December 1, 2007
IF IT'S SO FOGGY, WHY CAN EVERYONE ELSE SEE WHAT HAPPENED SO CLEARY?:
Fog of War: The story of our Baghdad Diarist (Franklin Foer, December 10, 2007, The New Republic)
For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations that stories we published by an American soldier then serving in Iraq were fabricated. When these accusations first arose, we promised our readers a full account of our investigation. We spent the last four-and-a-half months re-reporting his stories. These are our findings.[ * | PAGE
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
#
# 11
# 12
# 13
# 14]When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.
Yes, it does take that long for him to arrive at the punchline, perhaps not surprising since he's the butt of the joke and the magazine a laughingstock. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2007 6:41 PM
Read all 14 pages, yet did not find the one sentence that needed to be written:
"We published lies, and for that we are sorry, but even worse, we slandered the brave men and women of the American armed forces, and for that we sincerely apologize."
Posted by: JonSK at December 1, 2007 10:02 PMFrom what I've heard, it appears it took him 14 pages to say what could be summarized in three words: "fake but accurate".
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 1, 2007 11:05 PM"... Beauchamp ... continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately [sic], the standards of this magazine require more than that."
So Mr. Foer, are these the same "high standards" that allowed you to initially publish these fables based only on his assurances, to falsely claim you had confirmed the incidents when they were questioned, to falsely accuse the military of denying you access to Beauchamp, to engage in ad hominem attacks on any who dared criticize TNR, and to stonewall for 4 months, hoping the whole affair would go away? High standards indeed!
What is missing from your 14 page screed is an apology to the troops you slandered, any mention of disciplinary action against any of the editors (including you) and fact checkers responsible, and the initiation of new procedures to prevent such faux journalism in the future. You "cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them" -- everyone else can not be confident that they occurred at all or of anything else that appears in your rag.
Posted by: jd watson at December 1, 2007 11:09 PMWe are waiting to see if the usual suspects (the NYT, Andrew, Josh Marshall, et al.) proclaim Foer's vindication.
If (as has been written in the blogosphere) Elspeth Reeve left TNR in September, why didn't Foer mention that? He had plenty of room.
And why didn't he put out ads looking for the burned woman? He could have called Halliburton, Blackwater, and any number of firms doing business in Iraq, gotten a lead on a good investigator, and had solid answers to all questions by Oct. 1. He didn't need to "wait" on the Army.
Unfortunately for Foer, the world doesn't need to wait 4 months to conclude that he got snookered and couldn't deal with it.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 2, 2007 1:59 AMIt's the seriousness of the charges, not the facts (or falsehoods) of the story that's important to leftists.
Posted by: Dave W at December 2, 2007 7:04 AM[Angry Left]
What I want to know is, how did Karl Rove get to Franklin Foer?
[/Angry left]
Posted by: Mike Morley at December 2, 2007 7:20 AMPerhaps Lucy Ramirez is involved somehow, and Foer is still looking for her.
He also forgot to mention that TNR fired the staffer who revealed that Reeve and Beauchamp were, in fact, married. And this was back in early August, as I recall.
Posted by: ratbert at December 2, 2007 11:24 AM