Foer’s Foggy New Republic Retraction Doesn’t Please Everyone
“Yeah, it’s a bummer, but it’s hard to shed any tears over Frank,” Elspeth Reeve was telling The Observer in a phone interview Friday, the day before her husband, U.S. Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, joined her at her mother’s house in Missouri for his 30-day leave.
Earlier that week, Ms. Reeve’s former boss, The New Republic’s editor, Franklin Foer, had published a 7000-word piece that concluded by formally retracting three first-person columns that the 24-year-old Mr. Beauchamp had written for the magazine over the summer. Soon after their publication, a chorus of conservative bloggers had raised questions about the veracity of the columns, in which Mr. Beauchamp offered first-person accounts of American troops in Iraq engaging in shocking behavior, such as running over dogs with their Bradleys, and mocking a woman whose face had been disfigured in an explosion. After carrying out a nearly five-month investigation, which involved attempts to corroborate Mr. Beauchamp’s claims with other members of his unit, Mr. Foer had concluded that the stories could not be verified.
It was Ms. Reeve, 25, who, while working at TNR as a reporter-researcher, had recommended Mr. Beauchamp—not yet her husband at the time—to the magazine’s editors. Nevertheless, Ms. Reeve said, she wasn’t going to let the fact that Mr. Foer had publicly denounced Mr. Beauchamp’s work spoil her mood on the eve of her reunion with her husband.
“[Scott] survived the war, he’s coming home, we’re newlyweds, it’s Christmas,” she said. “I’m living in a romance novel. It’s kind of hard to be down.”
Ms. Reeve said she was surprised to learn, in early November while visiting her husband in Germany (where he was transferred upon completing his tour of duty in Iraq), that Mr. Foer planned to retract the stories. She said that she and Mr. Beauchamp had not expected Mr. Foer to take any decisive action until Mr. Beauchamp returned to the U.S. this week, at which point they thought it would be much easier for him to speak up in his own defense.
“I think Scott thought Frank was on his side, you know? And that he understood that he was in a really difficult situation and so would be patient until Scott got out of Iraq,” Ms. Reeve said. “I don’t think Scott realized the limits on Frank’s patience.”
Ms. Reeve also argued that Mr. Foer’s retraction, titled “The Fog of War,” had failed to prove that any of Mr. Beauchamp’s stories contained fabrications—all it did, she said, was demonstrate that Mr. Foer was tired of dealing with the scandal.
“When I first heard about this piece,” Ms. Reeve said, “I thought they would have taken all the different things that the soldiers had said about each of the three stories and analyzed them for inconsistencies, and said, ‘Here’s where we think Scott exaggerated’ or ‘Here’s where we think the stories don’t match up and that’s why we can’t stand behind them anymore.’ But instead they were like, ‘Here are all the reasons to support Scott, but this is hard.’ And they just threw up their hands.”
Indeed, Mr. Foer’s piece was a classic Alford plea, which declared that even though the re-reporting effort had failed to turn up any discrepancies in Mr. Beauchamp’s stories—other than his placing a key scene in Iraq when in fact it took place in Kuwait, which Mr. Beauchamp has said was an honest mistake—the investigation had hit a dead end. TNR could no longer stand by the stories because too many of the facts were impossible to check, Mr. Foer wrote, and because Mr. Beauchamp, who continues to maintain that he did not fabricate anything, had consistently failed to help TNR in their attempts to vindicate him.
According to Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at TNR, the magazine received little cooperation from Mr. Beauchamp throughout the investigation process. “The basis [for the retraction] was just that Scott is maddening,” he said. “He’s just flaky, he’s irresponsible, he doesn’t do things that are in his own obvious interest to do. … Scott was the guy who lives in the group house and is supposed to pay the electric bill and just doesn’t, and the lights get shut off. Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him.” Mr. Beauchamp declined to comment for this story.
According to Mr. Chait, some of Mr. Foer’s colleagues at TNR, though generally supportive of the steps he has taken during the past few months, were not certain that the pieces deserved to be retracted outright just because Mr. Beauchamp had failed to cooperate with the investigation. “I don’t think anybody on staff had a clear idea of what the article would or should conclude before Frank wrote it,” Mr. Chait said.
But Martin Peretz, the magazine’s editor in chief, who, until earlier this year, was also its owner, stood behind the decision to retract the stories. “Certainly in retrospect we shouldn’t have published them,” he told The Observer Monday. “They did not meet the highest standards of proof.”
Mr. Peretz also said Mr. Foer’s piece should finally put to rest the notion, advanced by some conservative bloggers, that Mr. Beauchamp’s stories were intended to undermine the troops’ mission.
“There was certainly no editorial decision to trash the United States Army, because as you know, The New Republic has a very—what shall I say?—careful view of the war,” said Mr. Peretz. “So we would not be motivated in any way to say, ‘Hey this is hot! It makes our soldiers look like shit!’”
As for what the future holds for Mr. Beauchamp and his bride—they’re moving to Germany, where Mr. Beauchamp has two more years of service to complete. Ms. Reeve said Mr. Beauchamp does not yet know what he wants to do when he leaves the Army.
Can the New Republic stop hiring 22-yr-olds to tell me about politics now?
Scott and Elspeth appear completely irresponsible, immature and unrepentant. They should be mortified for their role in the ordeal. Having read Foer's "Fog of War," I believe TNR and Foer did the right thing by questioning Beauchamp's credibility. Let's just hope that neither Beauchamp nor Reeve ever pursue a professional writing career again in the future!
The New Republic should have brought in Stephen Glass as a consultant. He is a real expert on fakery.
No one gets "30-day leave"
The situation was far worse than suggested in this article. Of the three major disputed scenes--the disfigured woman, running over dogs and wearing a skull as a hat, only the "skull as hat" could not be verified.
The disfigured woman was not merely moved from Kuwait to Iraq. It's much bigger than that. It was moved from before combat to after. Since it was used as an example of how comabt coarsens a person, the fact that it happened before combat is fatal to its value to the story (actually, Beauchamp's latest claim is that it happened in Kuwait before battle; in fact, there's evidence it never happened at all). Moreover, the manufacturer of the Bradley maintains that it cannot be driven in the manner Beauchamp describes--so it, obviously, never happened.
TNR's claim that they are retracting because they cannot verify is disingenuous. There is much that they in fact CAN verify--verify that it never happened.
Didn't Elspeth Reeve write a terrible piece about Ann Coulter in the New Republic a year or two ago? It said stuff like:
"Let's go to the tape. Asked to define the First Amendment: “An excuse for overweight women to dance in pasties and The New York Times to commit treason.” Just completely terrible, I know. But I have to admit, I giggled—having recently covered a pro-choice rally where I interviewed a very nice young woman whose nipples were covered by NARAL stickers."
It was one of those contrarian pieces the New Republic runs now again where they take pot shots at liberals. I guess karma IS a bitch.
Please re-read Alford v. North Carolina should you wish to learn what a "classic Alford Plea" actually is. Thank You.
" pay the electric bill and just doesn’t, and the lights get shut off, Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him."
Yeah, but it was Frank Foer's choice to sit in the dark for what 4 months before lighting his own match to find his way out with a 7000-word apology.
bwahahahhahahaha.
Well after four months of denials, changing their story, “checking facts” (something they didn’t do beforehand), and venting blame at the Army, Foer wrote a 14 page dissertation chock full of lame excuses and just plain bullshit. Through this entire sordid, pathetic episode, TNR’s mantra has been:
“The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth."
The truth is , they’re still full of shit.
14 pages of rambling incoherency: ‘we tried to give him the benefit of the doubt’, and the Army is mean. Way to accept accountability, Foer.
TNR was told repeatedly of Beauchamp’s fabrications. Many military and former military personnel such as myself, pointed out his lack of credibility numerous times, and the response from TNR was to sidestep responsibility and blame the Army. His slanderous, feckless statements were a disgrace to his fellow Soldiers and created a distraction that his unit did not need.
Who, in their right fucking mind makes up the kind of trash contained in the “Shock Troops” screed?
More importantly, the fact that TNR was so willing to publish it, indicates a serious lack of integrity.
The New Republic saw a chance to print an anti-military/anti-American/anti-war smear piece, and ended up getting hoisted by their own petard.
As for PVT Beauchamp, I don’t know what kind of “future” his Commander has in store for him, but it should be a Courts Martial, if not an expedited discharge.
TNR did not retract or apologize for the garbage Beauchamp wrote. Instead they went on a diatribe about how they guess they'd been caught with their pants down and it was all "conservative bloggers" fault, wah, wah wah.
Now we have to read about poor Ms. Reeve who didn't fact check her boyfriend's piece of garbage and her now poor boyfriend who thought everyone should just let this garbage hang out there until he thought up someway to get out of it.
Foer did the right thing by doubting Beauchamps' credibility? Are you mad? The stories were challenged for WEEKS by numerous bloggers before Fore would admit that some fact checking was needed. And even then he did so relunctantly and in a very non-transparent way...he had the guys wife check his stories! Foer then dragged that process out for months before his retractions came. They all deserve each other, the entire sickening lot of them.
I absolutely love this quote ...
“There was certainly no editorial decision to trash the United States Army, because as you know, The New Republic has a very—what shall I say?—careful view of the war,” said Mr. Peretz.
Is Peretz serious? Is there another "New Republic" that I'm not aware of? Fantasy land Mr. Peretz. Fantasy land.
I often wonder if any of these prigs ever realize how pompous and stuck on themselves writers are? They are never as smart as they want us to think they are and they are most all moral cowards. Foer is an example of a guy that would run at the first sounds of gunfire and his recent behavious is a classic case of a down-home grown prick who got what he deserves.
Hey Franklin- make sure you realize we are laughing AT YOU- NOT WITH YOU, as you wish it would be.
Gene Wiley
It is well settled that the entire planet was aware that this nitwit was full of shit from day one. Only in the spirit of Dan Rather might someone be so blinded by their own partisanship and moral confusion. The deluded no longer last in the internet age. Gravity is a bitch, it always wins. So does the truth. If Foer ever attempts to ressurrect a career as a serious journalist, it will carry an asterix larger than Barry Bonds'.
Some of these Winter Soldiers are harder to disprove. No less fraudulent, but the proof is harder to spell out, particularly to those less familiar with the military. This was obvious fiction to anyone other than a desk bound wannabe journalist such as Foer, so filled with his own confused self hate that he cannot accept the obvious. Dan Rather speared himself dooming an occasionally talented career to permanent quotations. He had only himself to blame. Foer has simply done it earlier in his career.
Thank god for the blogs. These ivory towers of self righteousness collapse so much earlier.
The stories Foer wrote about, I've seen often, in fact over and over, on different bases. If he didn't see it with his own eyes, it's a problem, but that behavior exists. It's real.
You people sitting on your arm chairs, commentating, pretending to be God-- you're the problem in this war. You're a bunch of pussies with no experience and nothing to question your ethics unless Mom asks you to dinner, and you're not ready, because you're still 'posting'. Get off your butts and try getting shot at, being tortured, or for a good day-- have a friend killed. Get out of your basements and into the real world.
And worse still, you make it about politics, which is simply nonsense when you're talking about soldiers. Go eat your dinner and play on your Wii and get away from your blogs. You're unimportant.
heh before you start spouting off about whats going on in Iraq there mr. funny man, how bout you show me your dd214.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'm curious as to see just how much you have seen...and I'm willing to bet that you're another beauchamp, or worse an out and out liar, just like Peretz, Reid/beauchamp and her husband...and since we're painting the whole fence, Foer too.
Ah, yes. The IraqVet - sockpuppet or a fake persona from someone who's heard some soldiers talking sh*t amongst themselves and who took that talk at face value. Real soldiers know better, however.
Okay, let's stretch our credulity about IraqVet: MAYBE, our diatribe-ist is merely an inexperienced reservist who (if EVER in Iraq) never stepped outside the wire, never got near an operating Bradley, never ran in a stack, never assaulted enemy, never really got to know some Iraqis, never treated them as human beings (after being treated as a human being by them first!)...but who always bitched and moaned more than anyone else in his unit. Real soldiers lose patients with those broken records.
Well, one thing's for certain: When making "straw man" fallacies about TNR's critics, he/she/it must never have read the critiques of Beauchamp/TNR by REAL soldiers who, angered by the obvious falsehoods, stood up for the honor of other soldiers whom they didn't know personally.
Real soldiers do that, too.
I have been in Iraq or Afghanistan for three of the last six years “IraqVet" and have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If you read the original Baghdad Diarist you would know that such incidents don’t occur all the time because they can’t. How do you run over a dog with a Bradley? How do you fit a portion of a childs skull under your helmet? How is it Beauchamp found an old mass grave which nobody else in his unit knows anything about? Was Beauchamp wondering around north Baghdad by himself?
I will tell you something "that is real" everyone of the Marines I've served with in the past 22 years had a High School diploma and the ability to write clear coherent sentences. You obviously cannot write coherent sentences which seems a bit strange.
If you are a vet my bet is that you are a third rate REMF shit bird because none of the warriors I know would write such pathetic self obsessed drivel - it is an insult to those we have left behind. Get away from the key board shitbird - you are not important. The men who have really fought and bleed in this long war do not need you or any other gun store commando speaking on our behalf.
It takes a man to own up to his mistakes without prevarication. Franklin Foer simply doesn't qualify. That 19-page "retraction" was nothing but a gargantuan rationalization.
PS - Nice try "Iraqvet"...fess up, you've never been in Iraq and you've probably never even been in uniform. Another Liberal/Lefty sinks to the depths while trying to reinvent reality.
And there you have it, another magna cum laude graduate in the "fake-but-accurate" school of illiberal thought:
"IraqVet (not verified) says:"
"The stories Foer wrote about, I've seen often, in fact over and over, on different bases. If he didn't see it with his own eyes, it's a problem, but that behavior exists. It's real."
BTW, I don't think our "shitbird" knows what a REMF is (hint: think Al Gore's Vietnam service).
What is curious is the nature of the Very Bad Things Beauchamp wrote about.
As a soldier, he would know they were impossible. Brads and dogs, square cartridge cases, skull-helmet, frequent frequenting of a dining facility by a disfigured woman. Changing a (runflat)tire in a river of sewage.
They could easily be refuted by soldiers, by normal people in general.
But TNR would, he knew, eat that stuff up with a spoon.
He didn't make up something irrefutable. Say, a guy trolling for dogs with fishhooks from a Brad. The skull on the harness instead of inside the helmet.
So TNR, inevitably, ran it as if it were gold, knowing no better, and normal people in general and soldiers in particular spotted it as nonsense, just as inevitably.
If Beauchamp wanted to set up TNR, what would he have done differently?
The attempts by the author of this article (and its subjects) to drum up a pity party for Elspeth Reeve, her husband Sgt. Dork and/or Franklin Foer are pathetic. Once again, "conservative bloggers" are blamed for calling attention to the fact that TNR failed miserably in every aspect of this case.
It is the basic obligation of a magazine that publishes an article that purports to be non-fiction to properly investigate the factual allegations therein before publication. That is called "fact-checking." It is not the obligation of others "to prove them wrong;" the burden of proof is on the author and the magazine that chooses to put its credibility on the line when it selects an article for national publication.
