When I said yesterday that most of Beauchamp's defenders had sense enough to steer clear of the milbloggers, I had no idea that Columbia Journalism Review's Paul McLeary had run out into the open, bare-a** naked.
This childish game of name-calling, mostly led by the know-nothing Michelle Malkin's of the world--anyone remember the Jamil Hussein embarassment--has been going on for the better part of a week. Now the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb dug up some particularly damning evidence against the young soldier:
We do know that Beauchamp worked on Howard Dean's presidential campaign, that he edited a liberal student magazine in college, and that he marched with pro-choice demonstrators in 2004. Further, we know that he enlisted in the military "just to write a book" about his experience--not the noblest of reasons, but neither does it discredit his work. Writing under a pseudonym, though, did prevent readers from understanding that his perspective was not merely that of a soldier on the ground, but of a political activist.
How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)(Emphasis mine.)
Is McLeary saying that most of the milbloggers haven't been to college or that they haven't joined the military? :-)
Apparently McLeary's Ivy-honed intellect didn't help him to deduce that milbloggers=military bloggers. Nor did that "superior intellect" lead him to discover that all military officers have an undergraduate degree, at minimum, and that half of enlisted men/women have obtained the same.
He denigrates the military bloggers then has the nerve to quote Andrew Sullivan approvingly in the next sentence. :::shakes head:::
I hope that he came to my blog, saw that "101st Fighting Keyboarders" link on the top right and got fooled. What a clown.
UPDATE: Welcome LGF readers (et al.)!
UPDATE: CJR's McLeary Responds
