The Kerrymandering of The New Republic

First, a definition of "gerrymandering":

ger·ry·man·der (jr-mndr, gr-)

tr.v. ger·ry·man·dered, ger·ry·man·der·ing, ger·ry·man·ders

To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.

n.

1. The act, process, or an instance of gerrymandering.

2. A district or configuration of districts differing widely in size or population because of gerrymandering.

I'll leave it up to the readers to define what "Kerrymandering" could possibly be.

The New Republic doesn't support the troops; but they do support any John Kerryesque disgruntled grunt who will bolster their anti-war campaign of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Enter Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

I think Dean Barnett is spot-on with his assessment:

the real story here isn’t “Thomas” or “Beauchamp” or even the accuracy of his “reporting”, but rather The New Republic’s crass effort to besmirch the war effort with the former “Thomas Diarists”. It’s interesting that Beauchamp writes, “My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military.” While it’s hard to take this claim at face value, in TNR’s hands they served exactly that purpose.

TNR isn’t the New Yorker; it doesn’t publish articles solely for their artistic merit. Rather, as we learned yesterday, TNR under Franklin Foer’s command aims to “explicate ideas.” The idea in need of explication regarding the "Thomas Diarists" was just how sociopathic and depraved our military has become. TNR made no effort to put Beauchamp’s writings into context of the 160,000 men and women who, unlike Private Beauchamp, are serving honorably and nobly in Iraq. What’s more, Franklin Foer’s subsequent comments that Beauchamp’s tales represented “mild practical jokes” implied that the diaries were really just the tip of iceberg regarding American malfeasance in Iraq.

The simple fact is that up until now the American left has done everything possible to discredit the war effort in Iraq. Except for one thing – they’ve at least publicly professed to “support the troops.”

Once again, as I’ve said all along, you can’t “support the troops” while publishing agitprop that suggests the troops are a bunch of sociopaths. The Nation went after the troops a couple of weeks ago; the “Thomas Diarists” were The New Republic’s tepid entry into the field. As regards the accuracy of Beauchamp’s charges, I’m sure we’ll be hearing from his superiors before the sun sets in Iraq.

This may have already happened, as one Malkin reader writes in,

I’m active Army & an Iraq vet.

I just pulled up “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” on the secure “Army Knowledge Online” website. It lists his current rank as “PV2″. (That data is kept accurate via pay records on that website.)

In his Sep 06 blog post he listed his rank as “Private First Class”. That indicates that without a doubt he was busted at least one rank as part of Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he likely has a strong ax to grind with his chain of command.

Michelle Malkin also points out the following lines of poetry written by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, which ends with a John Kerry moment of "look-to-the-future-political-self-interest" reason for military service:

I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc.

Malkin has much more.