October 04, 2007

Still Waiting

Just how long does it take to pen a retraction?

I only ask because it's been roughly a month since The New Republic had their first solid chance to interview Scott Thomas Beauchamp since he returned from duty at COP Ellis.

Since then, he's been online--hence, available--at least several days every week, including today. Beauchamp even had time to talk with Laughing Wolf from Blackfive as recently as September 30. Why not TNR?

Is Scott not talking to Franklin Foer, or is Franklin Foer simply unwilling to print what Scott has to say?

Update: More from Michelle Malkin.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2007 10:20 PM

My guess is that Foer has just decided he is not going to talk about this anymore in the hopes that people will just forget. He knows that his liberal fanbase will stay with him no matter what and he doesn't care a bit what anyone else thinks about him or the TNR at this point.

TNR is a joke no matter what Foer does and perhaps he knows it.

Posted by: NSC at October 5, 2007 06:53 AM

Aren't we still waiting on John Kerry to release some documents he promised way back when?

Aren't we still waiting on CBS to acknowledge the fake Vietnam Vets it used in its reports oh-so-many years ago?

Can't somebody just pretend like the truth matters?

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at October 5, 2007 06:54 AM

NSC is spot on. The NR knows attention will flag as time goes on. Nobody talks about the Glass incident anymore, except maybe in journalism schools. And yes, the magazine knows where its constituency lies, The and Daily Kos fans.

Posted by: Banjo at October 5, 2007 07:45 AM

It's not going to happen. We all know it. They have no incentive to recant. The base of their readership subscribes to the same "larger narrative" they do; therefore they have nothing to lose by not retracting the stories.

Posted by: T.Ferg at October 5, 2007 08:41 AM

"Aren't we still waiting on John Kerry to release some documents he promised way back when?"

And lots of liberal pundits and journalists keep telling us that he DID release those records. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start telling us that Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "diary" was the absolute truth...which will please the black propagandists at TNR.

Posted by: pst314 at October 5, 2007 08:51 AM

beauchamp was right and we all know the army is covering up to keep the sheeple from realizing how many deviants are in the army

you conservanuts are swiftboating a true hero just like you did kerry

Posted by: FromTheLeft at October 5, 2007 09:03 AM

What's up with that Laughing Wolf interview? Blackfive asserts there is a point to it, beyond announcing that Beauchamp can speak to strangers in the media, even if he won't allow his remarks to be on the record.

I have no doubt Beauchamp has personal charm, most con artists do, and I wouldn't expect his to be treated less than civilly by LW,
but cheezit crackers, there was way too much bonhomie displqyed there for my taste, with such a vague report of the their little chat.

Posted by: SarahW at October 5, 2007 09:09 AM

"beauchamp was right and we all know the army is covering up to keep the sheeple from realizing how many deviants are in the army"

"you conservanuts are swiftboating a true hero just like you did kerry"

STB and Kerry got just what they deserved - condemnation from their military brethren for talking BS about their respective wars in order to make themselves look good.

Posted by: SShiell at October 5, 2007 09:13 AM

I'm still waiting for CBS to retract the Dan Rather/GWBush TANG story.

They had the internal investigation that showed it was a fraud, fired a lot of people and canceled 60 Minutes II - but they never retracted the story.

Posted by: dsinope at October 5, 2007 09:44 AM

A procedural point: Could we please agree not to take seriously any post containing the word "sheeple"?

Posted by: notalawyer at October 5, 2007 10:16 AM

Gee. This means that outside of men's toilets, where a few men go "looking" for sex; but never saying a word ...

We have a PUBLICATION! TNR! Showing us how this "trick is done."

Perhaps Foer, who expects a big bonus check at Christmas, just runs his hands under his desk?

We also know Elspeth Reeves, Beauchamp's wife. And, former head-checker at TNR, has been fired.

Does this mean TNR stays silent? Or are there calls that have gone out FORBIDDING anyone to bid on a Beauchamp book? If so, Beauchamp's best bet would be to "talk" to Matt Drudge.

Or even better. Drudge says he's "coming back to radio." But not on Sunday nights. More likely during the DAYTIME. And, what if he could get Beauchamp, out of the army ... if that date's close enough ... Up on his new/next show? I think people would listen.

And, I think TNR reduced itself to a piece of crap. (Befitting of the silences you get in men's public restrooms.) Where, according to Judge Porter's Opinion; not only was Larry Craig found GUILTY, and just "playing political tricks." After spending 36-minutes, total, in his stall. He didn't even flush.

Those are the new affirmative action parameters.

While the GOP still can't find leadership skills, anywhere. (Well, that's the price you've been paying, electing people who "never heard of ROE." Or, who promised to overturn one of our laws.)

No wonder we're at the political "crack." Where things divide between parties. And, neither party evokes trust.

Someday? Someone will produce a needle. ANd, stick it into all the floating gas bags.