One would think that a magazine that has been infamously burned by a Stephen Glass might actually be concerned about performing such rudimentary tasks.
It apparently did not occur to the genii at TNR that having the articles fact-checked by the wife/girlfriend of the author might not be the best methodology.
When this was pointed out to Foer months ago, he lied and stonewalled.
Several months ago, Foer was forced to concede that even if the incident concerning the disfigured female contractor did occur, it occurred before the author's unit was deployed to Iraq. That fact that this undercut the entire point of the piece - that the Iraq war "dehumanized" the soldiers - was dismissed by Foer as a mere "error."
In Foer's pathetic "retraction," he also admits that the only other person who they could find to verify that aspect of the story had been washed out of the service for mental problems. But of course, everyone else had an agenda and it was the Army's fault and a big conspiracy, blah blah...
Foer also admitted that his idea of "fact checking" was to provide the stories to another journalist who'd been to Iraq who, despite having no personal knowledge of any of the facts claimed therein, thought that "they could be true." To Foer, that was apparently sufficient.
The bottom line is that Foer, The New Republic and this other "journalist" wanted to believe the stories were true because the stories were in line with their prejudices. As such, they were happy to ignore their own procedures and standards and, when called out, attacked their critics as "thugs" and "idealogues."
But all is not lost. I'm sure that Foer and Elspeth Reeve can always find a job at CNN.
The preceeding comments prove how silly, specious and focuses on the miuntiae war-supporters and conservative are.
You guys are priceless. If Beauchamp lied, does that mean Iraq is really a Sandals resort and Abu Garib was fabricated too?
You people are just clueless.
No one said that Iraq is a "sandals resort". but we do look at reality as it is, not how we want it to be.
where we live, facts are paramount in making decisions, not speaking "truth to power". we also look for the good in every situation and can generally be counted on to find a solution, not point a finger.
and if your idea of clueless means that I don't lie to make a buck and I don't shit on my fellow countrymen..then I'll take that title.
you on the other hand should consider that dissent with the government is one thing..but being a scumbag liar willing to do anything to shit on your fellow Americans is another.
now, I didn't call you traitorous vermin. I didn't call you UNAmerican. I didn't call you a cheese eating surrender monkey. I also didn't call you a chickenshit with a lukewarm mentality..so don't get bent out of shape.
:)
Come on Tim and "IraqVet" give it up. PV1 Beauchamp lied and got caught. TNR tried to weasel out of it and got caught too. Give up the liberal bias please.
Who said it was a "sandals resort" anyways? No one I saw on the comments.
After 22 years in the Army and then the Navy, I can tell you this young man is lucky he was not kicked out with an OTH or even a BCD. If he worked for me and this came out, he would have been facing a minimum of an Article 15 or more likely a court martial for what he lied about doing. If his stories were in fact true, he would have been guilty of voilating the UCMJ about 15 times.
No way the army would not have convicted him at a courts martial if all this stuff was true. And they would have went for everyone else from his CO on down.
Retired Navy CPO,
really? WHat would you have article 15'd him for? Writing letters and essays to his wife (maybe you didn't notice MAtt Sanchez was writing publication...did all writing in your unit have to be Republican approved?)
Writing a journal?
A thought crime?
Improper use of his imagination?
I would love to be a part of your paper-pushing, overly political chain of command. Serving under an officer who claims you lied (no proof of that) and then wants to article 15 for those made "lies" must have made off-duty cards with the boys a lot of fun with you around.
Prove he lied.
Prove why it's important to anyone but nutty conservatives who love arguing over the angels dancing on the head of a pin and forget to note come April they are leaving 100,000 of my countrymen sitting on a powder keg. The surge is ending, boys, and not even Scott Beauchamp's lynching will make the surge continue and Al Sadr's cease fire last. At that point we will be in 2006 all over again and you morons will still be arguing whether a Bradley can kill a dog.
Way to focus on the important things!
