicit assumption that any or all soldiers have the same ethical standards as STB.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:15 amAlphie,
You put a lot of stock in the idea that the right was “wrong” or “embarressed” about Jamil Hussein. Yet, that great paragon of truth and virtue has not been used as a source of information since then. Why is that? Is it because, indeed, much of what he was used as a quote source for was not true? B/c, in fact, that is the case. Yes, the right thought for awhile that there was no such person, and the media managed to come up with an individual who they claimed was the person. However, despite your many claims, that alone did not verify his many quotes. Indeed, most of those were proven to be untrue – and he has disappeared from the media. Imagine that. I would hardly call that a victory for the left nor a victory for the media. Indeed, why do you believe it was a left-right issue at all? It was an issue of reporting the truth vs. reporting b.s. We should (left and right) want truth reported. Just like we should want truth reported in the STB affair. Why are you so ready to fight for STB? Shouldn’t you be interested in the truth, rather than circling the wagons around an idealogical confederate? Aren’t you interested in the truth at all?
As is the case that most of what Beauchamp wrote was not true. It has been disproven multiple times. A bradlee cannot maneuver fast enough to catch and cut a dog in half as claimed. The burned face woman did not happen in Iraq, and likely did not even happen in Kuwait as now claimed. The thigh-high sewage in “little venice” in Iraq did not exist. there was no mass grave – instead there was a known children’s cemetary. He has been proven to be a fabulist, and your cries of “chickenhawk” don’t change that.
Indeed, I have served, thus, not only am I not a “chickenhawk” but b/c you think anyone who served has absolute moral authority, you must bow to me and admit I am correct.
Moreover, the whole STB affair is only important in the sense that it demonstrates the left’s willingness to believe the worst about America and America’s military, but unwillingness to believe anything good about America and America’s military. You point to 6 airborn people who have bad opinion’s of policy and strategy in Iraq, and give the some kind of absolute credibility and authority, but you discount anything said that is positive about our policy or strategy by current serving military or former military. How is that consistent? How does that make any sense?
All you ever do on these boards is call names and lie. I think in your own head you believe the “facts” you spout, which makes it all the more sad. I also believe you probably think the things you say are clever or persuasive. At best, however, you are sophmoric. You throw out taunts and jibes that are based on false assumptions or false facts, and think you have scored a touchdown in the superbowl.
Why do you spend so much time on conservative sites if you are unwilling to engage in honest debate? In my experience, at leftist sites, if I even acted like you I would be banned after one comment. Indeed, at leftist sites, even if I act like an adult (unlike you) and simply question the narrative, I would be banned, or my comments edited. That alone should open your eyes to the difference in debate and honesty between the two sides.
Why come here if you are unwilling to stay on the topic at hand? If you are unwilling to act in a mature civilised manner? What is it you think you are accommplishing?
As I said, I have to assume that you believe the things you claim as “facts”, otherwise you would have to open your eyes and question your world view. b/c of that, you will never accpet a fact that contradicts that worldview. Thus, honest debate with you is impossible. Which is why I don’t understand why you come to conservative sites at all.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:20 amYou won’t get any results from filing a FOI (Freedom of Information) request because the results of the proceedings against Pvt Beauchamp are protected under provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
So even though Pvt Beauchamp is a dirt bag, his rights are still protected, by law. The only way that details will be revealed is if Beauchamp himself authorizes release.
I suspect that, like John Kerry, we will have to wait a LONG, LONG time for that release to be forthcoming.
Bugz (22f877) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:27 amI wonder how much you’d have to offer to pay him to get him to release the docs…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:29 amI don’t know enough about this issue to comment on the details, but I will say that I doubt that the New Republic would make the same colossal mistake (publishing fabricated stories) twice in the space of ten years. You’re telling me that they didn’t learn anything from Stephen Glass (regarding fact checkers, for instance)?
Leviticus (35fbde) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:59 amIt would appear so, Levi.
And I recall that there was actually someone besides Glass at TNR that did this. I’m having trouble coming up with the name off the top of my head, though.
But being married to a fact checker apparently got STB past a lot of needed scrutiny.
