Over at Small Dead Brainstems, Kate is purely creaming herself over the news that one Pvt. Scott Beauchamp is having some credibility problems:
The Baghdad Fictionalist, Updated
In a 10 page mea culpa The New Republic finally cuts Scott Beauchamp loose;
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.
How could this happen?
"...we were reluctant to call Army public affairs to review his claims."
Oh. I guess it happened the way it usually happens.
Which makes one wonder how the Katester is going to handle this:
In The Tank: Did National Review Reporter Make His Stories Up?
December 1, 2007 07:48 PM
There is a growing dispute over the veracity of reporting from Lebanon by former Marine W. Thomas Smith, Jr. who is posting reports on his blog, The Tank, published by the conservative website, National Review Online (NRO). Smith is a supporter of the war in Iraq, and is affiliated with two politically conservative organizations, the Counterterrorism Research Center and the Family Security Foundation. He is the executive editor of World Defense Review, and the co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design.
Yeah, that's kind of inconvenient when you're trying to gloat, isn't it?
No word yet on whether SDA hero warblogger Michael Yon has backed off on his "baked boy" story, but the instant that happens, we'll let you know.
THAT'S GONNA LEAVE A MARK: When even that shrieking psychotic Michelle Malkin throws you under a bus, well, you're pretty much toast. But let's keep watching the fallout. It promises to be such fun, don't you think?
12 comments:
Foer claimed for months that he was never able to speak to Beauchamp; that Beauchamp was being prevented by the Army from speaking to anyone. That was a lie.
Beauchamp offered the WaPo an interview to prove he could speak to anyone in the media at any time.
Franklin Foer censored Beauchamp from doing that. Seems like he wanted to control all the spin while accusing the Army of doing so.
Now after months of insisting that he was denied access to Beauchamp, suddenly Foer claims he "spoke" to him in November and that Beauchamp stands by his stories.
Which of Foer's lies should we believe?
If Beauchamp is now claiming to stand by his stories, after admitting to the Army they were fabricated, and signing an affidavit to that effect, then he's either lied to the Army and signed a false statement or he lied to Foer. Either way, Beauchamp is a liar!He has no credibility.
As for NRO, they admitted the mistake quickly, but in a way that remains unsatisfactory to Malkin and many conservative bloggers. Malkin has taken both Lopez and Smith to task for their explanations and apologies!
When will left wing bloggers take Foer to task for lying, obfuscating, and blaming everyone else but him, while still not apologising for misleading his readers! He is TNR's editor.
All decisions and responsibilities start and stop with him!
As for the "Baked boy" story that Yon shared: you either never read the two dispatches he wrote on this story, or you didn't understand what you read.
Yon made it clear in the original dispatch that he was REPEATING a story that an Iraqi told him in front of a large group of soldiers who Yon identifies by name and rank, at a meeting held by Iraqis!He never said the incident DID IN FACT happen.Nor did he imply that it was fact.
He did make it clear why he was sharing the story, and made it clear that by sharing the story he was NOT laying claim to it's veracity.
He is not under any journalistic obligation to provide veracity of this story BECAUSE he stated that he was repeating a story for which he could not lay claim to it's veracity.
So are you saying he fabricated the story?
Well we know he didn't since he names the witnesses who also heard the story, and identifies where the story was told, and the events happening when the story was related. All these are verifiable.
So, if you and your fan boys over at TBogg's blog of boors,can't grasp the difference between Beauchamps fabrications which he insisted were true (yet couldn't remember the LOCATION, or country where one event occurred) and Yon REPEATING a story that he clearly stated could not be verified, but where all the details of his location, the names of witnesses who also heard the story are clearly identified, (proving that Yon didn't fabricate it)then you're dumber than a ten pound bag of stupid.
On June 8, 2007, one month before Yon's dispatch, Karl Penhaul wrote a piece for CNN in which he wrote:
"Locals say al Qaeda amputated fingers for smoking"
"Nationalist insurgents say al Qaeda excesses are behind their falling-out. Several sources said al Qaeda members burned a 7-year-old child alive and murdered women and other children in the towns and villages around the provincial capital of Baquba. They did not give names or dates to back up their claims."
Without being able to verify the story about Al Q "burning the child alive" CNN nonetheless includes it in their piece.
So, are you going to ask Karl Penhaul and CNN to offer a retraction about their "burnt alive" child?
Will you demand they verify the story even after Penhaul clearly stated that the Iraqis who shared this with him did not give names or dates to back up their claims.
Yeah...I didn't think so.
Since I've brought this CNN piece to the attention of TBogg and every other left wing blogger who uses Mike Yon's name in order to draw attention to their blogs, they have yet to denounce, insult, and mock Karl Penhaul, or ask when he will "back off" from the " child burnt alive" story, like they did with Yon.
Karl Penhaul and Mike Yon did the exact same thing: share a very similar story told by Iraqis within a larger piece on why Iraqi's are rejecting Al Queda and partnering with American troops.
Both these stories appeared within 30 days of each other!
Yet the only issue from those on the left is with Yon's story. No agenda there. Just an honest desire to get at truth, right?
Frankly I think you all have major hard ons for Yon.
You have the audacity to call yourself a progressive snark, but you are neither.
The hallmark of "progressives" is that they are tolerant, enlightened, and accepting of others opinions and lifestyes.
