Captain's Quarters -

This is the smoking gun (for Beauchamp's dishonesty) that TNR has already stipulated to--game over for Mr. Foer:

From: "Winter Soldier Syndrome" by Michelle Malkin

To illustrate the soul-deadening impact of war, Beauchamp had described sitting in a mess hall in Iraq mocking a female civilian contractor whose face had “melted” after an IED explosion. [...] After active-duty troops, veterans, embedded journalists and bloggers raised pointed questions about the veracity of the anecdote, Beauchamp confessed to The New Republic’s meticulous fact-checkers that the mocking had taken place in Kuwait— before he had set foot in Iraq to experience the soul-deadening impact of war. [...] The very first line of his essay “Shock Troops,” which opened with the melted-face mockery, was this: “I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.” “Nearly every time.” At “my base in Iraq.” Complete and utter bull.

What I find hilarious about this whole thing is that the Right conveniently forgets that THe New Republic pimped this stupid war over and over for George Bush. Peter Beinhart and company provided liberal cover for the Bush administration and have been embraced by the National Review and Weekly Standard. TNR has been completely hawkish re Iraq from the beginning. They are hardly The Nation.

I don't think you'll find many people on the left sticking up for TNR.

Re: Teresa at August 8, 2007 9:56 AM

I don't care if they're the National Review. Nobody should get a pass on falsely attacking the character of American soldiers.

The Captain wrote "the allegations made by Beauchamp hardly rose to a level of "news" at all," yet he later penned that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This isn't a defense of Beauchamp or of TNR, just pointing out that the two statements are a bit contradictory. If the claims are extraordinary, then they are also news.

Good blog Captain, you're a daily stop.

RBMN,

No one is giving them a pass. But some on the right are making this into some intentional conspiracy by the New Republic, part of a larger one perpetrated by the MSM.

The think Captain's original point is to not get sucked into this type of thinking and take this at its face value... the New Republic hired a military blogger who turned in fabulist stories that either were entirely untrue or had parts made up. The New Republic did not do enough to substantiate these claims. It's poor journalism.

What I find hilarious about this whole thing is that the Right conveniently forgets that THe New Republic pimped this stupid war over and over for George Bush.

Dear Teresa,

This war is only "stupid" for those people who a) are in total denial about the existence and aims of Islamic Fascism, b) believe that "9-11 was an inside job," c) have convinced themselves that genocide in Iraq is a small price to pay for bringing the troops home.

What do you believe?

Captain, I agree with most of what you're saying above, but how can it both be true that the claims "hardly rose to a level of 'news'" _and_ they were "extraordinary claims"? I don't understand why you say both of those things.

It seems to me that these claims _were_ news, that the events they describe _were_ extraordinary. If they didn't "violate Army regulations" (your words), Army regulations are SADLY in error. (I'm pretty sure they do violate regs, although I've never studied them.)

There is a fundamental difference between this case and the infamous Steven Glass fakery. This time the TNR is in on it.

There is a fundamental difference between this case and the infamous Steven Glass fakery. This time the TNR is in on it.

Jerry,

What proof is there that TNR knew these stories were false, or actually helped fabricate stories?

Tom, I'll quote Dafydd at Big Lizards on this

The "curious incident" in the Baghdad diarist -- which should have leapt out at Franklin Foer even if he were seduced by how well Beauchamp's stories meshed with Foer's own prejudice -- are the witnesses who did not bark in the night-time. Had any of this actually happened, it should have been a piece of pie to find dozens of witnesses... at least to the background questions, if not to the incidents themselves.

Even assuming Foer is telling the truth, and that several people (pals of Beauchamp) "corroborated" his stories, the fact that not a single one of these corroborators was willing to talk except under absolute guarantee of journalistic secrecy should have set off alarm bells in the editor's head. That it didn't makes me believe that Foer was not a victim; he was a co-conspirator.

I believe the reason he did not care that his sources all demanded anonymity, even to say something as innocuous as that there was some woman in Kuwait whose face was disfigured, was that he knew all along that he was publishing a fairy tale. He didn't bother fact checking because he didn't need to: He knew they were false. He's not surprised that those "corroborators" (if they actually exist) demand anonymity; they know they're lying and they don't want to be caught, and Foer knows they're lying and don't want to be caught.

Frankly, it's the only conclusion that would explain all that has happened. Far from having been suckered or snookered by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, I believe Franklin Foer actively conspired with Beauchamp -- probably through Beauchamp's wife, who I believe is employed by TNR as a "fact checker" -- to concoct this series of fake stories slandering the troops. I see two motives, though there may be others that elude me:

• Money, of course; with the readership that TNR has, such lurid, comic-book attacks on the troops sell magazines;
• Ideology; if one opposes the war, one good way to fight it is to claim that it turns young men into absolute monsters. After all, we don't want that, do we?

If I am right, look for several things to happen. First of all, Foer is not going to "fess up," and he's not even likely to admit that the stories were false... ever. Rather, he would more probably try to claim that Beauchamp was "pressured" to recant, perhaps comparing Beauchamp to Galileo being tried by the Church in 1633. Foer may even claim that Beauchamp was tortured by the Army to force him to recant (maybe he'll compare Beauchamp to Joan of Arc instead of Galileo).

