Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
zoomie:
"Only thing he's admitted he got wrong was the incident mocking a disfigured woman occurred in Kuwait, not Iraq, but DID occur. All other incidents remain unrefuted."

me:
Patently untrue about the other refuations, and it ignores the larger point that the Kuwait story, assuming it was indeed true, has nothing to do with the "effects of war"

---

duus:
""The claims?" All of them? All the stories were invented from the whole cloth? or some of the claims? Nothing in the stories were true? What kind of quote is that? For example, did Scott Thomas mention in any of his articles that there was a war in Iraq, and are they claiming that that "claim" is false? Or is that not an "allegation?" That statement is nonsense. It's an empty P.R. statement."

Speaking of empty statements, what was TNR statement backing his lies up, then?

---
PP:
"What? The Army investigated itself and found nothing wrong? And the military flack whose job it is to go out and tell reporters there's nothing wrong went out and told reporters there's nothing wrong?"

What TNR editors investigated their author [and husband of staff member] and found nothing wrong???

None of this is "fake but accurate," as you said. Which is a nice little recapitulation of the whole episode. Just so long as you can trash the other side, you don't care how you get there.

But thank you for acknowledging, however grudgingly, the weak probative value of the anonymous leak about the Army's putative investigation.

eta: This post by Ezra Klein is dead-on:

• A BIT MORE ON BEAUCHAMP. As I understand the story right now, TNR appears to have verified the overwhelming bulk of his story, while the military says they can't verify it. Given that the incentives for both institutions are to prove exactly what they've proven, I'm not precisely sure who to believe. There are also rumors of a recantation out there, but no such document has actually been obtained, and you'd think that it would be released in some formal manner, rather than leaked to the Weekly Standard's blogger (I do love Brian's title though: "The Weekly Standard Tries Its Hand at Reporting.).
  
  If Beauchamp is indeed a liar, I'll be surprised, but nor particularly concerned. There are, in fact, liars out there. And there are also cruelties in Iraq. The response of the Left on Beauchamp is entirely -- and maybe embarrassingly -- a counter-reaction to the obvious bad faith of his critics.
  
  The Weekly Standard in particular, and war supporters in general, have never struck me as particularly concerned with factual accuracy. The energy the Right has expended on disproving Beauchamp's claims has dwarfed the energy they expended tracking down the hollowness of the lies that took us to war. The anger they've expressed over his misremembering which base he was at when he mocked a disfigured woman is considerable, whereas the anger they expressed when Bush misrepresented our fight in Iraq as primarily against a branch of al Qaeda has been entirely absent. They were willing to destroy this guy, expose his personal life, dig through his poetry, anything to discredit his story. But when the lies were pro-war, they've been exactly as dogged -- see the embarrassing ouvre of Stephen Hayes -- in protecting the falsehoods.
  
  What we have here, at the end of the day, is not an appetite for accuracy or a concern for the truth, but a cynically motivated feeding frenzy meant to discredit an upsetting op-ed. If Beauchamp is a liar -- and I'm not convinced he is -- he should be drummed out of the publishing world. But this selective outrage over untruths and merely occasional thirst for accuracy is quite scary. We're currently embroiled in a war where the lies have killed thousands and thousands of people. But the only falsehoods the Right appears to be concerned about are the personal anecdotes of a young soldier.

I don't really care about Beauchamp, and still haven't read what he wrote. But the reaction of the right-wing nutjobs to his piece is odious.