Earlier this morning, I blew a story about The New Republic’s scheduled vacation. You can see the post below. Some people have asked, Why is the post still up there?

Fair question. If I could make the post disappear, I would or at least I would be tempted to. Since I learned of my error before anyone else did, doing so might have been a viable option. Instead, I’ve chosen to leave the post up there so that I might eat my well-deserved plate of crow rather than try to make the entire matter disappear down the memory hole. This is one plate of crow that I definitely have coming.

For what it’s worth, I don’t retract the other parts of the post, especially the passage that said:

LET’S REVIEW, SHALL WE? It’s been over two weeks since the Beauchamp Diarists hit the Internets and the storm they kicked up began. It’s been over two weeks since TNR’s editor-in-chief Franklin Foer began what he promised would be a dogged investigation to corroborate the details of those Diarists, something a responsible editor would have done before running the piece. It’s been almost two weeks since Franklin Foer said he unearthed “much to corroborate” the details of the piece and yet has declined to share those details with a curious public...

From the start of this thing, I’ve said that the editorial decision to run the Thomas Diarists was unconscionable. Even if they turn out to be true and TNR had done the proper due diligence in qualifying them before publishing them, printing them without putting them in context of the 160,000 men and women who are honorably serving in Iraq unconscionably slandered our soldiers. This was a horrendous and morally appalling editorial decision, the kind for which offers of resignation should have been tendered.

Franklin Foer’s stonewalling since the publication of the Diarists has exacerbated his slanderous editorial decision. It has now been over two weeks, and The New Republic has not clarified whether it has blown the whistle on profound wrong-doing at FOB Falcon, or instead slandered every soldier, NCO and officer serving there. Indeed, if the Diarist is untrue and Franklin Foer’s sole contribution to the argument regarding its veracity for over the past two weeks has been to insist on its accuracy, those actions would cry out for his termination if he lacks the honor to resign.

There’s a reason why I really regret my post earlier today beyond my ordinary commitment to getting things right here. Certain disingenuous members of the left have been eager to paint this matter as a conflict of The New Republic vs. Right Wing bloggers, The Weekly Standard and National Review. By making the mistakes I did this morning, I made their self-appointed task a shade easier.

But this has never been a match between The New Republic and its right wing antagonists. The true battle is The New Republic vs. fair editorial standards and the truth. All that we on the right who have written about this story have done is frame that conflict and bring it into stark relief. As I’ve said many times before, The New Republic faces a moral obligation to explain why it chose Scott Beauchamp, out of 160,000 service-members in Iraq, to be its man in Baghdad. And, to salvage whatever is left of its reputation after justifying that dreadful decision, it needs to establish the truth of the Beauchamp Diarists.

Franklin Foer began his investigation two weeks ago. Independent investigations such as the one launched by Matt Sanchez have already discredited much of the Beauchamp Diarists, and yet Foer remains oddly silent except for occasional interviews where he insists he has corroborating details that support the Diarists - corroborating details that he hasn’t seen fit to share with the general public. Franklin Foer’s only hope for riding this thing out is to become a hero on the left for standing up to the big bad Right Wing noise machine.

Once again, I profoundly regret the error in my earlier post and apologize to the readers of this site and to The New Republic.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com