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:16 amI don’t know enough about this issue to comment on the details, but I will say that I doubt that the New Republic would make the same colossal mistake (publishing fabricated stories) twice in the space of ten years. You’re telling me that they didn’t learn anything from Stephen Glass (regarding fact checkers, for instance)?
The details say they did make the same mistake and apparently learned nothing about fact checking from the Glass affair. There really isn’t any defensible position that STB was anything other than a fabulist. The best face that could be put on his articles was that they recounted the military’s version of urban legends. Had TNR taken a different tack when the stories couldn’t be factually substantiated as the personal experiences of STB contributing to his dehumanization, they might have come out of this in better shape than the did the Glass affair. They chose and continue to take both a ‘fake but accurate’ sort of position and concurrently an ‘our hands are tied by the military on validation’ position. Neither position is working out.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:25 amAnother point to make is that is it not at all hard to believe that many media organs would present a sidebar story like this one in the manner that it was presented, an Iraqi diary format, with less rigorous fact checking than warranted. Trying to stonewall the affair rather than working professionally to substantiate once it started to unravel was a grave mistake and why this thread speculates that heads will roll at TNR as a result.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:33 amIn this recent list by Randall Hoven in American Thinker, Ruth Shalit was fired from the New Republic in 1995 for lying, fabricating, and plagarism.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/scott_beauchamp_is_not_alone_i.html
Bugz (29eca2) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:40 amThat’s the name!
I was thinking “Sounded like a movie critic”, but Ropert didn’t sound right to me… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:46 amAll, I want to know is when is Reeves serving the divorce papers.
sam (96a8dd) — 8/21/2007 @ 7:55 amSoon after she’s given her pink slip… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 8:02 amin re #76:
Ranten N. Raven (e5e6e1) — 8/21/2007 @ 9:00 amGod bless the “Great Banana!” Thank you, sir or ma’am, for your service.
Ah yes! Now that’s the way this thread is supposed to look!
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:09 pmI will say that I doubt that the New Republic would make the same colossal mistake (publishing fabricated stories) twice in the space of ten years.
So did many others, including those that called it into question and did the fact checking, Levi. Incredulous they were, but the evidence was there.
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:12 pmYet, that great paragon of truth and virtue has not been used as a source of information since then. Why is that?
Because the wingnuts got him thrown in jail?
Some people are beyond embarrassment…or reason.
Stock up them bunker, guys.
alphie (015011) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:14 pmI’m pretty sure the Iraqi’s did that all on their own. Talking to the press about shit that didn’t happen is something they apparently frown on over there.
Silly buggers.
Alphie, several people have absolutely destroyed your assertation that STB’s tall tales are even mostly true.
The only facts he got right were:
He’s in the army
He’s currently in Iraq
Things happen there
That’s it. That’s the long and short of the list of facts STB gave us. The rest were false.
Could you try and stick to the topic, huh?
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:18 pmSome people are beyond embarrassment…or reason.
You should start by looking in the mirror, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:24 pmSure, Scott.
Behavior of our troops in Iraq is the topic?
Looks like they had a real good day today up in Diyala, where, of course, the “Surge is working!”
U.S. forces opened fire randomly at the demonstrators in Khalis, killing six people and injuring five others,” an eyewitness from Khalis told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
“The U.S. soldiers tried to disperse a demonstration and clashes occurred between them and the protesters, then the soldiers opened fire at the demonstrators, killing six and wounding five others, who were rushed to the district’s hospitals,” another witness told VOI.
No comment was made by the U.S. on the incidents in Khalis, Diala province.
http://tinyurl.com/368bbf
Yeehaw!
Spreadin’ Democracy!
alphie (015011) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:37 pmCan we just ban alphie? Long ago, he was professing to be a “lawyer” over at Protein Wisdom. I didn’t know he had set up shop here after the banhammer descended over there.
Oh, and alphie, nice link you have there. What, Sadr not available for comment?
Teche (c003f1) — 8/21/2007 @ 12:55 pmNo, actually… It was STB and TNR. Good try though.
Your source… I can’t help but wonder, oh silly one, if you could find that story anywhere else?
Hell, did the AP even carry it?
