The back and forth over the TNR-Beauchamp story continues after yesterday's Drudge story.

From Howard Kurtz:

While Beauchamp "didn't stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn't recant his stories," Foer said in an interview. "He obviously was under considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the room with him."

While the discussion "was extremely frustrating and engendered doubts," Foer said, Beauchamp defended his story in a subsequent conversation that was conducted with no superiors present.

More to come?

A few thoughts...Although conservatives have been slamming TNR over this, will they also slam the Army for selectively leaking things, despite a refusal to cooperate with TNR? Again from Kurtz:

Foer said the Army has refused to turn over supporting documents in the case, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, and then "selectively leaked" material to Drudge. In an e-mail to the magazine yesterday, Army spokesman Maj. Kirk Luedeke said he was "surprised and appalled that this information was leaked" and that the military would investigate.

Was yesterday's Drudge story a bit overblown? One document (no longer online) cited as an example of Scott's recantation doesn't really hold up. It merely "acknowledge[s] receipt" of an army memo concluding his stories were false (like signing for a package). Beauchamp also states: "I'm not commenting on the stories.... which is not an admission of anything."

More to come on this back and forth, for sure...