TNR very angry that Army didn’t let them pretend Beauchamp conversation never happened

posted at 7:54 pm on October 24, 2007 by Allahpundit

Reminds me of when Dan Rather said, in the midst of Rathergate, with a very straight face, that if the memos turned out to be fake he’d like to be the one to break that story.

Sometimes those big scoops need to be “helped along” a bit by outside parties, n’est-ce pas?

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge posted this afternoon–and removed several hours later without explanation–could have only come from the Army.

Mr. Foer said he called TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.

So Foer couldn’t report on a conversation he himself participated in because the record wasn’t complete yet? Re-read that transcript again. Foer and Scoblic are telling Beauchamp, with no little amount of desperation, that they’re going to have to walk away from the piece if he doesn’t talk to them. Which he doesn’t. By their own formulation his protracted “no comment” is hugely significant and thus, one would think, should merit some kind of mention in TNR, whether or not a new report might be warranted later if further documents were released. See for yourself:

doc1.jpg

Their defense here is obviously going to be that Beauchamp did offer to “talk” to them, sort of, by promising to release the statements he gave to the Army and that they were simply waiting until they had that material to report the conversation. But … why don’t they have that material yet? Beauchamp agreed to release it to them in part 2 of the transcript, but here we are six weeks later and still no report from TNR. Like Ace says, there are only two possibilities:

1) Beauchamp never authorized the release of these documents to TNR, and TNR is trying to claim the Army has a special duty to give them to TNR, even with Beauchamp stubbornly refusing to sign the release.

2) Beauchamp did authorize the release of all documents specifically pertaining to himself, which is all he could authorize, but that authorization does not cover the statements made by other troops in the unit. So TNR is spinning its failure to get permission from the other soldiers to view their statements as A) due to Army non-cooperation and B) absolving them from having to report any further on the story until they get these documents (which they never will).

They’re “waiting for all the facts to come in” before they do any further reporting on the story, in other words. And since there are no more facts forthcoming, voila: story’s over. Frankly, I’m surprised the Army didn’t leak Beauchamp’s statements and the report of its investigation to TNR just to call their bluff and force their hand.

Update: Says See-Dub, “So we are to believe that the army was previously stonewalling on these documents that show that A: the troops aren’t psychopathic dog-smashers and B: their effete liberal critics were printing falsehoods about them? Documents numerous sources had already FOIA’d? But now they ‘leak’ it?”

Update: Captain Ed’s on the same wavelength. “Just the fact that TNR needed an FOIA request to find out what the Army discovered should have informed them of Beauchamp’s credbility.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

n’est-ce pas?

Would you mind telling dumb old me what that is?

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Foer had every chance in the Observer piece to call BS on the docs if he thought they were not the real deal. He only complained about their release.

My speculation is that if Ms Beauchamp is no longer employed by TNR as I have seen some places, she and Scott put them into the wild when TNR and her parted company.

Take that with a grain of salt.

Also one of the bloggers over at Blackfive had a cryptic post after meeting up with Scott while embedded in Iraq with word of news to come and giving no more info as to what but asking people to wait a while for the news to break.

CommentGuy on October 24, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Poor TNR. :(

Stankleberry on October 24, 2007 at 8:05 PM

“This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Shameful. And after all the wonderful things the left wing blogs have done for the Army.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:03 PM

You really want an answer, yes?

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM

You really want an answer, yes?

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Yes… what does it mean?

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Maxx: it’s French.

If you know Japanese, it’s like sticking “ne?” at the end of a sentence.

The equivalent in English is “no?” or “doncha think?”

meep on October 24, 2007 at 8:10 PM

And Kini showed one more way to interpret the phrase (i.e., the “yes?”)

meep on October 24, 2007 at 8:10 PM

n’est-ce pas?

Would you mind telling dumb old me what that is?

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Means:
Aint that the truth.
pronounced
nes pa

TheSitRep on October 24, 2007 at 8:10 PM

You really want an answer, yes?

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Yes… what does it mean?

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Who’s on first?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Look here

It’s a way to ask a question where the speaker expects an affirmative answer, sort of.

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM

TNR loves leaks when it’s the Bush administration on the hook. But ooohh the whining when they are the subject. Add hypocrisy to their list of character flaws.

What a sad collection of ninnies. “Boo hoo, the Army was mean to us.” After TNR pissed all over the military. What do they expect? Crybabies. Foer should resign and the top editors should go with him. TNR used to be a good magazine but this group of spoiled, arrogant, elitist left-wing ‘tards has flushed it down the crapper. Purge the place clean and start from scratch.

Thomas the Wraith on October 24, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Oh… thanks. I don’t speak French and not much Japanese. From the context I thought it meant something like “inner circle.” Gee Allah, stick with words I can find in the interconnected dictionary.

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Merci Beaucoup – Meep!

Famous Rathergate quotes? Fake but Accurate, yes?

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:16 PM

So we are to believe that the army was previously stonewalling on these documents that show that A: the troops aren’t psychopathic dog-smashers and B: their effete liberal critics were printing falsehoods about them? Documents numerous sources had already FOIA’d? But now they “leak” it?

[Cosby-Noah]Rrrrrrrrright![/Cosby-Noah]

see-dubya on October 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I always figured to mean “Ya know?”

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM

AP,

As you noted in the prior entry:

The transcript also recounts Beauchamp authorizing his lawyer to obtain copies of his statements to the Army and to release them to TNR.

So why should anyone assume that TNR did not have these materials for the past month?

Karl on October 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM

“n’est pas?” is French for the phrase, which is in the form of a question roughly “is it not so?”

in the states, or in the way the Mighty AP means it, it would be something like this:

Sometimes those big scoops need to be “helped along” a bit by outside parties, dont they?

or Sometimes those big scoops need to be “helped along” a bit by outside parties, right?

or Sometimes those big scoops need to be “helped along” a bit by outside parties. Is this not so?

Mike D. on October 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM

First of all, I don’t believe Foer anymore. Because of this lack of credibility, I think that these documents WERE in the possession of TNR, and they are in fact the source of the leak.

We all know his credibility is totally shot given that he claimed:

A) The Army prevented Beauchamp from talking to TNR, when in fact TNR did talk to Beauchamp and he said that it would be last time he spoke to anyone.

B) Foer claimed they would investigate and reveal their investigation, but in fact TNR has released no information that they’ve gathered, including the fact that they knew Beauchamp had backed away from his story and that they had spoken to him at all.

Nessuno on October 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM

AP, je crois que tu a besoin de vacances en Provence.

rivlax on October 24, 2007 at 8:28 PM

suc le bleu, oui?

Kini on October 24, 2007 at 8:33 PM

[Cosby-Noah]Rrrrrrrrright![/Cosby-Noah]

see-dubya on October 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM

What’s a cubit?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Wow, I’m speechless … BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1

Dusty on October 24, 2007 at 8:38 PM

[Thomas the Wraith on October 24, 2007 at 8:13 PM]

I agree but in this case TNR blindsided the Army with a pseudonymously poised soldier telling stories a “professional” journalist would have known was against his sworn to code of conduct and dishonoring for both the author and the Army. And Foer didn’t care one wit except to use it both to advance his disgusting biases and make money for TNR.

TNR’s Scott Thomas gambit was the passive approach and the mirror to the aggressive one where, if uncovered by TNR independently, they would have crucified both the soldier and Army mercilessly for months and would have done all in his power to push it into the MSM using all their connections.

Foer is scum and whines like scum caught in his own game with the rules he defined. I wish 100 Rebecca Aquilar’s on him for 10 years.

Dusty on October 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM

What’s a cubit?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Ha ! I know that one.

Cubit – Heb. ‘ammah; i.e., “mother of the arm,” the fore-arm, is a word derived from the Latin cubitus, the lower arm. It is difficult to determine the exact length of this measure, from the uncertainty whether it included the entire length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, or only from the elbow to the root of the hand at the wrist. The probability is that the longer was the original cubit. The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. This is the same as the Egyptian measurements.

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM

I wasn’t really looking for a definition of a cubit. I was completing CW’s oblique reference to the Bill Cosby comedy routine. So who’s on first?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM

I think if we’ve learned anything from this TNR episode, it’s that Beauchamp is a total bitch. He’s a wannabe-author who thought if he told people what they wanted to hear, he’d be the next Hemingway. Beauchamp fooled TNR editors, but when he got caught in his lie, he resorted to this childish “I’m not going to talk about it ever again” tripe. He’s a crapweasel, and I bet in a few months he’ll be a divorced crapweasel.

And speaking of Ellie, I think that was some great manipulation by Foer to drag her into it. I mean, Frank’s got to preserve the integrity of the magazine, so I can’t blame him for using all the tools at his disposal. That said, to see his exploitation of the wife rendered in stark text is sort of…unappealing. That poor woman – imagine being married to this tool.

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM

When this is finally over I think Foer and Chait and the other top editors can find professional success and gratification working for the highly esteemed Shawnee/Lenexa Sun, in lovely suburban Kansas. The Sun is probably a bit more rigorous with its fact checking methodologies than they are accustomed to, but I think they’ll get used to it.

Thomas the Wraith on October 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM

How long can you tread water?

