Howard Kurtz interviews New Republic editor Franklin Foer, and Foer has chosen to continue distorting and misrepresenting the controversy over “Shock Troops:” Army Private Discloses He Is New Republic’s Baghdad Diarist.

As conservative bloggers yesterday continued to challenge the veracity of Beauchamp’s accounts, Foer said: “It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard’s efforts to press an ideological agenda.”

Of course, it’s not about an “ideological agenda,” and Foer knows that. This is a smokescreen, intended to cover up the real issue—the veracity of the events described in the article. Foer’s reaction may play well to the Nutroots crowd, but it’s nothing more than transparently obvious misdirection.

And then we have this statement.

The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”

Wow. Oblivious to the ethical problems, or just saying anything to divert attention? You decide.

Beauchamp, meanwhile, is in a world of hurt, as the military has launched a formal investigation into the crimes and ludicrously bad behavior he wrote about and shopped to the New Republic—instead of reporting to his commanding officers.

Foer also said Beauchamp “has put himself in significant jeopardy” and “lost his lifeline to the rest of the world” because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges. …

Maj. Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the base, said by e-mail: “We are conducting a formal investigation into the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic, so given that situation, I am unable to comment on the matter until the investigation is complete.”

UPDATE at 7/27/07 8:13:25 am:

An excellent point from “Occasional Reader:”

Imagine for a moment that the Weekly Standard had run a piece called, say, “We’re Winning in Iraq,” by an anonymous military source, without revealing that the source was married to a WS staffer. Specifically, to the WS staffer who wrote the piece. Do you think TNR would cover this by saying “this only increases the source’s credibility?”