The Churchill Series - Dec. 3, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On the night of October 14, 1940 Churchill was dining at 10 Downing Street when a German bombing raid began.

A part of the Treasury Building, not fifty yards from Number 10, suffered a direct hit before Churchill and aides could get to a shelter.

Churchill refused to remain for long in the shelter. He soon went to the roof of the building that housed the shelter, and there witnessed the raid. He later wrote:

The night was clear and there was a wide view of London. It seemed the greater part of Pall Mall was in flames. (There were) fierce fires...in St. James Street and Piccadilly. Farther back over the river in the opposite direction there were many conflagrations. But Pall Mall was the vivid flame-picture

Pall Mall was then as now the location of many of London's private clubs , including then but not now its most prestigious, The Carleton Club, whose membership has traditionally included the leaders and other important members of Churchill's Conservative Party.

Churchill was given an eye-witness account of the club's destruction by a Member of Parliament:

He was in the club with about two hundred and fifty members and staff.
...
The whole of the facade and the massive coping on the Pall Mall side (fell into) the street obliterating his motor-car.
...
The smoking-room had been full of members, and the whole ceiling had come down upon them.
,,,
However, by what seemed a miracle, they had all crawled out of the dust, smoke, and rubble, and thought many were injured not a single life was lost.

While to Churchill the survival of his Conservative Party colleagues "seemed a miracle," Laborites had another explanation, which Churchill duly recorded:

(In) Cabinet, our Labour colleagues facetiously remarked, "The Devil looks after his own."

_______________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 346-348)

Op-ed fiction from the New York Times.

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, David Boyd, Interested-Participant, Polipundit, Room 12A and others I may have missed.)

Readers' Note:

My reply to New York Times Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's recent email follows this note.

The rest of this note is for readers not familiar with matters that led to Shipley's email, a full text copy of which is contained in this post.

On June 28 the New York Times published an op-ed that charged the United States Army systematically lies to young West Point cadets and graduates.(''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

With one exception, what the Times offered to support the "Army lies" charge was anecdotal and so poorly sourced as to be unverifiable by independent means. The single exception to that concerned five distinguished generals, about whose careers the Times made statements in such a way as to bolster the "Army lies" charge. But the Times' statements were false.

Beginning on June 29, I requested through the office of public editor Byron Calame corrections and an explanation for the false statements. After further attempts (here and here and here), I received on Nov. 28 an email from the Times' Op-Ed page editor. David Shipley. The full text of the email is in this post.

My reply to editor Shipley follows. I'm sending a copy to editor Calame along with a link to this post.
____________________________________________________________________

Dear Editor Shipley:

When I read your email I thought of the growing number of Americans who say that when pursuing an agenda, the Times often makes little or no distinction between fact and fiction.

I requested corrections of false statements in the following paragraph, a part of your June 28 op-ed charging the Army systematically lies to West Point cadets and young officers:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

Your response? The Times never meant the statements to be factual. It published them as fiction. What's more, you believe that was as clear in June as it is now.

(It) seemed clear at the time -- and seems clear to me now -- that (op-ed author Lucian Truscott IV) was speaking figuratively. Mr. Truscott did not, for example, say that these men had been "in" the trenches.

So you're saying when the Times lists the names of five distinguished American generals, points out that its op-ed writer is the grandson of one of them, and follows the generals' names with a sentence beginning: "Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army…," none of that means the Times is telling readers the five men actually served "in" the trenches.

And that was all as clear in June as it is now.

Editor Shipley, what you're saying is unbelievable.

But that doesn't give you or the Times pause, does it? The Times is going "to continue to give (Truscott) the license to use this language figuratively."

So we should expect, for example, that the Times will again use "language figuratively" to tell readers that as a young officer General of the Army Omar Bradley endured the horrors of WWI's trenches, even though the Times knows that in his autobiography, A General's Life, Bradley describes his many failed attempts to get assigned to the trenches in France; and calls his failure "the most frustrating ( part of my) early Army career? (p. 44-45)

I object to the Times using "language figuratively" to first, invoke the names of Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr., and then to distort their military service; all to bolster your op-ed charging the Army lies.

While it may seem a hopeless effort, I will continue to pursue a correction and explanation through public editor Byron Calame. Apologies to the memories of five great Americans are also due.

If people don't speak up, the Times will only get worse.

It's sad to recall, Editor Shipley, that your newspaper was once The Journal of Record.

