bloggie

Here is TNR's statement. I know my views will be discounted because of my long ties with the magazine and my deep respect for and loyalty to it, but readers know I am not afraid to challenge friends or those whom I support. Like Matt, I find TNR's statement persuasive; we do not yet know what actually happened, and Beauchamp has not been given a chance to fully defend himself without pressure from the military; and the military itself has not interviewed every relevant party, and leaked information in a selective way to political actors that does not reflect well on them. Beauchamp never recanted his story, despite some headlines to that effect. From everything I've read Beauchamp does not appear to be a reliable character. But even unreliable characters deserve fair treatment. We have no proof of anything yet.

It's really about something else: the fury of the right at the management of a war they are permanently wedded to; and the need to lash out at someone - anyone - other than the people ultimately responsible.

Jeez, does he have to express everything in terms of gay marriage?

Look: if Beauchamp invented any of it, the magazine should apologize and retract. But we still have no proof of that, as even some at National Review have been forced to concede.

Good news, folks. If you say it, it is true until someone else can prove otherwise.