August 6, 2007

DOES ANYONE EDIT THE NEW REPUBLIC?:

Beauchamp Recants (Michael Goldfarb, August 6, 2007, Worlwide Standard)

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

While TNR getting hoaxed again is amusing, the nature of the fake stories they were so eager to print seems revealing. Just because you have second thoughts about whether Saddam Hussein rule of terror was objectionable or not doesn't make American soldiers war criminals.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 6, 2007 10:09 PM
Comments

The is no TNR

Posted by: Chicago Station at August 6, 2007 10:30 PM

The is no New Republic.

Posted by: Chicago Station at August 6, 2007 10:31 PM

OJ:

It gets better: In researching this guy, TNR must have known that he was publishing fictionalized accounts of U.S. atrocities against Iraqis before he even joined the military. You'd think they'd be extra careful to verify his stuff. Instead, they seem to have passed his stories around to some other military people just to see if it smelled okay. Well, whoop-dee-do.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 7, 2007 12:10 AM

But I thought Frank Foer had "confirmed the woman". And the skull(cap). And the dog. My, my, my. Perhaps Foer can go work for Pinch.

Tomorrow's flailings will be amusing. Andrew will try to say something cleverly dismissive, no doubt. The smarter lefties, Drum, Marshall, and Yglesias, will probably try to smear the Army somehow, to discredit the discrediters. Perhaps they will blame Petraeus.

But the tide is turning in Iraq, and this whole affair was a just petty attempt to slander the military in an oh-so 1969 way. Using the (new) husband of an office staffer wasn't so bright, however.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 7, 2007 12:38 AM

Forget Franklin Foer, the question of the day is this: will Elspeth Reeves stand by her man?

I say it's at least 30 to 1 that they are still married when Petraeus reports to Congress. Maybe 40 to 1. After all, where can she work now? PEOPLE? Newsweek? With Mary Mapes?

Posted by: ratbert at August 7, 2007 1:02 AM

they seem to have passed his stories around to some other military people just to see if it smelled okay.

Not "military people". "Military embeds". In other words, other journalists, a detail they correctly hoped people would miss or misinterpret.

These geniuses seem to always forget one of the lessons of Watergate: the coverup is worse than the original crime. Just as Scooter Libby.


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 7, 2007 10:12 AM
« JUST ONE REASON HE NEEDN'T WORRY ABOUT HISTORY: | Main | BECAUSE THEY AREN'T JUST GREAT TREES...: »