There’s the “truth” value of his “story”.

He either exaggerated or completely made up his “reporting”.

To make the troops look bad.

Why?

And what was TNR’s motive in wanting to believe it?

If the articles are proven to be bogus, will TNR and Scott T.B. examine their prejudices?

Gordon Brown is waiting to see if the baby’s his before he splits, Bush is probably doing the same. [Iraq Slogger] A gajillion dollars for a book how things might have happened isn’t enough when sometimes you just need……

One question today is whether Beauchamp’s dispatches are true. A second, more pressing question is how to better gather and report such stories, and how we should evaluate and verify them. I am deeply skeptical about the veracity of Beauchamp’s dispatches, particularly the last one, but disinclined to offer definitive pronouncements at this time. Partisans on both sides of the political spectrum seem to harbor no such doubts. Based solely on the content of these dispatches, some were happy to leap to conclusions about the author’s veracity without regard for the facts. And as the argument grows louder, each side turns toward the troops, using them to stand in for their own preconceived ideas about this war.

This is from Phillip Carter’s Slate article as noted on RCP. It is SOP when a lib gets caught lying. Read the whole thing to be scolded by your better.
Randy

Pam on August 7, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Except for the fact he’s right in the earlier critique, and he’s wrong this time. Its not the blogwhoring(God knows I send enough to Ace and HA) that’s bad, its the content that you blogwhore, Moran was criticizing the content, which was reasonable. The content he’s criticizing now is way off, and Ace pwn3d him for it.

“Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests.”

From the WaPo’s piece on the Beauchamp affair, that’s a quote from journalism prof Mark Feldstein.

My magazine this last week has been subject of basically a smear job by the Weekly Standard and a lot of the conservative blogosphere over a piece that we published from a soldier in Iraq”

should be: “My magazine this last week has been subject of questions by the Weekly Standard and a lot of the conservative blogosphere over a smear job that we published from a soldier in Iraq”

Much better.

After all, what is true for one is not true for another, truth is subjective, and is not discovered but constructed. Thus, for TNR the story is true, regardless of facts.

And for a couple of highlights:

And yes, I’m linking to Ace of Spades to refute TNR, because Ace is by far the more credible of the two.

and

The New Republic has become Truthout. That’s how much damage this story has done to their credibility.

If I were TNR, I’d slink off to my hole to lick my wounds. Then again, I’m not an imbecile who doesn’t realize when he’s beaten.

Beauchamp is French. No one should be shocked that his hatred of America is genetic.

Valiant on August 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Laughing.Out.Loud. Thank you.

Beauchamp’s first piece (published at what must have been close to the beginning of his deployment) is called “War Bonds.” The browser window it opens in, however, is titled “My horrifying tour of duty in Iraq.” In fact, it’s probably worth a screen shot, just in case….

Little Green Footballs

Well, I’m back in my top-secret chamber beneath Denver International Airport, and tonight it looks as if The New Republic plans to drive their flaming jalopy right off the cliff. They’re disputing the Weekly Standard…

In re your quote from Confederate Yankee:
“Instead, Major Lamb states that the PAO system is only responding to specific inquiries, and little more is expected to be released unless PV-2 Beauchamp decides to discuss the matter further, which he is free to do.”

Which suggests two possible endings to the saga:

1) On the theory that it’s better to have been hoaxed than accused of bad faith, TNR will elicit & publish another statement from Beauchamp admitting that he (& possibly a “military person”al friend or two) deliberately hoodwinked Foer et al. TNR will “apologize” for being too idealistic when they took his tales at face value.

OR

2) In order to rehabilitate himself with his fellow soldiers, Beauchamp will claim it was a gigantic joke designed to see just how much shit the TNR would swallow — in which case Foer et al are screwed. If his marriage is heading anywhere near the tubes

If Elspeth is still speaking to him (and if her job is on the line), I’d go with the Confession. If not, I’d go with Braggadocio.

The WaPo article is just another sliming at the military. How disgusting.

“We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. “

We should add “as detailed in our statement” to the list of parsables here. TNR does not say that said “military personnel” corroborated events as detailed by Scott Thomas. Their Statement details considerably less than Beauchamp did — and avoids addressing a considerable chunk of the actual questions that were being asked.

BTW, the emphasis has generally been on the three events described in Shock Troops, but does anybody really believe that the kid who supposedly had his tongue cut out for fraternizing with the Yanks went right back to his fraternizing ways — after a conveniently vague period of time apparently allowed him to recover his good spirits? Some example he turned out to be, eh? As with the other stories, the more you look at this one, the less sense it makes too.

Bryan on August 7, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Particularly true in the Air Force, Bryan. Most of our senior NCOs have more education than I do.

From Howie Kurtz’s story for the WaPo:

Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp “told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic,” Foer said.

I guess TNR just forgot to mention that in today’s statement.