A Question of Motives

J-Pod can snark all he likes, but I think the evidence strongly supports the contention that Frank Foer sees himself as repositioning The New Republic as a non-ideological or post-ideological enterprise. If J-Pod thinks that's a somewhat odd direction to go in, I don't disagree, but it's been a consistent theme of things Foer's said about the magazine since taking over.

But this gets us to what's really weird about the Scott Beauchamp pseudo-scandal, namely that the theory that TNR would publish a bogus article alleging mild misconduct on the part of American troops in order to advance TNR's anti-war agenda tends to founder on the fact that the magazine doesn't have an anti-war agenda. This isn't an obscure fact about the magazine! Do they imagine there was an editorial meeting where Brad Plumer said "let's run an editorial about how the US should withdraw from Iraq" and Foer countered, saying "nah, too obvious, instead of coming out against the war let's make up a story about killing dogs" and everyone cheered while Lawrence Kaplan sulked in the corner? Wouldn't cutting down on the number of Robert Kagan feature articles the magazine runs be a smarter way of shifting left on foreign policy? I feel like a bit of an idiot needing to defend a not-anti-war publication's decision to publish a not-anti-war article against an onrushing tide of idiots, but that's apparently what the world's come to.

Comments

Italics off? Sorry, that's all I could possibly care about some lunatic's opinion concerning a dying magazine.

Posted by norbizness | July 27, 2007 11:35 AM

slash-i.

It's funny, the open tag even affects the RSS feed.

Posted by Nick | July 27, 2007 11:41 AM

I wonder how the Young Republicans of today will be able to answer their grandchildren's questions of why they took this genocidal-wannabe so seriously.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 11:41 AM

I like TNR because it's good reading even when I disagree. Is there any real doubt that the soldier's story is an accurate recounting? The theme of the piece had nothing to do with the war effort. It was about how impressionable young people, in terrible circumstances, will do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Is that a radical notion?

TNR as a publication delivers good reporting and thoughtful analysis. Often times, I think the analysis is wrong. But the notion that they of all publications would publish a fake piece in order to undermine the Iraq invasion is absurd.

Posted by Mike M. | July 27, 2007 11:49 AM

the magazine doesn't have an anti-war agenda

Perhaps Matthew was asleep when the magazine was sold and a new editor was named.

Posted by Al | July 27, 2007 11:56 AM

"the magazine doesn't have an anti-war agenda

Perhaps Matthew was asleep when the magazine was sold and a new editor was named.

Posted by Al | July 27, 2007 11:56 AM "

It was sold to a Canadian family with the same ideological views of the old owner, Marty Peretz. The new editor is a little more anti-war than Beinart was back in 2003, but he also did fire TNR's best reporter and MY's friend, Spencer Ackerman, who had become very anti-war and wrote the magazine's anti-war blog. Something tells me he knows more about this than you.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 11:59 AM

A non-ideological political magazine?

Really? How is that possible exactly?

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 27, 2007 12:01 PM

Reality Man, I think the plant in my office knows more than Al.

Posted by MeLoseBrain? | July 27, 2007 12:04 PM

Franklin Foer told Charlie Rose that he is taking the magazine more to the left on domestic issues, while keeping a hard line on foreign policy, however tempered by the mistakes of Iraq (for which they officially apologized)

Posted by SR | July 27, 2007 12:04 PM

"TNR as a publication delivers good reporting and thoughtful analysis. Often times, I think the analysis is wrong. But the notion that they of all publications would publish a fake piece in order to undermine the Iraq invasion is absurd."

I completely agree. TNR is a great publication, even when you disagree with it, but in this case it seems they hired an rank amateur to report on a serious subject . The real question we should be asking, however, is if what he wrote is true or not? Apparantly the Army is taking him seriously and is now conducting a formal investigation in the activities he described. Hopefully, we will then have an answer to tht question.

PS
"Snark" is a great word and it pretty much describes Matt's blog-writting style as well. Not that there's anything wrogn with that:)

Posted by Dave | July 27, 2007 12:08 PM

"Franklin Foer told Charlie Rose that he is taking the magazine more to the left on domestic issues, while keeping a hard line on foreign policy"

Is that really how it's done -- new editor comes in and decides the magazine will have this view on issue area X, this view on issue area Y?

Who'd want to pay for that? I can get plenty of news filtered through pre-set points of view for free.

Posted by PapaJijo | July 27, 2007 12:16 PM

What is key here is that the right has become unhinged towards TNR for the crime of committing an act of journalism. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't about the moral rectitude of Scott THomas, it's about the fact that TNR had the audacity to allow Scott Thomas to say things about Iraq that Michelle Malkin didn't want to hear. So first they had to claim he didn't exist. Then they had to claim he was lying, then they had to claim that tiny details didn't fit, and now they are reduced to claiming, "well, he's an a-hole, so why are you defending him?" Nowhere do they ever say, "wow. This is a really moving account. What's the deal out there?" Instead, their instinct is to lash out at an act of journalism and to go on a witch hunt. It's part of their morally twisted nature.

"Snark" is a great word

What a happy discovery for you. I congratulate you on having discovered these things called "weblogs" today.

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 12:17 PM

No snark here. Have any one of these, foaming at the mouth, right-wingers actually shown that what he wrote was wrong. I searched through my list and see nothing in there that shows this is false.
Just curious!

Posted by Nara | July 27, 2007 12:20 PM

I wish some cosmic Dean Wormer would tell the tighty-righties who are making this an issue, "Stupid and dishonest, son, is no way to go through life."

It's an idiotic issue to get worked up about.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 27, 2007 12:24 PM

Dave - A soldier in Iraq doesn't strike me as having "rank amateur" status on the topic of soldiering in Iraq.

As for the Army investigation, I'm sure it will be a stellar product of non-biased objective fact-finding and thorough in-depth investigation. I, for one, have come to expect nothing less.

Posted by Dungheap | July 27, 2007 12:26 PM

You shouldnt feel like an idiot for defending TNR. You should feel like an idiot for posing as a foreign policy expert while not even knowing who the leader of hezbollah is.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | July 27, 2007 12:29 PM

"Apparantly the Army is taking him seriously and is now conducting a formal investigation in the activities he described. Hopefully, we will then have an answer to tht question."

oh goody!

Posted by Pat Tillman's Mom | July 27, 2007 12:46 PM

What tyro said. Also check out digby's comments on the affair - how the right doesn't support the troops, they support their boy band/GI Joe/John Wayne imaginary vision of "the troops". I read at least one of Beauchamp's diaries and was neither shocked nor horrified...and it didn't make me think for one moment - "our troops are monsters!" Much worse happens in war because it is, after all, hell.

What the right does with anybody who disagrees with them is to turn them all into one monolithic group of dirty hippies. That's how Hillary is transformed into some sort of far left maniac as opposed to the moderate/centrist she is in reality. (it appears the Corner crew are starting to catch onto this - see Lowry's column today on Clinton - I think they are starting to grasp the inevitable and see Hillary as, in their eyes, the least dangerous of the Dem candidates). To them, TNR - for publishing a story by an actual soldier in Iraq about guys running over dogs with a Bradley - is as far left as Counterpunch or as propaganda-laden as Soviet-era Pravda.

Posted by OGLib | July 27, 2007 12:50 PM

"Dave - A soldier in Iraq doesn't strike me as having "rank amateur" status on the topic of soldiering in Iraq."

Well, if you read his blog regarding how he wanted to have a beuty contest with bodies of blown up women you might be more inclined to agree that he is not up to the high standards of TNR.

Just because you are in Iraq, doesn't mean you have the ability to be a good reporter. I'll take John Burns or Michael Totten any day of the week.

Posted by Dave | July 27, 2007 12:54 PM

Re "As for the Army investigation, I'm sure it will be a stellar product of non-biased objective fact-finding and thorough in-depth investigation"
-------------
You mean like the Pat Tillman investigation? The one where Pat Tillman had 3 closedly-grouped M16 bullet holes in his FOREHEAD but was somehow killed by "Enemy Fire"? Even though the closest enemy fire had come much earlier from hundreds of yards away?

The one where the latest interview of a general had the general using the "Ronald Reagan Defense" ?-- claiming the functional equivalent of Alzheimers to explain his inability to remember?

See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070727/D8QKOF7O0.html

Posted by Don Williams | July 27, 2007 12:58 PM

Re "I'll take John Burns or Michael Totten any day of the week."
-----------
In my humble opinion, Michael Totten is Marty Peretz's new Judith Miller. He even has the comical "smoldering look in search of TRUTH" look --just look at his blog. Dude needs to get a pair of shades and cell phone as props, however.

