Beauchamp this.
 

For the record, I don't care about either.

Beauchamp this.
 

Except that it has proven in Iraq that Iraqi/Arab/Palestinian stringers have repeatedly lied and gotten the likes of Reuters, AP and AFP all in trouble.

So I ask you this - should a statement, even if somehow "racist" on its face, be criticized as such if accurate?

Beauchamp this.
 

Fantastic.

Orwell that.
 

I take this mean you instead prefer to whitewash straight facts to some PC agenda.

Beauchamp this.
 

Actually, your smugness, if that's what "fantastic" is meant to convey, may be misplaced there. There have been many discussions in the press for decades about how Arabs are misperceived as being liars in the West. It could be that the suggestion Arabs mislead news organizations derives from a cultural disconnect between Western reporting and Arab expression. This touches on the issue:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/...15Arc3061.html

Beauchamp this.
 

Per K-Lo, it took her weeks to do anything. That's not "immediately."

No, I asked whether they were getting as "exercised." Clearly, they are less upset that the guy made up a 5,000-man Hezbollah invasion than they are that Beauchamp mocked a way at a base in Kuwait, not Iraq.

Anywhere you like. Take his latest. Where are the lies?

I'm not a Foer fan. He fired Spencer Ackerman. His book on soccer was a disappointment. I can't be bothered to read his brother's novel. Just so we're clear.

Orwell that.
 

By "straight facts," you mean the assertion that Arabs are liars? At least you acknowledge that it's racism.

What's especially fantastic is that this comes up in the context -- and as the defense for -- massive lying by a conservative reporter. But Arabs are liars. Keep your eyes on the ball.

Beauchamp this.
 

How about conservatives being perceived as liars? Bush has known about that NIE for a year, and has been beating the drum about Iran's nuclear program all this time anyway? It's enough to make you think of Iraqi's nuclear program, say.

Beauchamp this.
 

Yes. I'd criticize it as racist. But I'd also have to acknowledge that it is accurate to a degree. Those are two different issues. It could be said that the statement "There tend to be a disproportionate amount of drinking problems in Irish and Russian culture" is racist or ethnically insensitive. But unless the empirical and anecdotal evidence I've seen is woefully inaccurate, its also a true statement.

This is the big problem for PC types. They get stuck having to stifle accurate information when what they should be saying is "So what? That doesn't mean all Irish or Russians are drunks. You should view people on a person by person basis." Instead, for reasons I don't understand, they choose to freak out and harrumph from their high horse as soon as the statement is made. And this winds up hurting them because it makes their positions look like they're trying to avoid dealing openly with information.

An honest true PC fundamentalist would admit that their mindset is one where they actively seek to suppress certain information, even if its true.

Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, but no one can admit that out loud in a country with so much reverance for freedom of speech.

For the record, I am part of my anecdotal evidence.

Beauchamp this.
 

Well, regarding Bush, there's no perception issue. He is a liar in regard to many things, including just about everything having to do with Iraq.

Beauchamp this.
 

That nearly all of them immediately criticized NRO - again, the exact opposite approach of the left viz Beauchamp - is evidence that they care more about the truth than protecting one of their own.

And, quite frankly, exaggerating the number of Hezbollah soldiers is hardly the same as Beauchamp's grotesque branding of American soliders in the field as some reprehensible ghouls - especially given the way such inflammatory lies have been used in the past as enemy propaganda.

Why exactly should the reaction be similar?

How about misrepresentations and omissions? Is that better?

Bob Owens had a nice summation:

---

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/12/the_...es_to_come.php

It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.

"…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."

Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the lead up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the retraction above. Through it all, Franklin Foer has made it painfully apparent that he is incapable of admitting his own ethical and editorial shortcomings, and refuses to answer many of the key questions that still hang over The New Republic like a gallows.

Foer’s first admission is that Elspeth Reeve, Scott Beauchamp’s wife, was indeed assigned by Foer to be the fact-checker for “Shock Troops” - a clear conflict of interest that Foer finally admits over four months after the fact. It was apparently a breach severe enough to merit new fact-checking rules at The New Republic.

Foer tells us of an anonymous soldiers claim that the story of the burned woman is true, but offers no specific evidence of this. So far no one has provided a name to identify her or offered any identifiable details about her.

Tellingly, no soldiers in other units who have been through Camp Blurring in Kuwait report they have seen her. Indeed, they and civilian contractors have denied her existence. It seems that no one stating these stories are true will comment on the record, with the exception of one man that Foer was forced to admit the "Army had removed him from Iraq on mental health grounds."

Foer continues to ignore the words of Major Renee D. Russo, the Kuwait-based officer who told TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle that the burned woman story was an urban myth or legend in early August.

Foer also does not really respond to remarks by "the spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles"
Choosing his words carefully, Foer states that "Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp’s pieces." Foer, of course, said our conversations.

Foer still does not admit that TNR’s questions to Doug Coffey, spokesman of BAE Systems, the Bradley manufacturer, were vague to the point of uselessness. Foer also refuses to release the names of the other anonymous experts, including a forensic anthropologist, he claims support the story. It seems he does not want these experts to discuss the quality of the interviews they conducted.

Perhaps keeping in line with the "it wasn’t my fault" mindset driving his statement, Foer attacks many of those who required proof of Beauchamp’s stories, from a snide and frankly irrelevant reference to one critic’s past as an adult film star, to attacks upon other publications, and insinuations of a great, widespread conspiracy against him by the U.S. Army from the urban battlegrounds of Iraq to the FOIA offices in sunny Florida.

Here are the facts:

As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just"ShockTroops"— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in "War Bonds," to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder "Dead of Night" that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search.

The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions.

