A Blog For All - Comments - Keep it civil
Now why would they do such a thing? It simply begs more questions about how TNR has handled the whole thing.
No, it doesn't "beg more questions."
As the later update notes, it appears that the stories may still be available on TNR, though you may get timed out.
If you want to play semantics with the way I worded it okay.
Let me rephrase. TNR has serious problems with their claims of fact checking. Their 8/2 posting relocates one of the incidents from Iraq to Kuwait, and reorders the time when that incident occurred.
TNR admits after the fact that they didn't catch that mistake pre-publication. You mean to tell me that the fact checkers or Beauchamp didn't realize when and where the dining hall incident occurred? Did that slip their mind?
As for the other aspects of their story, the anonymous sources claiming to support TNR do no such thing. Who are they and what are their credentials?
The question as to why TNR might scrub their site is a legitimate one. What purpose is served by scrubbing and their claims to authenticate and corroborate details of Beauchamp's story have been met with denials by the US Army, a recantation by the author, Beauchamp, public statements from named PAO's stating that the events are the stuff of urban legends and myths, and a string of bloggers refuted various factual problems.
How exactly has TNR handled this properly? It hasn't. It would appear they've been bamboozled by Beauchamp, but aren't willing to admit it.
lawhawk, I agree with you about TNR and Beauchamp.
I left a comment merely to note that "begs the question" doesn't mean anything remotely like "raises the question." Since the former phrase is particularly useful in a legal context, you should help to preserve the "correct" usage.
I don't expect TNR to ever come clean. Another Stephen Glass episode would just be too devastating. I expect them to keep the waters as muddied as possible.
Anyway, Dan Rather is still claiming the TANG memos were real. Denial works.
Commenting by HaloScan
