It has now been a week since Beauchamp outed himself as the DIARIST WHO HATES AMERIKKA AND HER TROOPS (and not necessarily in that order), and I see the only one still writing about it is Hugh Hewitt’s less scrupulous sidekick, Dean Barnett. Even then, Dean’s post consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway” Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!).
At any rate, since it has been only a week, I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp. Last week he was single-handedly destroying morale, fueling terrorist hate, and smearing the country. He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear, and hysteria reached a fevered pitch in no time.
But now, nothing.
Is it possible that he was just a convenient distraction for the internuts that control discourse in the right-wing blogosphere, and now that the chest-thumping and bellowing and feigned outrage at these terrible smears against God and Country have been publicly displayed, they can move on to some other distraction? Like little dogs, they can go bite someone else’s ankle for whatever the perceived grievance du jour might be? Personally, I am betting it is Obama’s turn, as Malkin, the crown princess of the nutroots activist brigades on the right (no one can start a hysterical linkfest like she can), is already on the issue.
At any rate, Beauchamp, we have forgotten you in just a few days, but thank you. You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend. You gave certain others a testosterone rush they have not felt since High School football when you gave them an opportunity to opine about giving you a blanket party. And most of all, thank you for providing a week-long distraction as to how fucked up things really are in Iraq.
*** Update ***
LOL. Having served as judge, jury, and executioneer after deeming everything Beauchamp said as a lie, The Sundries Shack claims that they are merely waiting for the investigation to finish. You see, that is how it works- first you deny, then you smear, then you have a linkfest attacking the person, then you shift the goalposts on your accusations, then you smear some more, AND THEN you investigate.
BTW- How is that investigation going? Have you deep thinkers done any more sand table exercises to determine if it is possible to run over a dog with a track vehicle? Inquiring minds want to know.
Plus, I am a hate-filled wretch (and I thought I had BDS)! If you would only stop being so easy to hate…
*** Update #2 ***
This, from the Sundries Shack, really needs a second dose of mocking, but I do not have the energy:
I realize that accepting that the right can be patient and rationial in its criticisms is an alien thought to Cole. Then again, having watched him descend into blithering idiocy for a couple years now, I’m not surprised that such a simple concept would have so much trouble finding traction in his brain.
I know when I think of the behavior directed at Beauchamp last week, patient and rational are the two adjectives that spring to mind.
*** Update #3 ***
Jeff Goldstein claims last week’s hysteria was merely “fact-checking.” This takes silly to a whole new level, but at least this piece from Jeff is better than the impenetrable gibberish he offered up last week.
*** Update #4 ***
An update from planet Goldstein:
update 3: John Cole just IMed me, trying to be chummy. I invited him to blow me.
I assume that impeaches anything I ever write from here on out.
Actually, what I said was “the upside of your comments section is I can now link to you again without having to hear you whinge about how mean my commenters are.”
That was me being “chummy.”
*** Update #5 ***
The New Republic posts a statement about the alleged “fiction” that Beauchamp penned:
All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp’s account.
In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)
Read the whole thing.