You KNOW the evidence is overwhelming when even the Washington Post sides with The Weekly Standard (and conservative bloggers).....
“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” Abraham Lincoln
“Always tell the truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said.” Mark Twain
Our soldiers are not monsters. Our military is honorably. Our mission is noble. The surge is working. Bush did not “lie.”
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell
One wonders what their Cover-Your-A$$ statement for today will be.
... and this fellow has earned his place in the Hall of Shame right next to Jessie MacBeth...
Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, called the Army's refusal to release its report "suspect," adding: "There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests."
What the esteemed journalism professor from George Washington University fails to acknowledge is that the Army is tasked with defending the Nation while The New Republic is tasked with writing a third-rate magazine that nobody reads.
I doubt that the cloud over the US Army is all that big, relative to the mission.
Bump
looks like TNR is going to try to ride this out which i find to be an additional outrageous statement against our military at a time of great sacrifice on their part. who are the magazine’s advertisers? sounds like time to include them in this by way of letter-writing, boycott talk........
Now I know what was so smelly about this guy and his story.
It must be absolutely killing the comPost to print this. The lame stream media wanted this story to be true sooo bad, and now they’re running for cover.
These were not considered very "petty" when the WAPO thought they were true.
When Beauchamp went public last month, he said in a statement that it was "maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq."Kurtz, why did Beauchamp use "plausibility" and not "veracity", "truthfulness" or any other word that would mean the events were more than likely or possible but actual? How many clues do you need?
Howie Kurtz and WaPo have their own hanging cloud... but this one stinks.
The Army Speaks; Foer Dissembles
***********************EXCERPTS****************************
New Republic editor Foer falls deeper into Mapes-Foer Syndrome:
In an e-mail message, Mr. Foer said, “Thus far, we’ve been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have,” adding, “We hope the military will share what it has learned so that we can resolve this discrepancy.”
Foer is demanding evidence from the Army, but won't offer the public his "evidence" for believing Beauchamp. His statement challenges the Army's truthfulness, but given his willingness to stand by Beauchamp even after Beauchamp admitted that the badly burned woman he imagined hadn't been in Iraq, this isn't a surprise. There isn't any way to describe this except Foer has decided to take the magazine with him on the long ride down.
Nothing from any of journalism's bravehearts at The Plank. Status as a TNR writer/Foer protege --that must really be worth a lot, given what these writers are sacrificing for it.
Would any MSMer who believes Beauchamp's original story, or anything like it, and is willing to stand side-by-side with Foer please make themselves known?
“Paging Franklin Foer!! Paging Franklin Foer!!”
(202) 508-4444