Explanations and citations for why I have the opinion that Michael Totten is a deceitful
horse's ass available on request.

Posted by Don Williams | July 27, 2007 1:04 PM

The article in question was in the "diary" series on the last page of the magazine, so it wasn't one of their "serious" articles that are placed between the editorial page and the entertainment section. The diaries are always informal. I was shocked when I read the article in question. Imagine an informal piece by Sen. Vitter outlining his personal preferences in adult diapers. Too much information.

Posted by Eric U. | July 27, 2007 1:08 PM

Private Beauchamp was uncovered just yesterday. If he is telling the truth in his writings, many other soldiers, when they have a moment, will corroborate him. And if he is not, those soldiers will expose him. To the fair-minded, the veracity of “Scott Thomas” will soon be evident.

Will Matt Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and their readers be able to look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp honestly?

Does it depend on which way the veracity issue is settled?

Posted by ERF | July 27, 2007 1:09 PM

Does it depend on which way the veracity issue is settled?

The veracity issue HAS been settled-- the right wing bloggers who thought he was a hoax turned out to be lacking in veracity and have no credibility on the issue and instead just went in search of other reasons they made up.

What this means for the specific stories contained in Scott Thomas's diary, I don't know, but I do know that the last person I'm going to consult on the issue is Malkin or any other members of the right-wing blogosphere, who really need to shut up now.

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 1:24 PM

i don't have much to add to the specifics on display here - amazing, right-wing propagandists behaving according to type! - but i am reminded of a comment matthew made about a week ago about being too soaked in the culture of irony to get outraged about things.

methinks that matthew is slowly realizing that for some matters (say, anything having to do with the bush administration and its right-wing enablers) outrage is a far more appropriate reaction than ironic snark....

Posted by howard | July 27, 2007 1:31 PM

I don't think there's a whole lot of lefty bloggers who are deeply invested in this particular guy's stories being factually accurate. It's pretty clearly the other side that went apeshit over this one.

There's an asymmetry here, in terms of relative levels of caring, that calls Ward Churchill to mind.

Posted by Steve | July 27, 2007 1:50 PM

I don't think there's much question of that, ERF. Why don't you ask if Malkin, O'Reilly and Instaputz will recognize "veracity," since they're the doubters?

Posted by W Action | July 27, 2007 1:58 PM

It was the right-wing blogosphere's decision to make the Thomas/Beauchamp thing some sort of referendum on the war. It doesn't have to be. There's no reason that admitting that soldiers might get a bit rowdy and do some fucked-up things when they're under that much pressure would have to undermine your belief in the war, if you do believe in it.

Did Beauchamp write anything about soldiers belching at the table without saying "excuse me" and stinking up the latrine when beans are on the menu? I wonder if Malkin & co. would think those are also vicious anti-American lies.

Posted by Jake H. | July 27, 2007 2:04 PM

The thing is that the Nation just devoted an entire issue to on-the-record accounts by dozens of Iraq vets that are apparently worse than what "Scott Thomas" said (the Thomas article is behind the subscription wall, so I haven't read it, but from secondhand accounts). So why isn't anyone exercised about that? Probably because it's all demonstrably true.

Posted by mq | July 27, 2007 2:08 PM

Will Matt Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and their readers be able to look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp honestly?

Does it depend on which way the veracity issue is settled?

The problem with that is, nobody but the Malkins of the world even cares if it's true or not. It's just not that big a deal whether or not some creatively-minded liberal signed up for service to exaggerate some war stories in a political rag.

For the Malkins, however, it cannot be true. It entirely undermines their entire hyper-macho, "support-the-troops-or-you're-a-terrorist," Manichean worldview. Thus, the massive campaign to discredit, slander and threaten, without any corroborating evidence.

For everyone else, it just doesn't matter whether or not some grunts really ran over a dog or not. What matters is that the right-wing blogosphere is demonstratively crazy.

Since this is true whether or not Beauchamp is lying, it's a win/win situation for us.

