The case of Scott Thomas and TNR v. The Truth is not going to be resolved by anything bloggers can unearth. Nor are questions about the credibility of The New Republic and the stories of Scott Thomas going to be laid to rest by anything the magazine can do by itself.

The only way to discover the truth of the matter is for the magazine to form a committee of people independent of both conservative blogs and The New Republic in order to investigate the stories.

I urge this course of action on The New Republic as someone who has been a reader of the magazine for going on 40 years. My father had a lifetime subscription to The New Republic and as long as I lived at home as well as during my many visits to our house during my mother’s extended illness, I made a point of reading it. I was never a subscriber but have sought out the publication at news stands and other places all my professional life. I consider The New Republic one of the indispensable publications in America today. Over the years, it has consistently challenged my assumptions, rounded out my knowledge of current events, and informed me as have few other publications.

But the questions swirling around the veracity of Scott Thomas, the pseudonymous soldier who wrote an article for the magazine detailing bad behavior by the American military, will not go away because of any internal investigation carried out by the magazine. And the reason is very simple; no one would believe them. The magazine’s problems with former writer Stephen Glass perhaps unfairly places a larger burden of proof upon them than would normally be the case. Beyond that, their well known anti-war editorial stance presupposes a bias to believe the Scott Thomas stories – a fact made abundantly clear by Editor Franklin Foer’s “Note to our Readers:”

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.

The fact that Foer waited until questions started to arise over the veracity of the article before he spoke with the author of the piece and “communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events” described by Thomas can only mean one thing; this kind of rigorous vetting of the story and its sources was not done prior to publication.

Simply put, The New Republic cannot be trusted to carry out an internal investigation of their own to either confirm the accuracy of the incidents in question or the integrity of the writer.

(For an excellent look at all the questions raised by bloggers about these stories, see this post by Michael Goldfarb and then go back to “Main” and start scrolling. He has 8-10 entries on the matter.)

An inquiry made up of respected journalists would be able to resolve the matter fairly quickly and to everyone’s satisfaction. For that reason, I call upon Franklin Foer to set up such a committee and have them begin work immediately. The reputation of the United States military as well as the integrity of The New Republic are at stake.

UPDATE

Bryan at Hot Air:

Given Foer’s smear as quoted by Kurtz, he should not be be trusted when he comes out in a few days or weeks and says “It’s all true. I can’t show you any evidence or introduce you to a single corroborating witness, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.” No sale. Foer has done nothing to earn anyone’s trust, and his magazine has a peculiar history that mandates a very careful and thorough investigation and a very honest and complete rendering of a verdict. It doesn’t look like we’ll get that from Foer.

What Foer and TNR will get if they hunker down and keep lashing out at legitimate criticism is some nutroots cred for publishing smears of US troops in combat. Sad to say, that may be the end goal here.

I was inclined to believe Foer was serious about checking the facts until I read his comments to Kurtz about the controversy. Now the need for an independent inquiry is made manifest by Foer’s arrogance.

And Michelle Malkin has a piece highlighting the military service of the “9/11 Generation.” All the more reason to urge The New Republic to get it right and not smear the reputations of these fine young men and women.