Army Says Soldier’s Articles for Magazine Were False

The New York Times ^ | August 8, 2007 | PATRICIA COHEN

[RedRover]

"We are not going into the details of the investigation"...

As we were saying...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"We are not going into the details of the investigation"...

The lefties are jumping on that....:

Army Concludes Baghdad Diarist Accounts Untrue
Kurtz at the Washington Post

*****************EXCERPT**************************

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."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Hugh Hewitt:

The Army Speaks; Foer Dissembles

***************************************EXCERPTS*************************************

From the New York Times:

An Army investigation into the Baghdad Diarist, a soldier in Iraq who wrote anonymous columns for The New Republic, has concluded that the sometimes shockingly cruel reports were false.

“We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

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?

[Kenton]

Thanks. I knew that this was covered in the UCMJ someplace, but it’s been a few years, ya know...

[SandRat]

1. Just more proof that liberals should not be in our all volunteer military. Keeping communists out of military helped our side to win the cold war. Keeping liberals out of our military will help us win the WOT.

2. Makes my old question even more valid: When do liberals stop lying!

NEVER!!!

[Gondring]

What makes anyone think reporter wife is innocent in all this? She’s part of the despicable MSM and probably helped plot this whole thing.

That's one of the questions I asked yesterday on another thread...

There are more questions out there...

However, whether she dumps him or not doesn't have to do with her innocence...after all, she might be as dishonest as he--and just figure he is no longer useful.

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "When do liberals stop lying!"

ANSWER: When their mouths stop moving.

       

[Grampa Dave]

"When do liberals stop lying!"

[Enchante]

"The New Republic says Beauchamp’s version has been corroborated by eyewitnesses (who requested anonymity)."

LOL. Since when is the magazine that published dozens of Stephen Glass fantasies supposed to be allowed even a hint of credibility when it claims anonymous corroborations of stories that have been widely and persuasively debunked?? The burden of proof is on TNR to show why it should be regarded as anything better than liberal toilet paper. LL, you usually seem pretty savvy -- I'm really shocked to see you give unlimited credence to anything TNR says about this episode.

[liberallarry]

Oh? And the military always tell the truth? Grow up.

[wtc911]

it doesn’t matter. He was preaching to the choir.

[Enchante]

"Oh? And the military always tell the truth? Grow up."

Now that's a mature and thoughtful response. I said (the obvious) that the burden of proof is on those making scurrilous and implausible allegations, and you respond with a slur against the military. My point is that no reasonable person can review what has transpired thus far and give credibility to TNR and its flaky "reporter" on this one. You're the one who need to grow up, little boy.

[liberallarry]

It's not a slur on the military. It's the simple truth: they don't always tell the truth anymore than anyone else. The fact that both sides made mistakes in the past does not irreparably harm their credibility in the present case. Neither side has been convincing and both are not being forthcoming.

I've read a couple of articles on this. I see no reason for the military to withhold the confession of falsehood and distortion. That they do makes me question its existance.