Kurtz follows up on Scott Thomas Beauchamp; Update: Parody links added
posted at 9:57 am on July 27, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Howard Kurtz interviews TNR’s Franklin Foer again re Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Foer once again mischaracterizes his critics. Either Foer doesn’t understand the scandal that’s swirling around him, or he has chosen defense by offense as a tactical response. Neither is heartening. Neither will lead to the truth.
As conservative bloggers yesterday continued to challenge the veracity of Beauchamp’s accounts, Foer said: “It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard’s efforts to press an ideological agenda.”
Sigh. The long hard slog continues.
Where is the mass grave, then? Beauchamp’s “particular story” included details about an as yet unreported mass grave that, if it exists, needs to be documented for posterity and added to the charges of those Saddam henchmen who have yet to stand trial. Where is it?
And which unit on FOB Falcon allows its Bradley drivers to play smash-up with multi-million dollar equipment? If what Beauchamp says is true, we have a unit that’s out of control and needs discipline asap. Who is that unit’s CO?
Foer published a set of stories that are either smears or they’re evidence of wrongdoing that needs to be stopped. It’s not about ideology or just one man’s view of the war. Beauchamp’s “particular story” is about the honor of the unit that he wrote about.
Update (AP): Also, for the record:
The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”
Update (AP): Incidentally, why didn’t Kurtz ask him about “gracie” getting canned? If it’s not true, that itself is news worth reporting.
Update (AP): While we wait for the verdict from TNR about Scott Thomas, war reporter, the verdict on Scott Thomas, litterateur, is already in. Here’s the anonymous parody site, here are Ace and his commenters sharing “mindthoughts” in the style of The Master himself, and here’s Sean Gleeson showing us amateurs how it’s done.
Update (AP): Dean sides with the boss contra Ace and me in arguing that this story is a big deal:
In running the Thomas Diarists, be they true or false or somewhere in between, The New Republic attempted to smear the soldiers who are serving honorably in Iraq. That’s the real story here. The New Republic offered up one eye-witness account from a soldier in Baghdad in its last issue; that soldier told stories of horrifying sociopathic behavior. There are tons of other soldiers’ stories from Iraq that more accurately describe what’s going on over there; none of them interested The New Republic. The real story here is the editorial decision making process that led The New Republic to have its own private embed in Iraq, a uniform wearing mole who went to Iraq with the apparent specific purpose of maligning the war effort.
I’m not sure what he means by that last part. If he’s saying they shouldn’t have picked a guy whom they knew was against the war, well, look: they’re a left-wing opinion journal. If NRO or Townhall was shopping for a Baghdad correspondent, they’d surely lean towards someone who supported it. Bias is relevant if the publication claims to be impartial; if it doesn’t, it’s not. I think Dean’s saying more than that, though — namely, that based on the pre-war atrocity fantasias on Beauchamp’s blog, TNR should have wondered if this was a guy in search of a scandal. Which raises an interesting question: what did they know about him before they signed him? Had they read the blog or did they just hire him on his wife’s say so? Would they have googled him and read the blog but for his wife’s say so? I’m reluctant to impose onerous background checks for authors on magazines, but (a) that one doesn’t seem so onerous and (b) the left was in very high dudgeon indeed when WaPo didn’t think to do an exhaustive plagiarism check of everything Ben Domenech had ever written before he was hired. This is a totally different case, though, I’m sure, as The Conscience of America, a.k.a. Glenn Greenwald, will no doubt soon be informing us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Married? When did that happen?
rivlax on July 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM
The only bright spot in all of this, I think, is that the network news and the mass market media haven’t glommed onto this story and presented to the masses.
I don’t watch network news so I may be wrong but I don’t know what Uberdunce has told his dozen or so viewers in regards to this.
LakeRuins on July 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Oh well, that explains everything! Shame on us for suggesting that Beauchamp–oh hell, forget it…….
What a crock of .
TwinkietheKid on July 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Sigh is right. This sad saga is playing out like some sort of dark cartoon…
Zorro on July 27, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I wish I could muster outrage at all this. For me, outrage implies that I was blindsided somehow. What’s sad is that none of this loathsome behavior (either by Mr. Soldier Boy or Mr. Editor Boy) shocks me at this point. It’s mundane in its predictability, really, when you take the given condition that these people are scumbags. That said, I still have plenty of room in my heart to be offended, insulted, and revolted.