Posted by: Carol Herman at October 5, 2007 11:54 AM

Sheeple. Hahahahahahaha. Every time someone uses that word (other than quoting someone else) I am struck by the absolute lack of intelligence displayed by the user. It's wonderful and horrible all at the same time.

Posted by: T.Ferg at October 5, 2007 01:33 PM

Well, anyone that thinks that Beauchamp was telling the truth has problems in the intelligence department anyway.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 5, 2007 06:57 PM

banjo, its obvious you don't read much Kos or They detest TNR for being to "centrist" and "pragmatic" and scorn them for being so-called "serious" Democrats.

The constantly rip on Foer and Co. To the Kos Krowd, they are hand in glove with the DNC and they despise the DNC.

Posted by: docwweasel at October 5, 2007 09:58 PM

you people just beleive whatever the bush-halliburton-blackwater military-industrial complex tells you don't you? thats why you are sheeple, you don't think for yourselfs.

Posted by: FromTheLeft at October 5, 2007 10:11 PM

Kudos for calling for more transparency from TNR.

But how about calling for the release of that super-secret signed and sworn statement that proves Beauchamp's a fraud, too, huh?

Or should we just take that for granted, like TNR took for granted that Beauchamp was being truthful? the commenter who claimed Elspeth Reeves was fired from TNR...

Does leaving at the end of your internship qualify as being fired? Are we going to "fire" George W. Bush in Jan of 09?

Kinda fast and loose with the facts, aren't we? And doesn't that remind you of someone?

Posted by: James at October 6, 2007 07:29 AM

James, Beauchamp signed at least two statements, and we know he was deceptive with the first one. As for the release of his statement, only he can authorize that, and he rather obviously has not done so at this time.

As for Reeve, how long was her internship? most are for a semester or for a year... she started no later than April of '06, and then was with TNR until at least the end of July of this year when Robert McGee was fired, and may have been still employed as late as early September. Kind of an odd period of time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 6, 2007 08:21 AM

So what's with all these guys that need their women to arrange their career-enhancing (or ending) moves?

Rather/Mapes. double-heh.
Clinton/Clinton. Interchangeable hehs.


Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at October 6, 2007 09:34 AM

Seems James is desperately trying to blame the Army for something.

If they don't release Beauchamp's statement, as they legally cannot do under the law, then he blasts them for withholding it.

If they do release Beauchamp's statement, he'll accuse them of breaking the very same law that he is now advocating they ignore.

[shaking head sadly] So typical. So predictable.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 6, 2007 10:26 AM

CY, My point about the unreleased sworn statement is this. Even if Beauchamp recanted with his own signature, no one (beyond himself and the army, presumably) has seen it, so NO ONE can say what it contains. It may say he lied. It may say something else.

We just don't know.

I would call an unreleased sworn statement like that convincing evidence if it was a) convincing and b) evidence.

(It should be noted that I'm not suggesting Beauchamp is exonerated because his statement hasn't been released. Just that we stick to what we know, and call our speculation what it is: speculation.)

Posted by: James at October 6, 2007 10:15 PM

James, we know for a fact he did not recant in his statement. I know that via conversations with his superior officers.

His statement probably accepts responsibility for being the author, and states that he can't provide support for his allegations. I think it will pretty much "plead the fifth," but it was never all that important, anyway. Since when do we rely on an admission of guilt to determine guilt during the course of an investigation? We don't. We go for the facts to build a case.

In this instance, since they brought the changes, TNR/Beauchamp have to prove that the three anecdotes in "Shock Troops" were true. That have utterly failed to do so.

Instead, we have statements from TNR admitting that the burned woman story was incorrect in both date and time, and the statements of numerous military and civilian personnel denying that such a woman was ever at either base.

We have Major Cross' investigation concluding categorically that the COP Ellis "skull" story was false as well, and I want to say Beauchamp's platoon wasn't even involved in that part of the construction effort, but I'll have to verify that.

We also know that the "dog-hunting" was false, as every Bradley driver and commander in the company was interviewed and said so, and additionally, because a representative of BAE systems that manufactures the vehicle says that Bradley's can't do what is described, which many veteran Bradley crewman have also stated emphatically.

I've also conclusively shown elements of his other stories are completely false as well. Scott Beauchamp isn't just a liar, he's a very bad one.

Worse than Beauchamp, however, is TNR Editor Franklin Foer. For has run either a rigged or massively incompetent investigation, and has purposefully refused to release information he has gathered that undermines Beauchamp's story. I know because I've uncovered some of what he's sitting on.

That abuse of his readership's trust is far worse than Beauchamp's lies, in my opinion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 6, 2007 10:47 PM

Very good point, CY. If we waited for a signed confession before declaring someone guilty, we'd have a lot of criminals wandering the streets.

Once again, the left is proposing a double standard. One standard for Beauchamp, another for everyone else.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 7, 2007 10:31 AM