UPDATED WITH LINKS

The New Republic has re-fact-checked it's previously fact-checked reports and come to the conclusion that they were mostly right.

Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

What's missing from this correction is a big question that stands out in my mind -- no matter where it occurred. The original diary said that Beachamp and his buddies couldn't tell if this woman was a contractor or a soldier and this doesn't clear up that question. Which was she? And if they still can't tell, then that doesn't really solve this issue.

There's not much in the way of blogospheric responses on this from milbloggers just yet, but in the meantime, I leave you with this link to an article by Greyhawk with this bit of wisdom and truth.

In the meantime, something to bear in mind as his story is bandied about: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an *******. He either did what he said he did to a disfigured woman in a DFAC (which makes him an ******) or he fabricated the story for reasons unknown (which makes him an ******). This same methodology can be applied to his other war stories, too.

Follow the link for the uncensored version.

UPDATE: Links

Shortly after I left for work, the blogosphere started responding en masse to the "correction."

Ace.

National Review's Stephen Spruiell. And a follow-up.

Columnist Mark Steyn.

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard here and here.

Dale Franks over at QandO has an especially good analysis here.