Beauchamp, caught between Scylla and Charybdis, will have to choose between disavowing his sworn statement -- or disavowing everything he wrote in TNR. The path of least resistance is the latter, of course, since it's not illegal to lie to Franklin Foer and the readers of the New Republic.

But how will he play it? Will Beauchamp claim that he, personally, tricked the magazine (and his wife) into believing his story? So far as I have seen, that is not his personality type. Beauchamp is a whiner and complainer, not a bold and courageous alpha male. I think he would be more likely to claim that he, himself was the victim... that Foer was the "ringleader" who recruited and "bullied" him into making up horror stories about Iraq.

So I wouldn't be surprised if, in fairly short order, Beauchamp and Foer end up at each other's throats over this -- the proverbial "falling out among thieves." So let's sit back, pop some corn, and see whether that happens... or whether I've completely misread the parties.

Mark J -- I find this war "stupid" because history has taught us -- or at least some of us -- that Arabia is an endlessly complicated area of the world that has embroiled western powers (see Great Britain, France, etc..) into messes which have no easy answers.

Not to mention that Iraq played no part in 9/11, posed no greater threat to us on 9/12 than it had in the ten years previously, that it played a vital role in the area by keeping Iranian influence in check, and that it was obvious to any thinking person that claims about nuclear weapons and such were being exaggerated. The UN reports from the weapons inspectors were exactly right.

Saddam was an evil, horrible man. There are a lot of evil, horrible people in the world. The United States can not police the world.

Upcoming TNR Headline:

"US Soldiers are Liars and Fabulists!! - and this time we have proof !"

I would love to ask another question of the right as represented on this board: why do the military blogs seem to have no interest in the Pat Tillman matter? I would think all the conflicting stories that the army has told about what happened to Tillman and the various strange facts about his wounds would interest some of you. I have two first cousins serving in Iraq as Army rangers. I'd be mad as hell if the military lied to us about how they died. Why does no one on the right seem to care?

One word... Beauchamp

Another word... Mahmoudiya

Which one actually "tarnishes the image of the military?" And which one are we yammering endlessly about?

"...why do the military blogs seem to have no interest in the Pat Tillman matter?"

I assume you mean the fact that the truth about the means of his death was covered up. There are several reasons it does not get as much attention here: it has come out long after the fact, and the officers who tried to cover it up are being rather sternly punished, considering they did not CAUSE his death, but violated regulations on reporting and investigation.

Another reason is probably the converse of the reason it IS a big deal on the left. Most of the irate comments from your side say nothing about PREVENTING this kind of friendly-fire death, but are aimed at trying to implicate the US political leadership in the cover-up. The tragedy of Mr. Tillman's death is secondary to that objective, simply providing a convenient enhancement for the outrage of the accusers.

I hasten to add that I cannot say that this is YOUR motivation, nor can I guess at the feelings of the Tillman family, which I fortunately cannot fathom. But it seems clear that it is the motivation of the majority who have demanded (yet more) investigations into this event.

The use of the term "winter soldier syndrome" to describe false accusations of war crimes by our troops is terribly ironic given the fact that pretty much everything they and John Kerry said at the time turned out to be true, even their distrust of the military investigators. For just one example, we now have on the historical record the gruesome details of "Tiger Force" which include:

the routine torture and execution of prisoners[8]
the routine practice of intentionally killing unarmed Vietnamese villagers including men, women, children, and elderly people[9]
the routine practice of cutting off and collecting the ears of victims[10]
the practice of wearing necklaces composed of human ears[11]
the practice of cutting off and collecting the scalps of victims[12]
an incident where a young mother was drugged, raped, and then executed[13]
an incident where a soldier killed a baby and cut off his or her head after the baby's mother was killed[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

Since Michelle Malkin has closed registration for new commenters, no one there will have to confront the facts, and her link to wintersoldier.com will not provide any education as that organization has refused to publish any facts that corroborate what was testified in 1971.

Tom:

At the time of the Glass incident TNR was very embarrassed and quick to admit that they had a problem. In this case they continue to defend the story to the point of absurdity. They have taken ownership of the fraud. That is how they are in on it.

Teresa said:

"What I find hilarious about this whole thing is that the Right conveniently forgets that THe New Republic pimped this stupid war over and over for George Bush. "

From Wiki:

"Unsigned editorials prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq expressed strong support for military action, citing the threat of WMD as well as humanitarian concerns. Since the end of major military operations, unsigned editorials, while critical of the handling of the war, have continued to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but no longer maintain that Iraq's WMD facilities posed any threat to the United States. In the November 27, 2006, issue, the editors wrote: "At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom."[

I've aked this before and still yet to get an answer...seeing as the MSM has been caught in yet another hoax at the expense of our fighting men, how on earth can we trust them day in and day out to basically be covering the news accurately?

While I value the work the blogosphere has done in this regard, the notion that all of the left's puposeful deceptions have been caught is hard to swallow...

Teresa said:

"What I find hilarious about this whole thing is that the Right conveniently forgets that THe New Republic pimped this stupid war over and over for George Bush. "

From Wiki:

"Unsigned editorials prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq expressed strong support for military action, citing the threat of WMD as well as humanitarian concerns. Since the end of major military operations, unsigned editorials, while critical of the handling of the war, have continued to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but no longer maintain that Iraq's WMD facilities posed any threat to the United States. In the November 27, 2006, issue, the editors wrote: "At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom."

PS: Teresa, Bush and company never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But the previous Administration claimed in 1998, when they indicted bin Laden, that al Qaeda and Iraq WERE in cahoots. Read their indictment.

Here, in sequence are the contributions from Teresa to a comment thread about Private Winger... I mean Beauchamp... and the New Republic publication of his musings... "The New Republic pimped this stupid war over and over for George Bush"... "Iraq played no part in 9/11, posed no greater threat to us on 9/12 than it had in the ten years previously"... "why do the military blogs seem to have no interest in the Pat Tillman matter". All these statements are, of course, easily refuted. But, you have to wonder what kind of person finds enough time every day to troll comment threads on issues they clearly have no interest in discussing rationally.

For my money, this episode merely underscores (again) how laughable are the MSM's huffy assertions about "layers of fact checkers". The least we can say about TNR is that they were quite careless about checking into Beauchamp and his allegations. But they aren't acting like innocent victims or even incompetent fools who were tricked by Beauchamp. Rather, they are wriggling and stonewalling like conspirators who've been caught. To borrow from Daffyd's post cited by LarryD, this was a "twofer" for them: they could "protest" (read: seditiously undermine) the war by smearing American servicemen AND sell lots of copy to their loopy readership.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Well, John Sal, let's take them one by one:

1) TNR was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq from it's inception until last year. (Which means that they were one of the last people to admit that things might be going a wee poorly over there.) Many of its editors still arque on an individual basis that the war was the right thing to do. Thus people like Peter Beinhart have weekly sessions with Jonah Goldberg that are web cast by NR. They are no bastion of anti-war liberalism. That in no way excuses poor journalism, but the charge that they published this piece because they are anti-war is ridiculous.

2) Please explain to me -- without nonsense about secret meetings in Praque -- what greater danger that Iraq posed to us on 9/12 than they did on 9/11? In what way was the threat from them greater than say Saudia Arabia? There is no credible evidence of any working relationship between Saddam and Al Quada and all credible analysts say that AQI is a direct result of our involvement in Iraq. What strategic interest was served by removing a major threat in the region to Iran and by extending the Shia crescent across the region? What gains has the US made in the region as a result of this war?
3) Please link to any example of Malkin, Hewitt, the Weekly Standard, etc.. showing any interest in the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's death. If my claims are "easily refutable" this should be easy to do. Besides the fact that the Army apparently covered up the circumstances of his death, there seem to be other factors involved. How, for example, did this incident occur? We all recognize "the fog of war" can lead to tragedies, but the medical evidence points to the fact that Tillman was shot from about yards away. How did that happen? How can it be prevented from happening again?

Captain states: "The misdeeds he recounted didn't even qualify as a satire on Abu Ghraib"

Did you miss the part when Beachamp describes the killing of dogs with Bradleys? I think this rises far above putting underwear on someone's head and making them bark like a dog. If anything, Abu Ghraib was more satirical in comparison to what Beauchamp described.

Teressa:

I think that you would have to agree that your impressions about the war have been formed by information from the the MSM. Therefore, how can you be sure that you have the correct information about the situation if you rely principally on an MSM that has been shown time again to lie, distort and mislead?

Besides the fact that the Army apparently covered up the circumstances of his death

The Army claims that Tillman was the victim of "friendly fire". Are you saying that this claim is false and that it is a coverup for something else?

Jerry -- My thoughts regarding Iraq are based on having an MA in history and having studied the region in depth, in particular the experience of the Brits in Iraq. I read widely including the MSM, right wing and left wing blogs and try to sort through the information as best that I can. I truly believe that historical precedent should inform our actions and that there were plenty of reasons to be concerned about invading Iraq that have soley to do with the dynamics of the region.

My father was a marine, my extended family has served with distinction in the armed forces including Iraq. I believe the US should use its military might when necessary to protect its strategic interests. I don't believe our interests have been served by this war.

"And third, TNR never revealed the relationship between the anonymous soldier and their staffer,"

Some clarification may be in order, there.

TNR did reveal the relationship between the anonymous soldier and their staffer (after it had been leaked, of course).

They did not reveal the relationship when the stories were published--and that is certainly questionable. Though, of course, it would be difficult for Beauchamp to remain anonymous as "Scott Thomas" if TNR had spilled those beans.

Not meaning to nitpick--just encouraging a high standard of accuracy.

Teresa:

Having a MA in history and having relatives who have been in military doesn't mean much to determine what the real situation on the ground in Iraq is if the information you rely on is incomplete, misleading and often false.

My view of the situation is different from yours and instead of “studying” history in school and having relatives in the service I have been in the defense and intelligence communities both in and out of uniform for the better part of my adult life.

Apparently you have misread the British experience in Iraq because they subdued the place with a few motorized columns supported by the fledging RAF. The British abandoned their Middle East positon after Suez because they no longer could afford the cost of the mission. They made choice on building the welfare state or defending their interests. They went bankrupt in the process until Maggie Thatcher revived a failing economy in the 1980s.