Posted by Formerly Wu | July 27, 2007 2:12 PM

I don't know anyone who's suggesting that TNR hired this guy to write lies to undermine support for the war in Iraq. Just as I do, they think that TNR got hornswaggled by his bullshit because it fit editorial ideas of what the dehumanization wrought by combat would look like. They found it compelling and figured their readership would, too. And because it fulfilled their preconceptions regarding verisimilitude, they didn't see the point in vetting it very closely. Nor, apparently, did they see the point in googling up the stuff that their "Diarist" had already posted on the web.

Posted by Dan Collins | July 27, 2007 2:14 PM

And there goes Wu, to prove the point: the truth doesn't matter. All that matters is that somehow we can recuperate the fallout to our narrative. You are absolutely ethically bereft, man.

Posted by Dan Collins | July 27, 2007 2:17 PM

And because it fulfilled their preconceptions regarding verisimilitude, they didn't see the point in vetting it very closely.

If someone has better described the right-wing blogosphere, I haven't seen it.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 2:37 PM

Matthew,

You are not an unreasonable guy, so I really don't get your take on this who issue, and your desire to use it as a club with which to self-righteously club the "wingnuts" on the right. (Pick your favored bogey-man or bogey-malkin).

The issue has always been, was this guy selling a line of shit to TNR? And the answer, clear to military observers, was, yes. The only real question is, did he embellish, exaggerate, or make his stories up whole cloth?

The reason many of us object so strongly is that this kind of stuff is prejudice, pure and simple. It defames and slanders the military, most of whom serve honorably.

Note the comments here that suggest that of course young men can act out in wartime, who can do things they wouldn't dream of back home. That happens far less frequently than many of you presume, and always such exceptions reflect serious failures of leadership, of NCOs and officers. Misbehavior of this sort must be quickly corrected, or bad things happen. (Yes, Abu Ghraib among them.)

Military people know this. Your readers don't adequately appreciate the realities of life in a highly disciplined and controlled environment. They think what they read and see in movies is real. That's where fabulists like Beauchamp get their ideals and templates from. Note in his stories little mention of orders, of supervision, or any leadership at all. He tells his stories in a fantasy land where no leaders exist, or they all turn away.

I agree with commenters here that the extremely biased commentary in The Nation piece was much worse than this drivel. (But many MILBLOGGERS have criticized that piece as well, not that many of your readers would frequent the kinds of sites where such criticism appears.)

I note that a large majority of those quoted in the Nation belong to anti-war organizations. I see one from my own unit who looks to me like a total fraud, making comments about actions and events he almost certainly did not see first hand, as if he did.

Anyway, I'm sure the sycophants here will dismiss me as a wingnut, psycho chickenhawk just chanting the party line yadda yadda. For what it's worth, I think you probably consider your criticisms well thought out and based on facts and experience. Trust that the same is true of those you criticize.

A shame really that so much venom and animosity makes civil debate impossible.

Posted by Dadmanly | July 27, 2007 2:40 PM

A shame really that so much venom and animosity makes civil debate impossible.

Okay, someone just did describe the right-wing blogosphere better. Damn, the internet is amazing.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 2:45 PM

Stu,

Clever of course, and the mirrors can be lined up to make the images on both sides appear to be infinite.

But any response to points of argument? Not as much fun, clearly.

Posted by dadmanly | July 27, 2007 2:53 PM

Anyway, I'm sure the sycophants here will dismiss me as a wingnut, psycho chickenhawk just chanting the party line yadda yadda

Two quick excerpts from the first post you see on dadmanly's blog, bolding my own:

anyone privy to the change in editorial direction Franklin Foer endeavored to accomplish, knows TNR is far from “pro-war” now...

Anti-war screed-makers on the Left decry Michael Goldfarb, Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive, Ace at Ace of Spades, virtually anyone on the pro-victory right...

I wouldn't call you a psycho chickenhawk by any means, but a party-line wingnut? Oh, yes.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 2:57 PM

Clever of course, and the mirrors can be lined up to make the images on both sides appear to be infinite

Whoa. If you tell me there's no spoon, you are going to blow my mind.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 2:59 PM

this kind of stuff is prejudice, pure and simple. It defames and slanders the military, most of whom serve honorably.

No it doesn't.

(1) I heard worse stories involving US soldiers from my Grandmother - a WWII army nurse who loved the army and her country.
(2) I dont generalize stories of individuals to the entire military - Neither did Beauchamp, who never pretended to do anything other than tell his personal experience.

