“Scott Thomas” Speculation Continues

There is a lot of speculation surrounding the identity of the New Republic‘s mysterious, pseudonymous “Scott Thomas”, aka the Baghdad Diarist. A semiotics-based analysis by John Barnes has poured fuel on the fire with the conclusion that “Thomas” fits the profile of a creative writing program graduate. Blackfive’s Laughing Wolf weighs in on that theory with some thoughts of his own. Over at Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk comes to a different conclusion. The “exhumation of a graveyard,” he says, “leads me to believe Thomas is indeed a soldier.” And writing at NRO, Mackubin Owens seems to agree,

Nonetheless, the “Diarist’s” stories remind me of the sort of shocking and outrageous statements young men like to tell to credulous listeners. As the late Harry Summers, a veteran of two wars once remarked, such stories are intended to have the same impact as the sight of two Hell’s Angels French kissing in front of a group of bystanders: shock and awe. They also remind me of the predisposition of the American press to believe the worst about American soldiers, a predisposition that dates to the Vietnam War.

Dean Barnett remains agnostic on “Thomas”‘s claim to be a soldier serving in Baghdad,

We still don’t know whether Scott Thomas’ biography conforms with what TNR has claimed or whether his tales are rank fiction, embellishments based on a kernel of fact or gospel truth.

But, for Barnett, answering that question seems to be secondary to understanding why the piece was run in the first place:

The purpose in running the Scott Thomas pieces was to explicate ideas, namely the ideas that the troops in Iraq are sociopaths, and that the Bush administration turned them into sociopaths.

Both Ace of Spades and Hot Air, taking Greyhawk’s lead, fear that the New Republic will, as Allahpundit says, try and “shift this debate from whether Thomas’s stories are true to whether Thomas is a solder at all.” Over at Confederate Yankee, Bob Owens provides an excellent wrap-up of where the “Scott Thomas” story now stands, and he also addresses the numerous questions surrounding “Thomas”‘s two earlier columns for the New Republic, most notably the author’s account of changing a flat tire in a river of sewage, and his description of 9mm ammunition “with a square back.” We have had firearms experts confirm that the firing pin of a Glock does leave a square mark on the back of shell casings–it’s possible that this was just a lost-in-translation moment for “Thomas”. Still, “Thomas”‘s claim that “the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police,” is, according to Bob Owens, “so astoundingly incorrect as to be laughable.” Elsewhere, Powerline’s Scott Johnson is bothered by the inconsistencies in the statements coming from the New Republic:

Last week “the editors” had “communicated” with several of the soldiers who witnessed the events recounted by Thomas and had done much to corroborate them. Now Foer allows that he has not been able to “get them all on the phone and ask them” the questions he needs to ask. I am in a state of “near certainty” that “the editors” don’t have a clue regarding the veracity of Thomas’s article.

Related Content