Beauchamp, One More Time

So if his pieces had been enthusiastically pro-war (for lack of a better description) they still would have run them? Of course not. The fact that he was married to a charming staffer doesn't get his writing in print. Isn't is a lot more reasonable just to assume that convenience and politics agreed with one another in this case?

There may well be things happening in Iraq just like Beauchamp describes. Nobody really doubts that possibility. But it is obvious that 1) Beauchamp is a complete fraud; 2) TNR was grossly negligent in propagating this fraud initially; 3) TNR has only continued its gross negligence subsequently.

The big question now is whether TNR is still lying to protect itself. The story is not going away.

I don't think Foer is a bad guy and whatever. But I do predict he will lose his job when this is all said and done.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 10, 2007 11:54 AM

"So if his pieces had been enthusiastically pro-war (for lack of a better description) they still would have run them? Of course not."

Excuse me, but have you ever cracked open a copy of TNR during the past quarter-century? Marty Peretz's magazine? The place where Contributing Editor Charles Krauthammer occasionally shows up to vent his spleen?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 10, 2007 12:01 PM

The story is not going away.

Of course it is. Only bloggers care about this story. Actual human beings could not care less.

Posted by Gabriel | August 10, 2007 12:06 PM

The editor's chair changed hands last year and the partnership of which Martin Peretz was the principal sold the publication to a Canadian corporation some months ago. It has always had a younger staff and higher turnover than peer publications, and the events of the last seven years have put many people's political dispositions in flux.

A post-mortem on the Stephen Glass affair published some years ago in Policy Review might be instructive here as to what the problem has been at The New Republic (and, one might suspect, every other opinion magazine in this country).

That having been said, The New Republic has had its targets over the last 25 years (e.g. the Catholic Church), and the military has not been one of them.

Posted by Art Deco | August 10, 2007 12:11 PM

As a Vietnam Veteran who saw myself and millions of other American soldiers have their character assassinated. I care.

Posted by George | August 10, 2007 12:39 PM

"That having been said, The New Republic has had its targets over the last 25 years (e.g. the Catholic Church), and the military has not been one of them."

I agree entirely with this statement. Do they have a serious Christian writing for them or on staff?

I still enjoy the magazine, mind you. There is much that is very good about it. But I also realize how deeply hostile to Christianity it is. I guess they should be credited for candor--it's not like they try to hide it.

And please don't mention Andrew Sullivan in reply.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 10, 2007 12:52 PM

I agree that they do not hate America. The flaw here is two fold. First that they are very young even for magazine editors. Second that being young and stuck in the BosWash corridor, they are very stupid about America. Sorta smart about DC, but the intelligence they can muster does not extend much beyond their narrow cultural and geographic band.

More experienced editors would have smelled a rat, would have felt the needle on the inboard BS meter twitch. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have gone ahead. After all, getting original material for a weekly, biweekly, or monthly magazine gets harder and harder all the time -- especially when you pay peanuts. Still, they would have had a gut check moment before authorizing.

Posted by Van der Leun | August 10, 2007 1:00 PM

Ross--I agree with your statement. Unlike Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett, I never thought the New Republic was thinking how they could slander the military. They just hooked up with Beauchamp via Reeves and got seriously burned.

But here is the rub. The New Republic did not fact check Beauchamp's stories (even though they were salacious and knew they would be controversial). While the New Republic may not have intended to slander the troops, many troops who are serving or who have served who read those accounts were offended. Even worse, it appears the New Republic tried to make it look like they fact checked these stories after the fact. The New Republic also cherry picked what the Army was telling them about the stories being in doubt.

The New Republic's (and probably Reeves) trust in Beauchamp was misplaced. If what the Weekly Standard is insisting is true, then Beauchamp recanted in a sworn statemtn(which is admitting he lied to the New Republic). But the New Republic is definitely also at fault (in failing to fact check and then in follow up).

Andrew Sullivan promised the New Republic would get in front of this. Unfortunately that does not appear to be happening.

Krauthammer (who is essentially repeating what the Weekly Standard and the bloggers have been saying all week) summed it up with a very well written line: "We already knew from all of America's armed conflicts -- including Iraq -- what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say."

Posted by Joe | August 10, 2007 1:17 PM

I can't think of another "profession" where it is exceptable to have the spouse of an enployee work on a major project.Think of the damage if DR. Lawyers,or Car Mechanics were allowed to do this. Journalist say they are professionals.They should be agast instead of making excuses.Of course this matters .The reputation of our Military is at stake.This may not be important to crowd where you are,but from the response to this dust up I can assume it is important to a lot of people.Why haven't we heard anything from TNR in days?

Posted by mymy | August 10, 2007 1:34 PM

The pattern here is clear. Anti-war critics, mainly from liberal publications like the TNR, have been riding on a wave of schadenfreude to tarnish the image of our troops in the ugliest way possible, and in the process, make a mockery of all the good things they have been sacrificing and dying for. Nothing good is ever written about the nobility of our cause, just nasty things to advance the cause of a band of poltroons who would be gloating and frothing if America loses.

Charles Krauthammer is right. We have far too many enemies in Iraq, including a radical crowd here cheering against America. I find all this to be treasonous.

Posted by RGL | August 10, 2007 1:45 PM

Only RIGHT-WING bloggers care about this story.

Watching the daily almost total absence of any left bloggers in the Memeorandum listings on Beauchamp, have shown how irrelevant TNR has become to the left during Marty Peretz's reign.

In fact, the only comments that I've seen from the left is derision on how worked up the wingnuts have become over an inconsequential soldier's diary just because he wasn't pro-war.

We're enjoying you beating up on TNR. The neo-cons eating there own, so to speak.

Posted by not the senator | August 10, 2007 2:00 PM

I would like to second Van der Leun's comments about the insularity of the magazine.

I was fairly surprised to hear that somebody working for TNR might actually have a family connection to the military. I suspect I was not alone in that. (Of course, we now know that hunch was not totally wrong.)

Not to sound like a broken record, but the single most defining trait of the magazine is its allergy to Christian faith. This is their definitive stance: they will not tolerate Christianity in public. Who art they? They are "not Christian." Fundamentally.

If any other leading magazine treated another religion the way TNR does Christianity, they would be labeled bigots.

The Goldhagen piece on Pius XII was an all-time low for a major American magazine.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 10, 2007 2:01 PM

Ross,

I think you're mostly right. Beauchamp would probably never have seen the pages of TNR without an in, and his in seems to have had unusual influence with the editors. That said, he also wouldn't have been published if his pieces weren't consistent with TNR's evolving editorial position on the war. I can't fault the editors for selectinng material that fits their agenda.

I do fault them for their egregiously sloppy editing. The pieces are rife with the most obvious errors, especially "Shock Troops." The errors are so obvious that you really can't fault anyone for speculating that the poor or absent fact checking might have been intentional.

Mr. Van der Leun is probably right in suggesting that the mistakes were due to a combination of misplaced trust in both the staffer and Beauchamp, poor editorial practice, and incredible ignorance of things military, mechanical, etc.

Whaqt mystifies me more than how this drivel ever saw the light of day, though, is TNR's shameful behavior post publication.

Posted by Old Dad | August 10, 2007 2:19 PM

"(e.g. the Catholic Church)"

It's funny you say that. I cancelled my subscription--cancelled, not let run out, called them up and said "keep the money, just don't send me any more" -- to TNR after they ran their cover story on how the New Testament was inherently anti-semitic (I am not a church goer, just thought the article was a disgrace).

But, as someone pointed out above, the two issues here aren't mutually exclusive. Sure they may have given him a chance because they liked his fiance, but I suspect they wouldn't have run his stories if his narrative (in the postmodern sense) wasn't one they'd approved of in the first place. If he'd written a diary about how his personal hero Donald Rumsfeld inspired him to serve his country, I somehow doubt it'd have made it into the magazine.

Posted by Beauceron | August 10, 2007 2:20 PM

"As a Vietnam Veteran who saw myself and millions of other American soldiers have their character assassinated. I care."

I don't get this at all. I am a lawyer. I hear lawyer jokes and criticisms of greedy lawyers all the time. I don't take them personally, even though they implicitly attack the whole profession.

And I would CERTAINLY not take personally someone's attack on a single lawyer or law firm, or a small group of lawyers, or all lawyers in a given practice area.

Nor would I take it personally if the particular attack on a lawyer or group of lawyers was incorrect or even defamatory, unless I was personally targeted.

Yet when someone criticizes a group of servicemembers, e.g., the Marines in Haditha, the people responsible for My Lai or Abu Ghraib, etc., that's taken as an attack on the entire military. And when it turns out to be untrue, suddenly that person has slandered everyone in the military, even people who had nothing to do with the unit or servicemembers who were originally accused of wrongdoing.