Have any of you guys been to the NRO's site to bitch about their admitted liar, whose reporting attempted to cause a Middle Eastern war? Or, is that to be ignored, what with the political blinders you tools, errr, warriors, are wearing?
It is simply amazing to see how politicized the Armed Forces of this country are. The Army spoon fed conservative bloggers like Bob Owens, while refusing to talk to TNR? And, this is fine by the right-wingers here.
You should stick around the New York Observer, conservatives. You might actually read something outside your bubble and it may cause you to believe the world is not exactly as Rush described it.
here's just a couple of lies for you.
this is a transcript of a conversation between TNR and Scott Beauchamp.
tnr: where did you see the crypt keeper?
Beauchamp: are you there?
tnr: yes
Beauchamp: the last thing i got was “where did you see the crypt keeper”
tnr: yes
Beauchamp: the dfac on falcon or chow hall, as it IS commonly called
tnr: what about kuwait?
Beauchamp: brb [be right back]
Nine minutes of silence
tnr: you there?
Ten minutes of silence
Beauchamp: ok just did a sworn
statement
tnr: about?
Beauchamp: saying that i wrote the
articles
tnr: ok
Beauchamp: theyre taking away my
laptop
tnr: fuck is this it for communication?
Beauchamp: yeah and im fucked
tnr: they said that?
Beauchamp: because you’re right the crypt keep WAS in Kuwait
FUCK FUCK FUCK
***
And yet another discredit to beauchamp.
Keep in mind that many of us who cried foul on his facts actually HAVE experience with the machinery and the weapons that he says have been used in an impossible manner.
Michael Goldfarb says it quite a bit more eloquently than I can.
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 Beauchamp’s 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 Coffey’s later statements or its apparent misrepresentation of his earlier statement.
as for the "wearing the skull" part? you have GOT to be kidding me!
not only did they NOT find a graveyard that was new, it pushes credibility that his NCOIC wouldn't correct that soldier.
as for the breaches in UCMJ
we can start with (1)breaking operation security in wartime. how you say? by posting his units' movement dates and locations. (2)endangering the security of the unit, (3)making false statements,(4) failure to disclose unlawful activity by members of the armed forces (if it were indeed true), (5)conduct unbecoming a soldier of the U.S. Army.
Trust me, if the Army wanted to put Beauchamp in the stockade they wouldn't have any trouble doing it.
Unlike you, the members of our military are held to higher standards. they must comply, not only with local laws, but with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is another example of a Private who jumps into the military thinking he's smarter than the collective whole and getting served.
ahhh now you're shifting the conversation to another subject when the fact are trotted out for you.
whats' the frequency kenneth?
you have asked that folks prove that beauchamp lied. You assert that he didn't. when proved wrong you attempt to change the subject. we can go to the other subject when you admit that you have made an error! the first step in fixing the problem, is admitting you have one.
If someone at NRO lied and didn't retract his lie..he'll get served too.
what you don't get because you don't subscribe to facts is that it's a dog eat dog world and we're ALL wearing milkbone underwear. We're ALL responsible for not only our actions but our words.
thats' something you lefties are having trouble with and until you get your shit wired tight in that respect, you will continue to make fools of yourselves and continue to be branded liars.
Tim and his pathetic straw-man arguments...
1) "Prove he lied"...i.e., prove he did NOT tell the truth...i.e., prove a negative. TNR published the articles; it's up to them to prove the articles are true; they couldn't.
I guess you're doing your Dan Rather imitation.
2) Because we are holding TNR accountable for publishing unverifiable claims about the military - claims that were vicious and defamatory - we are saying that Iraq is a "sandals resort."
Total bullshit. Nobody has made such a claim. But you're so ideologically blinkered that you feel the necessity of trying to divert attention from this blatant betrayal of journalistic ethics. Shame!
Tim, you and Franklin Foer ought to get together. You're predilection for evasion and prevarication indicate you are kindred spirits.