Last Friday you said that based on your investigation there was “nothing to undermine–and much to corroborate” the “Scott Thomas” story. Is there any piece of corroborating information that you can share now, a week after the controversy erupted? You said in the New York Times that it is difficult to get in touch with the author and the participants when they are on “20-hour active combat missions.” If that’s the case, what was the basis of your initial assurance on Friday that there is “much” to corroborate the story and why did you say “I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist”? How do you define “much”? And can you share anything about those “extensive” communications?

You say that Scott Thomas is a soldier serving in Baghdad and that you met him in the United States. Where and when did you meet him? TNR’s editors say they have “absolute certainty” that Thomas is a soldier serving in Baghdad. Can you share with us the reasons–any reason–for that absolute certainty?

You say you rigorously fact-checked the story by passing it to other reporters “to make sure that it smelled good.” Is that really how you do rigorous fact-checking? On the basis of whether something smells good to other reporters? Now that so many members of the military say its smells bad isn’t it obvious that that form of fact-checking was insufficient?

You say that before publishing the piece “we spent a lot of time on the phone asking hard questions.” What sort of hard questions?

Can you please share the evidence you have so far that the mocking, skull-wearing, and dog-killing incidents happened? They may have, but credible doubts have been raised and your credibility and that of your publication is at stake. You have already talked to several reporters about the controversy, so why don’t you do yourself and your colleagues the favor of settling some of these questions right now?