The idea that this "slanders the military" is fucking nonsense.

Posted by r4d20 | July 27, 2007 3:17 PM

Well, the "sycophants" here would probably be more receptive to your thoughtful comments if they weren't coming from someone whose self-regard extends to calling himself "dadmanly" with an apparent lack of irony, and claiming that everyone other than "military people" think that what they see in movies in real.

I haven't the slightest idea whether Beauchamp is telling the truth. I do know that he has stepped forward and laid his credibility on the line to defend his version of events. I know that he's being subjected to the full fair-and-balanced character assassination right now, with evidence of his political leanings being touted as prima facie evidence of dishonesty.

I also know that you appear to be blogging anonymously, and nearly every post on your blog is devoted to parroting insulting caricatures of Democrats, anti-war groups, "CIA bureaucrats," and anyone who supports drawing down troop levels in Iraq.

If you want a civil debate, you could always try starting one. But it seems to me that the time for civil debate is long past. Americans were served a one-sided buffet of lies, exaggerations, fear, and insults five years ago, in lieu of a civil debate. Those who would not tolerate civil debate when they had the upper hand are in no position to beg for it when they are losing.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 27, 2007 3:25 PM

Those who would not tolerate civil debate when they had the upper hand are in no position to beg for it when they are losing.

Yep.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 3:42 PM

But it seems to me that the time for civil debate is long past.

Amen. One of the requirements of civil debate is a modicum of respect for the other side. After the events of the last couple of decades, I have zero respect for anyone on the right, with the possible exception of my father. (I cut him some slack because . . . well, because he's my father and that's how he raised me. The rest of the rightwing can GFY)

Posted by Joe Momma | July 27, 2007 3:56 PM

this kind of stuff is prejudice, pure and simple. It defames and slanders the military, most of whom serve honorably.

To echo r4d20: No, it really doesn't.

The America which so many conservatives in the military seem to imagine, an America in which the civilian public is predisposed to believe that soldiers are baby-killing monsters and is just slathering for new evidence to fit into that worldview, is a *completely imaginary America.*

The military, as a profession, is worshipped far more uncritically than just about any other in our public discourse. Dadmanly, you need to admit that and stop playing the victim.

Look, I get that the military sets high standards of conduct for its people -- far higher than most civilians would be comfortable with -- and that many in the military, apparently including yourself, take pride in those standards, and take it to heart when you see someone who fails to live up to them. But here's the thing: The rest of us have lower standards! We do not expect or assume anywhere near the degree of perfection that you do. We see you as human beings most of whom are ill-prepared for the situation you've been put in. We do not assume that it is a reflection on the entire profession when individual instances of poor discipline come to light. We are capable of critical thought on this subject. Good god, we all belong to institutions of one sort or another and are perfectly familiar with the phenomenon of the bad apple.

Frankly you insult your fellow citizens when you pretend we're so simple-minded as to believe everything we see at the movies, and to not be able to distingish between a bad soldier and a good one.

Now, as for Beauchamp, I'd like to hear from other witnesses to the events he purports to describe. Frankly the guy reads too much like a novelist for me to be fully confident that he hasn't taken liberties. But he's putting his name on the line in defense of what he wrote. Absent any contradictory testimony I don't see how you can confidently assert, at this point, that he's "selling a line of shit" -- not unless your main motive is propaganda rather than truth, at any rate.

Posted by Ryan | July 27, 2007 4:07 PM

And there goes Wu, to prove the point: the truth doesn't matter. All that matters is that somehow we can recuperate the fallout to our narrative. You are absolutely ethically bereft, man.

Spare me the sanctimony. If he lied, then he'll get what's coming to him. But that's not what this is all about, is it? The truth was never what mattered here, to either side.

Until you can prove (that means evidence) that a) he really did maliciously fabricate stories and that b) the publication of those stories had a greater deleterious effect on our nation's armed forces than (pick one) the Tillman cover-up, the Abu Gharaib scandal, the Haditha massacre, the Walter Reed clusterfuck or any other number of scandals that the right-wing blogosphere has cheerfully gone to bat to defend in the last few years, I'm going to call this one like it is: a manufactured e-aneurysm and a vicious, political attack on a serving member of our armed forces.