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/21/2007 @ 1:12 pmStaunch Brayer, I’m still waiting for you to explain why Democrat Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Services committee, is praising the surge.
Oh, when you’re done with that, tell us why Washington Rep. Brian Baird, a senior Democratic whip on the Democratic Steering Committee, says the US Military is “making real progress” in Iraq.
But first, tell us how your linked story has anything to do with Mr. Beauchamp…unless he wrote that, too.
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 1:16 pmOur guys gunned down a bunch of civilians up in Diayala today, Paul…but they didn’t shoot any dogs.
Point for the wingnuts.
alphie (015011) — 8/21/2007 @ 1:53 pmOur guys gunned down a bunch of civilians up in Diayala today
Really? Where’s the AP story?
Did Beauchamp report it?
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:05 pmVerse Three:
The thread’s been infested by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
Unverified links by a Staunch Brayer.
Staunch Brayer, Staunch Brayer.
And if he spouts the party line,
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:11 pmIntending for the troops malign,
And if he spouts the party line,
O wheo wheo wheo whe
He’ll prove himself the troll he is.
Funny, I’m not seeing this on Reuters, AP, or the other usual suspects. Google search turns up nothing either.
but, silly me, alphitard would be wetting himself at the mere prospect of this scenario.
Teche (c003f1) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:14 pmAlphie – Are you cheering on the killing of civilians? You are sick!
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:51 pmAre you cheering on the killing of civilians?
If it furthers the Left’s political goals, yes, Staunch Brayer is cheering.
Paul (f54101) — 8/21/2007 @ 2:59 pmWhether Beauchamp is a truthteller or a liar, the Pajamas Media article only serves to proves that PJM has a long way to go as a credible source. See this controversy through any prism you want, but how can anyone assign credibility to a story in which the primary analysis of a man’s character is provided by a jilted ex-fiancee? Not to mention that she is considered a reliable commenter on the reasons for his subsequent marriage.
And how is it a scandal that McGee was fired after posting information about his employer in an effort to assis bloggers who are attacking that employer? Why shouldn’t he be fired? The fact that McGee, who has been identified elsewhere as a temp, posted to the most rabid right wing blogs makes clear that he is hardly a disinterested source. This article is a joke.
ChrisO (d08ddc) — 8/21/2007 @ 6:46 pmChrisO – Did you happen to notice the disclaimers about the credibility of the ex-fiance in the article. Perhaps you missed that in your rush to discredit what she had to say. McGhee was a whistleblower. Doesn’t the left worship whistleblowers Chris? I’m not sure many people were claiming he shouldn’t be fired.
How many military experts did the left have backing up Beauchamp’s stories Chris? Was there a stable of active duty or former military saying his stories sounded accurate? If there were, could you provide some links?
Why haven’t you trashed Matt Sanchez like the rest of the left. It seems gay bashing is the rage on the tolerant left these days?
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/21/2007 @ 8:22 pmChrisO – Rather than discussing the minutia of the article, how about you point us to the things that Beauchamp got right. Outside of being in the Army, being in Iraq, and being an asshole, I haven’t seen any evidence that the rest of his writing isn’t pure fiction.
JD (815fda) — 8/21/2007 @ 8:39 pmPowerline has got a blurb tonight about a profile of Frankie Foer in Columbia Magazine. The magazine piece is not available online yet, but the timing is absolutely perfect, a beclowning moment. From Powerline:
Warner attributes the decline of the magazine’s circulation from 101,000 in 2000 to 60,000 before the reign of Foer to disenchantment with the magazine among its liberal readers: “The magazine’s stance on Iraq and its support of Connecticut senator Joseph I. Lieberman in 2004 brought vehement criticism and open disdain from liberal critics, especially those in the blogosphere, who have treated the New Republic as their personal piñata.” Foer notes that the magazine is making up lost ground in its strident opposition to Bush “on a whole array of views.”
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/21/2007 @ 9:53 pmNice careful reading, folks. I made it clear that I am not in a position to argue the credibility of Beauchamp’s story, so challenging me to support his article says more about your reading comprehension than anything else. This reflects exactly what I was saying about people viewing this controversy through their own prism. I criticized the PJM article based on what was in the article. Beauchamp could be a total liar, and it still wouldn’t change the flaws in the article.
