Posted on 10/24/2007 4:23:44 PM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
Drudge: The Beauchamp transcripts; Foer to Beauchamp: Let us control the way this story proceeds; Foer exploits Beauchamps wife: Ellie sent me an e-mail to tell you that its the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didnt recant; Update: Foer whines, attacks the military again By Michelle Malkin October 24, 2007 01:30 PM Update 6:50pm Eastern. Franklin Foer comes out from under his desk to whine to the NY Observer about the transcripts being leaked. All of this damning transcript evidence of TNRs attempts to cover up, and what does Foer do? He attacks the military again:
Its maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that weve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests, Mr. Foer said. This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.
Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated. A reader e-mails: Pathetic he was waiting for access to his own conversation?
Moreover, what is Foers evidence that it was the military that leaked the transcripts to Drudge?
What is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
The ship sinks and sinks and sinks.
Update: If they were wronged?
Update 5:30pm Eastern. My friend Kathryn Lopez misses the point entirely, Im afraid.
I repeat Aces distillation for those who have only superficial knowledge of this scandal: Remember: TNR Hid The Existence Of This Phone Call From The World.
To paraphrase the Clintons: Its the cover-up, stupid.
And TNRs sliming of The Weekly Standard.
And TNRs false allegations that the military was censoring Beauchamp.
And TNRs pathetic attempts to wrest control of the story from Beauchamp as he attempted to tell other media outlets that he was not being gagged, use Beauchamps wife as a wedge, and refusal to acknowledge the truth of their journalistic malpractice.
Get it?
Update 4:15pm Eastern. I saved the transcripts. You can access them and read them in their entirety for yourselves here, here, and here.
The Jawa Report has also posted the docs.
Meanwhile, Bryan Preston put in a call to Franklin Foer. Hes in a meeting at the moment. Hes a very, very busy man, you know.
Update 3:50pm Eastern. The Weekly Standards Michael Goldfarb, who got the ball rolling over the summer on this story, speaks:
It is now clear that somewhere along the way, TNR stopped acting in good faith and started doing damage control. They cited a Bradley expert who purportedly confirmed that the vehicle could be operated as Beauchamp described. But when Bob Owens tracked down said expert, BAE spokesmen Doug Coffey, he denied making any such statement, saying that TNR had mischaracterized his comments and that the editors had never shown him Beauchamps stories. He added that having read the stories, they were indeed suspicious, and that he did not believe the Bradley could be operated as described. TNR never acknowledged Coffeys later statements or its apparent misrepresentation of his earlier statement.
And then came our report that Scott Beauchamp was no longer standing by his stories. The editors at TNR responded to this report by insinuating that THE WEEKLY STANDARD was not a credible source. They also accused the Army of stonewalling and preventing them from speaking with their author. That was on August 10. Bob Owens subsequently reported that TNR spoke to Beauchamp on September 7the transcript now posted on Drudgebut TNR never returned to the subject, despite their claims of a commitment to the truth in that August 10 statement.
The documents posted by Drudge reveal that the New Republics editors have known for several weeks that the central anecdote of the story was untrue, that the other anecdotes were deeply suspect, and that the author was no longer standing by his work. And yet they remained publicly silent even though they had long ago promised to be open and forthcoming on the matter. Worse still, they asked Beauchamp to cancel pending interviews with the Washington Post and Newsweek, lest their complicity in Beauchamps slanders come to light.
Foer attacked his magazines critics as reckless and ideologically motivated, at one point even demanding an apology from the bloggers who did so much to advance this story and find out the truth of the matter. He now has more than a little splaining to do. Meanwhile, the Drudge link is now gone and NROs The Corner is oddly downplaying the transcripts and waiting for TNRs talking points. From Peter Beinart, perhaps?
Im not sure how you make Let us control the way this story proceeds and Ellie sent me an e-mail to tell you that its the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didnt recant sound less damning than they are. Good luck.