Otherwise, I'll be over in the corner not giving a shit.

Posted by Formerly Wu | July 27, 2007 4:57 PM

Ryan,

I think you give many of your fellow Americans a bit too much credit.

I do think a lot of Red State America -- "red" as in macro or micro -- do admire and perhaps value military service and those who serve. They enlist in far greater proportions than their blue counterparts.

Clearly, there are many who do think of the military in stereotypes, regardless of backtracking to the contrary, John Kerry revealed as much, both in 1971 and more recently. There were many defenders of his comments that said, "he was attacked for telling the truth."

And in the middle, there are many people who are too easily swayed by what the see and hear and read. "We've lost in Iraq," "Iraq's a quagmire" (first written in 2003 by the NYT), unfortunately becomes the easy soundbite that a lot of average folks, not very aware or well informed, start believing from repetition without refutation.

Vietnam and Vietnam era veterans remain the perfect counterpoint to your argument. Vast swatchs of America, and a majority of journalists, find all the various libels about the war, its prosecution, its results, its root causes, and the deviance and brokenness of the soldiers who fought there as entirely accurate.

If we fight a bit too hard or aggressively against what we view as falsity and distortions, keep in mind we know what happened last time. Never again.

But, having said all that, I entirely agree with your last point about it coming down to the truth of Beauchamp's accounts. Military readers question the accuracy of accounts based on a lot of circumstantial details that sound false. That's not evidence that the whole is false or fabricated (though it would suggest a greater likelihood of same). So we shall see.

Contrary to many here, I actually think that the local commanders (and First Sergeant, NCOs, other leaders) will quickly determine how much if any basis in fact can be found for Beauchamp's diary entries. Soldiers will lie to try to stay out of trouble, no doubt. Soldiers will sometimes lie to cover for friends, but they better be good ones.

Most soldiers are at least a little uncomfortable with lying, even when they think it's for a "good cause" or to cover embarrassment, and certainly not to help the Army "look good" when the Army really "looks bad." Try asking a soldier about the things he doesn't like about his mission, his commanders, his unit, or the Army.

If Beauchamp was telling the truth, I will apologize publicly and encourage Milbloggers to do likewise. If the word comes down that he made all this crap up, I would expect likewise from the many defending his "authentic voice."

And for those who will dismiss a military finding to that effect, I just suggest to you there are in fact not a few anti-war soldiers doing their duty and serving in Iraq. And they'll be only too glad to get the word out if there's an attempt to squelch truth or punish Beauchamp, not for lying, put for telling the truth.

Posted by dadmanly | July 27, 2007 5:23 PM

There is a little too much effort by those on the Left to claim the burden is on the military to specifically disprove Beauchamps allegations, and until them "right-wingers" should accept Beauchamp's article as the "still-standing truth in absence of evidence to the contrary."

The obvious problem with that is the Left would love nothing more than letting several smears stand pending investigation. Army desecrates graves! Army kills dogs for fun! Army wantonly destroys Iraqi property for the hell of it. Soldiers emotionally abuse a badly disfigured female comrade in a mess hall! And officers and NCOs do nothing! Nothing!

A fine little metanarrative Al-Jazeera will be happy to use, but the lesson from Vietnam is you cannot wait for formal clearing of slimefests directed at the military, and even with military investigation and vindication there are always the Lefties screaming "whitewash".

That is why Veterans and active Duty know the lessons of losing the Vietnam propaganda war against the honor of the troops and will write away and write vigorously WHY this story appears to contain several critical lies. NOW. Not "after the courts rule" or similar such civilian twaddle. The soldiers face added danger from Jihadis when such inflamatory stories go unchallenged, soldiers become demoralized, and American civilians tend to believe a story that goes unchallenged.

God help both Beauchamp and the editor of TNR Foer if soldier deaths or wounds are tied to Muslims angered by their lies and misrepresentations and poor publishing choices and lack of fact-checking...

Posted by Chris Ford | July 27, 2007 5:52 PM

God help both Beauchamp and the editor of TNR Foer if soldier deaths or wounds are tied to Muslims angered by their lies and misrepresentations and poor publishing choices and lack of fact-checking...

