Claim/Fact
The Washington Post crunches numbers, quibbles, misses the broad side of history’s barn in its the claim/the facts examination of this remark by Fred Thompson:
“You know, you look back over our history, and it doesn’t take you long to realize that our people have shed more blood for other people’s liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world.”
– Fred D. Thompson, stump speech in Des Moines, Sept. 7
The Washington Post chooses to parse this.
THE CLAIM:
Thompson’s jingoistic assertion cannot be supported by facts, barring some tortuous definition of the phrase “other people’s liberty.” We asked his presidential campaign for factual support for the claim, but it did not respond. We therefore award Thompson four Pinocchios.
THE FACTS:
WaPo notes that the Soviet Union suffered at least 8 million casualties in World War II alone, but graciously adds the asterisk. Self-defense aside, the Soviet Union wasn’t particularly interested in liberation, and to credit the USSR with an altruistic hand in the liberation of western Europe is myopic at best. Tell it to eastern Europe. The Soviet Union played an undeniable role in the destruction of Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union already was, and continued in its role as, an oppressor every bit as evil, murderous and voracious as the Nazi regime.
WaPo brings out the Commonwealth. Britain fought a war of self-defense and for the defense of an empire that began unravelling almost immediately upon victory in Europe and Asia. The contribution of the Commonwealth in no small part was that of subject states. I should add I’m of Australian descent, lost an uncle in the Royal Australian Air Force flying out of Britain in World War II, and respect the selfless contribution and sacrifices of millions of Commonwealth soldiers in the wars of the 20th and 21st century, who fought and died to free millions from vile and murderous German and Japanese regimes. But the Washington Post has chosen to quibble. There’s an asterisk. The British Empire, during its time in history, had a great number of positive attributes, the effects of which we enjoy to this day, and in its time was greatly preferable to a lot of the alternatives. But the British Empire wasn’t about liberation. The goal of the Commonwealth effort was restoration of status quo, vastly preferrable to Axis oppression in both Europe and Asia. The effect was a liberation far beyond what Churchill intended.
The PINOCCHIO TEST
It is distasteful to measure the sacrifices of Soviet, Commonwealth and American soldiers against each other against such evils as they faced in World War II, as the Washington Post has bizarrely chosen to do in a feature of the sort normally devoted to candidates’ campaign promises, attacks and platforms. This kind of bloody bean-counting, I’ll hazard, in no way reflects the intent of Thompson’s remark, or ultimately, its bare facts. The United States has led the world, sometimes reluctantly, usually in response to outrages, always in its undeniable self-interest, in offering up its youth for the liberation of others. For a free world. Going in with the intention of freeing nations, and walking away as soon as possible, leaving democracies in its wake, encouraging others to do the same. The United States wrote the book and set the gold standard. Europe, twice, plus a lengthy guard and rebuilding effort. Asia, repeatedly since 1941, with similar guard and reconstruction. Now the Middle East. The world is a better place as a result of the purposeful actions of the United States and the sacrifice of our soldiers to that end.
All history is muddy, as the Washington Post itself seems to suggest as it delves ridiculously into the contests of empires in the time of Alexander and Napoleon. You can argue about the motives and effects of what the United States has done in any particular war or campaign. People do, and the Washington Post dabbles here. But this kind of snarking by the anonymous Claim/Fact lickspittles of the Washington Post says more about their distorted view of history and current events than it does about Thompson. And it disparages the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the course of the last century.
Captains Quarters charts a similar course here.
Welcome, CQ, Freepers, Newsbusters, etal. Come on in. We’ve got your good news, bad news. We’re checking out the art from Iraq. Compliments of one of the most insanely brave combat photogs I know. Props for WaPo where due. OK, time out for a little Barry Manilow. Or should I say, a petty Barry Manilow.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:48 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2007
31 Responses to “Claim/Fact”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Thank you, Jules.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Captain Ed says much the same as you do, Jules. And both of you do so magnificently.
I’ve seen this argument before, in one form or another, from lefties who venerated the Soviet Union (cough THE ALPHTARD™ cough), God knows why. The former USSR murdered millions of people, including its own citizens, and was the same in many ways than Nazi Germany.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am
So this means Fred Thompson actually said something that was right? Wow, there’s a first.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Washington Post’s attempt at “factchecking” Fred Thompson falls short
Way short.
Back on September 7th, Fred Thompson made the following claim about our military:
“If you look back over our history, it will not take you long to realize that our people have shed more blood for other people’s liberty than any o…
September 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Fred Thompson’s assertion is hardly “jingoistic”.
The WaPo needs to consult its Funk & Wagnalls..
September 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am
The WaPo might consider that so many of our heroes are buried overseas and maybe ask themselves why. Of all the liberal house organs wasting ink, the WaPo has been among the sanest the last 6 years. But they do have their Move-on Moments, don’t they?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Equivocating bastards.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“…liberal house organs wasting ink, the WaPo has been among the sanest the last 6 years. But they do have their Move-on Moments, don’t they?”
Yes.
I have been known to hope the WaPo doesn’t descend into the burning ring of fire along with the NYTimes.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Reporting was once a trade, bright working class kids used it to escape from the farms and factories. Reporters knew cops and soldiers, they were usually related to some.
Now journalism is a profession, liberal kids who aren’t bright enough to go to the hard classes at the universities go to Jschool. In my father’s day reporters wanted to make a living telling us what happened. Now journalists want to “make a difference”. Hitler made a difference.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
So the moral-equivilance crowd created by the academy can claim another scalp, this time the Washington Post. Evidently its editors see no difference between wars, causes or leaders. Put blood-soaked dictators like Stalin on the same perch as FDR. Well, whatever. People now have the measure of the MSM and its moral relativism. But it should be remembered that the Soviet Union was an expansionist power that aimed to spread its revolution throughout the world, having exterminated 35 million or so of its own people first. It was our good luck Hitler understood its goals and shattered the Third Reich on an equally evil regime.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 09/19/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Good on ya Banjo. I had not thought of that. Probably close to 100% of those heroes buried or still missing overseas were as a result of the foreign policies of Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ. So isn’t the WaPo now even dissing Democrats either in its rush to moral equivalence or its rush to poke Fred Thompson in the eye?.
Meanwhile the people who performed selfless service and gave the greatest sacrifice in a noble cause get their honor questioned yet again by J-school grads who couldn’t carry their boots.
Disgusting.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“The Washington Post chooses to parse this.”
What they chose to do was to spew a bunch of anti-American (and pro-commie crap).
About par for the jackals of the press.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“Domestic conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War are excluded.)”
Why would you exclude the civil war. What do you think the Yankees were fighting for? What was the result of that war?
“In World War II alone, the Soviet Union suffered at least 8 million casualties”
Why would you mention the Soviets? They weren’t trying to free anyone else, and they didn’t. Millions of Soviets died to defend and extend Soviet tyranny.
Like I said…anti-American, pro-commie claptrap.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[...] there’s Jules Crittenden: It is distasteful to measure the sacrifices of Soviet, Commonwealth and American soldiers against [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“WaPo notes that the Soviet Union suffered at least 8 million casualties”
Through sheer good fortune, and not due to any brilliant planning on our part our two great enemies fell to fighting each other and obligingly slaughtered each other by the millions. For that, I suppose, we owe both the Nazis and the Commies a measure of thanks.
So thanks to the Commies for killing millions of Nazis and thanks to the Nazis for killing millions of Commies. Saves us the trouble of having to do it ourselves .
September 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
So journalists are supposed to be among the educated class? Educated in what, exactly?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
SaltyDog-
“Educated in what”-good question. This should give you an idea. I was directed to this link by a wacked out WaPo commenter. This is the guideline from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
These anarchists masquerading as journalists are one step from “enemy combatant” as far as I’m concerned.
here are some of their winning rules for truthing
·Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
·Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
·Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)
·Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
·Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives.
·If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.
·Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.
·War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
·Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
·Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
·Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?
·Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
That is amazing steve. I wonder if they have different guidelines for Democrat administrations. Of course, maybe not since we’ve only had two since 1968.
Heh.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Steve is badly misquoting - more fun that way! - Dan Froomkin’s Feb. 7, 2007 article in the Nieman Bulletin.
The actual article has these guidelines and really just constitute basic, good journalism:
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion — or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion — may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.
Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair.
Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them.
Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.
Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials
Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.
Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)
Look Outside Our Borders
Pay attention to international opinion.
Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?
Keep an eye out for how the international press is covering this story. Why should we be so different?
Understand the Enemy
Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.
Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.
Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.
Encourage Public Debate
The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate.
Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively.
Write about Motives
Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives.
If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.
Talk to the Military
Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
So isn’t the WaPo now even dissing Democrats either in its rush to moral equivalence or its rush to poke Fred Thompson in the eye?
Can’t say about LBJ, but I suspect that if FDR or Wilson were in charge today, they would have thrown the Democratic party leadership into the darkest cell at Fort Leavenworth a couple years ago.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
“Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.”
If the MSM held everyone to this standard, I’d have no problem with it. Problem is, they don’t. A quick straw poll: how many articles skeptical of Harry Reid versus George Bush are there? A few? Many? About the same? ROTFL?
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
This is an opinion. Opinions belong to editors, not “journalists”. This screams of “bias”, not “good, basic journalism”. Unless you’re a member of MoveOn, of course.
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
If the MSM held everyone to this standard, I’d have no problem with it. Problem is, they don’t. Unless, of course, it advances their cause.
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
If the MSM held everyone to this standard, I’d have no problem with it. Problem is, they don’t. See Helen Thomas versus Tony Snow.
Look Outside Our Borders
Pay attention to international opinion
“What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?”
Uh oh! Someone has an agenda here! Doesn’t sound like “good, basic journalism” to me.
Understand the Enemy
In a multicultural, group hug sense, or in the fashion that Sun Tzu so rightly suggested all those centuries ago? “Intent” is what I’m looking at….are we supposed to join ‘em, or beat ‘em? Hmmmmmm!!!!
Encourage Public Debate
If the MSM held everyone to this standard, I’d have no problem with it. Problem is, they don’t. Why all the softball questions to Democrats? That’s not “debate”, that’s “pandering”.
And why no Presidential debates on Fox News? It’s not for lack of trying, although, to be fair, that’s strictly not the fault of “good, basic journalism”…..but those journalists sure don’t question the motives of the people against such debates.
And speaking of motives……..
Write about Motives
If the MSM held everyone to this standard, I’d have no problem with it. Problem is, they don’t. See previous comments.
Talk to the Military
If kept within bounds (i.e., keeping operational security in mind), not a problem. But I’ve seen little concern for that, even for someone well versed in “good, basic journalism”.
Overall score as guidelines for “good, basic journalism”: -500.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Once upon a time liberals actually talked about how Americans would pay any price, bear any burden to advance the cause of liberty.
This new breed does not even believe in liberty.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“Dan Froomkin”
A propagandist, not a journalist, as his guide for writing dishonest propaganda makes clear…as if his work didn’t already do that.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Hey Corndog–
It’s kinda hard to “badly misquote” someone when copy and paste it right off their website.
But do keep playing your games, its all you got left.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:07 am
That corndog thinks that those are standards of any kind, let alone journalistic standards, says a lot.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:30 am
That saltydog doesn’t understand what journalism is supposed to do says all that needs be said.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Steve,
If all you did was copy and paste, then explain why your “copy and paste” has sentences that are not in Froomkin’s original and appear to be there simply to rile people up.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Reporting was once a trade, bright working class kids used it to escape from the farms and factories. Reporters knew cops and soldiers, they were usually related to some.”
Weellll, maybe not always:
“She patronized extensively a man, Ulysses Gunne,
Whose mode of earning money was a low and shameful one.
He wrote for certain papers, which, as everybody knows,
Is worse than serving in a shop or scaring off the crows.”
Delilah, by Rudyard Kipling
December 24th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
xanax no prescription
news