tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post113333714081829096..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: New York Times Editor Offers Explanation for FalsehoodsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133742716658554282005-12-04T19:31:00.000-05:002005-12-04T19:31:00.000-05:00I don't mind that they were called to task for the...I don't mind that they were called to task for the license taken to portray the officers of the army accurately. They could have done as well and stuck to the literal truth. It was sloppy journalism, but it is just as sloppy criticism to focus on that as proof that all his other claims were false or, at best, unproven. <BR/><BR/>When someone says "America learned some harsh lessons about unpreparedness in the fiery crucible of the December 7,1941 sneak attack on the U.S. Naval base and Army airfields in Hawaii." are we supposed to believe we were all there? And if it can't be proven that we all were, does that mean we didn't learn anything about unpreparedness? <BR/><BR/>That's how I determined it was figurative, I know something of history and hyperbole and have a modicum of good sense.<BR/><BR/>I would bet you that every one of those generals learned lessons and understood the horror of those trenches, though they were never in them. They served with and lost comerades who were. As I said, it is sloppy journalism to say they endured the horror "in" those trenches. It is most probably true that they witnessed the horrors "of" those trenches as evidenced in the ruined lungs,and shattered health of their comrades.<BR/><BR/>Ruined men from reasons other than combat incurred, far outnumbered combat injuries. I took his point to be that they stuck because of their pact with nation and duty and their brothers at arms. I never thought it was a signed contract, nor did I think he was suggesting that they had among the five of them made a formal pledge. But, rather, they kept the pact they had made with themselves individually, as was the standard for men of substance in that day.<BR/><BR/>You said in your last comment: "The same NYT article contains the following charge: "By the time we [the Class of 1969] were seniors, honor court verdicts could be fixed." This is a serious, and so far unsupported, allegation."<BR/><BR/>From that point on you and I are in exact accord. My initial comment was intended to show that should have been the thrust of the criticism. Exposing a serious allegation as unsupported and demanding correction of a substantive issue that levels accusations with no proof seems to me, to be much more effective than getting hung up on a sidelight that has no real bearing on his accusations.<BR/><BR/>It's sort of like making sure you turn off all the lights in the house to save electricity, when you should be spraying water to put out the fire in the living room before it spreads. Both may be desirable activities, but one is, by far, the more beneficial. <BR/><BR/>As for the "idiots" comment. I did include myself as one who should try to avoid appearing as idiotic. I didn't say we were idiotic, I merely said we should not portray ourselves as such while we turn out the lights and let the house burn down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133710335459781472005-12-04T10:32:00.000-05:002005-12-04T10:32:00.000-05:00jb,Given all the problems with that paragraph, and...jb,<BR/><BR/>Given all the problems with that paragraph, and given that the Times sees nothing to correct, I don't think I'm overstating the case.<BR/><BR/>I'll bet we can agree that for a major American newspaper with international influence to publish an op-ed charging the Army systematically lies is a very, very serious matter under any circumstances, but especially so at a time of war with the country undergoing physical and propaganda attacks from our enemies.<BR/><BR/>Now that the 5 generals part of its op-ed has been exposed as fiction, I don't think there's anything else in the op-ed that either of us can find that a reader can independly verify.<BR/><BR/>It's shocking that the Times is comfortable publishing its "Army lies" op-ed with only a combination of fiction and unverivable anecdotes, which we now have every to doubt are factual.<BR/><BR/>In a day or two I'm going to post more on this matter. I hope you will take a look and continue to comment.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the following comment I received soom time ago (you can find it on the June 29 post thread) illustrates further what the Times did in that op-ed.<BR/>________________________<BR/><BR/>The same NYT article contains the following charge: "By the time we [the Class of 1969] were seniors, honor court verdicts could be fixed." This is a serious, and so far unsupported, allegation.<BR/><BR/>Any cadet who "fixed" an "honor court verdict" or tolerated such conduct on the part of another would be guilty of a serious offense, punishable under the USMA Honor Code and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that governs all members of the US military.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the individuals from the Class of 1969 (and other USMA classes) who made up such "honor courts" were - and still are – well known, not only to their classmates who elected them to this permanent position, but also to a larger group, which includes friends and families.<BR/><BR/>Notwitstanding the seriousness of its allegation, the NYT article does not cite names, dates or other supporting facts that would permit the reader to assess its credibility.<BR/><BR/>It is incumbent on the NYT to provide all facts relating to the credibility of its charge that "honor court verdicts could be fixed" by members of the USMA Class of 1969, in order to rebut the presumption that the charge made by the NYT was manufactured and is defamatory and libelous on its face.JWMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08275423713054782480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133683353391545032005-12-04T03:02:00.000-05:002005-12-04T03:02:00.000-05:00The "trenches" part seems clearly literal in its d...The "trenches" part seems clearly literal in its detail--had he said "having endured the horrors of World War I," it'd be reasonable to assume he didn't mean that they all served at the front.<BR/><BR/>The "pact" bit seems clearly figurative, if badly worded. Of course army officers have solidarity--the "each other" represents not only the 5 generals but all other officers in the army.<BR/><BR/>John, I think you're overstating your (admittedly sound) case here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133673220369017132005-12-04T00:13:00.000-05:002005-12-04T00:13:00.000-05:00Dear Straight Arrow,You say, “We look weak and unf...Dear Straight Arrow,<BR/><BR/>You say, “We look weak and unfocused to direct our criticism at his literary skill of lack (sic) of same.”<BR/><BR/>Everyone should know that when you say “we,” it doesn’t include me and many others.<BR/><BR/>You say: “Get real, we all should have known (Truscott) was speaking figuratively and in that particular instance, truthfully as to the character of the men of which he spake.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t agree it was clear Truscott and the Times spoke figuratively. I say why in my post.<BR/><BR/>You say: “That (Truscott) did speak falsely or, at best, laid unproven accusation against the USMA, is the issue upon which we should challenge him.<BR/><BR/>So you're saying that Truscott and the Times’ statements about the five generals are not false because they’re fiction, and that’s obvious. Then you're saying you’re sure that Truscott “did speak falsely (and) we should challenge him?”<BR/><BR/>How were you able to determine all of that?<BR/><BR/>You never say how you determined, at least to your own satisfaction, what the Times meant to be fiction and what it meant to be fact? Why not? <BR/><BR/>You tell me I’m part of a group portraying itself as “idiots.” <BR/><BR/>I don’t mind being included in such a group as long as you tell people I don’t agree with almost anything you said in your comment.<BR/><BR/>JohnJWMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08275423713054782480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133661150128860552005-12-03T20:52:00.000-05:002005-12-03T20:52:00.000-05:00Sorry guys, but I took it as figuratively speaking...Sorry guys, but I took it as figuratively speaking in both the "trenches" comment and the "pact" comment. Surely nobody really thinks they all took a "pinky swear". C'mon.<BR/><BR/>As to his serious allegation against the USMA, I see no reason to believe him. However, let's not portray ourselves as idiots. If he had spoken more literally, would we then have attacked him for imperfect punctuation? <BR/><BR/>Get real, we all should have known he was speaking figuratively and in that particular instance, truthfully as to the character of the men of which he spake. <BR/><BR/>That he did speak falsely or, at best, laid unproven accusation against the USMA, is the issue upon which we should challenge him.<BR/><BR/>We look weak and unfocused to direct our criticism at his literary skill of lack of same.<BR/><BR/> That's my opinion, and I'm never wrong. sort ofAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133509767285993052005-12-02T02:49:00.000-05:002005-12-02T02:49:00.000-05:00His grandfather was a decorated general in the Uni...His grandfather was a decorated general in the United States Army. He is a newspaper reporter living vicariously on his grandfather's exploits. Talk about the dumbing-down of America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133484484526413152005-12-01T19:48:00.000-05:002005-12-01T19:48:00.000-05:00Why do we keep thinking that the Times, et al, wil...Why do we keep thinking that the Times, et al, will stop lying if we catch them or even care if we catch them. A significant number of Times readers won't notice the lies and another significant number of their readers won't mind the lies as long as the liberal template is followed. Nice try though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133366372048335952005-11-30T10:59:00.000-05:002005-11-30T10:59:00.000-05:00If anyone is treating well educated people as if t...If anyone is treating well educated people as if they were fools then it is the NYT.<BR/><BR/>I think that very very few people would read the "trenches" paragraph and think it anything but literal.<BR/><BR/>Fake but accurate indeed.<BR/><BR/>-ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-1133354161259961092005-11-30T07:36:00.000-05:002005-11-30T07:36:00.000-05:00It certainly seemed more a statement of fact than ...It certainly seemed more a statement of fact than figurative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com