Body Count from the "lies" told by Beauchamp: 0
Body Count from the lies told by this Administration to get us into this unholy mess: 3646

Good to see you have your priorities straight, Chris.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 5:58 PM

Chris, is that why is was important to breathlessly proclaim that Scott Thomas didn't exist?

You do, in fact prove my point-- the only reason right-wingers care about this is because the narrative offends their thin-skinned sensibilities and is throwing them into an unhinged frenzy. They've already been proven wrong about Scott Thomas's existence-- he's real -- and now they're furiously running around the field trying to move the goalposts. You had your chance, and you blew it. No one cares what you think. Leave it to qualified, informed people to determine the veracity of the claims which, as far as we can tell, are credible.

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 6:01 PM

If Beauchamp was telling the truth, I will apologize publicly and encourage Milbloggers to do likewise. If the word comes down that he made all this crap up, I would expect likewise from the many defending his "authentic voice."

I commend your willingness to admit a mistake if Private Beauchamp was telling the truth, but I think you're missing the point slightly about the left-center blogosphere's critique of the Malkin-Powerline-etc. attack on him.

First off, it's not so much that we are "defending his authentic voice." It's just that we object to the right's a priori assumption that he must be lying, and that he must therefore be pilloried. This is precisely the point that LaFollette Progressive very nicely makes up above and one that you really don't respond to: these sites automatically assume that Beauchamp and TNR are fabricating this. Without wishing to be cliched, it is an American ideal that we are innocent until proven guilty, so why make an exception for this private?

Secondly, we just have this general sense of befuddlement of why this is such a big deal for you. Seriously, why bother? TNR is a pro-war magazine, and Beauchamp's articles don't make any kind of larger argument about the war, or indeed chronicle anything other than the sort of unpleasantness that often takes place in war. You seem to try to address this in your post, but your Dolchstoss argument about Vietnam is very unclear.

So why not direct that energy towards articulating a logical defense of the war based upon real arguments? Why pick on this one guy who has enough problems to deal with as it is? What does it possibly do?

Posted by anm | July 27, 2007 6:22 PM

The obvious problem with that is the Left would love nothing more than letting several smears stand pending investigation. Army desecrates graves! Army kills dogs for fun! Army wantonly destroys Iraqi property for the hell of it. Soldiers emotionally abuse a badly disfigured female comrade in a mess hall! And officers and NCOs do nothing! Nothing!

This shouldn't even need stating, but...

Not a single person who has posted on this thread wants this. Not. One.

Posted by anm | July 27, 2007 6:26 PM

A non-ideological political magazine?
Really? How is that possible exactly?

As a trade publication, for one: Congressional Quarterly, say.

(not that TNR is trying to do that, of course; my inner Jesuit just insists on poking needles into logical exclusions)

Posted by Ray Radlein | July 27, 2007 6:33 PM

anm: still, it's good of folks like Chris to let liberals like me know what's deep within my black, treasonous heart. I had no idea that I wanted to let several smears stand, pending an investigation, and would have gone on not knowing that unless Chris had told me as much.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 6:39 PM

i used to have more energy to address the simple-mindedness, the distortion, the pompous sanctimony, the vast degree of misrepresentation that informs the likes of dadmanly and chris ford. but life is too short, and i'm not going to convince them of anything, anyhow.

instead, i'm simply going to wonder what strange kind of psyche is quite literally unable to distinguish between the notion that individual members of the military may not always behave with honor (a truism if i ever saw one) and a generalized critique.

i mean, when i say that george bush is a small-minded, ill-informed, mean-spirited little man, dadmanly and chris ford think i'm saying all republicans are "small-minded, ill-informed, and mean spirited little men." it's a very strange mental tick, this loud harrumphing over charges that weren't made.

PS. well, and then there's this strange fixation dadmanly has with vietnam, which apparently (who knew?) was a glorious triumph worth every drop of american and vietnamese blood and every penny of american treasure. good to get that straight.

Posted by howard | July 27, 2007 7:08 PM

Well, Howard, our failure to win in Vietnam is why the Soviet Union went on to a glorious trium--oh, yeah, that's right.

My father is a Vietnam vet. He also despises this Administration with an intensity I cannot hope to match. Where he correctly sees another government failing the soldiers willing to die for it, rubes like dadmanly see liberal boogeyman around every corner, sapping us of our precious will.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 7:27 PM

see liberal boogeyman around every corner, sapping us of our precious will.