Update 2:51pm Eastern. After apologizing to its readers and advertisers, TNR editor Franklin Foer needs to apologize to the Army and our troops for continuing to suggest that the military stonewalled while the magazine obstructed the truth. Then, it seems to me, he will need to apologize to Beauchamps wife for cravenly exploiting her to try to save his sorry ass.
I didnt think there could be a bigger crapweasel than Scott Thomas Beauchamp in this mess.
Franklin Foer wins, hands down.
Bob Owens weighs in: Now that they have been posted on the public record, these disclosures should end careers at The New Republic.
Ace of Spades, who was vilified for doing digging no one else would do, boils it down:
Remember: TNR Hid The Existence Of This Phone Call From The World. We only even knew previously that this phone call had taken place because a source of Confederate Yankees told him about it. TNR did not mention it. Even after it was disclosed, TNR did not comment on it, nor explain their reasons for withholding information about a fiction they had printed as truth. Reading the transcript, I can see why someone whose reputation and career depended on the story being true could convince himself the story had not been fully recanted. Foer could tell himself, The guy is evasive, there are officers listening, he cant say anything. So I cant take this as a retraction. I can see how he could tell himself that.
However, I cannot see where he convinced himself he could hide the existence of the call from the world, nor report to TNRs readers his reasons for doubting the phone call proved anything. TNR could have said: A recent phone call with Scott Beauchamp leaves us in a no mans land where Beauchamp will neither re-affirm nor recant the stories to us. We suspect he is worried about his career in the military and possible punishment. He will not say he is, however. Under these circumstances, we must provisionally retract the stories, though we have no firm evidence they are false. But with a compromised writer also unable to affirm theyre true, neither can we stand by these stories.
That would have been a (mostly) honest appraisal of the situation, at least from their own need-to-believe point of view.
Instead, however, rather than accurately and honestly describing Beauchamps complete refusal to affirm the stories as true, and offering their reasons for doubting this refusal to affirm to be conclusive, they instead simply withheld facts in their possession from the world and pretended the call never happened at all. Update 2:45pm Eastern. Another snort-worthy moment from the phone conference transcriptwatch Franklin Foer take umbrage at being lumped in with the rest of the media:
Ridiculous indeed.
Part III of Drudges posting of the leaked transcripts is the official Army investigative report dated July 31, 2007. It is thorough, detailed, and damning. The findings are no surprise to anyone who has followed the story in the blogosphere:
Update 2:18pm Eastern. Glenn Reynolds searches for reaction from the TNR. Silence so far. Its the sound of heads getting ready to roll. Also: I find it curious how TNRs Peter Beinart never brought this up in his videoblog show with Jonah Goldberg. Must have just slipped his mind over the last month. Meanwhile, what apt timing: Commenter Capitano notes that the Independent Film Channel will be airing Shattered Glass, the saga of TNRs first journalistic internal combustion, twice on Friday. Grab the popcorn.
Speaking of that movie, heres Allahpundits reaction to the first part of the phone conference transcript: It reads, I kid you not, like a scene from Shattered Glass. All thats missing is, Are you mad at me, Frank?
Heh.
Update: Okay. The transcripts are posted in three parts. Here are the participants in the September 7, 2007 phone conference between Scott Thomas Beauchamp and TNR
At the very start of the call, Foer asks if Beauchamp has any restrictions. Beauchamp replies: Other than OPSEC violations, I can talk about anything I want. In direction contradiction to the Army is gagging Beauchamp propaganda from TNR, the transcript makes clear that it is Beauchamps choice not to talk to the media:
The conversation turns to Beauchamps wife, Ellie, then a reporter-researcher for the magazine, and Beauchamps foot-dragging on providing statements backing up his stories:
Now, here is a truly disgusting moment. Beauchamp lets TNR know he wants to talk to other news outlets to tell them he is NOT being censored. And what does TNR do? It attempts to censor him. Franklin Foer, and I quote, leans on Beauchamp to let us control the way this story proceeds.
Oh, and heres more of crapweasel Foer using Beauchamps wife to try and extract corroborating statements from Beauchamp:
***
Wow. Someone leaked the Scott Thomas Beauchamp transcripts to Drudge. Im reading through them now. Stand by.
Bob Owens, who has been on this story like white on the rice from the get-go and broken ground the MSM refused to all along the way, summed up the sorry state of TNR two days ago:
Far from intellectual honesty, the senior editor staff of The New Republic have proven their intractable corruption. Editor Franklin Foer, Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic, and Senior Editor Jason Zengerle failed to do their jobs as editors, published a false story (though there are indications that all three of the authors stories were fabricated, in whole or in part), more than likely lied when they claimed the allegations made had been fact-checked prior to publication, and then ran a false investigation that involved misrepresenting the claims of at least one expert, while attempting to bury the story and exerting influence over the author to cancel interviews with other interested publications
Details will continue to trickle out revealing just how deceptive the editorial staff at The New Republic has been to its readership and critics alike, and once those details are made public, I very much doubt that Franklin Foer, Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle will be able to survive the coming purge. As Scott Johnson has observed repeatedly, Its the cover-up that kills you.
***
Michael Goldfarb and the Weekly Standard first launched the salvos that may sink TNR entirely here.
Flashback: Yoo-hoo. Has anyone seen Franklin Foer?
"Update 6:50pm Eastern. Franklin Foer comes out from under his desk to whine to the NY Observer about the transcripts being leaked. All of this damning transcript evidence of TNRs attempts to cover up, and what does Foer do? He attacks the military again:
Its maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that weve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests, Mr. Foer said. This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.
Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated. A reader e-mails: Pathetic he was waiting for access to his own conversation?
Moreover, what is Foers evidence that it was the military that leaked the transcripts to Drudge?
What is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
The ship sinks and sinks and sinks."
Liberal Media perpetuating false reports to hurt a war effort..? Sounds like the plot line to this new thriller novel... http://anonymoussedition.com/
They have nothing to lose now. It looks like they’ll keep stonewalling unless the MSM gets involved- which it looks like they’re not going to do.
MSM won’t dwell on the misdeeds of their own. There may be an item someplace but this WILL be burried.
If the Democrats want to talk about real wartime censorship, they should talk about the full wartime censorship which was imposed 6 months into the Korean War.
Full Wartime Censorship Placed on Korean War News, Waterloo Daily Courier, front page | January 9, 1951
Veteran war correspondents agreed the regulations were the most inclusive they had ever received from any army headquarters. The rules placed correspondents under the complete jusrisdiction of the army and forbade any criticism of the Allied conduct of the warThe regulations, succeeding the present security censorship, provide that all dispatches filed to publications throughout the world will be screened for military information which might injure the morale of UN troops or their government.
Mention of the following matters was specifically forbidden:
1. Identity of organizations in the combat and communications zones, unless anounced in communiques. When announced, no place names will be used.Also listed as unauthorized was information on the strength, efficiency, morale, or organization of Allied forces.
2. Quoting officers in any way, except as specifically authorized
3. Stating that any sector in Korea is occupied by American troops until the enemy has established it as a fact.
4. Stating that any town or village in the combat zone is accupied [sic] by American or Allied forces unless it is essential to a news story.
5. The mention of any base port, communications center or other point on a communications line. [newspaper's emphasis]
6. Ship or rail movements, unless authorized
7. Any discussion of Allied air power
8. The mention of number of troops, unless authorized.
9. The effect of enemy fire or bombarment, unless authorized.
Under this rule, no mention may be made of reinforcements, equipment, arms, plans and forecasts of future operations, or positions or descriptions of camps.
Casualties may not be revealed before official publication. [Paper's emphasis]
The Eighth Army ruled that any violator of the code will be suspended from all privileges. "He may be subject to disciplinary action because of an intentional violation of these and other revelations, either in letter or in spirit, and in extreme cases of offense where investigation proves the circumstances warrant the correspondent may be placed in arrest to await deportation or trial by courtmaritial,' the announcement said.
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.