That's just bunk. I don't know if this is just fake outrage-- we have a lot of that in this society-- or whether people just need to develop a thicker skin.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 10, 2007 2:41 PM

The New Republic speaks: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070806&s=editorial081007 The Army won't let them confirm. I am not buying that. If Beauchamp recanted why would he want to tell his wife and her boss that he lied to both of them.

The New Republic was reckless on these stories and failed to properly fact check. If Confederate Yankee and Ace's allegations turn out true that they "fact checked" selectively after the fact to cover their journalistic butts and then lied about it. . . that is really devestating to the New Republic's credibility and reputation.

The New Republic has the right to be against the War. I do not dispute that. But the New Republic has the obligation to report stories accurrately, which Foer and the New Republic failed to do in this case.

It will be interesting to see Andrew's reaction to all of this when he gets back.

Posted by Joe | August 10, 2007 2:41 PM

The TNR folks probably look at this whole thing pretty much the way Evan Thomas looked at Newsweek’s jump-the-gun reporting on the fradulent rape case brought against the Duke lacrosse players: “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

Posted by M. A. | August 10, 2007 2:52 PM

There is a lot of truth in this post, from Michael Ledeen at the Corner:

All of us should have this on the wall, right over the desk, and we should chant it morning and evening:

Just as Hollywood, in its hiring practices, has replaced talent with education, journalism is in danger of replacing experience with report cards. Journalism is not a profession. There is no specific body of knowledge required, and there is no licensing. What is needed is a sharp set of skills, high powers of observation, and a humility about how much we can understand quickly, and these come only from experience. But when you've gone through Yale or Stanford, when you've been told how smart you are, when you got 700s on your SATs, you start to believe what mom has whispered in your ear. You start to think that you "know." It's a kind of self-inflicted grade inflation. I'm bright, therefore I'm right.

This is from a long letter from the great William Katz to Powerline. You'll love the whole thing , I promise you. I added a few thoughts on my blog ; it seems to me that the recent agony of The New Republic is very much a part of all this. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODcyYjZhM2I4OTE0YjE5MjUxYjI5ZmY2ZWQ1MmYyZTg=

Posted by Joe | August 10, 2007 3:04 PM

Great post, Joe.

But the final joke is, alas, on these smart young people. They enter the maw of political commentary and are consumed. They never grow as thinkers and almost never, ever produce a serious body of written work. Everything they do goes right down the memory hole. I don't mean, not to pick on Franklin Foer in particular...but the credentials of people like him a very, very thin.

Don't let this happen to you Ross!

Ross has the inestimable advantage of thinking in terms of a tradition that is not held hostage by his age.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 10, 2007 3:25 PM

"They got burned as a result, and deservedly so."

Excuse me, but where is the evidence of this burning? Has there been any evidence other than a military spokesperson claiming that the article is false? Military denies allegations embarrassing to military - alert the drudge alarm.gif!

So pardon my temerity, but where exactly is this burning?

Posted by Derek | August 10, 2007 3:28 PM

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp scandal "is tearing Washington apart"?

Sorry Ross, most people are not following this story and that fault line already existed.

This story will have some serious implications to the New Republic if all these allegations are proven (frankly they are pretty much proven now, but we need some confirmation from the Army).

Young smart folks working at a magazine like the New Republic is fine. It is not like William F. Buckley (unfortunately for us) is doing the heavy lifting any more at the National Review. But you do need people with good insticts and common sense and I suspect that is lacking over at TNR.

There is a myopia at the New Republic that allowed this to happen. I doubt Mike Kelly would have been suckered into this (although his critics on the left would say he was suckered in by the Bush Administration on the war). Even Andrew Sullivan (if you read his posts on this) knows that these Beauchamp stories might be screwed up. Sullivan knows how these things can happen (since similar things happened under his watch with Glass).

Posted by Joe | August 10, 2007 3:36 PM

Derek may I suggest you read Confederate Yankee blog. The man has some posts you may find interesting.Sorry I don't know how to link

Posted by mymy | August 10, 2007 3:45 PM

Hmmm. I can accept that Franklin Foer was inclined to accept the word of a well liked employee in publishing her husband's writing. That it is of the self-reflective, obsessive style often favored on the left was also, no doubt, helpful. Perhaps Mr. Foer was also trying to give a soldier a chance to be heard. But the rest of the evidence in this case is so overwhelming as to overshadow any kind or altrusitic motivations Mr. Foer may have had.

It takes little reading between the lines to see that not only did Foer and TNR fail to do reasonable fact checking, they did virtually none before publishing Beauchamp. Their complete lack of grounding in the real world, to say nothing of military matters, made it difficult for them to pass the "smell test," as Mr. Foer said. And when substantial problems were pointed out, did Foer deal with it properly?