Sapping our will? Hell, you don't know the half of it. They got all my precious bodily fluids.
Compared to that will-sapping ain't shit.

Posted by Mooser | July 27, 2007 8:44 PM

Well-played, Mooser. Well-played.

Posted by Stu | July 27, 2007 9:56 PM

So Right Blogistan and the MilBloggers have been apologizing profusely for claiming this guy didn't exist? Just like they apologized profusely for claiming the Iraqi news stringer didn't exist. *snicker*

Wash, rinse, repeat

As for claims about Pravda-era propaganda, I really don't see much difference between the dadmanly's of the world and the drivel I get from Xinhua every day about the glorious motherland and the infallibility of the Party.

Posted by Tom - Daai Tou Laam | July 27, 2007 10:31 PM

TNR is a pro-war magazine, and Beauchamp's articles don't make any kind of larger argument about the war, or indeed chronicle anything other than the sort of unpleasantness that often takes place in war. You seem to try to address this in your post, but your Dolchstoss argument about Vietnam is very unclear.

So why not direct that energy towards articulating a logical defense of the war based upon real arguments? Why pick on this one guy who has enough problems to deal with as it is? What does it possibly do?

Posted by anm | July 27, 2007 6:22 PM

Well put. Dadmanly, was Band of Brothers a pack of lies? We Were Soldiers? A Bright and Shining Lie? Journal Of a Plague Year? Chickenhawk?

All military memoirs that I have read, and indeed not written from a 'partisan' perspective. They also tend to describe war as hell, and indeed, unpleasent, with folks you are next to sometimes doing things they regret later.

It seems to me that most, although perhaps not all, MILBLOGGERS share a deep contempt for civilians who have anything to say that they disagress with on any topic (so not much ground for civil discussion there) and a passionate committment to never admitting they are incorrect on any point.

And indeed, be cautious with your 'committment' to Dolchstosslengende. They can take you to a bad place.

Posted by Max Renn | July 27, 2007 10:38 PM

Dropped in from Atrios and found the comments very interesting.
One query though: Who (or what) is this "Dadmanly" (Freud, anyone?)? The person is coming across as an active duty type, but obviously has no job in the military - that blog alone would take up most of the day. And everything on it is regurgitated right-wing blather.
As to Beauchamp: considering the idiotic things guys 19-25 old do when they're not in the middle of a civil war, why is it so unbelievable that things such as this might occur when they are? And what is this crap about NCO's handling it? I would think many (most?) NCO's might be tempted to turn a blind eye (what with the manpower shortage and all). After all, these troops weren't out just killing people for the heck of it. Just running over dogs, making crude jokes, right? I'm not being snarky, just recounting what was written.
I served in the military (no fighting, so I don't know how I'd react) and of course it has probably changed since I retired, but I still can't see an NCO or JO risking losing a soldier over something that is seen (I think mistakenly) as probably not all that important.
One question - these "Milbloggers"; I thought the Army was censoring the net out of Iraq. So just who/what are they?

Posted by Doug | July 27, 2007 11:20 PM

It seems to me that most, although perhaps not all, MILBLOGGERS share a deep contempt for civilians who have anything to say that they disagress with on any topic (so not much ground for civil discussion there) and a passionate committment to never admitting they are incorrect on any point.

I think this has something to do with the outrage. There's a very narrow subculture of people in the military (or wish they were) with blogs who call themselves "milbloggers" who all have a specific culture and outlook. They're angry that a certain person with a diary/blog who happens to be in the military doesn't share their same culture/worldview. So first they claim he doesn't exist. Then they claim he DOES exist but he's making stuff up. Ok, maybe he DOES exist and the stuff he's saying IS true but that means the guy is scum which means his diary... what, shouldn't be published? It's all lashing out at someone who they feel isn't part of their tribe, and they were egged on into this frenzy by the outrage pimps on the right like Michelle Malkin and Mr. Protein Wisdom.

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 11:49 PM

Several US soldiers plead guilty to charges stemming from their role in the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of her family but the WARbloggers go nutty about a story of soldiers running over a dog. I guess those guys feel a story of mild misbehavior and canine homicide is more detrimental to the Army and the war effort than convictions for rape and murder.

Posted by boggled | July 28, 2007 5:42 AM