Jerry -- Since you have been in the "intelligence community" for so long perhaps you can analyze the situation in Basra right now for us. It appears to me -- mislead by the MSM that I might be -- that AQI is not the problem there. How long should we or the Brits stay there in order to keep various militias from wiping each other out? What is our national security interest there?

My problem with the US in Iraq was not a concern that our military couldn't handle Saddam. That was the easy part. My concerns directly related to the reasons that the Brits pulled out earlier in the century-- having toppled the gov't, how much US treasure and forces will have to be spent in order to hold the country together?

AQI has no natural base in Iraq thus we see the tribal shieks now taking them out. My guess would be that the Iraqis themselves would take care of AQI much more brutally and efficiently than we would.

Now, there are legitimate arguments to be made for the "we broke it, we own it" theory of staying in Iraq. But at some point we have to make a calculation as to how much our presence there feuls AQIs recruitment, how much debt we want to go in trying to rebuild the place, and how much more blood we want to shed trying to keep the peace in our area that has been fighting for a thousand years. Those are hard decisions to be made. My best guess would be that we will abandon all dreams of "democracy" in the end and install another strongman like Saddam in the end.

Look at all the clear headed arguments that the Right made this week opposing intervention in Pakistan after Obama's comments. You looked at all the facts, the various problems etc... and came to a logical conclusion that military intervention in Pakistan was not a good idea despite the great posibility that Bin Laden and his folks are still there. Why are you unwilling to grant the same curtesy to people who felt that there were and are legitimate concerns about invading Iraq? Should I call you a "traitor" to the US for not wanting to go after Bin Laden?

And, I realize this never occurs to you, but the left rails against the MSM just as much as the Right does. I'm no defender of them either -- but I think most people should try to read widely in order to check their beliefs against skeptics rather than be spoon fed what to believe by any one source.

RE: Teresa (August 8, 2007 12:11 PM)

"1) TNR was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq from it's inception until last year... They are no bastion of anti-war liberalism. That in no way excuses poor journalism, but the charge that they published this piece because they are anti-war is ridiculous."

Let's get to the nub here. Why did The New Republic publish this basically uncorroborated, fabulist work and why aren't they acting like journalists who have been hoodwinked now? If they were acting in earnest (i.e. they were deeply concerned about journalistic integrity), they should be livid that their contributor lied to them. Their behavior suggests that they are not upset with Beauchamp, well, not yet and certainly not publicly. Since they continue to defend both their "research" and their author in view of the fallacy that the reports are true, it stands to reason that they cannot proclaim being duped. It also stands to reason that they knew of Beauchamp's proclivities due to his previous writings, knew of his politics because of his previous and contemporary associations, and eagerly awaited a story with just enough generic commentary of the dark side of war by an insider to give them a scoop... a scoop that just so happened to coincide with their current anti-Bush war politics and a scoop that would have the stamp of "absolute moral authority" by a grunt in the sh*t. Now that kind of perspective would absolutely dwarf a Cindy Sheehanesque narrative. Talk about a coup! So which standards were allowed to be breached for this unique opportunity? Enough to make one's head spin like a cadaver's rotting skull getting sideswiped by a Bradley on the sandy trails of Kuwait.

To think that TNR was not aware of all of these things is terribly naive. They traffic in words, stories, narratives, and perspectives. It is there raison d'être, so to discount their lack of professionalism as one of poor oversight is an inconceivable stretch. It would be like a surgeon, even if trained at Dr. Nick Riviera's House for Sick People Thingy, forgetting how to use a scalpel. If, in fact, this is not an inconceivable stretch that it was just journalistic malpractice writ large, then we may as well abandon institutionalized journalism since it would appear fact checking as an industrial function is just not done. So, we news consumers should just abandon them utterly.

Which leads us back to the "why." Why did TNR publish this fiction in view of their fact-checking? They could have canned it at any point before publication, yet went along anyway. Which editor(s) control the pipeline? Were those particular editor(s) pro- or ant- war? Were they pro- or anti- Bush? I'm not sure how diligent a reader I'd need to be to assume that their position has been consistently anti-Bush, anti-GOP, and anti-war in spite of a brief interlude where they were pro-war under certain circumstances, circumstances that could change on a whim and in response to political dynamics and subscriber sentiments. But that's some of my conjecture.

Now, what's yours? Why did TNR hire and ultimately publish Beauchamp? Remember, however, that getting duped is not a valid answer.

Teresa:

The people who criticized Obama for his off handed remarks about Pakistan did so because he was doing the typical Democrat Party "I want to fight the real war on terrorism" dance. We all know that Obama would never invade Pakistan. He is engaging in what used to be known in the acquisition world as the technological filibuster. You use a future system to kill a current system which you have no intention of buying that one either. It is pure posturing. He wants to run from Afghanistan just as he wants to run from Iraq.

Still, you miss the entire point of my criticism. How do you know what is going on in Iraq or any other issue for that matter if you rely on the MSM for your information? Absorbing multi-spectrum misinformation doesn’t make you any more informed.

One more thing, why do you think that local Sheiks are organizing against Al Qaeda? Could it be related to the US presence and commitment to see this thing through?

Honestly, my best guess is the TNR published it because the guy was married to one of their reporters. Because folks at all kinds of media -- MSM or not -- tend to trust people they know. One of the things that I hate is when someone like Andrea Mitchell goes on TV and no one mentions she is married to Alan Greenspan. Or when Jay Carney and Claire Shipman appear on This Week with George and no one informs the public that they are married. Or all the folks like Pat Buchanan & George Steph that come in and out of administrations and are then presented as non-partisan commentators.

Having said that, I asked a friend who owns a heat and air business to please hire my son for the summer to give him some work experience. I think a lot of us use our contacts to try and land better jobs, join clubs, etc...

But while we are all bashing TNR, where is the bash of the Weekly Standard for using as a source on the Beauchamo story a person who is currently under investigation for defrauding people by pretending to be serving in Iraq and getting them to donate funds to him? The Weekly Standard has yet to address those charges.

I think it has been a bad week for journalism all around.

I'll never forget about how many of my hippiesque college professors with PhDs (Piled higher and Deeper) from big name universities had virtually no clue as to the real deal in Soviet Russia because they'd only read about it and I had been there. I guess if I'd grown up reading Walter Duranty's NYT columns portraying Uncle Joe Stalin as the mid-20th century's Mother Theresa equivalent then I might have loved Brezhnev's police state and "nuclear freeze" promises as much as they did!

The typical armchair media war critics and activist media types whom would knock Petraeus and others in the know typically are journalists whose biggest challenges are rephrasing rip and read printouts from the AP and DNC faxes before heading to the safety of Happy Hour in Midtown Manhattan or Georgetown. Like NPR & PBS (and Katie, too) they get paid whether their product sucks or not.

One of the greatest assets of the internet is that what falsehoods activist reporters once were able to cloak under the phrase "sources said" now have a very good chance of being blown out of the water by facts well before the ink has dried on the NYT or New Republic agitprop at question. It only took about 3 or so hours after broadcast for Dan Rather's fake memos to be called to task. That the New Republic readership followed the Baghdad Diary carrot unquestioningly for so long is indicative of the simplicity of their subscribers and editors. Something which required the Weekly Standard to make the New Republic (reluctantly )own up to their own dishonesty in printing propaganda the Left merely wished to be true. Now that the Lefty press is caught again in a Beauchamp lie they immediately return to a third-grade mantra of "oh yeah, but the war is still bad." Pathetic but true to Liberal form.
Give the Left some credit: They're consistent in their depravity.

Jerry -- I do not rely on the MSM for all my information. I rely on a variety of sources -- like I have said over and over. How do you know you are right if all you read is right wing commentators?

You can dismiss Obama's statement as "filler." Whatever. Pick another time the US has interferred in foriegn politics. God knows that conservatives screamed when Clinton went into Somalia (although now they blame him for listening to them and pulling out) and Kosovo. Are you saying that no one can have a legitimate question about the use of military intervention in the world? Or are you saying only that Republican administrations are immune from criticism?

Maybe you need to broaden your own reading material a bit.

I'll never forgive FDR for meddling in England, North Africa, the South Pacific and then in mainland Europe. And we're STILL there! The rascal!

BTW Bush went into Somalia. Slick bailed out in disastrous fashion. Slick also went into the various remnants of Yugoslavia. We're still there. Slick did accidentally take out (pun optional) the Chinese Embassy so credit where credit is due.

Well, it's been nice talking to all of you this afternoon, but this "dirty hippy liberal traitor" mom needs to take her kids to soccer practice. ;)

If I don't post an answer to a question for awhile it'll be because me and my minivan are doing our best to undermine American values for the next couple of hours at practice and cooking dinner.

Cheers,
Teresa

RE: Teresa (August 8, 2007 1:56 PM)

As to the full disclosure, yes, the talking heads have an obligation to notify consumers of relevant contacts. Relevance is, of course, a bit of a moving target and could get cumbersome since everyone has a perspective on exactly who should be mentioned during whichever issue. Not quite as simple as we'd like it to be though some attempt at "full" disclosure is necessary and should be encouraged.

As to the hiring, of course. Networking is pretty standard stuff, but that still doesn't explain the publishing of fallacy. All raw stories are reviewed before getting put to print. To think that TNR just glossed over Beauchamp's in particular is ludicrous on its face. They knew such tales, if true, would garner a huge response. They knew, or should have known, that extra scrutiny was an absolute considering that all of their other stories regarding military events were deserving of extra scrutiny, right? Are they not supposed to be critical of the government and military by default particularly in view of their about face wrt editorial opinion on the Iraq post-war? Why was Beauchamp inadequately filtered? Consider also the timing of their publication. Just when the public is starting to view the "surge" component of the new direction in the Iraq theater in a positive manner, TNR trots out this doozy. Talk about a momentum killer if true! Only, it isn't. I question the timing (TM). Was killing momentum a motive? Or was it just a desire for a little yellow journalism to boost their bottom line during a slow summer? Whatever, the motives were dubious and are unforgivable.

Finally,

"...a person who is currently under investigation for defrauding people by pretending to be serving in Iraq and getting them to donate funds to him? The Weekly Standard has yet to address those charges."

Link please. Who is making this charge and who is being charged? Need some context here.

AD... since Teresa is off doing her soccer-mom duties...

In an effort to undermine a New Republic article by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp about alleged inappropriate conduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, an article by Weekly Standard reporter Matthew Goldfarb relied on Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez as the only military source identified by name but did not reveal facts that weigh on the credibility of Sanchez's attacks on The New Republic article: that Sanchez, whose website describes him as a "Marine Reservist" who is "[p]resently in Iraq interviewing the troops," has reportedly been under investigation by the Marines over allegations that he bilked private donors out of $12,000 for a deployment to Iraq he never made and that he apparently once worked as a male escort. He has also admitted to having been in gay porn films, a fact he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae."

A brief google of "Matt Sanchez" is both informative and (I blush to admit) quite entertaining....

How does one post a link, by the way?

Do I just put it up there in the URL box?

Thanks.

Captain Ed, while usually thoughtful, I don't understand how you can be so dense in your post today:

Franklin Foer has a lot of explaining to do for several examples of journalistic malpractice. First, the allegations made by Beauchamp hardly rose to a level of "news" at all. The misdeeds he recounted didn't even qualify as a satire on Abu Ghraib, even if they would have violated Army regulations.

Taking armored military vehicles to drive over dogs? Playing with children's skulls from a mass grave for an entire day -- ignored by your chain of command?

These aren't news? You think they just "violate Army regulations" (and you're completely and bizarrely ignoring the fact that Beauchamp claimed the Army chain of command ignored them) and aren't news?

You're daft, man.

Filistro,

You have to know HTML to make it appear as a link, but otherwise you're welcome to include it as text. Three or more links gets it thrown into the spam filter, though. E-mail me if you want to know more and I'll explain how it's done.

Teresa,

I always find that beets and mushrooms undermine American ideals best. I do my best to stay away from them.

Ed, I know just enough HTML to do "bold" and "italics". I used a tutorial to try making a hot link here... (testing on entries ready to scroll off the bottom)... but they didn't seem to work. I'm sure the error was my fault, though.

If I ever say anything important enough to require a link, I'll e-mail for some instructions.

Thanks again :-)

We agree Beauchamp was a liar and the army handled this properly. That's not the issue here. I'm criticizing your characterization of the allegations.

I also noticed in your post you say:

Foer forgot one standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So as I note above, you say it's not newsworthy and merely a violation of Army regulations -- despite the Army chain of command allegedly doing nothing when soldiers play with a child's skull for a day among other infractions -- and you also describe it as "extraordinary claims".

So which is it? Not newsworthy or extraordinary claims? And why?

filistro, the HTML formula for link is:

<a href="WEBSITE ADDRESS GOES HERE">CLICKABLE TEXT AS YOU WANT IT TO APPEAR GOES HERE</a>

I'd call Beauchamp's steaming bravo sierra as extraordinary lies not worthy of newsworthiness claims.

The New Republic wanted the lies to be true, published them without vetting them properly and it is now the New Republic's burden to bear. Otherwise someone appears to be falling into the "fake but accurate" claims symptomatic of full-blown BDS.

Hey Christoph, I think I've got it!

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com

Now, to post it. If this works, I'll be SO thrilled :-)

Viking explains it pretty well, but what I meant was that the anecdotes meant little in terms of overall lack of discipline and breakdown of humanity. They're disgusting and gross, but he didn't talk about shooting Iraqi citizens or pillage and plunder.

And yes, publications that offer sensational stories with or without much substance should have a higher threshold of corroboration for them, not a lower one.

YAY!!!!

Thanks, Christoph.

Sorry, everybody else.

I'll go away now (flushed with victory) and be extraordinarily quiet for the rest of the day.

"Honestly, my best guess is the TNR published it because the guy was married to one of their reporters. * * * I think a lot of us use our contacts to try and land better jobs, join clubs, etc..." Teresa @ 1:56 p.m.

Get OUT. I have client interested in doing a commercial tea shoot in Niger. Know anybody in, say, Santa Fe or Langley who could make introductions?

Captain Ed, you and I disagree about whether soldiers playing with a child's skull and killing dogs completely ignored by their NCOs indicate an overall lack of discipline. The Army might disagree -- and indeed investigators took it seriously enough to check it out.

It would be reasonable for a news organization to report that if true and let their readers decide.

--

Sure you got it, filistro, but if you wanted you could just as easily have made it click this link, damnit! (go ahead, click it)

Uh, yes, but they weren't true, as it turns out.

Dammit, I clicked that link. Now I have to find something else to do.

Uh, yes, but they weren't true, as it turns out.

That is an important point.

RE: filistro (August 8, 2007 2:56 PM)

As to the sexuality of Matt Sanchez, I could care less. It's not surprising some would try to use that as a smear against his veracity, particularly an outfit as sincere and straightforward as the likes of Media Matters. I searched for the source of your excerpt and found it to be from them. Oh my. Talk about bottom of the barrel. Funny how the Clinton policy of "don't ask, don't tell" becomes an issue when Sanchez didn't tell. Of course, Media Matters likes to think that all conservatives (aka neocons to them) would be overtly and irrationally upset about such matters and would hyperventilate because the reportage was from, dare I say, a homosexual. Infantile poppycock. May they wallow in it at their leisure and at their risk. His being gay is not a crime and he has not lied, provably contrary to Beauchamp and TNR. But let's look at the Media Matters smear campaign a bit further, beyond their silly and hypocritical gay baiting.

However, Goldfarb did not disclose several facts that might undermine Sanchez's credibility. Sanchez is reportedly under investigation by the military for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request." According to the article, the email added: "'Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul." The article stated, "In an interview Thursday with Marine Corps Times, Sanchez said the fund-raising allegations are 'demonstrably false' and that he never collected money from either organization." The article stated that "[t]he Corps on Friday [March 29] was slated to wrap up" the Sanchez investigation, but Media Matters has been unable to locate any articles reporting whether the investigation did indeed wrap up, and if so, what the results of the investigation were.

So, Sanchez was notified that he was being investigated for fraud 3/22 wherein he publicly refuted the allegations and the collections on 3/28. Subsequently, the investigation was "wrap[ped] up" on or about 3/29 and Media Matters has absolutely zero information to append to that event from several months ago. Since Sanchez is still serving, I think we can presume that Sanchez was victorious and proven right... that he was honest or that the charges were false or inconsequentially valid. Or that the military is indeed still investigating and that is of such significant import that it... has fallen into a paper abyss, drowning in the canals of little Venice with so much other sewage. The Media Matters smear has failed, it is further discredited (unless new information is forthcoming which in all likelihood won't be), and Sanchez's integrity is upheld.

Still, consider the bold headline that Media Matters used:

"UPDATED: Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR 'Baghdad Diarist'"
M.B. of Media Matters
Thu, Aug 2, 2007 12:43pm ET

Their big scoop and the club they're using to "get" the source is Sanchez's sexual history from years ago, not the much more impactful "fraud" claim that would have been far weightier and legally binding. Only MM knows, in spite of reportedly not being able to acquire new information, that they don't have a case against Sanchez's integrity there, so they highlight the twig of a smear they think they can whittle from their original club. That's some pretty weak tea that does nothing to discredit Sanchez.

Seriously, though... sourcing Media Matters? Egads. Get a better source or one that actually supports your position. As it stands, still, TNR has lied, Beauchamp has lied, Sanchez has not, and Media Matters has applied an unjustifiable smear.

Theresa,

The goal of the war, as stated probably billions of times by its supporters, is to counter Islamic extremism by providing a democratic alternative (instead of yet another nasty dictatorship).

Our enemies in Iraq, as stated probably billions of times by supporters of the war, is that the goal in Iraq is to counter Islamic extremism.

Yet you manage to "argue" against the war without once saying "Islam" or "Muslim."

You are just not arguing in good faith. Why would anyone waste time with you?

Hey y'all back from dinner and soccer! Captain Ed I got agree with you about beets, but I have a weakness for sauteed mushrooms in butter. Yum!

Bostonian -- I don't think the discussion lent itself to saying "islamic extremism", but I will be more than happy to grant you that there are some very bad, evil Islamic/Muslim/ extremists/terrorists/murderers who would love to harm Americans.

We live near a small airport and everytime a plane sounds like it is flying too low I instinctively think about 9/11 and send up a little prayer. When I take my daughter to kindergarten I think of how easy it would be for a terrorist to walk into her school or pull up a car bomb next to it. I am surprised in many ways that nothing more has happened since 9/11 and will not be shocked if something does happen.

Having said all that, I think there are different possible ways to combat that. And I am not convinced that going to war in Iraq was a good idea or has improved our safety in any way. Sorry.

I would love to see a nice, stable, friendly democracy in Iraq, but I have been alive long enough to know that it probably ain't gonna happen even if we kill every member of AQI. As my momma used to say, "If wishes were horses, we could all ride."

The CIA helped to put Saddam in power (or at least his party) in the first place and I'm guessing that they are hoping to find someone in the Iraqi army to promote ala Mushareff in Pakistan. Call me a cynic, but that is what I think will happen in the end. And call me even more of a cynic, but maybe that is the best we can hope for at this point.

Teresa:

You said: "...The CIA helped to put Saddam in power .."

Where did you get that one? The Baathists came to power in 1958 in coup with assistance from the Baathist in Syria (Soviet Ally) and Nasser (Soviet Ally). Iraq was a Soviet ally during the Cold War. Where did you get the idea that the Baathists and Saddam were American allies?

According to wiki, in 1959, Saddam was part of a plot to assassinate the Baathist guy who had seized power in Iraq. Said plot was supposedly backed by the CIA.

However, it should be noted that wiki's only cite and footnote for this allegation is right wing web source NewsMax, which has been regularly trashed by those on the left.

As Dr. Happy Harry Cox used to say, "Everything You Know is Wrong!"

Theresa, any conversation about the war is about militant Islam, whether you understand that or not. Our enemies do.

But as long as you're gracing us with your wisdom...

What is YOUR idea for combatting militant Islam? Does it involve the cooperation of any Muslims, and if not, why not?

