Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (61332)	7/27/2007 6:00:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What's That Now? Cont'd Jonah Goldberg The Corner Mark – I’m getting similar email. I’d add a few points. First, I stand by my criticism of the guy. Boasting about how you and your buddies mock disfigured women, wear baby skulls as party hats and hunt dogs for sport and then taking offense when people don’t think you’re as much of a jerk as you put on is hardly a winning stance in my book. There are worse things than lying – or “embellishing” – and it sounds to me that Beauchamp fails to grasp that fact when he whines, in effect, “I’m a jerk, but I’m not a liar.” Second, I’ve been for the most part quiet about this whole thing myself. This isn’t like the Dan Rather self-immolation, at least for me. I’ve known Frank Foer for at least a decade, and while I want the truth to come out, I also sympathized – and continue to sympathize – with his predicament. Frank’s an honorable and serious guy and the New Republic is typically a worthy opponent for conservatives. I think, even if broadly accurate, Frank made a mistake in running these pieces because they aren’t up to the standards of his magazine and they advance an argument I don’t think the New Republic should be making. Liberals don’t want to beat up on the troops anymore, they want to enlist them as victims. The subtext of the pieces is that the war has made American soldiers evil or at least put holes in their souls. But, at this point at least (and I would argue always), I think it’s pretty clear that even if true, Beauchamp’s experience is not representative. But, lacking editorial rebuttal of any kind, the editors of the New Republic seemed to want people to think it is. That’s a bad argument for the New Republic, liberalism and everybody else. Regardless, whatever point-scoring opportunities there may be here, I’m saddened by the whole thing. I certainly won’t be jumping for joy if Beauchamp turns out to be another fabulist. Nor will I think his diarists are an indictment of anybody but Beauchamp himself if they are corroborated. corner.nationalreview.com