Anonymous No More

"Here's one thing we know for sure about Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He went off to war to become a writer. Earlier today, I suggested that he might be this war's John Kerry. But from reading Beauchamp's blog, that's clearly not what he had in mind. As a commenter in a previous post noted, he wanted to be this war's Oliver Stone or Anthony Swofford -- a guy who emerged from his time at war as an artiste in full flower . . .

"Let's be clear -- Scott Thomas Beauchamp went to war with the specific goal of ridiculing and belittling the war effort. Yes, he wore the uniform. In virtually all cases, that's praiseworthy. But in Beauchamp's case, he wore the uniform as a means by which to make his artistic bones; he knew that in making those artistic bones, he would undermine the efforts of his brothers in arms. In short, he went to war with the specific purpose of weakening the war effort."

Can we really conclude that based on one blog entry?

American Prospect's Ezra Klein says the bad actors here are the conservative bloggers:

"Look, these people are thugs. They freaked out about The New Republic's anonymous diarist because his words clashed with the childish mythology they've constructed around the US Military. Despite lacking any actual evidence disproving or even calling into question his story, they were able to make enough noise to spark an investigation and media attention. And all this will only further confirm their hunch."

On the Gonzo front, I would venture to say that if you're attorney general, and the former head of the FBI says you're not telling the truth, you've got a problem.

"The dispute over the truthfulness of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reached a new intensity today as the F.B.I. Director, Robert S. Mueller 3rd, contradicted Mr. Gonzales's sworn testimony before a Senate committee," says the New York Times.

"Mr. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration's secret eavesdropping program was the main topic at an encounter in the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004, contrary to what Mr. Gonzales told a Senate panel on Tuesday . . .

"In his testimony before the Senate panel on Tuesday, Mr. Gonzales said the subject in the hospital room was 'intelligence activities' under debate in the administration, but not the secret eavesdropping program.

But Mr. Mueller contradicted that version of events today, several hours after four Senate Democrats called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Gonzales perjured himself before Congress."

It's not like most members of Congress had a high opinion of the AG's veracity before this latest flare-up.

The L.A. Times focuses on the big subpoena battle: