Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Poor, Edmund
W wrote:
Oops, I meant
"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served
as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."
However, Coulter's claim was offered in the context of an assertion that
the nation of Canada was once a supportive ally of the United States but
no longer is. International alliances are relationships between or
among states, that is, governments. In this context, the claim only
really makes sense as an assertion about government actions, since the
actions of private individuals cannot constitute (or break) an alliance.
Moreover, this context also associates the presence of Canadians in the
Vietnam conflict with ideological support by the Canadian government for
the United States government's position in that conflict.
While I think it's likely that Coulter just made a mistake regarding the
extent of the Canadian government, drawing from memory and hitting just
off-center with her facts, I don't think there's enough hard evidence to
make any final declarations about the matter. It could very well have
been merely a poor choice of phrasing because of the colloquial
understanding her words conveyed. You're trying to attach an "official
Canadian action" sense to her words and, while she may well have meant
that, she also may not have. There's no particular reason to assume she
wasn't referring to a general, public support for the US, rather than a
specific state of official relations between governments. In fact,
considering that she was talking about matters of goodwill (instead of /
in addition to) military policy, one might argue that the "public
goodwill" argument holds more water.
This factual error, misrepresentation, mistake, lie, or whatever else it
might be, is in no way a cut-and-dried case of Coulter being in the
right, the wrong, or the sideways. Look for reasons to assume good
faith on her part and, if you don't find any reasonable options, THEN
declare otherwise. Relying on the word of people like Moore, who has
made documented, unavoidably deceptive statements on many occasions,
hardly constitutes proper critical analysis of the situation.
That aside, I don't see any reason to do other than simply include all
relevant perspectives on the debate in the article. Any actual analysis
of the matter should not be the core of the article's text.
--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]