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Maxx on October 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Forty-one days, give or take.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Even though TNR calls itself an American magazine, they are owned by a Canadian company. I believe their offices are in Vancouver.

Can a foreign entity invoke FOIA? Is the United States Army obligated to release information to a Canadian company?

/just sayin’

kooly on October 24, 2007 at 9:55 PM

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said.

Uh, yeah. Post the FOIA Foer. Why would you need to FOIA your own conversation?

“This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Translation. “Damn, why does the Army continue to respond to questions about this with the truth, they should have just let us control the story.”

91Veteran on October 24, 2007 at 10:58 PM

I wasn’t really looking for a definition of a cubit. I was completing CW’s oblique reference to the Bill Cosby comedy routine. So who’s on first?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM

tonight? the Red Sox… again… and again…. and again….

Romeo13 on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 PM

I think if we’ve learned anything from this TNR episode, it’s that Beauchamp is a total bitch. He’s a wannabe-author who thought if he told people what they wanted to hear, he’d be the next Hemingway. Beauchamp fooled TNR editors, but when he got caught in his lie, he resorted to this childish “I’m not going to talk about it ever again” tripe. He’s a crapweasel, and I bet in a few months he’ll be a divorced crapweasel.

Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I agree he is, but after reading the last comment of his shown in the transcript AP posted above, I get the sense that maybe there was discussion between TNR and Beauchamp about what type of writing TNR was looking for…prior to Beauchamp writing anything.

I’m not excusing what Beauchamp wrote, but I wonder if TNR provided any examples of topics they would like to see from him.

Foer seemed a little worried about Beauchamp talking to other news outlets. What was he afraid of?

91Veteran on October 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM

If TNR was a legitimate business, Foer would have been fired already and probably wouldn’t survive yet another major blow to its credibility. How does TNR stay in business?

TheBigOldDog on October 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Isn’t Scott’s last name spelled “Fauxchamp”?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

It’s not nearly as maddeningly as seeing partisan hacks in the State Department, NSA, and CIA selectively leak to the New York Times things that undermine national security. In fact, it fits a pattern in this country where partisan Democrats have leaked a lot of stuff to left wing propaganda outlets. You’ll get over it, champ.

Blacklake on October 24, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Wasn’t there a post somewhere that Beauchamp had updated his MySpace page on Sept 7th?

He had access to communications long before TNR was still claiming he was “being held incommunicado”, which suggests he would have communicated with his wife in some manner.

Beauchamp just seems a little confused when Foer says his wife sent him an email begging him not to recant…as if it wasn’t something Beauchamp would have expected.

91Veteran on October 24, 2007 at 11:43 PM

n’est-ce pas?

Oh, fine. Correct my illiterate French. But I’m not so sure that knowing the correct grammar in French is something to brag about, mon ami.

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Beauchamp just seems a little confused when Foer says his wife sent him an email begging him not to recant…as if it wasn’t something Beauchamp would have expected.

91Veteran on October 24, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Maybe because there was no reason she wouldn’t have communicated that directly to him, by phone or email.

Speaking of his Mrs. How about the ham handed threats from Foer and co.? Could they be any less subtle? It’s like they punctuated every other sentence with a ‘gee, sure hope nothing happens to your wife’ comment – like losing her job.

Foer and STB deserve each other.

But, as much as STB is receiving his just desserts, I can’t help but hope that he’ll wise up as a result of this and maybe even one day join the ranks of decent human beings.

Unfortunately, there’s precious little evidence for that hope thus far.

cyrano on October 25, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Isn’t Scott’s last name spelled “Fauxchamp”?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Now it is. Good one.

see-dubya on October 25, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Maybe because there was no reason she wouldn’t have communicated that directly to him, by phone or email.

Speaking of his Mrs. How about the ham handed threats from Foer and co.? Could they be any less subtle? It’s like they punctuated every other sentence with a ‘gee, sure hope nothing happens to your wife’ comment – like losing her job.

cyrano on October 25, 2007 at 12:03 AM

That’s why I thought he sounded confused, as if it didn’t fit with what she may have previously said to him.

I caught the threats as well, ham-handed fits.

91Veteran on October 25, 2007 at 12:28 AM

By not knowing what “n’est-ce pas?” means, has Maxx committed what a non-French-speaking friend of mine once referred to as a “fox pus”???

fulldroolcup on October 25, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Enrique,

I mean, Frank’s got to preserve the integrity of the magazine…

And he could have done that by acting with some journalistic integrity, which he didn’t. Foer seems utterly disinterested in the credibility of the magazine, having completely demolished it. His veiled threats in this conversation are all about cheap CYA ploys, not integrity.

Pablo on October 25, 2007 at 12:50 AM

The language of surrender is all over this page.

Black Adam on October 25, 2007 at 1:38 AM

If TNR was a legitimate business, Foer would have been fired already and probably wouldn’t survive yet another major blow to its credibility. How does TNR stay in business?

TheBigOldDog on October 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Great question. I can only surmise that a significant size of TNR subscribers 1)just don’t care or 2)will never even hear about this episode or 3)are aware of the episode, but have decided that TNR is the target of a dishonest attack.

I have a somber sense that TNR and Foer will survive, mostly due to a resistance by other publications with market share to give this episode any space — pretty much a right-wing blog thing. I really hope I’m wrong.

deesine on October 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Reminds me of Jason Leopold saying he would out his sources if they were wrong, only for his editors to step in and say that they wouldn’t out them, so Jason could hide behind their skirts and pretend his hands were tied… Good, old-fashioned cowardice.

Seixon on October 25, 2007 at 3:30 AM

Dear Hot Air:

I hereby officially request that you provide me with copies of all my comments at this blog during the past year. Please provide this information immediately, if not sooner.

Ali-Bubba on October 25, 2007 at 4:06 AM

Dear Hot Air:

You have so far failed to comply with my official request for all — repeat, ALL — my comments at this blog during the past year.

What are you trying to hide?

Ali-Bubba on October 25, 2007 at 4:07 AM

Dear Hot Air:

I will not allow your continuing attempts to withhold the copies of my comments — despite my two previous official requests — to prevent me from seeking the truth in this matter.

The people have a right to know.

Ali-Bubba on October 25, 2007 at 4:10 AM

COVER-UP! COVER-UP! COVER-UP!

Help me, I’m a victim of Hot Air’s conspiracy against me!

Ali-Bubba on October 25, 2007 at 4:11 AM

Foer can go screw himself, for all I care.

He and that craprag “magazine” of his can go to hell. He started all this with a blatant attempt to LIBEL and LIE to his readers about the war. And now that he’s been exposed as the CRAPWEASEL he is, he doesn’t like it. Well, BOO-FREAKIN’-HOO!

The sooner the owners of TNR in Canada fire the entire staff and padlock the premises, ceasing publication, the better for them and America.

I pronounce anathema on Foer, Beauchamp, his wife, and everybody else who works at TNR. They are UNFIT for any media job outside of a paper route. I call upon each and every media hiring manager to shun these clowns and refuse to grant them interviews. I call on the cub reporters to kick them in the shins. I call upon the janitors to beat them with their brooms and mops. I call upon the typesetters and pressmen to mispell their names and include their names in the obituaries every day. I call upon the cafeteria food servers to ladle hot soup on their heads and not a soup bowl.

Yeah verily, I call anathema 3 times upon Foer, Beauchamp, his wife and the staff of TNR. And on their keyboards, may the 1 bits itch and the zero bits cause chills, this day, and forever, until the end of time.

georgej on October 25, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Yeah verily, I call anathema 3 times upon Foer, Beauchamp, his wife and the staff of TNR

Careful. If you’re a Muslim, I think you might be divorced now.

JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 8:38 AM

I wasn’t really looking for a definition of a cubit. I was completing CW’s oblique reference to the Bill Cosby comedy routine. So who’s on first?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM

tonight? the Red Sox… again… and again…. and again….

Romeo13 on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Oy…I don’t think anyone remembers jokes prior to Eddie Murphy anymore.

Just watch this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8342445135331678445

Miss_Anthrope on October 25, 2007 at 9:43 AM

And he could have done that by acting with some journalistic integrity, which he didn’t.

Sure, but my standards for journalistic integrity are fairly modest. :)

Enrique on October 25, 2007 at 10:04 AM

So much poetic justice… ;)

Rugged Individual on October 25, 2007 at 1:20 PM

I have read the garbage spewed by this punk many times -
know the enemy – so here’s how my note to the twerp began.

Boo friggin’ hoo! For the gazillionth time, anti-American propaganda that slimes our military is proven to be false. I already knew that you were a traitorous whining punk, so didn’t learn much except for a couple of new fantasies you have.

corona on October 27, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I wasn’t really looking for a definition of a cubit. I was completing CW’s oblique reference to the Bill Cosby comedy routine. So who’s on first?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 24, 2007 at 9:11 PM

And what a gem of an album Coz made back in 1960;
a San Francisco KNBR DJ used to play a 25 minute cut every night, without interruption, back in 1961.

Back to the subject: maybe TNR staff can get jobs covering FEMA press conferences??

fred5678 on October 27, 2007 at 5:41 PM