The New Republic meets Dan Rather (and finds that they have a surprising amount in common) | Redstate

The New Republic meets Dan Rather (and finds that they have a surprising amount in common) Redstate:

"The New Republic today published an editorial on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp situation and on their attempts to 're-report' his anecdotes with further investigation (always a
great idea for a 'journalistic' outlet that wishes to be respected).
What did they have to say? In a nutshell: Beauchamp was discovered by 'Elspeth Reeve, a TNR reporter-researcher, whom he later married.' What he had to say was believable because he was a soldier in Iraq and because 'conservatives and liberals alike praised' his first essay. "

It clearly seems to be the case now that at least the stories are questionable. What think is the bigger problem here is how much both sides are using everything to make points. It feels like we have entered a period of scorched earth debate tactics, where you cannot allow any point for those who oppose you and must do what ever it takes to score your own points.

When the stories first came out, there were people on the left who used it as a way of attacking the war. Here they said is one more reason that we should get out of Iraq. Even if the stories were true, which I doubt, I don't think that is what must be read from them. The simplest and easiest thing to read from it is that soldiers in a war environment react to stress in ways that are not always appropriate. Some soldiers need to be disciplined for actions. To take take step and say that the war is wrong just because of the actions some soldiers have taken is a logical leap with no foundation.

Now with the story falling apart, the right is using the stories as a way of attacking the left, claiming it will stop at nothing to get us out of the war. The implication being that this was a set up, that groups on the left either knew it wasn't true or perhaps set up the lies themselves. This is another logical leap that lacks foundation. Just because they supported the story when they heard it does not mean they knew it was a lie or created the lie. What it means is that a soldier in Iraq, perhaps wanted to garner some fame or attention for himself, started a narrative that could achieve that for him. While it is true he had been publishing them without his name, he was married to a staff of the magazine, I would be willing to bet that he would have proudly come out in the future.

On a side note I think this also applies to Tillman's death. It was tragic, and the facts suggest it was a cover up. I don't think it is fair to use that as a foundation for attacking Bush, who simply told the American people what he had been told. There is no reason to believe that Bush or others in the administration would have known.