Wineaholic on July 27, 2007 at 10:13 AM
You make a very important point. Say the grave does exist. Why is it that people up top don’t seem to know about it? Did it go unreported? If a mass grave does exist, Saddam’s henchmen should be tried for killing all of those children as well.
amerpundit on July 27, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Why is it that people on the left will keep pretending that something that is not what it seems to be over and over and over again.
Oh wait…this must fit some ideological preset in the brain, which do not require pesky facts to support.
Bob's Kid on July 27, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Hmmm…. High journalistic standards, indeed. (/sarcasm)
GT on July 27, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Too good to check.
amerpundit on July 27, 2007 at 10:17 AM
That he was married to one of their writers may have given credibility to him actually being in the army, but to his writing being credible — not so much.
Blake on July 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM
He was killing people in Germany?
Gosh, could Scotty possibly haved joined the military for less than patriotic reasons?
Nichevo on July 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Understand that they were married in Massachusetts.
there it is on July 27, 2007 at 10:22 AM
What p!sses me off… and a lot p!sses me off … is that I recently read a special section in the Wall Street Journal about blogs. And with the exception of James Taranto, pundit after pundit cautioned us that the Internet is just a wild sea of misinformation and lies. Taranto’s the only one who bothered to suggest the power of little things like Lewinsky (spiked by Newsweek), the National Guard forgeries (televised by CBS), UPI’s war fauxtaugrapher, etc.
And now this.
Damn, people, just quit lying. Your lives will be so much easier.
saint kansas on July 27, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Beauchamp says he’s in with 1st AD, which just happens to be moving right here to Ft. Bliss, Texas. I hope I see him at the PX one day so I can kick him. Also, here is the page for 1st AD.
LindsayK on July 27, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Foer seems to be running TNR like a B-grade campus magazine instead of a respectable journal. Hiring people because they are married to another reporter?! Who else runs a business like this? Sweet heaven. The revelations about the incestous back-office hijinx are disturbing in and of themselves. Do we have to check each and every TNR article to uncover the author’s personal relationships to other staff members? TNR’s credibility is in tatters. Sad.
Thomas the Wraith on July 27, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Strangely enough, which I started blogging while deployed (all the way back in OIF 1, late 2003)Link here, I remember thinking to myself, “I will now be accountable as a soldier not just to my friends and family who will read this in lieu of e-mails and phone calls, but to any stranger who puts in some combination of words on Google, or wanders around on Xanga and stumbles across my blog. I’d better not screw this up and say something I shouldn’t.”
And here I find other guys blogging in uniform who need yoga or something, because they’re falling down trying to show their foot in their mouth and their head of their ass at the same time.
Spc Steve on July 27, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Right, a little lefty mole worming through the military machine. But I can’t knee-jerk his statements about the conduct of his unit, and I don’t want to. If it’s true, then we have a problem in that unit that needs to be addressed very quickly. If the pressures of battle and climate in Iraq are to blame, then this must be acknowledged and dealt with.
More importantly for this little bitch, if the stories are true then his life is probably at risk. The descriptions of these men leave little doubt in my mind that they would kill him without much forethought.
If they are not true, then he should be court martialed.
Jaibones on July 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Heh.
Jaibones on July 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM
So one of his staffers is married to a young man who in the chow hall mocked a woman disfigured from an IED blast? Interesting, that.
Then why did they name it “Shock Troops” and not “One Shock Trooper”?
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM
This isn’t about an ideological agenda, its about a soldier who is a sociopath, or wants us to think he is.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 27, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Nichevo:
Mr. Beauchamp is an avowed leftard that wrote for his college left wing magazine/newspaper. I know a lot of liberals and not a single one would ever consider joining the military. In fact, one guy I know won’t even go to West Point to watch the sports teams…because that is, in his mind, implied support for “insert disparaging hyperbole here” soldiers.
This guy deliberately joined the army in order to have the credibility to trash it. I hope his unit sticks him on permanent latrine duty.
Leonidas Hoplite on July 27, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Come to think of it … did Mr Beauchamp marry the staffer before or after he went to Iraq?
Whichever way you spin it - that passage certainly went through the desk of the spouse.
Can we now question the character of his wife?
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Can’t help wondering if she’s covert CIA.
fogw on July 27, 2007 at 10:37 AM
No. Lay off his wife, please. She hasn’t done anything wrong.
Allahpundit on July 27, 2007 at 10:40 AM
saint kansas makes an important point. The big lie was on the web. When the details are forgotten the bigger concept that internet sites cannot be trusted will linger on. The stain of the big lie will rub off on Hotair in the long run.
When the details of the story are forgotten, the memory of disgusting behavior by the U.S. military will linger on. The Hot Air community did a remarkable, even amazing job of refuting the details of the Scott Thomas story. And this old Hillbilly is not easily impressed. However I fear that by focusing on the details TNR won this round.
This is a recurring trick and is very Clintonista in nature. The trick is simple: Pile some phony details up on top of an invalid underlying assumption (Like for example the military are a bunch of monsters) and then focus the argument on the details. Beating down the details just leaves the phony assumption standing. This is the Truther method.
TunaTalon on July 27, 2007 at 10:42 AM
The “support the troops” lefties are becoming increasingly frustrated by the DNC’s inability to influence a withdrawal from Iraq. Watching them slither towards painting the troops as sociopathic killers (killing innocent Iraqi’s rant is rearing it’s ugly head) along with Patreaus as a right wing partisan is just the beginning of their assault. We’re just one small step away from “baby killers”.
The next 60 days are going to be very interesting.
swami on July 27, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Well, she did marry this loser, but otherwise…
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 27, 2007 at 10:50 AM
I’m looking forward to reading what Jpod has to say now that TNR has confirmed the marriage relationship.
Only Howard Kurtz had the initiative to simply ask for confirmation?
Duh.
benjamin on July 27, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I don’t follow Kurtz’s reporting closely. But he seems to be a wee bit too deferential to Foer and TNR, here, and helping to frame their story to remain looking respectable.
Foer disclosed Beauchamp’s internal connection? Not. I’ll be kind — Foer verified questions being raised.
Kurtz is helping to frame the questions being asked as a political, exclusively so, and pretty much ommitted the fundamental question — whether TNR had arranged to give Beauchamp a soapbox to tell stories of the fabulist kind, or stories of his from “his diary”.
That is what started the whole thing and is the essential fight.
Dusty on July 27, 2007 at 10:54 AM
That all depends on how you view this situtation. I see his wife as a Plame type character. She obviously knew her husbands bias, his hatred of the Army and of Bush and Republicans in general. There was no chance that anything he wrote would be presented in, at best, an evenhanded way.
She set him up for the gig and tried to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If his stories turn out to be anything less than 100% valid, I won’t cut her much slack. I’m kinda sick of liberals with agendas twisting facts to meet their agenda.
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
The parody site is hilarious.
And sorry, AP, I have to strongly disagree with you on the wife thing. I totally agree with JackStraw - she’s furthering her leftist agenda by using her husband.
pullingmyhairout on July 27, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I would imagine his wife believed every word he wrote. She had the ideological bent to do so and she was his wife. Until something happens to prove otherwise, people tend to believe those they love.
Sue on July 27, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I would add that if anyone is smeared by this story it is liberal education. This guy is NOT a product of the US Military. He is a member of the US Military.
He is a product of liberal education.
Or to say it another way; the standards of the US Military are not discredited simply because this one guy fails to measure up to those standards, rather this one guy is discredited.
This is the same tactic the liberal left has used to discredit Christianity, by publicizing the few individuals who preached the standard, but failed to live up to that standard in their personal lives. The principles are not discredited when this happens, the individual is.
rockhauler on July 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM
…that we know of yet. But we will find out.
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Tuna is right. Focusing on the details helps TNR.
The real issue is the left wing TNR media misleading the public about the real reason their blogger did not want his identity to be revealed.
Their blogger was really a left wing crackpot plant who was married to a TNR staffer.
The story line goes… TNR lied. Liberal media lies. MSM ignores surge success.
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 11:09 AM
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Take your med’s Jack, you know its a fake but accurate story and she was just doing what any good patriotic American would do to ensure that the story got out. /sarcasm
doriangrey on July 27, 2007 at 11:13 AM
The wife is the key to this story. I won’t say more.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 11:14 AM
The focus now needs to be on TNR and their lack of journalistic integrity.
There is little need to talk about the details of the planted soldier.
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 11:14 AM
I doubt that but agree that there’s no reason to attack her on this.
Personally I’m reserving most of my “outrage” for the paper that didn’t check up on this. In my mind, they’re even more culpable than the wannabe writer.
Esthier on July 27, 2007 at 11:16 AM
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 11:14 AM
You realize just how absurd this statement is right? It has as its foundation the preconceived notion that MSM journalists have any integrity and that the lack of said integrity would or should be a matter of concern.
doriangrey on July 27, 2007 at 11:18 AM
But that’s because your loved ones are less likely to lie to you. Why would he not just tell her the truth? Her ideology might not mind the fake but accurate spin.
Plus, if it were me, and my husband told me the stories Scott’s just told, I’d be pissed that he was even over there and would demand he do something to get himself home. I wouldn’t care, at that point, if the experience would help his career as I’d be worried about his mental state.
Surely he calmed his wife down with the truth.
Esthier on July 27, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Good going, Frank. Dig in your heels and blame it all on some right-wing conspiracy. After all, that worked out so well for Dan Rather.
Squid Vicious on July 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM
doriangrey on July 27, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Sorry, that was only meant in case there were gullible kids in the audience.
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I agree with Allah, leave the wife out of it. Unless you’ve got damning evidence that absolutely proves she was acting in ill will, the left and the media will hammer us as insensitive attack dogs, and you know what? They’ll get away with it too, and the story will no longer be Beauchamp and TNR slandering the military, it’ll be those big bad right wingers and their attack machine. Leave her out.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 11:29 AM
The fact that bloggers have successfully googled Scott B’s wedding registry with a TNR staffer conclusively prooves everything he said was a lie.
Take that, Franklin!
e-pirate on July 27, 2007 at 11:30 AM
The bottom line is that when ALL the facts are taken into account– and there are a lot of “little facts” that have accumulated over the past couple of days– a reasonable person would have to look at the big picture (his blog, his motives, his ideology, his wife, TNR’s ideology) and conclude that TNR ran a piece with the intent to malign the troops.
benjamin on July 27, 2007 at 11:34 AM
He’s over 60 years too late for that mission.
Bigfoot on July 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Catseye on July 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
The fact that bloggers have successfully googled Scott B’s wedding registry with a TNR staffer conclusively prooves everything he said was a lie.
Didn’t he post about some of his combat experiences from Germany, before he’d been deployed to Iraq? That’s kinda suspicious. If I were his editor, I’d be a bit curious.
P.S. Sir Real (Surreal) … get it? Huh? Ian Cognito (Incognito)…
saint kansas on July 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Well Hell’s Bells! That answers everything! Move on, nothing to see here. I mean they have a staff members word he was legit. No further checking of facts needed after that point it seems.
The very first meeting with Thomas and TNR must have been interesting. Probably just a handshake and a hug, thanking Thomas for his “patriotism”. I’m sure the editors were giddy and salivating the whole time they were publishing his BS. I can just hear them saying “This is too good to be true! We got Bushitler’s Gestapo military by the balls now!”
It’s just sick.
FireFly on July 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Play nice with them and they won’t bite? Didn’t work for George.
Marcos is only temporarily sweeping-up cause his grandparents are coming for a visit.
She’s more than fair game, innocent of wrong-doing or not. She is married to the “fabulist”, and like all married couples, share each other’s fate.
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Update courtesy of LGF
LakeRuins on July 27, 2007 at 11:46 AM
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/9f6e8257-1941-4a90-a103-ab1b00576274
“In Beauchamp, they knew they had an ideological ally who would see things in Baghdad through the “proper” ideological prism.” How would Foer know that? Because Beauchamp’s wife told him so.
There you have it.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM
ROTFLMAO!
PRCalDude on July 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM
In theory, true, in practice, we’re so badly outmatched and outsized by the MSM that we have to play carefully. Until someone has something specific that shows she was acting with malice, we’re playing with fire.
The media picks up a story only when it advances the liberal narrative, or when alternate media pushes an issue mainstream and they have to do fire control. This is a story the media might have to do fire control on, but if we give them an out, say, it looks like we’re bullying his wife (whether we are or not is another question entirely) they will take it and use it effectively, and that’s not as good as the clean smackdown we have lined up for Beauchamp and TNR.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Hey at least on the parody site Hot Air gets a mention.
LakeRuins on July 27, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Umm…the CIA?
James on July 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Except you’re making a big leap here.
1. We don’t know that TNR knew his slant before he wrote the articles.
2. It wasn’t even necessary for TNR to know his slant since all they had to do was reject his submission if he turned out to be a Right-winger.
3. It wouldn’t have been necessary for his wife to tell them his slant when all they’d have to do is read his previous work first. All that was necessary for her (if she was directly involved) was that she introduce him as her Army writer husband.
There’s no reason to bring her into this. We’ve got enough against the soldier and the man who published him. The wife is a distraction, one that if proven incorrectly will be used to discredit us, just like they’re trying to discredit us because the man’s actually a soldier even though that wasn’t the original point.
Let’s first make our case against the first two people,, then we’ll have the credibility to attack the wife if it seems important.
Esthier on July 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Bad Candy,
here’s your narrative:
Beauchamp was a bum all along with no actual aspiration. His blog was a naive but honest attempt at creative exercise, nothing more. He didn’t even try hard to make it believable. Every single one of his friends knew it wasn’t for real.
Switch over to TNR. Enter Foer and his drive for “explicating ideas”. Also enter Mrs Elspeth Reeve. She scans Foer and finds that particular ooze of career liberals. That’s her chance, her shot at fame. She knows Beauchamp is a bum, but he can bring her the stuff that Foer is looking for without putting herself in harm’s way.
So she hooks him up with Foer, but the drafts pass through her desk first. “Darling, this is really great stuff, but we need more. More.” - “Uhm, but there’s really not much going on here.” - “Try to think a little harder, honey.”
I believe many bloggers and pundits have it bass-ackwards, to quote Michelle. Beauchamp is the victim here. He put his name on the line, and risked being court-martialed … for her. He was being played by Mrs Reeve. It’s her who drove this story into fairy-tale land by telling her soon-to-be husband exactly what he had to deliver. He was Mrs Reeve’s ticket for a career at TNR.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
PRCalDude on July 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Agreed, how can anyone read this crap and keep a straight face?
I should be laughing with you, I really should, but some idiotic editor decided to publish his stories as fact and cause an uproar because of his lazy, unprofessional, BDS infested, lack of fact checking, ideological skewered a**. Everything an objective journalist shouldn’t do. Oh wait…we’re talking TNR here. My bad.
FireFly on July 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Esthier,
Very interesting.
- Women as victims trumps men.
- Hip hop trumps women (Don Imus fired - hip hop survives)
- Dogs as victim trumps women (the Rook card) (ask Michael Vick)
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
And just WHOSE fault is that, Mr. Foer?
Th Weekly Standard is not the MAG that started the “pressing an ideological agenda.” Weekly Standard just called YOUR agenda.
Get the horsehair shirt out for yerself.
Meanwhile, amazing there are no calls to arrest the ostreperous man with “some issues” - the elusive yet omnipresent Sgt. LeClaire, to get his angry ass off the dusty dog and child filled streets of Iraq. Thomas should be prosecution’s witness No. 1 shouldn’t he be? That is IF there is a Sgt LeClaire … did Thomas clearly indicate to the innocent reader that he had left the real world and had veered off into hyperspace?
And why is it that the Left ignores a hundred thousand soldiers who describe their experiences in Iraq with calm thoughtfulness, gained insights and pride, and then claims ONE fellow’s bizarro-world depiction trumps all?
With decent writers having work rejected by TNR, perhaps the most damning piece of evidence of crapola “politization of journalism” to lay at THE NEW REPUBLIC’s moldy feet and at specifically it seems, Mr. Foer, is that Mr. Scott Thomas, particular - rather peculiar - and perverted storyteller, can’t write his way out of a sandbox.
… Oh wait! Maybe he will accomplish THAT!
naliaka on July 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Badcandy. Point taken.
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Great, where’s your proof?
We have enough evidence to go after Beauchamp, unless we’ve got the evidence to nail Reeve too, we’re only setting ourselves up for trouble. Maybe ‘gracie’ has more info.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Oooh, I love it when you talk like that!
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Maybe.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I suggest you get an agent immediately. I would buy that book.
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Brilliant.
So would I.
Is there any way to forward that thread to Beauchamp? Wait a minute, he left his address on his old blog. I’m going to print it out and send it to him. It has to be one of the best threads in the history of the blogosphere.
PRCalDude on July 27, 2007 at 12:26 PM
We would have to suspend disbelief not to think that his wife was absolutely aware, and shared, his bias. She has a trail of writing to prove that. She was obviously the person who suggested her husband send his dispatches to TNR.
This was a clear ideological hit piece. If she believed the things her hubby said, why wouldn’t she insist that he report them up his chain of command rather than violate military procedure and publish them in a left leaning journal? Why was she complicit in hiding her involvement and her husbands?
I’m sorry, she, just like Valerie Plame, put her husband up to distributiing highly inflamatory and dubious information designed to demoralize the public and slam the Bush admin and the military. She chose to be, at the least, a significant part of this mess.
She is gets no love from me.
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
If they’re married, the entry at the wedding site one of Ace’s commenters found can’t be real. It lists their wedding as October 2007.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Who said she ever hid this?
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM
from wapo: Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”
JiangxiDad on July 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM
The staffer who got fired for revealing it might be a good place to start.
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I don’t disagree with that at all, but unless we have concrete proof she knew it was utter bullsh*t, unless we have something like emails, snail mail, text messages, online postings, or internal TNR memos or communications, I think we better tread lightly. She could just as easily claim ignorance, or give a sob story about how she believed him and that they wanted to get the public on their side when he reported said atrocities. They’ll find a BS excuse to worm out of it unless there is something concrete.
Bottom line is, unless someone finds a smoking gun online, the only way we’ll know is if someone trustworthy that knows leaks or we can get access to TNRs internal docs, and even then. I’m not discouraging digging, I’m saying be quiet about it, and if we can’t find the smoking gun, let it be.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM
And I agree, we should try to get more info out of gracie.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Jack, shouldnt the wife have been fired then?
faraway on July 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I agree with Allah and others. I see both his wife and to a lesser degree Scott Thomas as pawns in this rather than the instigators.
The truly dispicible group in this whole thing is the new republic staff. They exploited this woman’s relationship with Scott Thomas and Beauchamps own stupidity all in an effort to smear the troops.
Beachamp is a moron there is no doubt about that. But for the new Republic to exploit his “writings” and try to use it to smear the troops is well beyond the pale.
The people with the Agenda here is the New Republic. I am starting to wonder if they didnt set Beauchamp up fill his head with nonsense about him being their “inside” guy who could get the “real” story of Iraq.
They programed Beachamp gave him is marching orders all with the goal of creating a series of smear stories.
unfortunately for them they selected a moron to do their dirty work. He screwed up and they are trying to cover the whole thing up.
That is my take on this whole situation. I really believe that in their desire to smear the troops to prove how wrong this war is according to them that they would exploit anybody to get their spin on the story.
This is similar to dan rather dragging a 80 + year old woman on TV to defend a hit peice that was intended to smear bush for political gain. Its the same kind of yellow journalism the left is so bent on doing in this country right now.
William Amos on July 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Ask Mr Foer one simple question: Was Mrs Reeve designated editor for Mr Beauchamp’s diary submissions to TNR?
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM
nothing has changed from the Stephen Glass days…
clghitis on July 27, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I have some other questions for the New Republic
Did they talk Scott Thomas into joining the military to be their inside guy ? Remember he was a college student who was anti war. What would cause such a radical change for someone who hates war to join the military ? did the New Republic promise him lucrative deals for his “inside” story ?
Did any editor ever talk to Scott thomas before he went overseas ? Did he ever visit their offices ? his wife worked there so presumibly he would visit her at work.
I want to know if the new Reoublic influence Scott Thomas in any way to create his “stories”. There maybe a bigger scandle here.
William Amos on July 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Absolutely. I’m more concerned about perception at this point, if we look too gung-ho, the MSM will have an out to turn this problem more in their favor.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 1:11 PM
There is no “The New Republic” here. There are actual persons and names. Name the names. Was Mr Foer complicit in fabricating untrue stories? Was Mrs Reeve?
Name the names.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM
The main question here is…
“What did Mr. Foer know, and when did he know it?”