Hardly. TNR went into full Mapes mode, producing nothing but anonymous assertions of support of the original unsupportable stories, even suggesting that an unnamed representative of the company that manufactures Bradley Fighting Vehicles fully supported Beauchamp's fables.

We now discover that TNR used an old CBS/Mapes trick. Recall that they "authenticated" the false documents by calling a living superior officer of then Lt. Bush and giving him only general information. Believing that the documents were handwritten and not having the entire story, he told them that they seemed authentic. But when he actually saw the forgeries and understood the full context, a context withheld by Mapes, he has no doubt at at that they were forgeries. TNR did speak with an official of the company that manufactures the Bradley, but asked only general vehicle specification questions and carefully parsed "what if" questions, withholding the complete context and then falsely writing that Beauchamp was vindicated. Just as with CBS, when the company official--who had no problem being identified by name--learned the entire context, it was abundantly clear that he did not support Beauchamp's story.

Damning evidence, but worse is that when Foer discovered that one of the essential elements of Beauchamp's morality tale was completely false--the disfigured woman story took place in Kuwait long before Beauchamp saw his first day of combat--Foer treated it not as a reason to suspect all of what Beauchamp wrote, but as little more than a typo, for which an apology was sufficient. Any reasonable, responsible journalist should have seen warning flags long before that.

Throughout the mess, Foer has not owned up to minimal journalistic practices that require that those publishing prove the truth of their writing, before it is published, not that others must prove them wrong. Foer has also fallen back on the evil right wing conspiracy trope. Sorry Mr. Foer, but it's either true or it isn't, and politics has no bearing on that. We now know that even Private Beauchamp has admitted, under oath, that he is a liar, and it's no stretch to believe that at least one part of his fables is true: he's a cruel, juvenile lout.

Considering all of this, what's more likely: Franklin Foer is just a nice guy trying to help out an employee's spouse, or the story was so closely aligned with the left wing anti-war, anti-America, anti-Bush agenda that not only was it too good to check, it remains too good to abandon even though it's author has abandoned it?

Posted by Mike | August 10, 2007 4:11 PM

Consider how things stand.

The magazine is standing by a story the author has said is false.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 10, 2007 4:18 PM

mymy, I have been reading Confederate Yankee. None of his criticism of the article's veracity is worth a damn, or even intellectually honest I'd say. A Bradlee manufacturer PR guy says the article sounds somewhat unlikely in a few details. The vehicle would crush half a dog - not cut in two. And? And what? We are going to jump to call this soldier a liar based on that?

Posted by Derek | August 10, 2007 4:49 PM

I tend to think Ross is right. As satisfying as the "dumb liberals hate America" explanation might be to some people, laziness seems more plausible. And I can understand it: Why wouldn't Foer trust Beauchamp, if any problems with his stories would come back on his own wife?

However, Foer's behavior since the story was published is another matter. Every Friday afternoon he puts another bullet hole in his shoe.

A Bradlee manufacturer PR guy says the article sounds somewhat unlikely in a few details. The vehicle would crush half a dog - not cut in two. And? And what? We are going to jump to call this soldier a liar based on that?

Only if you're bothered by little things like facts.

Posted by Jim Treacher | August 10, 2007 6:02 PM

This whole thing has been interesting for two reasons:

1) Conservatives, even here, even after having been pointed out to them to the contrary, assume and claim that the TNR is some lefty-loving anti-war publications. Anyone who is familiar with TNR knows that's not the case. For crying out loud, they endorsed Lieberman for President. Just goes to show that the same people demanding "the facts" can't be bothered to step away from their stereotypes and realize that their assumptions in their black-and-white world are wrong.

2) It shows how irrelevent TNR is to the left side of the political spectrum. Few of the major blogs are even bothering to cover the story save for its train-wreck quality and whether this will be another career-killing Stephen Glass repeat. Otherwise, none one on the left is following or defending TNR because they don't care.

Posted by John Q. | August 10, 2007 6:40 PM

RGL writes: "Anti-war critics, mainly from liberal publications like the TNR, have been riding on a wave of schadenfreude to tarnish the image of our troops in the ugliest way possible, and in the process, make a mockery of all the good things they have been sacrificing and dying for. Nothing good is ever written about the nobility of our cause, just nasty things to advance the cause of a band of poltroons who would be gloating and frothing if America loses."

This is purely stupid and dishonest. TNR has been STAUNCHLY pro-war all along.

