Yon’s pack of lies? What on earth are you accusing him of lying about? What evidence do you have for your potentially libelous charge, and who are you, anyway?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado)

You’re right. It takes great courage to stick around after you’ve told tales out of school on your unit. I’m glad you’re not buying Yon’s pack of lies.

Posted by: Roger

Some of us suspect you never did, you just thought one was cooler than the other.

As with so many things you blog about, Rog, WRONNNNNNNNNNG!

No, you moron, he’s a hero for decided to remain in Iraq, in harms way, when he had a way out.

The reason you aren’t getting the emails is because there’s a minimum membership requirement. You fail, in the “clues” category.

I really liked Yon’s article about General Petreus and second chances. And I think it applies here. Beauchamp has to answer to his unit, his wife, his editors and his conscience. They probably won’t let him off the hook, so it’s no miscarriage of justice for us to not kick him when he’s down.

On the other hand, we have a pretty good idea of exactly what The New Republic did wrong. And so far they have NOT been taken to task for it. Where was the fact-checking? What about the whistle-blower who was fired and publicly attacked? What about the conflicts of interest in the fact-checking department? Where was the open investigation, and what were the results? Where’s the accountability?

All the focus on Beauchamp distracts us from the big picture here. This is part of a continuing pattern that we see with New Republic writers. Plagarism, fabrications and inaccuracies are supposed to be caught by the editorial staff. The New Republic has had its second chance, and its third chance. The fact that this is happening again and again discredits the entire publication.

Posted by: Jon Swift”

Beauchamp is not a hero here, and no one’s claiming he is. Rather, Beauchamp is repentent, and implicit in that is the idea that he’s recanted his terrible portrayal of his comrades. Maybe not publicly, but as one of the posters at Yon’s site said:

“It seems to me that the clearest refutation of Beauchamp’s story is that he himself was willing to go back into the field with these people. Had they been anything like he described, I imagine that he would have cut his own hand off rather than go back to them.”

So, there’s implicit admission that the stories are false, and a process (likely yet uncompleted but still underway) of forgiveness from the people most directly affected: His own unit. And Roger’s response here was that folks should be lenient in their dispositions to him, not because of any mitigating factor within the original statements themselves, but because of his actions he’s taking as a consequence of them.

None of this says he’s heroic. Rather, it’s the same sort of leniency that occurs when a criminal is repentent. He admits his mistake, he accepts the consequences, the people most affected accept him back into their ranks, why should we who are so far away be any harsher?

And as far as the “cojones”: Roger’s right. He is more ballsey than TNR. He’s accepting the consequences of his act, something that publication has yet to do. That’s less about heroism than a criticism of TNR.

I can’t believe this actually has to be laid out for you, but that’s what happens when you comment before you think.

With all the bruhahaas after his published diaries, those buddies still cover his sorry ass as a unit.

Moving beyond pretence. That is so difficult.

Jon Swift I must not have gotten the email coordinating the new conservative response.

Michael J. Totten Who would send such an email?

And why does Jon think he’s on the distribution list?