Catseye on July 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Bad Candy,
I agree with most of what you said, but let’s not forget one thing: If bloggers keep on treating this as some kind of abstract institutional problem (the Hewitt angle) then the MSM will have their fun ride pointing out all those stories published at the TNR that were true and thus imply that if 99% of TNRs stuff is correct then this story must be truthful, too. The institutional approach won’t go anywhere. Go after the actual characters that set up this fraud. Expose the exact relationships between Mr Foer, Mrs Reeve and Mr Beauchamp, and how the editing process was conducted.
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM
No the new republic should have to be held accountible for what happened. Lets not make it so easy for them that all they have to do is throw some junior staffer under the bus to sweep this under the rug.
Thats another reason why we shouldnt target zreeve. It would be far too easy for them to just cut her loose to save their skins. I dont want some junior staffer fired I want the big heads to roll
William Amos on July 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
And remmeber “gracie” wasnt fired by Reeve. That came from higher ups. Some bigshot went out of his way to cover up the truth here. I dont want this person to gt a free pass
William Amos on July 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I wish it were that easy. I’ll bet they’re burning memos in the TNR office sinks as we speak. If we can do what you say, excellent, but its a tough thing to do, given that conservatives are shut out of regular media to begin with, let alone a lefty mag like TNR.
Bad Candy on July 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM
[Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM]
Yes it can. It can be real and inaccurate. Decisions in life can change and not everything get’s caught up, like an original decision to get married in Oct ‘07 in MO. Then deciding to get married sooner and privately for a good reason and changing the registry to reflect a formal public reinactment later for which the reception can then be held and the honeymoon immediately taken afterwards.
That happens a lot.
Dusty on July 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Whoa, hold on there. Are you saying that the troop smear was kinda ordered by someone up in the “chain of command”? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe - junior’s trying to fast-lane their career. (Junior includes Mr Foer, too.)
All it takes is, for instance, Hugh Hewitt asking Mr Foer the abovementioned question: Who was Mr Beauchamp’s editor? Mrs Reeve?
Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:34 PM
This is a big deal, because it is a fabricated hit piece against the troops. Coming from a soldier, it is worse than fabricated enemy propaganda. These events did not happen as they are reported. I believe TNR is lying when they say they vigorously fact-checked the article before publication.
However, I join those who urge caution against thinking this is a scandal that will put TNR under. We know that from the Jamil Hussein case that any small part of a blogger story that is overreach and is not exactly right, will be prominently corrected, trumpeted, and imbued with mystical power to justify completely ignoring the 90% of the blogger’s take that was true. I think Gracie should be sought and interviewed and some investigation follow up on Beauschamp’s employment circumstances, but I think the whole marriage/employment angle will be less sinister than some here imagine.
My recommendation is to stick to the facts: Beauchamp was a self-proclaimed liberal with aspiration to be a noted author and teacher, and who purposefully joined the Army in order to write negatively about the war, specifically to advance his writing career. Beauchamp wrote some fictional “Apocolyps Now-ish” stories as if they were real, with either indifference or wilful malignity for the troops’ honor and the U.S. mission. He has aided the enemy for selfish career and political goals. TNR published his tripe with shoddy fact-checking and deserves the same reputation for trustworthiness as TNE (The National Enquirer).
G. Charles on July 27, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Only if you believe she was acting without the knowledge of the management of TNR. I don’t.
JackStraw on July 27, 2007 at 1:54 PM
“I’m not sure what he means by that last part.”
He’s suggesting, probably correctly, that this was all premeditated and TNR knew it. That would explain TNR’s digging in at the first accusations and their “near certainty” statements. They just didn’t anticipate that we would unravel the relationships involved and thus uncover the true motive.
TexasRainmaker on July 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Mags dont put stories out with some kind of editorial oversight.
In the end it doesnt matter if Beauchamp wrote it or His wife read it, What ultimately matters is someone in the new Republic decieded to push this story out to the American people.
Beauchamp would have been an unknown idiot stuck someone in Iraq. Its the New Republic that made the effort to spread his smears
William Amos on July 27, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Except there’s nothing at all to support that.
The Mrs. was already working at TNR; Scott wasn’t.
By Scott’s own admission, he enlisted in the Army just so he could come home a writer, which has nothing to do with his wife. If anything, I’d say he was the one who wanted the career since he said as much repeatedly in his blog.
It’s just as possible that he was playing her (if either in the couple were playing each other).
He’s the one who wanted to be a famous writer though he’d yet to get anything serious out there, and he’s the one who wanted to use his military experience as a vehicle to jump start his career.
It’s entirely possible that he asked her for a favor and convinced her the stories were true and that she was the one who risked her career and reputation on the belief that her husband was being truthful.
There’s no reason it couldn’t have gone that way.
The truth is though, we don’t know. All we do know is that it’s extremely probable that Scott’s stories are complete fabrications, something he actively participated in, and that TNR did not verify his stories.
Even if Scott was under the spell of his new bride, he’s still guilty of defaming his fellow troops, and TNR is still guilty for allow lies like that to be published as true.
If it comes out that the Mrs. pushed her husband to lie, then it makes her guilty as well but doesn’t undo his guilt.
Esthier on July 27, 2007 at 2:55 PM
But that doesn’t prove anything even if she was. It certainly wouldn’t prove that she encouraged the lies or even knew they were lies.
Esthier on July 27, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I’m still undecided on a lot of the TNR story, of which Beauchamps is inextricably entwined via his Baghdad Diarist position there. As for the chapter entitled “How and Why did TNR take on Beauchamp, a lot of it is still is speculation. Informed speculation, but still speculation.
It could be TNR conspired with Reeve and Beauchamp to defame the military. It could be they were all conspiring separately. Then again, it might be less than either.
It could be that Reeve had a folder full of Beauchamp’s earlier work to show her superiors and an adequate case that the guy can write well. The couple of stories that were found via the Lindbergh Pilot, seemed okay and accurate from my skimming. I don’t have later work to see how he progressed through college.
Did she tell them of his blog? I don’t know. Did TNR vet Beauchamp independent of Ms Reeve? Who knows. When did Reeve mention him? I’ll guess when it became apparent he was going to Iraq. It might not have even been her idea. It might have come out when she said “Can I have next week off, because my fiancee is being deployed to Iraq and we’re getting married on Saturday.” That might be something that piqued TNR’s interest just because Reeve’s political attitude meshes with theirs and she is a professional journalist now, after all, just like they are and this “opportunity knocks” fell in their lap. It could be different from that though.
If TNR had both his portfolio and knowledge of his blog, which would they believe? How much doubt would they have and who wrote it off as ‘the way kids write on the Internet nowadays’ and it’s “not real” as anyone can see by looking at his portfolio!!!!
As I said, I’m undecided at this point.
TNR may have played those two. They might also have been played to some extent. It might be a mix. TNR’s lack of practical knowledge of the makeup of our military appears to be appallingly little. Their biases easily show through, too.
I’m leaning towards 50% bias, 30% some mix of naiveté and ignorance, 10% ‘using’* the two and 10% the two (more likely just Beauchamp) ‘using’* TNR. That last 10% is the basis for what has put TNR in mute mode. They are clinging to their view that some teensy thread of truth is there and drop down in the verification process as they teeter at the edge of the cliff.
Some things are certain. The vast majority in the military don’t act the way Beauchamp does, if Beauchamp’s apparent reduction in rank is any barometer at all. The vast majority don’t do the things he ‘recorded and partially excerpted’ in his diary and the majority would have given him, and ‘his buddies’ if he really had any, hell if he did. Some of what Beauchamp describes are, at a minimum, conduct violations that the military is rigorous in maintaining.
TNR has a problem of which there is much certainty even for them. They have attached their masthead to one of the dregs in the military, one who is shuffled to the back of it’s work or imprisonment echelon to bide out their time with them and then dumped, and are trumpeting his half-assed, half told military ’story’ as something to know without having any particular opinion about it.
I noticed in the perusing of TNR that they had another Diarist, a Princeton Diarist, who told of Princeton and the Military. Within days they another writer post his take on it at the Plank. I’m sure there are dozens upon dozens of those kinds of “stories” that are published in TNR that many others at TNR toss their opinions out on. I’m surprise they are so relcutant to do that with Beauchamp.
* “Using” is a complex subject.
Dusty on July 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM
There’s nothing to see here!
Ignore that man behind the curtain!
TallDave on July 27, 2007 at 3:28 PM
And by that reasoning, a hospital should hire a spouse of a surgeon to perform operations even though the spouse doesn’t seem to display any knack whatsoever for the job?
Oh! “But writing stories doesn’t kill people” …oh! Some times they DO, especially if they are constructed to incite or insult.
naliaka on July 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »