Why'd You Say That?

The New Republic is involved in a bit of controversy (hardly the first time). They published (originally under a pseudonym) Scott Beauchamp, a soldier in Baghdad. One of his reports, "Shock Troops," had three anecdotes about the nasty things our guys are doing there.

Beauchamp's veractiy was challenged. Since then, he's admitted he got one detail wrong (a big one, I'd say), but the battle rages over everything else he said.

TNR is in a defensive stance. But I want to discuss this sentence in their latest statement about all the doubts: "While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy."

The motives of the questioners, even if The New Republic knows them, are irrelevant. (And TNR admits the concerns are legitimate, making it an extra sleazy attack.) TNR's critics, and, indeed, TNR, don't have to do everything from a neutral stance to make rational points and have a reasonable debate.