beauchamp’s revenge

FINAL UPDATE: The military investigation into the matter has come up with nothing– without relying on anonymous sources.

UPDATE 2: See here, here, and here for more on the story. The more TNR talks– and the more investigation that is carried out– the less friendly the facts of this conversation are to them.

UPDATE: TNR validates! Well, sort of. We have accounts from “anonymous” sources, which is, I suppose, only fair, and an admission that the IED victim story happened not in Iraq, but in Kuwait. Before they deployed, which seems to strip the story of much of its anti-war overtones– and, incidentally, validates the questions raised by soldiers from FOB Falcon as to why they had never seen the woman in question. As I wrote in the comments:

“…note that I do not suggest they are not true, and that even if they were, John Cole still parrots a party line that is either dishonest or stupid. (As a sidenote, I’d point out that reading a post carefully before commenting on it is generally a good idea).”

In any case, I have to run, but see this post at Ace of Spades and this one from PW for more about why this doesn’t change a great deal of the problems many bloggers had with the initial articles.

* * *

Much like “culture warrior“, it seems as if another someone else is unhappy with the conservative blogosphere for their reaction to the Scott Thomas controversy. Jeff Goldstein comments:

Well, what remains to be said, John? If the “nutters” continue to harp on the significance of reporting fiction as truth, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they move on to the next outrage, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write on the surge strategy and its successes, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write about Paris Hilton, or take on Barack Obama’s bluster about invading Pakistan, one wonders why they aren’t taking on the mess that is Iraq.

Much like Andrew Sullivan, John Cole seems somewhat unhindered by the fact that Beauchamp’s accounts have been seriously questioned by credible individuals. He writes:

Is it possible that he was just a convenient distraction for the internuts that control discourse in the right-wing blogosphere, and now that the chest-thumping and bellowing and feigned outrage at these terrible smears against God and Country have been publicly displayed, they can move on to some other distraction? Like little dogs, they can go bite someone else’s ankle for whatever the perceived grievance du jour might be? Personally, I am betting it is Obama’s turn, as Malkin, the crown princess of the nutroots activist brigades on the right (no one can start a hysterical linkfest like she can), is already on the issue.

Note the implicit approval of Beauchamp– Cole has now tied his credibility to the authenticity of the accounts. Should they be proven false, Cole will need to explain why he maligned the critics of “Scott Thomas”without ever seriously considering that perhaps his sensationalist claims should be challenged.

Like many anti-war bloggers, John Cole builds most of his writing off the central premise that the single most important issue in America is how poorly the United States is doing in Iraq, and that most other controversies (a publication allowing questionable material to be published without thoroughly ensuring that the accounts were true) must be distractions designed by the right to ensure that “real dialog” (i.e., discussion of how poorly the United States is doing in Iraq) is squelched.

Goldstein’s analysis, it seems, is right on the money, and I think that’s because in reality, the distraction is not the Scott Thomas controversy, but Cole’s “Iraq is a mess” line, which is part of a carefully-designed strategy to shout-down the right. A reasonable person might conclude that Cole simply doesn’t have an answer to the arguments of the conservative blogosphere regarding Beauchamp– but that would assume too much, wouldn’t it?

Until Cole (and, perhaps Sullivan) are able to engage the criticisms of The New Republic instead of simply mocking them and moving on, I don’t think it is.