As for “disclaimers,” it doesn’t matter how many disclaimers you include. And a throwaway line like “…While heartbroken lovers are not a wholly disinterested sources,” is hardly an adequate disclaimer, particularly when the rest of the sentence negates the disclaimer. And note how quickly she moves from “not a wholly disinterested” source to a truthteller. PJM makes the following statements of fact, based solely on this source. “He is manipulative.” “He is ambitious.” “It appears Beauchamp had little interest in Reeve until she was in a position to help him.” Putting a half-sentence disclaimer in the beginning of an article, then treating the source as totally credible during the rest of the article is hardly good journalism. And note how many of the commenters on PJM and this blog are responding to the article as if it were totally fact based. Comments like “This article is perhaps the most exhaustively researched and sourced, and the most damning.” Or “the article … also goes to show that he had a propensity to be a scumbag.” Look at the first graf of this post, for God’s sake. “it could fairly be characterized that he married his wife — the fourth women to whom he had been engaged between the ages of 18 and 23 — mainly because she was a fact-checker at TNR, and he joined the Army merely so he would have some interesting things to write about.” Does that sound like WLS is treating the ex-fiancee’s comments as opinion, or as verified fact?
As for trashing Matt Sanchez, where the hell did that come from? Matt Sanchez irrelevant to the discussion of this article’s credibility. And are you telling me that if Scott Beauchamp turned out to be a gay porn star, no one on the right would have mentioned it? Please.
ChrisO (d08ddc) — 8/22/2007 @ 5:15 amGee ChrisO, I’m still reading your ^;46 post and looking for your clear expression of where you said you were in no position to evaluate the truth of Beauchamp’s stories. It just doesn’t seem to be there. Matbe it’s still in your head.
Nice attempt at backtracking this morning too. I get the feeling that you would have prefered that Miniter had just excluded whatever Beauchamp’s ex-fiancee had to say from the article because no form of disclaimer about what she had to say would satisfy you.
Where are those credible experts on the left who support Beauchamp’s articles on factual grounds rather than idealogical grounds again Chris?
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/22/2007 @ 5:36 amI criticized the PJM article based on what was in the article. Beauchamp could be a total liar, and it still wouldn’t change the flaws in the article.
No you didn’t. You merely said the article was not trustworthy because of it’s source. Beauchamp is all-but-convicted-in-a-court-of-law-by-a-jury-of-his-peers proven to be a total liar even excluding these sources.
The sources were disclaimed openly. Not hidden. So you can discount the fiancee’s story if you wish. I won’t, because it fits in the other facts as we’re finding them out.
PJM makes the following statements of fact, based solely on this source.
While I’m hardly a PJM backer, they’ve told you who that source is and told you what potential conflicts they have. If the source is wrong – if his family knew of Reeve, if he was truely involved with her beforehand… That will impeach his fiancee, woudn’t it? Because you know who is making the statement, you can compare this to the facts and or her credibility later.
Does that sound like WLS is treating the ex-fiancee’s comments as opinion, or as verified fact?
I don’t think so. The ex-fiancee’s comments in the context of the situation lead one in that direction, which seems consisttant. Completely at odds with the TNR direction/message one might contrast it with.
The ex-TNR staffer’s story reads consistantly with what happened at the TNR (controverial story published without checking). The Fiancee’s descriptions also add to our knowledge. Either of them is impeachable – but considering the subject matter, would require someone with more credibility than TNR to refute.
This is a good example of investigative journalism, as opposed to “Baghdad Diary”, which we now know was entirely speculative. It explains, tells you who the sources are (No “a former friend says…”, “Square-backed pistol cartridges, only used by Iraqi Police and Imperial Stormtroopers”).
One might ask why you’re so critical of a good report… especially considering the subject is about bad reporting.
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 8/22/2007 @ 5:47 amA while back alphie was defending Dallel Mohmed and KinderUSA and Hamas from allegations of being linked.
Well, KinderUSA has dismissed its libel suit on the issue, and deleted all mention of Dallel Mohmed from their website.
