Credible threats to credibility of "Scott Thomas"

Kathleen Parker:

...

Thomas' version of events in Iraq is looking less and less credible and smacks of the "occult hand."

The occult hand was an inside joke several years ago among a group of journalists who conspired to see how often they could slip the phrase -- "It was as if an occult hand had ..." -- into their copy. This went on for years to the great merriment of a few in the know.

Looking back, it's hard to imagine how a phrase as purple as "an occult hand" could have enjoyed such long play within the tribe of professional skeptics known as journalists. Similarly, one wonders how Thomas' reports have appeared in the magazine without his editors saying, "Hey, wait just a minute."

When it comes to the playbook of anti-military cliches, Thomas seems guilty of plagiarism. What could be more cliche, after all, than American soldiers ridiculing a defaced woman, running over dogs or desecrating babies' remains?

The New Republic editors say they're investigating the reports, but refuse to reveal the author's identity. There's always a chance, of course, that these stories have some truth to them. Maybe a guy made an unkind remark about a poor woman's burned face. Maybe a dog got run over. Maybe a grave was found and a soldier capped his head with a skull part.

Stranger -- and far worse -- things have happened in war. But people who have served in Iraq have raised enough questions about these particular anecdotes that one is justified in questioning whether they are true.

As just one example, it is unlikely that a Bradley would be driven through concrete barriers just for fun, according to an Army JAG who e-mailed me. He explained that people aren't alone out there. Other vehicles, NCOs and officers would be around and Iraqis would have made a claim for repairs, resulting in a JAG investigation.

...

It may be that The New Republic editors and others who believed Thomas' journal entries without skepticism are infected with Nifong Syndrome -- the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief.

...

Mackubin Thomas Owens writing at National Review Online takes a look at the stories from the point of view of those in the military:

...

Michael Yon, perhaps the most reliable observer of troops in Iraq, labels the “Diarist’s” stories as “garbage.” Most of the other comments I have seen, especially by soldiers and Marines who are serving or have served in Iraq, describe the stories in less polite terms.

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.

NRO readers may recall that I wrote a number of articles about atrocities, real and alleged, during the run up to the 2004 election. I was especially critical of John Kerry, who, despite honorable service during the Vietnam War, essentially smeared all of his comrades as war criminals after he left active duty. Who can forget his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?...

...

It does remind me of the Kerry slander. The imagery of the French kissing Hell's Angels does convey the wretch factor that the stories were suppose to produce, but it does not convey they intent of those who push these stories about our troops. At best it is meant to convey that the war has dehumanized them. At worst it is meant to convey that we have to retreat because our troops are turning into monsters. It is still a slander.