Shattered Republic

The New Republic should be familiar with the rules for how this is handled. When you have a writer submitting bogus stories for publication, you have to own up and admit the folly. Heads must roll.

Stephen Glass tried this route and caused nothing but misery for the editors of the New Republic.

Now, we're seeing a repeat (actually the third iteration) - this time with someone posing as a former soldier who has a strong anti-war sentiment. He's posted numerous anecdotes about the battlefield, and each one is more farcical than the prior one. This guys name is Scott Thomas, but it is a pseudonym. His real identity is thus far unknown.

His latest screed seems to incidate CSI-styled powers of observation:

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Actually, even CSI doesn't make those kinds of leaps since there are tests that determine matches between weapons and the ammo fired. Some ammo can be fired from different types of guns. 9mm is a pretty common ammo size.

Prior installments claimed that we had US soldiers running around wearing the skulls of Iraqi children on their heads, that we have drivers of armored vehicles running over dogs for sport, and that soldiers made fun of a woman in a dining facility who he claimed suffered horrific injuries from an IED.

As I said, each one of these claims is more outlandish than the earlier one. How exactly did the New Republic verify the claims and stories? What steps did they take to determine the accuracy? Do they have emails, correspondence, video, photos, or other documentation to verify these incidents took place as written? Or, did they simply take them on faith? Confederate Yankee gets blunt in emailing TNR over the publication. He's got good questions, and I seriously doubt that TNR has good answers.

The Weekly Standard has been all over this from the outset.

Milbloggers are all over this story ripping it to shreds. Among those questioning the veracity of Thomas: Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and Jimbo at Blackfive.

Hot Air is all over this. So are Charles at LGF, Michelle Malkin, Cassandra at VC, Powerline, Ray Robison, and Bill's Bites.

Let's get to the bottom of this story. Where's the confirmations? How exactly did TNR come to publish these items without checking them? Are they simply engaging in publishing whatever they think is going on in Iraq without knowing what really happened? Are they publishing anti-war screeds simply because it confirms their own biases and prejudices?

UPDATE:
The New Republic responds:

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

This should be interesting.