Assume Scott Beauchamp is a nefarious liar. Further assume TNR did exactly what they claim to have done, which is to check the plausibility of his stories to the extent that it was practical. The stories were first-person accounts published under a pseudonym. This is not reportage. It doesn't carry the same weight and it surely does not carry the imprimatur of the magazine's journalistic reputation the way a bylined piece by a journalist would. This is by definition, an a priori judgment, and it seems obvious to me.
So, assuming that my summary corresponds to reality, what obligation has TNR overlooked - what scandal ought to exist? As far as I can tell the only infractions have been committed by the Aces, Hewitts, and Malkins, etc... and most particularaly by the Weekly Standard, who, by now, after the painfully stupid search under every tea-cup for WMD, which as far as I can remember, they've never repudiated, should have no credibilty with anyone, exept for willfully blind fellow travelers.