In your claim of 'fraud' it would behoove you to include this information from the article by AP.

"Calls to Editor Franklin Foer at The New Republic in Washington were not returned, but the magazine said on its Web site that it has conducted its own investigation and stands by Beauchamp's work.

In its note posted Aug. 2, it said, "We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report."

After the pieces were questioned, the magazine said it extensively re-reported his account, contacting dozens of people, including former soldiers, forensic experts, war reporters and Army public affairs officers.

The New Republic said it also spoke to five members of Beauchamp's company, all of whom corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes but requested anonymity.

In the note, the magazine said the incident with the disfigured woman took place in Kuwait, not Iraq. The magazine also said the Army took away Beauchamp's mobile phone and his computer and he "is currently unable to speak to even his family."

The Associated Press has been unable to reach Beauchamp, and the Army said details of the investigation were not expected to be released. "Personnel matters are handled internally; they are not discussed publicly," said Lt. Col. Joseph M. Yoswa, an Army spokesman."

Posted by: Kevin at August 9, 2007 7:55 AM

The "math" on this is pretty simple, Kevin.

1. The magazine is unable to provide one single non-anonymous corroborating witness for any part of the stories. It claims to have spoken to members of the same unit, but it can't name them - a HUGE credibility problem especially given that we're talking about stories that themselves were originally published from an anonymous source.

2. The writer has recanted the stories in their entirety.

3. The Army investigation found no evidence that the stories had any basis in fact.

4. The writer has more incentive to tell the Army the truth than he does to tell the magazine the truth - the Army can investigate his claims and, if he is lying, court-martial and imprison him. The magazine can only withhold his likely meager freelancer's fee.

The weight of the evidence suggests - strongly - that the stories were fabrications. The author says they were fabrications.

Of course the magazine "stands by" the stories. That's what media outlets do initially in cases like this - especially when the story they are standing by is one that fits their ideological agenda.

CBS "stood by" the 60 Minutes Bush/National Guard story too, for a few days, but the documents were forgeries and CBS eventually backtracked.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 9, 2007 8:13 AM

Bill: a little triple hearsay does not equal retraction.

"The Weekly Standard said Beauchamp signed a sworn statement admitting all three articles were exaggerations and falsehoods."

Get your facts strait. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Whether or not that is ultimately true, you only have the word of a magazine that told us Sadam had WMD.

Not the best "math" in my book. Would you mind acting like a journalist for once and actually source something correctly?

Posted by: Morris Berg at August 9, 2007 1:04 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):