[WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

Wed Mar 9 21:44:58 UTC 2005

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:32:56 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> 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:
> 
> 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian
> government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
> 
> 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the
> "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
> 
> 3. 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.

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.

> Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a
> misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong
> word.

Yes, that seems to be her take on things.

> Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly*
> wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e.,
> thought it was the government sending active duty personnel).

I do not 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.)

Steve