The "poltroons" have been the morons in the Bush administration who have messed up in every possible way in entering and prosecuting this pointless and ill-conceived war.

Halfwits and psychopaths still think the invasion was a good idea. No one else does. No exceptions. You wage a war with the leaders you have, and the Bush clowns were never up to this sort of operation. That was obvious to some of us.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 2:00 AM

Thomas Nelson writes: "Consider how things stand.

The magazine is standing by a story the author has said is false."

I haven't seen the evidence for this, but considering that the author is an active military person and subject to the Pat Tillman treatment if he doesn't play along, who knows what he'll say?

Would I be surprised if he turned up dead? No. The Abu Ghraib whistleblower was outed by Donnie Rumsfeld. Pat Tillman was murdered and then used obscenely by liars.

Why do cons still trust this government in these matters? I guess when they say "support the troops" they mean "obey Bush or die."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 2:05 AM

This just in:

"CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — A Marine who was sentenced to eight years in military prison in the case of a slain Iraqi civilian was released Friday.

Pvt. Robert B. Pennington was sentenced in February in a plea deal that included a reduction in rank from lance corporal and a dishonorable discharge. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy; murder and other charges were dismissed.

The Iraqi civilian was pulled from his Hamdania home and shot in April 2006. An AK-47 and shovel were placed nearby to make him look like an insurgent planting a bomb, according to the prosecution.

All eight members of the squad were initially charged with murder and kidnapping. Five cut deals with prosecutors in exchange for testimony and received sentences ranging from one to eight years in prison."

Let's hear some more from excuse-making cons about how the military deals "severely" with American war criminals. People who kill dogs are treated more "severely" in America than soldiers are who murder Iraqis.

Sure, we're "liberating" Iraqis - by killing them. And still some cons are shocked by the insurgency. I strongly suspect that most of the remaining Bush supporters would be the first people to suck up to foreign invaders if such a fate ever befell America.

"It's just good business!"

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 4:15 AM

Only if you're bothered by little things like facts.

Yeah! If you promise me a bisected dog, you better freaking mean it!

Posted by Dog Lover | August 11, 2007 10:28 AM

The Atlantic took some fairly pro-war positions in 2003. Does that mean it remains so? Franklin Foer is not pro-war. TNR is, today, anti-war. That is what is relevant in discussing Beauchamp.

Posted by Aaron | August 11, 2007 10:32 AM

TNR is not anti-war. They're anti-Bush. And that's the only thing the dead-enders whining about Beauchamp care about.

They certainly don't give a damn about the dead.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 1:59 PM

Dilan,

I don't get this at all. I am a lawyer. I hear lawyer jokes and criticisms of greedy lawyers all the time. I don't take them personally, even though they implicitly attack the whole profession.

Perhaps the distinction lies in the fact that soldiers volunteer and put their lives at risk, and in Iraq perform under very taxing conditions, while lawyers, even ones with integrity, don't.

There's also the little distinction between jokes and fabricated stories meant to impugn the whole war effort.

Posted by Mike S. | August 11, 2007 7:49 PM

Halfwits and psychopaths still think the invasion was a good idea.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus

Pat Tillman was murdered and then used obscenely by liars.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Posted by Mike S. | August 11, 2007 7:53 PM

Sure, we're "liberating" Iraqis - by killing them. And still some cons are shocked by the insurgency.

LM&J, have you ever read Michael Yon or Bill Roggio's blogs? I'm just curious.

Posted by Mike S. | August 11, 2007 7:55 PM

S Mike, yes I have. I consider them to be online stroke-mags for warmongering Bush fans.

Do you read anything that doesn't agree with your unrelenting pro-war stance? Just curious.

By the way, why doesn't the obscenity of the Pat Tillman necrophilia offend you? Do you seriously think the lies told to the Tillman family (and the awarding of a thoroughly bogus Silver Star) were an accident?

Or do you regard the troops as commodities to be used and abused by your Great Leader, whose policies are beyond reproach? Just curious.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 11:40 PM

Lets not get off track here.

Beauchamp misrepresented the facts. TNR published his work without adequately substantiating the details and the American reading public suffered.

There is a disturbing trend in the news media today. All too often, today's journalists are much more concerned with deadlines than getting the story right and many bias their stories to support their inner beliefs.

An excellent example is the Jessica Lynch story. From the day of her rescue, military briefers clearly stated that the story of her capture was not confirmed, yet editors throughout this country propagated the Washington Post claims that she "went down fighting." The Post article quoted no credible source. Yet today, most Americans believe that the US military lied to them about Ms Lynch when, in fact, it was the American media that "lied."

