: The Drudgery of TNR Stonewalling
Confederate Yankee should be congratulated for this story, and deserves credit. Drudge is weeks behind.
The story is still developing, with TNR in strange "hibernation". For more....check out the top tier blogs:
Ace of Spades HQ
Blackfive
Bookworm
Flopping Aces
HotAir
Michelle Malkin
The Jawa Report
Wizbang
*Important Update* by Michael Yon, via Flopping Aces
The story is still developing, with TNR in strange "hibernation". For more....check out the top tier blogs:
Ace of Spades HQ
Blackfive
Bookworm
Flopping Aces
HotAir
Michelle Malkin
The Jawa Report
Wizbang
*Important Update* by Michael Yon, via Flopping Aces
Labels: Scott Thomas Beauchamp
3 Comments:
of course TNR is going to stonewall. Why not? They know they can get away with it. Millions of moonbats WANT to believe that what Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote is true. They'd still believe it even if TNR admits it's fake.
Talk about the "willing suspension of disbelief" these people learned from the master.
I had a similar issue today with a television reporter interviewing me about the Fred Thompson visit. Off camera she said it's a shame that politics have become so divisive and complained that she had been attacked for being "unpatriotic" for dissenting on Iraq. She couldn't tell me WHO had said that about her and when I reminded her that Democrat Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, stood on the Senate floor and called Rush Limbaugh "unpatriotic" she said I was making cop out excuse for these unnamed persons who called her that word.
Then it degenerated into "both sides do it" yet she still didn't see the point that no elected GOP official has ever said an Iraq dissenter is "unpatiriotic."
I guess the broader point here is that: These "news" media types really do live in their alternate reality. Too bad they have jobs that require them to come out and talk to us mean ole Republicans from time to time.
And, I expect TNR to stay in hiding. They should be ashamed.
Latest from TNR:
Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,” a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”
The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during the September 6 conversation: “[A]ll we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it’s—if it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we’ll end that way. If it’s proven to be true, it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth.” The September 6 exchange was extremely frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.
The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.
On September 14, we also spoke at length with Major John Cross, who led the Army’s investigation into the Beauchamp case. Contrary to reports in The Weekly Standard and other outlets, Cross explicitly said that Beauchamp “did not recant” his article in the sworn statements he had given the Army. Moreover, although the Army’s investigation—which declared that the claims in “Shock Troops” were false—purported to be conclusive, Cross conceded that there were at least a dozen soldiers in Beauchamp’s platoon whom he had not interviewed. TNR pressed for clarification:
Scoblic: So you didn’t get statements from everyone in his platoon, then?
Cross: We got statements from everyone in his platoon that was available that day we were conducting the investigation.
Scoblic: At a later point did you follow up with any of the people that weren’t available that day?
Cross: No.
Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious gaps—as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp’s accounts—The New Republic decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp, particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division, to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.
It was as we were awaiting the documentary record of the Army’s investigation that the Army leaked several documents, including the September 6 transcript, to The Drudge Report, which incorrectly reported that the documents show that Beauchamp had recanted. In fact, they show no such thing, and Drudge soon removed the supporting documents from its website, and later its entire report.
The New Republic is deeply frustrated by the Army’s behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover whether Beauchamp’s article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked selective parts of the record—including a conversation that Beauchamp had with his lawyer—continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.
We have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so. But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and promise to deliver a full account of our findings.
--The Editors
I read the printed edition of the LATimes, yesterday, and saw the piece by Tim Rutten.
Post a Comment
<< Home