Foer is complete DICK from the same mould as Dan Rather. This makes him eminently qualified to be editor of TNR.

If Foer didn't realize he was neck deep in it - and Rather never did, and still doesn't, even after losing his career over it - he wouldn't have spent some 10,000 words trying to explain and justify his actions.

What utter chutzpah it takes, after all those pages of bullsh*t and obsfuscation, to "retract" by saying ". . . we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them."

In fact, of course, there is no independent verification that ANY of the (controversial) events Beauchamp described ever took place at all. Given Beauchamp's published posts before he ever got to the Middle East, and their declaration that he wanted to become a new Hemingway from the experience, it seems at least as likely that the events "occurred" only in his imagination.

I cannot imagine why Foer bothered with this piece at all. Anyone still subscribing to TNR obviously doesn't care very much, and the mounds of crap he piles around his admission won't satisfy the critics.

barneyG2000...

And the rest...

Oh where fore art you thou?

There are lies, damn lies and TNR. ww

Oblivious to the basics of mea culpa, Foer can add diarrhea of the mouth to TNR's list now.

The longer it takes to explain, the more likely it is that the offender doesn't "get it".

Has no one considered the very real posibility that it was the bear which was insulted?

Compare and contrast this with Kathyrn Jean Lopez's humble and thorough apology to the readers of National Review for the complete fabrications of Thomas Smith.

Thanks K-Lo for showing how it's supposed to be done when you have people on your staff telling egregious, warmongering lies.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI4NzI5ZmRhZGMxZDg5MzUzNWZkZWFhYzExOThjMzU=

THE NEW REPUBLIC has had many building problems over the years. When I first starting reading it, it was a purely liberal establishment magazine, unlike the more hip left leaning ROLLING STONE, or the more leftist THE NATION or Marxist inspired newspapers like IN THESE TIMES or others. Due to low circulation, THE NEW REPUBLIC began to bring in all sorts of political writers, and the result hasn't always been a good one. This latest problem is the result of the further journalistic decline of this publication and only to be expected. The crazy NEW REPUBLIC sellouts anyway. They lost soul long ago.

Follow the link to read K-Lo's post, as well as her link to Smith's. The "complete fabrications" description is a fabrication, as well as the description of "egregious, warmongering lies." I encourage everyone to follow the link to K-Lo's post and then to follow her link to Smith's for the story because that is certainly not what you are getting in Authority Figure's comment. Then make up your own mind. I think most will find Smith's reporting on Hezbollah to be much more believable and much better sourced than anything Scott Beauchamp wrote. Obviously someone doesn't want anymore attention on Beauchamp. Unfortunately for him, I don't think an attempt to change the subject will save Foer on this one.

That is a great point, Paul. Which leads me to ask why so many on the left continue to defend them? Is it because they see any questioning of TNR as an attack on their side? Or is it because some in the anti-war movement want the stories to be true (or perhaps even believe they must be true)?

Follow the link to read K-Lo's post, as well as her link to Smith's. The "complete fabrications" description is a fabrication, as well as the description of "egregious, warmongering lies."
------------------------------------
Lorie,
This is what we should expect from the people who are so immersed in the liberal culture of deception.

I think warmongering is a sin.

Lying or intentional deception is a sin! Looks like AF doesn't mind to commit a sin here.

So, TNR's problem is a lack of idealogical purity?
LOL

Some are trying to compare the TNR and National Review Articles as apples to apples. There is no comparison, the NR article was written about a foreign country by someone (no longer trusted) to get a headline. An apology was published fast. The TNR article was written by an active duty American soldier with the sole purpose of damaging the American military and the U.S. It has taken months to sort through the coverup and get an admission, sort of, that the article was phony. No truthful comparison can be made other then they were both written with ink on paper...or maybe on a computer in thin air.

Beauchamp's stories were considered suspect from the start. Blackfive and several other Milbloggers called BS the same day they were published.

That TNR had the temerity to publish propaganda and then deny it for this long shows that they really need to find new leadership and direction. They lost all credibility because they repeatedly did the same thing, publish BS and try to call it the truth.