Updated: Well, We At Least Know TNR Reads The WaPo

Another update: It's also important to remember there are personal consequences to all of this. One aspect of that is discussed here today at Real Clear Politics.

Update: As I wrote at the time, TNR's second source never actually corroborated what happened with the Bradley.

It appears TNR's witness witnessed an entirely different scene. How is that considered corroboration? And it certainly has nothing to do with fact checking as regards Beauchamp's narrative. It's a completely different version of events.

Updated and Bumped:

Yes, but now the other piece of this issue some dismissed may become even more important - who did TNR's alleged fact checking?

In other words, 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.

It at least appears the folks at The New Republic read the Washington Post, it's cited here at The Plank at 10:30 AM today - on the South Carolina primary story.

I had my say - but Ace chimed in on the AP/WaPo piece on TNR early, or probably late, knowing Ace.

Just to crow a little: I have maintained TNR did not have three actual corroborating witnesses for Beauchamp's tales, but merely one, corroborating all three. Evidence for that has been 1) common sense, as TNR was clearly attempting to create the impression of wide corroboration for its story, and would have specifically said its key witnesses were different men if that were in fact the case and 2) the fact that I know that TNR is keeping tabs on this blog, and while I have asserted this two or three times before now (maybe even four), they've never contradicted me.

I have a bit more evidence now. Let's count witnesses.

Bryan at Hot Air weighed in at 9:30:

I happened to catch an ABC radio news story about the Beauchamp story last night (the man’s name is pronounced “Beecham,” btw, if the radio reader got it right). This story is an AP piece published in the Washington Post, no less. So big media is taking note of the latest Winter Soldier tale. This one’s gonna leave a mark:

The Weekly Standard managed a response:

All Soldiers Refute Beauchamp's Account

I discussed this with Military.com editor Ward Carroll yesterday, listen here. And there's more reaction to the AP story around the web.

Ann Althouse points out that someone is lying. True, but as she notes - someone also isn't talking.

TNR's silence is deathly.

Still, TNR isn't talking. But plenty are with more to follow, I'm sure. Maybe they'll get aroundtuit after lunch. I'm certain they wouldn't want to get ahead of the news cycle, or anything on something as interesting as this.

Comments

[Observer]

Moral of the story

TNR bends it like Beecham

[Bill Adkins]

Dan? Deleting the Newsweek story because it's true, I see.

[Purple Avenger]

TNR can stonewall, because they know it'll work. AP and Reuters have stonewalled when it was definitively proven they were printing bogus stories.

[Dan Riehl]

NO, BA you can provide a link if you want. But I don't allow people to steal others content and put it here. We Cons have rules, unlike you diot liberals.

[Bill Adkins]

Steal, Dan? You must have missed that attribution to Newsweek and Dan Ephron. Try again?

[chris]

Who's the 'diot'?