September 29, 2008
The WaPo Bravely "Fact Checks" Opinion
This is rich. Not content with fact-checking statements which can be ... well... fact-checked, the WaPo bravely essays forth to catch Lying Liars Who Lie prevaricating in regard to extremely important matters of... opinion:
John McCain kicked the evening off with a wild exaggeration by describing the allied invasion of Normandy as “the greatest invasion” in history.
Such historical comparisons are always dangerous. In scale, the D-Day landings were far exceeded by Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, in June 1941, and the Soviet invasion of Germany at the end of World War II.
A total of 326,000 allied troops took part in the initial D-day Landings in June 1944. By comparison, Hitler’s sent an army of 4.5 million men into the Soviet Union in June 1941along a 1,800 mile front.
Wow. We'll say. Whatever would we do without impartial journalists? There's nothing more fun than fact-checking a "dangerous" [meaning they disagree with it] opinion by serving up your own opinions (suitably disguised, of course) in the guise of fact!
Herr Crittenden responds to the Post's rather silly fact check:
Universally regarded as the greatest sea invasion of all time, in contention for the greatest single technological and organizational operation, massive and highly complex, conducted under strict secrecy, cloaked by highly successful deception.
Different. Greater. And on unconditional greatness alone, it’s important to note that the jackbooted sausage-eating bucketheads, several months in, when it started snowing and they were all still in their summer uniforms and not in Moscow as planned, weren’t feeling so great any more. Schadenfreude ensued. As for the Soviets, they didn’t launch an invasion of Germany as much as they pushed multiple fronts forward over a period of two years. Sort of like we did after we invaded Normandy.
We could dicker over the semantics of what makes an invasion, and technically, maybe the Washington Post is right. But in the end what it comes down to is, Clintonianly speaking, what you think “great” is. Greatness is in fact conditional. The Nazis wanted to own Russia, and killed every Jew and most of the other Russians they met. If the Washington Post thinks that’s great, so be it. The Russkies, meanwhile, raped every woman they met, and enslaved half of Europe for 45 years. Washington Post informs us that’s also greater than Normandy, where the Americans, British and Canadians went ashore, fought and died to liberate.
Perhaps it's just us, but the term "greatest" implies just a tad bit of ... oh, how shall we say it... subjectivity? Fortunately, as long as the WaPo is around we foolish voters will be forever protected from outrageous deceptions perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by evil, lying liars who lie.
Because, you know, we're gullible like that.
Posted by Cassandra at September 29, 2008 08:27 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The *initial* contingent landed in Normandy might have been 326000, but they established the gateway for the much larger force to follow. Considering the "greatness" of the invasion in terms of the initial landings only is like measuring the size of Barbarossa according to the number of men who crossed the frontier in the first 20 minutes...it's equally arbitrary.
I was a subscriber to the WP for many years, but no longer. Evidently, they value the propagation of their political view much more highly than their responsibilities to either readers or shareholders.
Posted by: david foster at September 29, 2008 12:00 PM
Can you imagine the frothing of the Left if McCain had called the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union the "greatest invasion in history". But the WaPo can break Godwins Law without blinking an eye.
Posted by: Georg Felis at September 29, 2008 02:59 PM
Ah, but you see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! :p
Posted by: Cass at September 29, 2008 03:05 PM
Schadenfreude, it's what's for dinner.
And from what I've heard, it tastes remarkably like crow.
Posted by: Purple Something or Other at October 1, 2008 07:03 AM
Ah, but you see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
I've always figured that beauty was in the eye of the beerholder.
Posted by: BillT at October 1, 2008 09:04 AM
Nice one, Purple.
Actually, both of you.:p
Posted by: Cass at October 1, 2008 09:42 AM
Purple is schizophrenic?
Posted by: BillT at October 1, 2008 10:29 AM
Like, Totally, Man.
Posted by: Snarkammando at October 1, 2008 10:54 AM
Not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder, so is truth, because beauty and truth are art.
Posted by: Cricket at October 1, 2008 02:59 PM
In other words, in vinam, veritas.
Further reinforcing my position.
Posted by: BillT at October 1, 2008 03:11 PM