Even to the end, Foer continues to blame everyone else for his continuing editorial failures., penning a fourteen-page excuse without a single, "I’m sorry."

The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic.

Beauchamp this.
 

You are out to lunch. "The left" hates the New Republic, because TNR often seems more interested in whacking those to its left than those to its right. Who on "the left" took "the exact opposite approach"?

And, like you, many wingers seem interested in absolving K-Lo in your criticisms.

Quite frankly, he didn't "exaggerate the number of Hezbollah soldiers" -- he made up all sorts of shit from whole cloth.

And you seem to have missed the point of Beauchamp's piece. Try reading it again.

You agree with that but don't think K-Lo should be canned? Amazing.

Beauchamp this.
 

Mmmmmm. Lunch.

Beauchamp this.
 

You sound like a 4 year old - covering his/her ears screaming "la la la" to drown out the unfortunate reality around him/her.

Beauchamp this.
 

This is too sweeping a generalization, and therefore a problem. Just like saying something like "Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair have both lied, and gotten the NYT and Post in trouble, and therefore all blacks are liars."

If the point was that the accusers of this guy (I'm not following the story) have a political reason to not be taken a face value, that's one thing --- but if the defense was "well, the Arabs are all liars," that is different and wrong.

Beauchamp this.
 

Bingo.

Beauchamp this.
 

You see - Slave has problems because TNR screwed up the fact checking. Conservative rags don't check facts, so they can't screw up.

Have you watched Fox lately?

Beauchamp this.
 

But Clinton lied about sex, so Bush lying about Iraq doesn't matter.

[Apologies to Slave for taking his post.]

Pederasty Not Just for Republicans Anymore
 

So the FBI finally nabbed a Democratic party predator. Of course, he's just a staff, not an elected official, and Cantwell fired him faster than you can say "Mark Foley".

Come on, Rs, you've been looking for this one for almost twenty years. Jump on it!

Pederasty Not Just for Republicans Anymore
 

This seems knee-jerky, not your post, your post is just your typical jerky, but the firing based solely upon an allegation, especially an allegation in an area that is potentially the subject of mis-interpretation, and also an allegation form the anti-gay bush justice department. does Cantwell hate all gay people, or just those that are alleged as talking to 16 year old kids?

Beauchamp this.
 

I think that this should be a board motto.

Beauchamp this.
 

I'm not a big K-Lo fan to begin with, but no, she didn't say that.

Beauchamp this.
 

Um, Beauchamp completely made up stories and then TNR had hiswife purportedly fact check them.

But hey, why admit inconvenient facts.

Beauchamp this.
 

OK. Because I am sure that Marc Anthony would be very disappointed if his wife, the mother of his future . . . uh, what? K-Lo, not J-Lo? Who the hell is that?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=692024

Can we get GGG arrested for his southern man sock?

Beauchamp this.
 

Apparently she has some notoriety among the "blog people."

Be afraid NotBob, and let our resident blogophiles hash this one out.

S_A_M

Huckabee
 

Sorry - I haven't been able to keep up so you have probably talked about this but this Mike Huckabee is starting to scare me. This guy is very Charismatic but he is no diffferent from Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell. His election would be like electing the Ayatolla.

Huckabee
 

I was just talking about this tonight. The guy is likeable; I remember reading a Runners World profile a couple of years ago that focused on his weight loss, etc.

But c'mon. A "serious" candidate that doesn't believe in evolution and thinks the earth is only [insert biblical number] years old? Makes it a bit more awkward to crisizing the other backward fucktards in the world a bit more difficult.

Huckabee
 

pls define (comprehensively) "fucktard"

Huckabee
 

His nomination would ensure a Dem. victory. I am rooting for him in a sick way.

Huckabee
 

"We're an empire now, we make our own reality."

How are his particular little fantasies less dangerous than Bush's?

There are ways in which I am less frightened of genuine, sincere evangelicals than of insincere right-wingers pandering to evangelicals. But I find all the Rs pretty scary.

Rice, on the U.S. intelligence report saying Iran hasn't expanded its nuclear weapons program since 2003:

"People need the opportunity to absorb what they've heard," Rice said. "We have been completely transparent about what the intelligence assessment says. And people need a chance to read it. When they do that and when they read it in its detail and nuance, they will be able to see the points that I have made."

Having to use "opportunity to absorb" and "nuance" in stating your position=you don't have a very good position.

Huckabee
 

I suspect his nomination would also ensure that Bloomberg emerges from foreign policy school ready to run as an independent.

Huckabee
 

2. He'll get brutalized on the literal interpretation of the Bible thing. Too many easy jokes for the press in it. I think he's going to try to broker the Jesus Freak vote a VP slot with Romney or Rudy.

Huckabee
 

We are all aware of this, Papist.

Huckabee
 

How would that make sense? It would be like a schism within the White House.

Huckabee
 

How?

thinking of you all.
 

watched the mall news on fox, and couldn't help but think of the board and all it has taught me. i remember how you all explained that the guys who get on buses in Israel and blow themselves and moms and kids up are suicide bombers, and to call them homicide bombers is wrong.

with the mall guy, Fox mentioned the guy did suicide, but the news focused on the people he killed while doing it. Fucking fox.

anyone know if CNN called him a suicide shopper, and put the focus where it belonged?

thinking of you all.
 

Are you hitting the bottle again in the morning?

thinking of you all.
 

no. but looking at the coverage, it occured to me that his ultimate suicide is no different than the bomber dying. they both act to kill, and I was thus questioning the earlier politically based arguments that calling the bombers "homicide" was somehow wrong.

It called an absurdist example, and is intended to perhaps maske some rethink their earlier position relative to the phrase "homicide" bombers.