[Guest post by DRJ]

First Hillary claimed she had been named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the famous mountain climber, despite the fact that she was born more than 6 years before he gained fame for climbing Mt. Everest. Then it was her exaggerated claims of importance in negotiating peace in Northern Ireland. That was followed by the debunked campaign story of the pregnant Ohio woman who died after she was denied care. And who can forget Hillary’s “mis-speak” about avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia?

Now a British paper has questioned Hillary’s statements regarding her stay at Belfast’s Europa Hotel:

“But according to the Sunday Life newspaper, during a speech she made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfast’s landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995.

The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europe’s most bombed hotel, earning the moniker “the Hardboard Hotel”.

However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night.

The last time the Europa underwent renovations because of bomb blast damage was in January 1994, 22 months before the presidential entourage booked 110 rooms at the hotel.

Mrs Clinton told assembled politicians at Stormont: “When Bill and I first came to Belfast we stayed at the Europa Hotel … even though then there were sections boarded up because of damage from bombs.”

Hillary’s spokesman clarified that she was “trying to express a sincere
‘perception’ of a Belfast in darker days” and was “simply contrasting,” not mis-speaking.

– DRJ

He focuses on their lies by omission.

They still haven’t fixed their error‘ about Obama’s pledge not to run for President, by the way.

[Posted by WLS]

Washington Post “Fact-Checker” Michael Dobbs takes on his own newspaper’s account of Barack Obama’s connection to Franklin Raines as portrayed by the McCain’s new ad.

Dobbs’s verdict?

He says the Post’s article, editorial, and one other reference to the Obama-Raines connection were all based on one reporter’s interview with Raines — and yet while the characterization of the paper was never challenged by Obama or Raines, the verdict is that the McCain campaign is:

…clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on “housing and mortgage policy.”

According to Dobbs’s “investigation” — his conversation with business writer Anita Huslin who wrote the piece in July, his review of Raines statement issued by the Obama campaign last night (I thought he didn’t have any connection with the campaign?? He couldn’t release his own statement?), and conversations with the Obama campaign — the situation is as follows:

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

… I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked “if he was engaged at all with the Democrats’ quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (’Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”

By Raines’s own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply.

In other words, McCain’s characterization of the article is exactly as it was written. But once the Obama campaign provides him with more self-serving propaganda with which he can call the McCain campaign a liar, he’ll get back to us.

Where is the criticism of Huslin for putting a casual comment by Raines during a photo shoot in the first paragraph of her story suggesting he’s a player in the Obama campaign? If Dobbs is going to bang on the McCain campaign for relying on Huslin’s own words, why not bang on Huslin — since it appears that it was her, and not McCain, that made more out of the relationship that was warranted . . . that is, taking the Raines and Obama denials at face value.

Is the McCain camp expected to be clairvoyant? Should they have solicited confirmation of the Washington Post’s claims from the Obama camp or Raines himself? Do they need to start calling reporters to ask if they really meant what they said in their articles??

Maybe Dobbs would prefer the McCain campaign to ad to the little blurb at the end of every ad something like:

I”m John McCain, and I approve this message. But the Obama campaign disagrees and here is their statement in response ….”

I’m giving Washington Post 2 points for this beauty — it not only takes down the McCain campaign as a liar by giving him two “Pinocchio Noses,” it extricates itself from any responsibility whatsoever for McCain’s actions whatsoever.

Score:

Washington Post 2 — Time 1.

– WLS

P.S. BY PATTERICO: And another “fact-checking” site loses my respect. Add it to Snopes and “Politifact” as another example of a site that has lost any credibility, due to its becoming a fact-bending organ of pro-Obama nonsense. And to think that I’d praised these fact-checking sites just a few weeks ago.

Don’t believe everything you read. Not even if you read it on a site that most people assume is an authoritative fact-checking site.

In an article that purports to debunk a viral e-mail claiming 50 lies by Obama, Snopes.com asserts:

Senator Obama never stated categorically that he would not run on a national ticket in 2008. He at one time said that he had “no plans” to run for national office in 2008, the standard response virtually all politicians give to press inquiries when they have not yet formulated (or do not wish to reveal) their plans for upcoming elections.

Oh really?

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

Obama: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

Gee. That kinda sounds like Obama “stated categorically that he would not run on a national ticket in 2008.” To put it Snopes-style, regarding Snopes’s claim:

Claim: “Senator Obama never stated categorically that he would not run on a national ticket in 2008.”

Status: False.

When these “fact-checking” sites aren’t botching the facts, they can sometimes be found dressing up opinion as fact. Take this doozy by a site calling itself “PolitiFact” (”PolitiOpinion” is more like it):

Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.

(”FactCheck.org” did a similar piece.)

Oh really?

Here’s part of what I wrote to the Politi”Fact” author:

How is that “fact”? It’s your opinion.

I happen to think Obama *may* not have meant it as a reference to Palin. However, his audience certainly seemed to take it as a reference to Palin, judging from their reaction. How could they, when as a “factual” matter it wasn’t?

Other data point: I run a conservative blog, and I wouldn’t look to my conservative commenters for evidence on this — but I have more than one liberal commenter who said (paraphrasing) darn right that’s how he meant it, and he’s right! How could they be so wrong on the “facts”?

The “fact” of the matter is that the interpretation of Obama’s remark is open to, well, interpretation. It’s opinion. If you can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact, you ought not be writing for a site that purports to deal only in facts. Feel free to write op-eds, but please, don’t give us opinions dressed up as irrefutable facts.

My kingdom for a “fact checking” site that a) gets the facts right and b) doesn’t pretend opinions are facts. Does such a thing exist?

[Guest post by DRJ]

Living in West Texas in the middle of oil country, I get a lot of emails from friends and family about energy. I was surprised to learn that Snopes.com has written an article about one of those emails entitled The Truth About ANWR.

The email uses photos and maps to show where proposed ANWR drilling is and what it looks like. It compares the barren Coastal Plain area that supporters want opened for exploration and drilling with the beautiful Alaskan wilderness that is not designated for drilling.

Without elaborating, the Snopes.com article labels the conclusions in the email “scant and one-sided” and links to websites with opposing views on ANWR drilling. However, Snopes.com apparently concedes that the ANWR photos contained in the email are accurate.

ANWR photos and references are at the link. Take a look and decide for yourself.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

It’s frequently said that the Iraq War is a failure. Initially, the conventional wisdom was that it failed because of the chaotic situation in Iraq, but the surge has helped to bring stability to many areas of Iraq.

It has also been claimed that the Iraq War is a failure because the Iraqis have not embraced freedom and taken control of their country, but the Awakening and Prime Minister Maliki’s showdown with al-Sadr’s Shiites suggest that many Iraqis have chosen to participate in rebuilding Iraq.

The most recent theme of failure in Iraq has focused on American deaths – over 4000 to date. That made me curious about military deaths compared with prior years. The Congressional Research Service published statistics on active duty military deaths from the Revolutionary War through 2006. The following statistics are excerpted from Table 4 at page 10 at the link:

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006

Year-Total Military-Deaths

1980 – 2,159,630 – 2,392
1981 – 2,206,751 – 2,380
1982 – 2,251,067 – 2,319
1983 – 2,273,364 – 2,465
1984 – 2,297,922 – 1,999
1985 – 2,323,185 – 2,252
1986 – 2,359,855 – 1,984
1987 – 2,352,697 – 1,983
1988 – 2,309,495 – 1,819
1989 – 2,303,384 – 1,636
1990 – 2,258,324 – 1,507
1991 – 2,198,189 – 1,787
1992 – 1,953,337 – 1,293
1993 – 1,849,537 – 1,213
1994 – 1,746,482 – 1,075
1995 – 1,661,928 – 1,040
1996 – 1,613,310 — 974
1997 – 1,578,382 — 817
1998 – 1,538,570 — 827
1999 – 1,525,942 — 796
2000 – 1,530,430 — 758
2001 – 1,552,196 — 891
2002 – 1,627,142 — 999
2003 – 1,732,632 – 1,228
2004 – 1,711,916 – 1,874
2005 – 1,664,014 – 1,942
2006 – 1,664,014 – 1,858

Snopes.com used this information to summarize the deaths by President:

Carter – 1980 – 2,392
Reagan – 1981-1988 – 17,201
Bush I – 1989-1992 – 6,223
Clinton – 1993-2000 – 7,500
Bush II – 2001-2006 – 8,792
Est. 2007-3/26/2008 – 1,114

For those who measure the value of the Iraq War and the greater War on Terror by military deaths, these are the numbers.

– DRJ

[posted by Justin Levine]

Patterico justifiably took Snopes to task in 2004 for skewing the real issue behind the Annie Jacobsen story concerning the suspicious behavior on flight 327.

Recent events seem to have vindicated key claims of Jacobsen’s story – but Snopes continues to be disingenuous about the controversy.

Snopes writes:

Claim: Passengers encountered by reporter on airline flight were proved to be terrorists making a dry run at assembling a bomb on-board.

Status: False

[UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Note that this is different from Snopes's original characterization of the controversy, as detailed in my 2004 post:

Claim: Reporter encounters terrorists on airline flight who are making a dry run at assembling a bomb on-board.

Status: False.

More on this in the UPDATE BY PATTERICO below.]

Snopes then even has the gall to cite the latest government [PDF] report as “proof” about the veracity of its own assessment.

Technically, Snopes is correct of course – but only because it constructs a disingenuously worded “claim” upfront, rather than reassess the story under a reasonable “claim”.

It is true that none of the passengers were “proven” to be terrorists. The latest government [PDF] report does not offer any such proof either.

However, contrary to Snopes implication, (more…)

With the revival of the debate over Annie Jacobsen and Flight 327, commenters are pointing to Snopes as providing an allegedly authoritative opinion on the matter.

Hardly — as I showed long ago in this post.

Since I wrote that post, Snopes has doubled down — and their new material is disingenous indeed. Xrlq explains.

You must listen to this right now.

I had seen this before, but didn’t link to it because I didn’t know whether it was a hoax. Via Xrlq, I see that Snopes confirms the call was real, but wonders whether it was a prank call. Xrlq notes some subtle corroborating details, and concludes, “if it was a hoax, it was a better planned one than most.”

The entire hilarious transcript is in the extended entry, courtesy of Snopes.

(more…)

So Snopes.com has declared the Annie Jacobsen story to be “false”:

Claim: Reporter encounters terrorists on airline flight who are making a dry run at assembling a bomb on-board.

Status: False.

The article does nothing more than cite that article citing anonymous air marshals saying Jacobsen overreacted. Apparently anonymous air marshals are good enough for Snopes.com.

Don’t they have an “undetermined” classification? Why, yes, they do. I suggest that this would be a good time to use it.

Meanwhile, we learn that the Syrian music group has a song celebrating Palestinian “martyrdom,” which as we all know, is code language for suicide bombing.

Oh, and the Washington Times has confirmed that 13 of the 14 did indeed have expired visas — which the authorities didn’t bother to check before letting them go. The article also reminds us what I have been telling you: that the actions of these terrorism-supporting Syrians who were here illegally resembled the actions of other Middle Easterners lately suspected of conducting dry runs.

Of course, many non-anonymous people (including even some conservatives) have argued that Jacobsen overreacted. Some say the Syrians’ seemingly suspicious actions (the congregating in the aisle, etc.) are simply manifestations of Arab culture. However, I have yet to see an Arab-culture explanation for the actions of the guy who came of the bathroom during final descent, drew his finger across his throat, and said “No” to a fellow Syrian passenger. Perhaps someone can explain the cheery or religious implication in Arab culture of drawing your finger across your throat?

As Spoons says:

To recap, we have a bunch of young, pro-terrorist males from a terrorist supporting country, traveling on expired visas, violating security rules and otherwise acting suspiciously on a U.S. flight.

But have no fear! Snopes says it’s “false”!

Pictures are at this snopes.com link.

Via The Lopsided Poopdeck comes this cool picture:
(more…)