Teresa,

Congratulations on successfully hijacking the thread but this has nothing to do with a "stupid war" in Iraq, or any place else, and everything to do with a "stupid editor" allowing a story to be run without adequate verification as to the accuracy of the allegations stated in that story. TNR dropped the ball on this and they are backpedaling in an attempt to recover some semi-balance of journalist professionalism which they lost because of this false report on the activities of American soldiers.

Remember, this wasn't presented as an op-ed commentary, it was presented as a fully investigated report on the activities of American soldiers in a combat area (or even non-combat areas, after they changed the location of one of the allegations from Iraq to Kuwait). That report is false yet TNR refuses to admit the falsity of it's report and issued a retraction. At the very least, TNR owes a huge apology to the men and women of the US Military for its false portrayal of their behavior during a time of war.

Hey Ray -- Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I don't agree with your assertion:

"Remember, this wasn't presented as an op-ed commentary, it was presented as a fully investigated report on the activities of American soldiers in a combat area "

This was presented with the sole headline of "Bagdad Diarist" with absolutely no editorial context whatsoever. I am not defending TNR, when I read the piece my first thought was "wow, I hope they checked this because it sounds really awful and people will eat them alive if it is not well sourced." Because of their basic hawkish sensibilities I was surprised that they published it. If it is wrong, go ahead and crucify them. As you can tell from my original post, I am no fan whatsoever of TNR and think that they have been wrong on the war most of the last five years. Cheers me up to see them with egg on their faces.

Jerry -- Try googling CIA & Baath party and you'll come up with a lot of sources on both the right, left and dreaded MSM stating that Saddam was on the CIA payroll from about 1959. It is not a big secret and no one should be that surprised. We've propped up a lot of dictators in the past and then withdrawn support when they've turned on us. Previous administrations have been happy to have Saddam/Baathists in power in Iraq to keep Iran occupied.

Bostonian -- Are you suggesting that we not work with ANY Muslims to combat terror? I think that would be pretty stupid. We need to cultivate relationships with moderate Muslim states and individuals. It would be damn hard to infilitrate Muslim society and gain actionable intelligence without Muslim support.

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I think fighting terrorism is largely akin to fighting criminal enterprises. Muslim terrorists are widely spread apart and in many different countries. We simply do not have the man power to invade Pakistan, Somalia, Saudia Arabia, etc ...at the same time to root them out. (Heck, the recent threats in Great Britain were from home grown terrorists. Fighting in Iraq did nothing to keep them from their evil plans.) Terrorists have to be tracked through things like wire taps, tracing money sources, and good old spy work. Boring, not totally foolproof, yet I think our best option.

Teresa,

Blackfive has posted extensively on Pat Tilman's death. And that's just off the top of my head.

"This was presented with the sole headline of "Bagdad Diarist" with absolutely no editorial context whatsoever."

Teresa,

I think we're agreeing on the same point here, to a certain extent anyways. TNR did state that they attempted to verify the story and actually found someone who also "witnessed" some of the allegations made in the "diary" they published. That makes it more than just some diary excerpts, it turns it into a eyewitness account of actions performed by members of our military during a time of war.

The actions as reported by TNR's "eyewitness" is more than just bad behavior, some of them are crimes as they violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice in regards to the personal and professional behavior of military personnel. Running over dogs with military vehicles and stealing human remains from a grave site, for example, are all punishable crimes in the military, which is why the alleged accounts are being investigated. Making false public reports or statements about combat and patrol actions, especially by someone not authorized to release this type of information, is also a crime.

That's is what made this "story" so important to TNR, they were reporting that there was eyewitnesses to abhorrent CRIMINAL behavior by members of our military during a time of war. Now that they have been caught running the alleged accounts without properly verifying them, and since the accounts appear to have been false from the very beginning, they're trying to spin their way out of the backlash their story has generated.

Ray -- I think we are agreeing. The original story was printed just like an diary entry -- "my day at the beach," "why Barry Bonds sucks" etc almost as a "day in the life" piece. Then when people started asking questions, TNR backtracked and started being defensive. I agree completely that they should have sourced the hell out this story BEFORE they allowed it to run and they should have added some context around it explaining why they were printing such disgusting allegations knowing that people would be repelled. I could sort of understand a "war is hell" and this is what some guys do under stress story (if true), but to throw it out with no context or sourcing whatsoever was just wrong.

Livewire -- I've never heard of Blackfive, but I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up.

'Night

Theresa: "Bostonian -- Are you suggesting that we not work with ANY Muslims to combat terror? I think that would be pretty stupid. "

No, that's actually the opposite of what I am suggesting. OF COURSE we must work with Muslims. Remember all those people in Iraq? They're MUSLIMS and (despite the best efforts of US Democrats) we are making them into our allies. THAT has been the argument for the war, since Bush first spoke of it.

And this is why I cannot take you seriously. You ignore radical Islam when discussing the war in Iraq. It is like objecting to a dangerous operation without talking about the tumor it is meant to remove.

This is why I say we have no national debate going about the war. Your side refuses to engage in the conversation.

Come back when you can demonstrate, to a skeptical person, that prosecuting terrorists as criminals seriously undercuts their ideology, seriously reduces their appeal to the world, and seriously encourages the spread of that which the terrorists hate: democracy and the rule of man.