A few final words.

I shared your email with two journalist friends.

One called it "sophistry." The other said, "What you got here is Shipley practicing Sulzberger journalism."

My word for your op-ed and email is shameless.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com
__________________________________________________________________________

Many bloggers and readers are helping to call attention to this matter and joining in the request for correction and explanation.

I plan to publish a list Monday of bloggers who are posting, linking and helping in other ways. Bloggers involved, please let me know of your help. I don't want to miss anyone.

Thanks to readers for great support. If you haven't let public editor Calame know what you think of the falsehoods and Shipley's fiction explanation, Calame's email address is: public@nytimes.com

If enough people call attention to what the Times did and how it's excusing it, we may get a correction and explanation.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 2, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Having been blamed during World War I for the failure of the Dardanelles campaign and forced out of office, Churchill elected to serve in the trenches. He was given the rank of Lt. Colonel.

After arriving in France, and while waiting for permanent assignment to a unit, he volunteered to go to the front and serve on a temporary basis with a Guards regiment.

Soon thereafter he wrote Clementine:

I keep watch during part of the night so that others may sleep. Last night I found a sentry asleep on his post. I frightened him dreadfully but did not charge him with the crime. He was only a lad, & I am not an officer of the regiment. The penalty is death or at least 2 years.

Churchill found a way to justify his failure to report the young sentry.

But what if Churchill had been an officer of the regiment. Would he then have reported the young sentry? I doubt it.

I can't recall an instance where he pressed a court martial charge. Do any of you know of one?

Churchill was later recalled from France and served for the remainder of the war as Minister of Munitions. __________________________________________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion. (pgs. 578-579)

Response to New York Times delayed

My response to New York Times Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's email will appear tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

If you want to read his email, you'll find it in this post.

Your suggestions and comments are welcome.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 1, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Who was the first American President to write Churchill a letter?

If you answered, "Roosevelt," you're right provided you meant President Theodore Roosevelt.

TR and Churchill first met in Dec., 1900, when Roosevelt was New York's Governor and America's Vice President-elect.

TR hosted Churchill at dinner in the Governor's Mansion in Albany. He later told a friend, "Although (Churchill) is not an attractive fellow, I was interested in some of the things he said."

Nine years later, President Theodore Roosevelt was preparing to pass the duties of office on to his successor, William Howard Taft. Afterwards, he would embark on a lengthy hunting trip to Africa.

When Chuchill learned of TR's plans, he sent him a copy of his latest book, My African Journey, which had been serialized on both sides of the Atlantic. The front cover contained an engraving of Churchill, gun in hand, standing over a rhinoceros he'd shot.

TR responded:

My dear Mr. Churchill:

Thru (Ambassador) Reid, I have just received the beautiful copy of your book, and I wish to thank you for it. I had read all the chapters as they came out, and with a great deal of interest; not only the chapters upon the very difficult and important problems of the Government itself, but also the hunting chapters and especially the one describing how you got that rare and valuable trophy, a white rhinoceros head. Everyone has been most kind to me about my proposed trip to Africa. I trust I shall have as good luck as you had.

Again thanking you, believe me,
Sincerely yours,

Theodore Roosevelt

December 13, 1909.
______________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. ( pgs.36, 50-51)

Important questions about heroes and MSM.

Mrs Greyhawk asks:

How often do your hear heroic stories told of our troops... on say CNN or read about them in the New York Times?

Try searching "Hero" in any of the MSM's search window. Try searching "Hero" in Google News or Yahoo news and see what you find.

Can the everyday American (who hasn't been exposed to milblogs) name a single Hero of this war? No. Why? Because in the MSM's eye's, the epitome of a hero is ...a sports figure.

How is it, the headlines are filled with the casualties of our warriors but having none honoring their heroism?

Well, for one thing, if we start honoring our heroes we may start paying attention to what almost all of them are saying about Iraq: It's not a quagmire; we're not losing; and "cut-and-run" will only lead to civil war, and the failure of so much of what our military and our allies have accomplished there.

Listening to our heroes won't be good for the Democrats who dominate MSM or their fellow partisans in Congress and their interest groups. They want us to believe what they're telling us: things are bad and only getting worse; "It's another Vietnam." If enough of us believe them they think we'll elect more Dems to Congress in '06 and a Dem as President in '08.

Mrs. Greyhawk pushes aside MSM fig leaves:

They list them only as a veritable number. And if our warrior should so live thru a ferocious battle committing heroic deeds, they do not even get a mention of their valor.

Why does it take someone like Bruce Wllis to make a hero out of our heroes.

I'm astounded daily by the MSM's representation of our troops.

Mrs. Greyhawk, you're too nice. It's MSM's daily misrepresentation of our troops. But you're wonderful to share some examples of our service men and women's heroism with us:

Here are just a few of our latest heroes, honor them by remembering their names :

Spc. Andrew “Doc” Suchanek

Spc. Suchanek provided immediate life-saving treatment for an Iraqi police officer under heavy enemy fire. “I didn’t have time to think about it,” said Spc. Andrew “Doc” Suchanek, 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. “I just knew I didn’t want that guy to get hurt even worse. I just reacted.”

While on a routine patrol in west Baghdad, Suchanek and other Soldiers of C Company, 1/87 Infantry responded to assist Iraqi Police who had come under fire from automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. Encountering a critically-wounded police officer, Suchanek began immediate life-saving treatment.

Then a terrorist suddenly fired an RPG at both of them. Without hesitation, Suchanek threw himself on the police officer, shielding him from danger. The grenade exploded harmlessly and Suchanek continued treatment to save the life of the policeman. As his fellow Soldiers secured the area, Suchanek coordinated evacuation for his patient to a local hospital.

Read more here.

New York Times Editor Offers Explanation for Falsehoods

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, Confederate Yankeee, David Boyd, Peer Review, Right in Raleigh, and Mudville Gazette.)

Many of you know that on June 28 the New York Times published an op-ed that claimed the United States Army systematically lies to young West Point graduates.( ''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

Here's part of what the Times published:

The lies became embedded in the curriculum of the academy, and finally in its moral DNA.
...
The mistake the Army made (at the time of Vietnam) is the same mistake it is making now: how can you educate a group of handpicked students at one of the best universities in the world and then treat them as if they are too stupid to know when they have been told a lie?

Despite the gravity of the claim that the Army systematically lies, the Times offered readers no facts they could independently verify other than this paragraph:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

The claims in that paragraph are false. Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I know of no historian who’s ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

Begining on June 29 I called the falsehoods to Times public editor Byron Calame's attention. I cited sources refuting what the Times had published. Other bloggers (Betsy's Page, Michelle Malkin, Right in Raleigh, and Blackfive helped press the matter. If I've missed other bloggers, let me know and I'll correct).

Now from Times Op-Ed page Editor David Shipley comes this email response to which he attached a portion of correspondence from the author of the op-ed, Lucian Truscott IV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

>Dear Mr. Matthews,
>
>Many thanks for your note, which only recently found its way to me.
>
>You have a point. Mr. Truscott should have been more careful with his
>language and we should have been more careful in editing his language.
>That said, it seemed clear at the time -- and seems clear to me now --
>that he was speaking figuratively. Mr. Truscott did not, for example, say
>that these men had been "in" the trenches. A response from Mr. Truscott is
>pasted below. Given his answer, I am inclined to continue to give him the
>license to use this language figuratively.
>
>Thank you again for being in touch.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>David Shipley
>Editor, Op-Ed page
>
>Here's a portion of Mr. Truscott's note:
>
>>>I knew that about grandpa, Bradley, et al., but rather stupidly used the
>>>"trenches" thing as a metaphor. The "pact with each other" was made not in
>>>a literal sense, but in the sense that all of these men shared a sense of
>>>duty-honor-country that THEY took literally -- a dedication to their
>>>country, the army, their mission, and its rightness. It was the kind of
>>>dedication that didn't have to be talked about around a table -- although
>>>most of them spent many, many hours around tables of various kinds together
>>>between the wars.
>>>
>>>Lucian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I plan to respond to Editor Shipley in a day or two. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear your thoughts and suggestions. I hope other bloggers will link to this post as well as my first post to Public Editor Calame (It's here).

I recall in the days of Senator McCarthy he said some pretty reckless things about individual members of the Army. But I don't recall him ever making the broad charges of institutional lying that the Times published on June 28 with no verifiable evidence whatsoever, if you now accept Editor Shipley's claim that the statements about the five generals are really just figures of speech.

Alarm bells should be ringing all across this country.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 30, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Most of you know Churchill was born on November 30; many of you know the year, 1874.

That you know either or both facts suggests an interest in Churchill's life, the study of which has convinced millions they owe him something very important: their freedom.

They're right, of course. Churchill's unflinching opposition to Nazi barbarism always, and especially in the desperate days of 1940, was essential to Freedom's victory over the terrorists of his time.

In tribute this day to Churchill, here's part of historian William Manchester's appreciation of him and the long odds he faced in 1940.

The French had collapsed. The Dutch had been overwhelmed. The Belgians had surrendered. The British army ... fell back toward the Channel ports (centered on Dunkirk).
...
It was England's greatest crisis since the Norman conquest, vaster than those precipitated by Philip II's Spanish Armada, Louis XIV's triumphant armies, or Napoleon’s invasions barges massed at Boulogne.
...
It had been a thousand years since Alfred the Great had made himself and his countrymen one and sent them into battle transformed.

Now...confronted by the mightiest conqueror Europe had ever known, England looked for another Alfred, a figure cast in a mold which, by the time of (Dunkirk), seemed to have been forever lost.
...
(If England were to prevail, its new leader) would have to stand for everything England's decent, civilized Establishment had rejected. They viewed Adolf Hitler as the product of complex social and historical forces.

Their successor would have to be a passionate Manichaean who saw the world as a medieval struggle to the death between the powers of good and the powers of evil, who held that individuals are responsible for their actions, and that the German dictator was therefore wicked.

A believer in martial glory was required (who) could rally the nation to brave the coming German fury.

An embodiment of fading Victorian standards was wanted: a tribune for honor, loyalty, duty, and the supreme virtue of action: one who would never compromise with iniquity, who could create a sublime mood and thus give men heroic visions of what they were and might become.

Like Adolph Hitler he would have to be a leader of intuitive genius, a born demagogue in the original sense of the word, a believer in the supremacy of his race and his national destiny, an artist who knew how to gather the blazing light of history into his prism and then distort it to his ends, an embodiment of inflexible resolution who could impose his will and his imagination on his people.
...
(He would be a leader) who could win victories without enslaving populations, or preaching supernaturalism, or foisting off myths of his infallibility, or destroying, or even warping, the libertarian institutions he had sworn to preserve.

Such a man, if he existed, would be England's last chance.

In London there was such a man.

For the life of Winston Churchill, let us give thanks, and use our freedoms wisely and, when necessary, bravely.
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion. (p. 3-4)

The Churchill Series - Nov. 29, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was March 29, 1944 and past 2 AM in London.

The Prime Minister had just refused a resignation offer from a Cabinet Member who had failed to win Parliament's support for a crucial bill. They would turn things around in the morning, Churchill assured him. Then he prepared for bed.

The next morning he read documents, received and made phone calls, dictated memos and minutes, and at 9:30 met with Lord Cherwell. By 11:30 he was in Commons for Prime Minister's question time. Afterwards, he made a statement on an education bill and planned strategy for its passage. Then he left Commons for a 1:30 formal luncheon with prominent guests.

After the luncheon, Churchill continued to read, dictate, and take calls while he prepared for a 3 PM meeting with American Air Force General Ira Eaker. Eaker's Eighth Air Force bombers were at that time carrying out raids intended to cripple the Germans' ability to reinforce the Normandy beaches after the Allied invasion, then just weeks away.

Following his meeting with Eaker, Churchill took a nap; and then resumed work.

At 8:30 that evening he dined with General Bernard Law Montgomery, who would command Allied ground forces on D-Day.

On that March 29, Churchill was one day shy of age 69 years and 4 months. In the preceding three years, he had suffered at least two heart attacks and three bouts of pneumonia.
___________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, VII. ( See pg. 720-21 for events of March 29, and the index for other documentation)

Boyd goes for the money quotes

One reason I enjoy visiting David Boyd is his talent for spotting and highlighting money quotes at other blogs.

Here's an example he pulled from a Powerline review of Mary Mapes' book, in which she casts herself as the real victim of the 60 Minutes' Bush-basher she produced using forged documents:

It is a deeply dishonest book that takes advantage of the ignorance, gullibility, and derangement of its target audience. It depends on its readers complete ignorance of the record in general, and of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report on the 60 Minute broadcast segment in particular.

Sounds like just the book for a Moveon.org friend.

Be sure to visit David.

Letter to NY Times Public Editor Calame.

Readers' Note: Below is an open email letter to NY Times public editor Byron Calame. John in Carolina regulars know the background. Newcomers will quickly pick it up from the letter and links.

If after reading the letter, you wish to send a message to Calame his email address is: public@nytimes.com

I hope you'll contact him.
______________________________________________________________

To: Byron Calame
Public Editor
NY Times

Five months ago the New York Times published an op-ed charging the Army systematically lies to young West Point graduates ( ''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' June 28). (Full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

Only anecdotes were offered to support the lying charge. With one exception, they can’t be verified because names and other necessary identifying information aren’t provided.

The exception is this paragraph:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

As you surely know by now, the claims made in that paragraph are false.

Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I don’t know of any historian who’s ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

On June 29 I sent you a lengthy email that noted the false claims and cited widely respected and available sources that leave no doubt the claims are false. I requested a correction and explanation for why the Times published such blatant falsehoods

I posted the email at my blog, www.johnincarolina.com

On July 7, I sent you an updated email/post after the Times’ acknowledged on July 6 that one of its editors had inserted material into an op-ed that the op-ed author hadn’t intended to be there.

Following the Times July 6 acknowledgement, I thought it would move quickly to correct and explain the falsehoods in its June 28 op-ed because readers would now be asking not only why the Times published false statements about the generals but who had in fact authored them.

I received from your office formal acknowledgements of receipt of both emails but nothing more until Nov. 17, when Betsy Newmark, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin, posted on the falsehoods.

On the day Newmark’s post appeared, I was able to speak twice to your Associate, Joseph Plambeck. He was familiar with my requests and assured me you would take a close look at them and be back in touch within a few days.

I've heard nothing.

I was happy to give you a few days more but don’t you agree five months are now time enough?

Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins recently assured readers the Times corrects “all errors.” She added:

We want to cultivate the reflex that automatically fixes any inaccuracy, without whining. But mistakes of significance are much more urgent than minor ones. They need to be corrected quickly, and in a way that guarantees the fix is seen by as many people who read the original piece as possible.

If Collins and the Times are credible, why haven't we had a correction and explanation of blatant falsehoods in a Times op-ed accusing the Army of lying?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series - Nov. 28, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Most Churchill Series posts are narratives to which I sometimes add a brief comment.

Today’s post is different: I mean to knock down nonsense some British newspapers are spreading about Churchill.

Example: The Nov. 21 London Daily Telegraph online headlined: Churchill 'had his plane sabotaged to protect code secret.'

If you're not familiar with the British press, the Telegraph in not a London tabloid; it styles itself "a serious newspaper."

The Telegraph begins its Churchill "sabotaged" story:

Winston Churchill told his bodyguard deliberately to sabotage his aircraft to foil a Luftwaffe assassination plot, according to a television documentary.

Churchill's order instructing Walter Thompson, the detective who was his constant companion for 18 years, to immobilise his private aeroplane has remained secret until now.

But the makers of a documentary, Churchill's Bodyguard, believe that they have uncovered new evidence suggesting that Churchill dreamt up the elaborate scheme, because the cracking of the enigma code had provided him with intelligence saying there was to be an attempt on his life.

What new evidence? The Telegraph informs us the program:

is based on newly discovered memoirs written by Thompson recounting Churchill's numerous brushes with death.

So the new evidence is a claim by Thompson that Churchill told him “ to deliberately sabotage his aircraft, etc., etc?”

That’s a reasonable conclusion given how the Telegraph reports, especially it’s “Churchill's order instructing" statement.

But the Telegraph story is really puff-and-powder makeup. Thompson didn't claim that Churchill ordered any sabotage.

For its story, the Telegraph relies on a claim by Thompson's 90 year old son, that his father :

told me he took the rotor from the distributor cap. I have no doubt he did it. Dad knew his engines.''

The Telegraph apparently did not ask Harold Thompson why he is only telling his tale now, just as a 13-part TV series based on his father's memoirs begins its run on British television. Or ask why his father didn't mention the episode in his memoirs.

There's much else the Telegraph doesn't call to readers attention.

For instance, while on the ground at any time during WWII, Churchill's plane would have been heavily guarded. That was especially true in Feb. 1943 in Algiers, where a few weeks before a French leader, Admiral Darlan, had been assassinated(Churchill stayed in what had been Darlan's villa). Anyone tampering with any of the plane’s four engines (it was a converted B-24 Liberator bomber) would have been visible to the guards; and drawn immediate and intense attention.

I think the Telegraph and the documentary producers are hyping. I'm sorry the son's involved.