The American Spectator

Sanchez’s past but somehow left out this relevant fact.)

Foer blames the Army, in part, for his own reluctance to retract Beauchamp’s stories, writing that “the Army’s behavior — its initial efforts to bury the results of its investigation, not to mention the four months and counting it has taken to process our Freedom of Information Act request for those results — made us reluctant to rush to judgment.” That’s right, the notoriously slow FOIA process — a problem that reporters have been complaining about for decades — was taken by Foer as evidence that the Army is hiding something.

Of course, it was Beauchamp who was doing the hiding. When an anonymous Weekly Standard source said that Beauchamp had signed a statement recanting his articles, Foer was under the impression that the statement Beauchamp had signed was a Clintonian dodge:

When Beauchamp had described his statements to us, it seemed like he was walking a fine line, trying to satisfy his commanders while staying on the side of the truth. But, without the actual documents in hand, we had no way of judging. Through his wife and lawyer, we made the first of many requests for these statements, which Beauchamp was legally entitled to obtain for us.

Foer’s still waiting on that document. Because of privacy protections written into the FOIA, he can’t get it without Beauchamp’s cooperation.

Even when he’s retracting Beauchamp’s stories — though not apologizing for them — Foer can’t help smearing the Army. When critics first started raising red flags about the Baghdad Diarist articles, there were charges that TNR was advancing an anti-military agenda. Such charges were somewhat unfair in July. They’re perfectly fair now.