Neeever mind!
Posted on 12/01/2007 1:49:32 PM PST by Talking_Mouse
He can follow Hemmingway’s choice of exit if the Party so directs him. The Democrats must save face somehow.
He wasn't taught the proper way to fabricate a story but he certainly fooled TNR. Just goes to show you... You can fool some of the people (editors with an agenda) all of the time...
Read all 14 pages. If the editors at tnr had put as much into checking out beauchamp initially as they did in describing how they were apparently duped they would not have gotten into this “journalistic” bind.
For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations that stories we published by an American soldier then serving in Iraq were fabricated. When these accusations first arose, we promised our readers a full account of our investigation. We spent the last four-and-a-half months re-reporting his stories. These are our findings.Pointed comment: Notice the confusion of "I/We".When Michael Goldfarb, a blogger for The Weekly Standard, left me a message on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-July, I didn't know him or his byline. And I certainly didn't anticipate that his message would become the starting point for a controversy.
... [ Lenghtly "findings" follow. If you go to the article, follow this instructions: Click on page "10", then click "Next Page", that will then show pages 11, 12 ,13, 14. Advise all not to bother reading this haematemesis! ] ...
In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity--which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.
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.
It’s as simple as that...
You and your fellow self loathing ignorant Leftist sonsuvbitches will do ANYTHING to cast a bad light on our the warriors fighting to provide you with the opportunity to LIE....
Your rag is a leftist America hating Islamist ass kissing rag, and your “apology” is NOT accepted...
One day — a reckoning will come due...
You will rue that day...
Bump and a Ping
14 pages of liberal drooling and puling to finally arrive at the most half-assed wimpy pseudo-retraction ever uttered. This is pitiful even for the low standards of liberal media.
now unring that bell
Neeever mind!
Perhaps these days the journalistic training is aimed more at not getting caught in lies.
This retraction is as full of deliberate lies and obfuscations as Beauchamp’s original report.
OK, New Republic. There was a while there when it looked as if you were trying to put some distance between yourselves and The Nation on the war. Time to retract this retraction and admit that you were so eager to undermine the troops that you never did even the most elementary fact checking.
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.The whole ordeal is a big "so what?"
They can go and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I don't think Beauchamp's stories tell us anything about his buddies since all that is known for sure is that Beauchamp is a liar. I believe it was TNR's intention to slander Beauchamp's fellow soldiers and I am sorry that you seem to have fallen for their propaganda. Those who serve with Beauchamp deserve better from you.
It’s not a retraction and wasn’t intended as such rather it’s an attempt by Mr Foer to keep his job and keep the magazine afloat. I did notice that he named a lot of participants
“There was the time that Jibson wore the top of a human skull as a hat during a mission. All of Short’s dog hunting stories (I think he’s up to 17 kills). The time we hid a pink dildo in a very conservative Christian kids gear before an inspection (don’t ask how we got a pink dildo in Iraq).”
There are about 3 more named throughout the article. Seems like most of them would be worth talking to. Were they even there?
Well, Well, Well . . . it turns out that TNR’s politics are just a little bit too artful. Who knew?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.