Weekly Standard:
"... a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source."

We'll see how this shakes out but Tapped's defense of TNR has been nothing short of astonishing. At the very least, the TNR editors should have acknowledged that they had spoken with the Army's investigators who had determined that his story was false. Additionally, Foer should not have lied when he said that he had "confirmed" the disfigured woman when he had not. He later "confirmed" her in a different location, at a different time. For Tapped to claim that his story was largely proven to be true when no names of any corroborating witnesses or experts had been provided was preposterous. For Tapped to claim that the main thrust of the stories was still valid when, in fact, the whole theme was demolished, is ... well, really strange. It seems like Tapped wants to defend this publication merely because it sometimes share's their philosophy. For Tapped to now continue this fight - in another vein - merely shows them to be 'sore losers' of a sort.

The diaries were supposed to show how war can dehumanize - we know that to be true - there was no need for this idiot to smear his fellow soldiers and to simply make this stuff up.

congratulations, sunbeltjerry: another perfect recitation of the approved propaganda line of the day! how people like you have learned how to type with your damaged thought processes is always amazing to me.

on a serious front, the continued absence of anything approximating analytic intelligence on the right is truly depressing: back when there were conservatives, they prided themselves on being thoughtful.

"We'll see how this shakes out but Tapped's defense of TNR has been nothing short of astonishing."

It wasn't a "defense of TNR," but rather bemusement at the idiocy and vitriol of those attacking it.

"At the very least, the TNR editors should have acknowledged that they had spoken with the Army's investigators who had determined that his story was false."

Actually, they did no such thing. They did not "determine that his story was false;" they were unable to get anyone else in his platoon to go on record confirming it. Gee, what a surprise....

"Additionally, Foer should not have lied when he said that he had 'confirmed' the disfigured woman when he had not."

Dear heart, since he did, in fact, confirm the "disfigured woman," I'm afraid that you, as usual, do not have a point.

"He later 'confirmed' her in a different location, at a different time."

And your point is, what, precisely? It's hilarious watching you idiots pretend that this matters in any way.

"For Tapped to claim that his story was largely proven to be true when no names of any corroborating witnesses or experts had been provided was preposterous."

For you to claim that his story was largely proven to be false when no evidence has been provided is preposterous. Did you have a point to make?

'For Tapped to claim that the main thrust of the stories was still valid when, in fact, the whole theme was demolished, is ... well, really strange."

For you to claim that "the whole theme was demolished" is, well, really strange.

"It seems like Tapped wants to defend this publication merely because it sometimes share's their philosophy."

It seems that you want to attack this publication merely because they printed a story that shakes your rosy view of the noble and heroic soldier.

"For Tapped to now continue this fight - in another vein - merely shows them to be 'sore losers' of a sort."

Whereas posts like this merely show that you are an idiot.

"The diaries were supposed to show how war can dehumanize - we know that to be true"

Do we? We on the left certainly do, but the level of vitriol aimed at this quite unremarkable story, its author, and its publisher leads me to question where the same thing can be said of you and your cohorts.

"there was no need for this idiot to smear his fellow soldiers and to simply make this stuff up."

Since you have yet to establish that anyone made stuff up, I'm afraid that, as usual, you don't have a point. All you've done is confirm TAPPED's point for them.

Face it, PaulB, dear, you are simply wrong ...

Protein Wisdom/Confederate Yankee:

TNR comes under ever more vicious right wing “attacks”

The “nutters,” they play unfairly. By, like, consulting experts on their own. And questioning the job done by TNR’s “fact checkers”. Which is not their job:

BAE System’s Head of Communications over the division than manufactures the Bradley IFV was never specifically asked to comment on the claims made in “Shock Troops” by TNR’s legion of fact-checkers.

When he saw the claims made in “Shock Troops,” he stated, by citing the physical properties of his company’s vehicle, that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Bradley story told in “Shock Troops” to have been correct.

Once more, we have to question the accuracy and the integrity of The New Republic’s editors, who ran an investigation apparently designed to provide merely cover instead of facts.

And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for you meddling haters.

Need I remind you that every moment the nutters spend on this story is a moment less they’re able to spend on the mess that is Iraq?

Ask yourself, why do they shy away from the real news? Which, granted, they can only get from organizations whose veracity cannot be questioned upon pain of being accused of avoiding the “real news” they should be focusing on — but then, that’s really just nitpicking, isn’t it?