Intellectual Dishonesty, Trademark of the MSM

Embracing lies, condemning truth

Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and Marcie's is in purple.

At the end of July, a story broke big across the blogosphere. Those on the starboard side of the ‘Sphere questioned it and roundly condemned it. Those on the Left embraced it; proclaimed it Gospel truth, and accused anyone who questioned it was, well, a “chickenhawk.” As August opened up, two men from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute took an eight-day trip to Baghdad to witness how the “surge” was going. Their report took the form of an op-ed in the New York Times. It was based on fact and their experiences in country, but was rejected by the Left as some form of propaganda. The Right applauded the op-ed as a sign that even though the virulent Left disliked the war, they had at least begun to accept the fact the “surge” was working. Two different stories, and two very different reactions are the reason why there is some serious intellectual dishonesty on the Left.

On July 18th Michael Goldfarb from the Weekly Standard picked up on a piece from The New Republic written by their “Baghdad Diarist.” This soldier wrote under the pseudonym of “Scott Thomas.” We now know the soldier’s name is Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and that he was a previously busted in rank back down to a Private. The stories he had been telling, especially in his piece titled “Shock Troops,” (subscription required) painted a bad picture of the troops serving in Iraq. Abusive, crass, and even sacrilegious at times, the troops were shown to act more like animals than professional soldiers.

Mr. Goldfarb put out a call to milbloggers (bloggers that, for the most part, observe and comment on aspects of the military, especially the war) to help disseminate the piece Private Beauchamp wrote. Needless to say, even if one has little military experience, the piece did not pass the smell test. There were discrepancies that just could not be refuted by Private Beauchamp; details that raised the warning flag in just about every milblogger’s head. Those flags led to more and more being questioned about his story, and before long The New Republic had a problem on it’s hands.

They responded, and so did the Left-wing of the blogosphere. They criticized those of us who were following the story and raising an issue over his assertions. They levied accusations of certain people picking on a soldier, and that we had no right to do it because we had never served. Even Private Beauchamp himself leveled that charge on his critics in a statement published by The New Republic. Of course, in that statement, he admitted that he had lied about one aspect of the story he told; a fact that brought even more misery down on him because bloggers then raised the question of “If that was not true, then what of the rest of his story?” Even now, the critics are still roundly beating on us rather than demanding that Private Beauchamp come clean.

Now contrast that with the piece written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institute. The New York Times published the op-ed, and the “Old Grey Lady” is hardly a bastion of conservative thought. They spent eight days embedded with the troops. They spoke with commanders on the ground, including General David Petreus. They also spoke with Iraqi civilians, and with Iraqi troops. On a couple of occasions, they embedded with Iraqi patrols to see if the soldiers we had been training were up to snuff. The sole goal of their visit was to simply gain an understanding of the status of the troop surge.

Their assessment was devastating to the liberals screaming for withdrawal. While they acknowledged that things were not exactly peachy-keen, they did state that in virtually all aspects, the “surge” was working. It was having it’s “desired effect” on the insurgency in Iraq, and it was ravaging AQI’s (al-Qaeda-Iraq) ability to wage their continued jihad against us. They confirmed that US spec-ops were taking the fight to the guerillas in Iraq at night, and returning from successful operations. Some of those targeted chlorine bomb “factories.” Some targeted high-ranking AQI personnel. In short, the military side of the “surge,” in terms of benchmarks, was being met, and showing considerable signs of success. They also concluded that a precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq; they say that Congress should do what they must to make sure the "surge" continues through 2008.

The Left went nuts. It was a virtual meltdown. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known liberal blogger, accused them of “lying” about what they witnessed, and the effect the “surge” is having. Johnathan Chait, from The New Republic blogged at “The Plank” that he was hesitant to believe what they had written, but he was not ready to sign on to Mr. Yglesias’s commentary. The nutroots over at DailyKos weighed in, and Glenn Greenwald wasted little time questioning the duo’s motives and credentials. (I suppose Mr. Greenwald could have forgotten what a “scholar” is, and referring to their op-ed as "rank deceit" is a pot-and-kettle moment for Mr. Greenwald.) To all of these people, Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack had committed a grievous sin in their eyes: They had jumped the shark, and written a favorable report of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

There you have it. Two different stories. Two distinctly different reactions from the Left. Private Beauchamp’s assertions cannot be corroborated, and they applaud him for his “bravery.” Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack write an editorial about how we might just be turning the corner in Iraq, basing it on the time they spent there, and the Left savages them. We have seen this before from the Left, but not in such a stark contrast. This further proves that if you say what pleases them and you believe that the administration is wholly wrong for invading Iraq, you win the praise prize from them. But if you depart from the meme they have perpetuated, and invested in, then you face scorn, ridicule, and character assassination. Intellectual honesty is a must when dealing with politics. They are supposed to be unbiased, but we can clearly see that the fetid fever-swamp on the Left cannot get past their own opinions to shed that bias.

He is a scholar of history, especially American history, and the United States Constitution. She has finished her undergrad studies, graduating with a BA in English and history and will move onto law school this fall where she will specialize in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard of conservative opinion at Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair is married, and resides in Arizona

Archives of "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

Send an e mail to Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard

Check out Thomas and Marcie's blog: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay