Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 3

message: Ms Coulter was clearly wrong on this one. Her exact words (CBC link) were: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam" The  facts are these, as many others have pointed out already : (a) The Canadian government remained officially neutral during the war; (b) a significant number of Canadian citizens legally volunteered and served in Vietnam, under American command. Ms Coulter's statement clearly is not referring to support by Canadian citizens, but, rather, to the support (or lack thereof) of the Canadian government. And the Canadian government did not support the American effort in Vietnam as Ms Coulter thought. 
The Gnome 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case Closed

message: I snipped the following op-ed as it's conspicuously light on sources and heavy on original research:
:On the other hand, the CBC broadcast just a few minutes of a 3 hour interview session in which the matter of Canada in Vietnam was a minor detail. Coulter's larger point was that Canadian foreign policy seems confused and contradictory.
:During the Vietnam conflict, the Canadian Prime Minister quietly gave his thumbs up for the bombing of North Vietnam. His government supported and gave aid to South Vietnam only. Canadian officials worked with the US on intelligence and made other contributions to the war effort. Canadians did not take a pass on Vietnam, as the CBC interviewer claimed.
:The Canadian government sent about 1,800 troops to Vietnam and medals were awarded for that service. They did not serve as fighting units as per the Australian troops, but they went under the Canadian flag with the sanction of their government.
:Also, a replica of the Vietnam War Memorial Wall stands on Canadian soil to commemorate about 10,000 Canadians who served in the Vietnam war. About 40,000 Canadians joined the US Military during the conflict. The entirely voluntary Canadian military downsized during that same period from about 120,000 to 80,000. It was lawful to serve in the war and Canadians who had volunteered for service in the militaries of the US and Allies were later welcomed back to their country.
:Coulter has since remarked tongue-in-cheek, "It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."
:Contary to the CBC interviewer's claim, Canadians served in Operation Iraqi Freedom; the second-ranking officer leading the US and Coaliton forces in Iraq is a general in the Canadian military. The Canadian Defence Department has acknowledged that it has personnel serving alongside Coaliton forces. The New Democratic Party of Canada has demanded that the Canadian government pull-out Canadian personnel. The Conservative Party of Canada has demanded that the government support those Canadians serving in Canadian uniform in the Iraq theater. The independant Polaris Institute in Ottawa said that because the facts on the ground contradict the Government's foreign policy - "Policy incoherence would be an understatement."
:The facts about Canadian involvement in the Vietnam war, as in the Iraq War II, support Coulter's contention that the current government's policy was confused.
chocolateboy 04:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blame Canada

message: Allison Delaney, wrote (on an official Canadian government website):
:"Although estimates vary, at least 12 000 Canadians served with the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Some crossed the border to join, others were living in the U.S. during the war." 
If Ann Coulter meant that the Canadian goverment sent members in good standing of the Canadian army to Vietnam, then I've been unable to confirm this.
If she meant "Canada, the country" (i.e., the Canadian people as a whole - not just the goverment) then there's ample evidence that she was right.
The question is whether the interviewer's "correction" was (a) correct in itself AND (b) wrongfully refused by Coulter. If he had said, "No Canadians fought in Vietnam" he'd be dead wrong, of course. If he had said, "The Canadian goverment sent no troops to Vietnam" then he just might be right. 
Now what exactly did he say, and what does this have to do with Coulter's credibility and the blog campaign against Coulter?
Perhaps the proper distinction is:
* Canadian troops: soldiers who fight in a war as members of the Canadian Army
* Canadian soldiers: soldiers of Canadian citizenship who fight in a war
If the interview was playing the gotcha game, then I'd have to say he "won" if catching your opponent in a misstatement (however small) is how you rack up points against them.
But it's a fine distinction (to me) and not proof of a "pattern of deception" or any reason for Wikipedia to side with him against her.
A real "correction" would have been for the interviewer to say:
* Thousands of Canadian men fought in Vietnam, but not as members of the Canadian military.
If Coulter had then said, "No, they were on active duty with the Canadian Army at the time" then clearly she'd have been wrong: first, for making a clear, unambiguous assertion which is false; second, for refusing correction when the interviewer clarified things.
However, the transcript does not show any clarification. It was just a "Canada did send, Canada did send" tussle with no attempt on either side to say what they meant by "troops". As such, I don't think it really reflects badly on either of them.
But if the point of the show was to give examples of Americans who distort the truth, or if the anti-Coulter crowd is using it that way, then Wikipedia needs to step back and describe BOTH the anti and pro sides and not endorse either.
Last time I checked the article it either implied or said outright that Coulter was WRONG. It should not say this, but rather that the CBC, or the interviewer, or the Michael Moore website, or dozens of bloggers ASSERT that she was wrong. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I think if you look at the context, it should be clear that they were talking about the canadian government.  Coulter said, "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"  When she refers to Canada, as a nation, as a friend, one assumes she is saying they are an ally.  If that is the case, then clearly when she says "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," she means the Canadian government.  Also, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," sends more rather active.  If she had said "troops from canada fought in Vietnam," that would be another story, but when she says that Canada sent the troops, it must have been a government that sent them.  Who else could activly send troops?  While I suppose it is possible that they were both very confused, I find it highly unlikely. --Benna 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coulter said Canadian policy had changed, McKeown pointed out that it hadn't. That's not playing gotcha, it's a legitimate response to a claim which was central to her thesis. It's a real correction. Coulter was talking about the policy of the Canadian government when she didn't know what the policy was. John FitzGerald 15:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct -- Coulter asserted that Canada, as an ally, sent troops to Vietnam. If we're to limber up our imaginations, then the foreign policy has not changed since we sent troops to Vietnam, since a sizable minority of Canadians support the Invasion of Iraq, much like the sizable minority of Canadians who fought in Vietnam, and thereby, we both support the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam. Quite a stretch, no? The assertion was clear despite apologist revision or rhetorical backpeddling on her part; she meant that Canada, the nation, the government, the typical neighbourly ally, sent troops on an official and military basis by government decree to intervene in the Vietnamese conflict as active belligerents.Professor Ninja 19:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Did "Canada send troops"?

message: The interview highlighted a moment in which Coulter apparently confused (1) the 12,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam as members of the US Army with (2) "Canadian troops". In a voice-over, the interviewer twitted Coulter: "She never got back to me, and for the recond, Canada sent no troops.
(However, the documentary omitted any mention of the 12,000 Canadians who did fight in Vietnam, making it look as if Coulter made the whole thing up. All she did was make an honest mistake. And if the interviewer KNEW that Canadians Coulter was thinking of (a) really were there but (b) simply were not there as Canadians troops but as US troops, he might have pointed this out. Especially when broadcasted the edited excerpt. That bit about "for the record" is misleading.)
He should have said,
:"For the record, over ten thousand Canadians fought for South Vietnam; it's just that the Canadian government didn't send them."
And if he had a shred of decency or honesty he would have contacted Coulter, assured her that she was partly right, and offered her a chance to amend her remarks. But he just wanted to play gotcha. Hardly cricket for a report on how the US right wing is supposedly dishonest.
As one anti-Coulter blogger wrote,
:Canadians did fight in Vietnam. That's true, but they did so AS MEMBERS OF THE US ARMED FORCES, NOT AS MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES. 
Another blogger was more mild:
:And since I was curious about the actual truth of the matter in the video ... Although Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam, over 10,000 Canadian citizens voluntarily joined the U.S. military and fought in Vietnam. There is a monument to the ones who died in Windsor. [ibid]
The left is unanimous in insisting that Coulter was wrong and McKeown was right. But they all give him a pass for concealing the fact that Canadians went to Vietnam. They're so intent on nailing Coulter for her mis-statement as an example of a "lie" for which she must be "exposed". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:If Coulter had a shred of decency she'd have got back to McKeown as she promised instead of claiming on C-Span that he was an ignoramus (unlikely, given the publicity Canadian Vietnam vets have received). McKeown concealed nothing. The issue of Canadian volunteers is irrelevant – American volunteers started joining the Canadian forces in 1939 to fight the Germans, but that doesn't mean that the US got into the war in 1939. THe long and the short of it is that Coulter is pronouncing on Canadian history without knowing basic facts about it. John FitzGerald 14:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is quoting Coulter as admitting/correcting herself that the Canadian govt didn't send troops and you feel the need to add at the bottom that this explanation doesn't alter the fact that Canada didn't send troops. No kidding, she just admitted they didn't! I don't even see where anyone implied that Canada's position on Vietnam is different. There is no assertion that McKeown didn't know about Canadians in Vietnam. It's not even Coulter who says "I didn't think he knew", she's repeating what people were telling her. It's pretty silly to state your opinion on what you think McKeown may or may not know in order to address an assertion that was never made. --jag123 15:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And I hope my newest attempt at clarification makes my points more clearly. Coulter's self-serving comments should not be allowed to stand without comment. I should point out that I'm not all that upset by Coulter – there are only about four Americans who know anything about Canada, anyway, so it's not surprising she doesn't. Most prominent American commentators couldn't tell you two facts about Canada. The need some people feel to defend her infallibility is interesting, though. John FitzGerald 22:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CBC Report is misleading

message: I'm adding what I already said on the mailing list here, as I think the discussion belongs here.  On the list, Uncle Ed said that:
:Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point:
#No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
#Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
#The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
#Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.
My response was as follows:
: I agree with your breakdown of the various interpretations on this matter.  I also agree that 1) and 4) appear to be false.
: I don't think 3) is true either, since the only deployment I know of, from web searches anyway, is this ICCS thing (Operation Gallant), which Tony Sidaway has also commented on.  But these were non-aligned peacekeepers, which I presume is exclusive from active duty soldiers.
: To me, Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans.
: So, as far as I can tell, there seem to have been no troops sent by the Canadian government to Vietnam to assist the American side.  To me, this makes Coulter's claim unambiguously wrong.
: The article should note this.  However, it should also mention the possible charitable explanations for her false claim, by mentioning Canadians who enlisted in the U.S. army and the peacekeeping Operation Gallant, or possibly just providing a link to the relevant section of Canada and the Vietnam War, since much of the content would be the same.  We should of course also mention how this claim is interpreted by her critics.
: [some intermediate comments deleted]
: I do not think this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar.  (My personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at least not challenged.)
Feel free to comment on any of the above. --Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it all hinges on this:
:"Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans. "
Let me break this into two parts:
#the troops [were] provided by the government of Canada
#they went to Vietnam to fight alongside the Americans
It's been made pretty clear to me that Canada's government did not send the 10,000 to 12,000 "troops" that Coulter had in mind. So AFAIC she's wrong about that. (She has apparently admitted this much.)
What the CBC did not make clear in Sticks and Stones is that thousands of Canadians did fight in Vietnam on the South Vietnamese side. The segnment featuring McKeown and Coulter ends with a voiceover by McKeown which (a) merely repeats what he said in the interview, while (b) omitting any mention of Canadians going to Vietnam as soldiers.
The question anyone is free to ask is whether Coulter conceded enough of her error, quickly enough. Another question is whether the McKeown was playing gotcha, or whether it's ethical to say "For the record" and then omit relevant information for the purpose of discrediting a guest on your show. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
:This hairsplitting in trying to save Coulter from the charge of inaccuracy is getting silly.  In the context of her statement, it's obvious that she meant to make an implication about actions of the Canadian government.  Did the U.S. send troops to fight alongside the Taliban?  No, even though John Walker Lindh was there, and even if there was another such case (to justify the plural) the presence of U.S. citizens doesn't mean that the U.S. sent troops.  Note also that Coulter was contrasting the war in Vietnam with the invasion of Iraq.  If you try to defend her on the basis that there were some Canadian citizens serving as members of the U.S. military in Vietnam, you'd have to maintain as well that Vietnam and Iraq were different in that respect.  That's probably not a defensible position.  Without doing any research on the point, I'll hazard a guess that there are at least some Canadian citizens serving in Iraq, just as others did in Vietnam.  As for the challenge to McKeown's ethics, that might be brought up in an article about him but I don't see it as something that merits exploration in the article about Coulter.  JamesMLane 21:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Canadian servicemen/women serving in American units as part of an exchange program are expected by both governments to go to Iraq and perform the duties of Americans. John FitzGerald 14:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controvery over the Canada quote 

message: What is not factual in the section. Coulter did make the statement, and the interviewer did contradict her. Coulter then said the following quote. What is not factual? --jag123 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual notice on Canada & Vietnam 

message: I would like to discuss this subsection:
More recently, however, a Time Magazine article on Coulter dated April 25, 2005, stated "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972." Media watchdog FAIR disputes this assertion, however, saying that writer John Cloud was "making quite a stretch" to prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate. They explain: "Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent [...] they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there." FAIR also notes that the alleged troops sent are not mentioned "in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam." [9]  Canada sent officials to Vietnam in 1954 and 1973 as observers with the International Commission for Control and Supervision.
:This subsection contains an interesting discussion about Canada's involvement or lack of involvement in the Vietnam War.  It claims that John Cloud wanted to "prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate".  If that were true, we might have grounds for including the quote.  But actually, Cloud only mentioned the non-combat troops to basically say, paraphrasing Cloud's words, "Bob McKeown was wrong too" when he made a blanket statement about Canada sending no troops to Vietnam.  But this article isn't about Bob McKeown, or about John Cloud and whether he was wrong to call the  Canadian monitors that were sent to Vietnam "troops".  Such speculation is not necessary to show Coulter was indeed mistaken about Canada sending troops as allies of the United States, nor does it help excuse Coulter of her mistake, since she already admitted the mistake and offered a different reason for making it.  These are the grounds I am employing for removing this subsection. 216.119.143.4 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada and the Vietnam War

message: In the article, it quotes someone as saying that Canada's official position on the Vietnam war was neutral - this isn't entirely accurate. Canada was officialy a "non-particapant", but it was certainly not neutral. The Canadian government at the time vocally supported the american effort in Vietnam. The same was true of the recent war against Iraq - the Canadian government didn't send troops, but at the same time it admitted during question period that it morally suppoerted the Americans and wanted them to win. Anon
*In point of fact, Canada's official government position was neutral- comments made in question period do not form official government policy. Having seen the original interview, it seems clear that Coulter was incorrect.  As I wasn't alive during the Vietnam war, perhaps you could provide sources for the assertions you made about the Canadian govt.s involvement in it. --Scimitar 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada and Vietnam