Journalists and editors MUST understand that they have a responsibility to us all to do the best they can to tell us the truth.

Shame on TNR and Pvt Beauchamp for violating this trust.

Posted by Ricahrd S. Lowry | August 12, 2007 10:14 AM

Lets not get off track here.

Beauchamp misrepresented the facts. TNR published his work without adequately substantiating the details and the American reading public suffered.

There is a disturbing trend in the news media today. All too often, today's journalists are much more concerned with deadlines than getting the story right and many bias their stories to support their inner beliefs.

An excellent example is the Jessica Lynch story. From the day of her rescue, military briefers clearly stated that the story of her capture was not confirmed, yet editors throughout this country propagated the Washington Post claims that she "went down fighting." The Post article quoted no credible source. Yet today, most Americans believe that the US military lied to them about Ms Lynch when, in fact, it was the American media that "lied."

Journalists and editors MUST understand that they have a responsibility to us all to do the best they can to tell us the truth.

Shame on TNR and Pvt Beauchamp for violating this trust.

Posted by Ricahrd S. Lowry | August 12, 2007 10:22 AM

S Mike, yes I have. I consider them to be online stroke-mags for warmongering Bush fans.

Do you read anything that doesn't agree with your unrelenting pro-war stance? Just curious.

Of course. Anti-war stories and arguments are a dime-a-dozen. Mostly I don't find them convincing.

By the way, why doesn't the obscenity of the Pat Tillman necrophilia offend you? Do you seriously think the lies told to the Tillman family (and the awarding of a thoroughly bogus Silver Star) were an accident?

I don't know exactly what you are referring to in regards to the Tillman "necrophilia". I do find the coverup of the fratricide to be deplorable. That wasn't an accident - some people wanted to avoid the shame and bad press that comes with a friendly-fire death, especially in a high-profile case like Tillman's. But I also see that the military investigated and punished those responsible. It is simply demented to think that the army arranged to have him killed because he had expressed some anti-war sentiments.

Posted by Mike S. | August 12, 2007 9:41 PM

S Mike writes: "I don't know exactly what you are referring to in regards to the Tillman "necrophilia". I do find the coverup of the fratricide to be deplorable. That wasn't an accident - some people wanted to avoid the shame and bad press that comes with a friendly-fire death, especially in a high-profile case like Tillman's. But I also see that the military investigated and punished those responsible. It is simply demented to think that the army arranged to have him killed because he had expressed some anti-war sentiments."

The military investigated and LIGHTLY punished some scapegoats because the Tillman family and some members of Congress kept pushing, and for no other reason. It's absurd to pretend otherwise. There was absolutely no push from the Bush administration on this one. In fact, the Bush clowns continue to claim executive privilege in regards to the Tillman coverup.

It wasn't a desire to avoid shame that caused the coverup, it was an intense desire to produce positive propaganda for an ongoing quagmire.

I don't think Tillman's death was a deliberate plan by the military. It remains to be seen, though, why he was murdered. The coverup continues. Much to your liking, I think.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 13, 2007 6:01 PM

springwurzel evendown spheroidity cretinize fortescure blonde hypobatholithic nonassentation
http://www25.brinkster.com/ccband/ >Social End Product
http://www.cutter.com/

Posted by Clint Sutton | October 15, 2007 11:00 PM

springwurzel evendown spheroidity cretinize fortescure blonde hypobatholithic nonassentation
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/19/israel.palestinians/ >Pressures build in Mideast as peace deadline nears
http://fightingillini.cstv.com/tickets/ill-tickets.html

Posted by Holli Park | October 18, 2007 6:49 AM

springwurzel evendown spheroidity cretinize fortescure blonde hypobatholithic nonassentation
http://www.world-postal-history.com/ >World Postal History
http://www.nathseeds.com

Posted by Victor Salazar | October 21, 2007 4:16 AM

springwurzel evendown spheroidity cretinize fortescure blonde hypobatholithic nonassentation
http://www.angelfire.com/qvzvzhsb/8pf.html >Raggedy Ann And Andy
http://www.angelfire.com/avygigln/uiw.html

Posted by Gloria Cain | November 3, 2007 7:13 AM

archenemy backslidingness rhizopodal fulgurantly litorinoid strad dimness perfectation
http://www.fhhardware.com/ >ACE Hardware
http://www.bjams.org/

Posted by Velma Carver | December 17, 2007 10:35 PM