Seems they left alphie hanging in the breeze with obsolete talking points.
Again.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:05 amBeauchamp said as much in his blog. So, that statement by the ex-finance is true.
sam (46ac9e) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:13 amSam and Robin – The lefties must hate it when their talking points are disproved time and again by annoying things like FACTS.
Too bad they don’t have any shame.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:27 amdaleyrocks: To clarify, I didn’t explicitly state that I had no way of evaluating the truth of Beauchamp’s stories. I posted a comment to PJM at the same time that I posted here, and said “I don’t wholeheartedly buy Beauchamp’s story, although it’s clear from the reading I’ve been doing on this that the maze of charges and counter charges is being interpreted according to existing biases, both on the left and right.” I tried to make it clear, both here and at PJM, that my comment’s aren’t intended as a defense of Beauchamp. But your point is taken. However, it doesn’t alter the point of my comments one bit. At no time have I vouched for Beauchamp’s credibility. The suggestion that any criticism of the PJM article automatically translates to an endorsement of Beauchamp is just sloppy and illogical thinking.
And what backtracking are you talking about? I have no idea what you’re referring to.
As for the credible experts on the left, what does that have to do with my criticism? The fact remains that the article relied on two sources, both of whom have reason to be slanted in their viewpoints. During the course of the article, their comments morphed into factual statements, as I have pointed out. That’s just shoddy journalism. Why can’t people respond to the criticisms of the article without insisting that I defend Beauchamp? His guilt or innocence has no bearing on whether the article meets basic acceptable journalistic standards.
Unix-Jedi: How can you claim that I didn’t base my criticism on what was in the article? I cited specific passsages from the article, and said specifically what I found wrong with them. I didn’t merely say the article was untrustworthy because of it’s source. I said that making factual, declarative statements based on those two sources was flawed. I’m not saying the fiancee is wrong, or mistaken, or lying. I’m saying that neither you, nor I, nor PJM are in a position to make declarations about Beauchamp’s character based on what is written in the article.
In the course of your daily discourse, aside from politics, if a jilted ex-girlfriend has negative things to say about her former fiance, do you automatically take them as gospel? What the fiancee has to say cannot be dismissed out of hand, and I never did that. But the entire article is based on two clearly biased sources. They don’t add texture to the article, they are the article.
ChrisO (d08ddc) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:23 amdaleyrocks – It is truly amazing the number of people that continue to stand by TNR’s position that with the exception of the Iraq/Kuwait mistake, the rest of the stories have been confirmed. I wonder if Foer reads anything outside of his magazine and Leftist blogs?
Where is the sane voice on the Left that will start to call their own people out on this kind of stuff?
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:23 amChrisO – As they are identified as such, people are free to discount their positions.
However, most of the statements made by the ex- seem to be consistent with Beauchamp’s own words on his own blog.
Are they perfect sources? No. There is no such thing as an impartial source, especially in matters political.
The fact is that you are arguing about the credibility of a source in one article, while discounting, ignoring, or overlooking the outright fabrications passed off by Beauchamp and TNR.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:28 amA while back alphie was defending Dallel Mohmed…
His latest on the US military gunning down demonstrators in Diayala also hasn’t risen far enough to even meet the ludicrous test. It was being referenced on antiwar sites but every reference linked back to the single source article alphie linked. No independent corroboration and indeed no other source has any coverage of it at all. The article he linked has what can at best be characterized as contrived quotes from locals even factoring in translation. That leaps right out in the link, and only the most blinkered wouldn’t note it.
At any rate, I shut off the RSS feed from this site yesterday. It goes through too many cycles where 25% or more of commenting is by alphie hijacking discussions with absolute nonsense and people sucked into engaging. I usually just lurk on sites to read good discussions and debates and this is the second time I’ve deleted an RSS feed rather than pointlessly waste time on this jerk’s crapping all over threads. Hope Patterico puts his house in order when he returns.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:30 amIs Chris O a clone of Alphie? He writes better than Alphie, but he makes many of the same points?
Mike Myers (2e43f5) — 8/22/2007 @ 6:22 pmJust wondering.