Well, I guess it’s not thuggery when you hate a Republican president, but it is when you challenge the veracity of a piece published by a soldier skeptical of the war.
UPDATE: Charles Johnson Calls Chait’s “hit piece . . .the usual leftist smokescreen; we can summarize it in one whiny sentence: ‘Only a right-wing thug would ever dare suggest we don’t support the troops!” (Via Pajamas).
UP-UPDATE: Ed Morrissey wonders why “the editors of The New Republic” aren’t using “their energy to investigate the collapse of their credibility after publishing a fabulist for at least the second time in the last few years” and suggests Chait “first address the decrepit state of editorial control at TNR before attacking anyone else’s decrepit intellectual state.” Read the whole thing! (Via Pajamas.)
UP-UP-UPDATE: In his post on the Chait piece, not only does Confederate Yankee provide a recapitulation of the criticism of The New Republic for running Beauchamp’s piece, but he also writes that Chait’s attack:
is written with the obvious intent of distracting TNR readers from the editors’ compromised ethics by attacking an ideological opposite.
It is perhaps not the oldest trick in psychology or politics, but it is close: attack a common enemy to shore up your own faltering base.
Now just read the whole thing.