You re obsession with Kate and Yon borders on stalking.You're childish attempts at snark, which amount to nothing more than childish insults and ad hominem attacks only aimed at conservatives, do not ring tolerant or progressive.
The hallmark of "progressives" is that they are tolerant, enlightened, and accepting of others opinions and lifestyes.
You re obsession with Kate and Yon borders on stalking.You're childish attempts at snark, which amount to nothing more than childish insults and ad hominem attacks only aimed at conservatives, do not ring tolerant or progressive.
Jesus, get over yourself.
Wait a minute, Smith wrote "The Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design"?
And they have to ask if he makes up stories?
trillian, yon goes out of his way to make it seem like this unsubstantiated rumour is true. he also attributes the telling to an unnamed iraqi official. cnn, by your own admission, attributes the rumour to an insurgent group opposed to al qaeda. in the cnn story, a 7 year old was burned to death. in yon's tale, more than one 11 year old boy was baked, his mouth stuffed and served to his family.
the named individual who shared in the sordid tale is an interpreter whose horrified reaction is used to sell the veracity of the tale. yon doesn't say this isn't true and his implication certainly is that the tale is true. at least by my readin,
"The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."
i invite you to go have a peek at the response to yon's story at the link provided for, lgf. some of the readers were wise enough to exercise doubt but a great number were more than happy to swallow the story whole. yon preaches to a particular audience and they ate this story up. his chosen role is to sex up the image of america in iraq. fine, he's good at it and at least he is there on the ground unlike the whining goobers like hugh hewitt or bloody bill kristol. but still...
"The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.” and don't forget the smiling pictures of iraqi children that aren't spoiled by handouts, nothing but ponies.
so please stuff your sanctimony back up your hoop. yon is very good at selling partisan puffery to an eager audience that wants to live the noble war vicariously through his sanitized reportage. because really, when the war reporter starts holding forth about birdies and crap, you have to be able to smell the sewage under all the perfume.
"Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth."
yeah, lots of truth there. like those temporary bases that little george has established, just chomping on the bit to get out.
i haven't followed the beauchamp business but where folks get in the business of knowingly lying for points, then they don't have my respect. that would be why i follow neither tnr nor nro. i wouldn't have looked at the yon story if it hadn't been stuffed in my face by wingnuts screaming that it proved how evil islam is.
and you even quote the cnn piece, "They did not give names or dates to back up their claims." there is no effort to spin it as truth or convince people. the whole quote shies away from sensationalizing it. yon sells drama, he's a cheerleader and cretins like kate and her ilk follow the cheering and improvise their own hate screed from it. but your notion that cnn and yon did the very smae thing is bogus and you know it. cnn, for all of their flaws, reported a news piece and mentioned a rumour. they undersold the rumour. yon painted a portrait of savagery with a supporting cast of mortified on lookers before firing up a rousing chorus of god bless america. not the same thing. so piss off.
Wow, over 800 words to avoid answering the question: "When will left wing bloggers take Foer to task for lying, obfuscating, and blaming everyone else but him, while still not apologising for misleading his readers!?"
I know. Must drive you nuts...er, nuttier...eh, Fergus?
When will the Right take the thousands of Righty liars to task?
Trillian manages to type from the uncomfortable restraints of the leather straps:
"You re obsession with Kate and Yon borders on stalking."
If I had a quarter for every right-wing whackjob that I was accused of being "obsessed" with ... well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
P.S. And Trillian, darling, the possessive form is "Your", not "You re". Please try to keep that in mind. We have standards around here.
ahem
"i haven't followed the beauchamp business but where folks get in the business of knowingly lying for points, then they don't have my respect"
fergus old stooge, words are for reading not counting.
Since the theme of the post is the different reactions to the Beauchamp story, I don't know that I'd use that defense, old stooge. Now it is apparent that you say very little at great length about a topic you admit to knowing nothing about.
fergie, i responded to part of a comment comparing the stories of yon and cnn. i reserved my response to the areas of the story where i actually had some knowledge. a substantial part of my comment is quoted material, illustrating my point. but you'd have to have read some of it to have a valid counterpoint to offer. if i had gone to such length to comment on story elements that i knew nothing of, well, then i'd be a blogging tory. so far your stellar commentary has focused on the word count. well that's a sparkling contribution to the dialogue, isn't it? but then you don't really have a contribution to make, you're content to pick your nose at people. way to go.
fergusrush,
I'm at a loss to understand your response to cc's post. (I haven't read "trillians" because I'm busy. Perhaps there's something in there.)
But you do grasp that the whole point is that Scott Thomas Beauchamp's stories were plausible, and that the NRO idiot was writing ridiculous fantasy that could not possibly have happened? (And for the record, the case agains Scott Beauchamp appears to be that the US military has pressured people into denying them. Big fucking deal.)
I can't fathom how you come away with the desire to type such a response.
It's crystal clear.
I didn't bother with Trillian's opus because of the last paragraph; they just can't help themselves from veering off into expressions of their insane bias to completely destroy whatever credibility they'd like to think they have. The old accusation of "progressive intolerance" because we're not taking at face value whatever these reality-challenged propagandists are churning out (which, revealingly, causes them so much emotional discombobulation) is beyond stale.
Post a Comment