Ah, so you’re arguing from the absence of evidence. Neat trick, that. Seems to me that you’re the one insisting that you know what was going on in McKeown’s head. “If he’d meant his statements to be qualified, he would have qualified them,” you say. Why? Why would he have done so if he thought the context made the implied qualification clear? More to the point, why are you insisting that you know what was going on in McKeown’s head and then turning around and complaining that we’re leaping to conclusions about what McKeown was thinking? Do you think that Larry Mudd’s imaginary version of Bill Moyers was “categorically denying” that humans can fly? Do you think that the context there doesn’t make an implicit qualification obvious? Are you completely incapable of apprehending contextual elements of meaning?
I’m sorry, Larry. What is your question exactly? Are you asking me whether I agree with one of those statements?
This is a bit much. Why should we believe you when you say that he was making a game out of it, when it appears to most of us that they weren’t talking past each other, that the issue at hand was battalions from beginning to end? That seems to me to be the simpler, better answer.
There are a bazillion possibilities as to what he was thinking. I have no idea what was in his head. That is why I am depending on what he said. Six times. Seven, including the afterview. I don’t know how he could be both Canada’s premier journalist AND a man who leaves the viewer to figure out what he might be implying. Coherence is an important component of good journalism.
Simpler is not always better. Ockham did not advocate simplicity for its own sake, but rather discouraged unnecessary entities. We cannot logically treat McKeown the same way we would treat Geraldo. He was the head knocker, in charge of all content and production, including editing and post-mortem commentary. He had a vast knowledge of the issue at hand. There is no conceivable reason for him to evade a simple matter of fact (which is even archived at CBC) given the complete lack of obstacles, other than that it was intentional.
This is patently false. A whole horde of us have looked at this exchange and seen a back and forth revolving around exactly one issue. Ann brought it up, he refuted. It cycled many times, but it was still the same issue. He had every conceivable reason not to elaborate on anything else, because that’s not what Ann was talking about.
You’re the one who’s claimed that it’s a game, based on his experience and background, but you haven’t provided any more evidence to your argument. Whatever his likelihood of knowing about the peacekeeping forces, why would he bring them up when the discussion is battalions? Your assessment of playing a game is, to me, unnecessarily complicated.
I don’t know at what point he became our premier journalist, but I think the vast majority of viewers had no trouble whatsoever figuring out what he was implying, especially since he wasn’t implying anything; he was stating that Coulter was wrong about her notion that Canada had supported the U.S. in Vietnam (and that she thought this was indicative that Canada’s loyalty and friendship had diminshed in recent years because we were not doing the same in Iraq).
You’re hardly in a position to be challenging the coherence of others. By the standards you claim to want, all televised journalism would be ten minutes of reporting and fifty minutes of explanation, clarification, and qualification, lest a viewer be unable to grasp the obvious or determined to find a hairsplitting reason to discard the report in toto.
Well, Lib, it’s plain that it’s the exact same argument, with a simple substitution of entities.
I suppose that if you do believe that the American government supported the gassing of Kurds, then the point might be somewhat obscure, and I might see how you might also believe that the Canadian government supported the United States’ war in Vietnam.
Aaarrgh. It’s not an evasion – it’s totally unrelated. Coulter made her meaning as clear as possible, by inviting comparison and (apparent) contrast to Gulf War II, and our reasons for keeping out of it: “…was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?” Canada has already declared a willingness to take part in reconstruction efforts – so there’s no contrast between Vietnam and Gulf War II in that regard, ergo that’s not what she’s talking about, and only an idiot would waste breath on dragging post-war peacekeeping missions into it, since that’s clearly not the topic.
The peacekeepers Canada deployed after the war aren’t exactly a secret. If they were germane to the issue at all, you can bet that Ms. Coulter and like-minded pundits would be trotting them out as a ready defense. Do you know why there has been no-one (not even Coulter) declaring on Fox News that McKeown was wrong in his assertion by pointing out the peacekeepers? The answer’s quite simple, really. They’re conscious that it’s irrelevant, and making such a ridiculous argument would make them look completely irrational and stupid. And this is Fox News, we’re talking about here, guy.
Suffering Christ.
So you concede that you’re incapable of adducing any information from context. Well, that explains quite a number of things, actually.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Actually, I accept your point that the ideal case would be if McKeown in his voiceover (or during the interview) said:
“For the record, Canada didn’t send any combat troops to Vietnam though it did send peacekeeping troops, which is not what Ann Coulter was talking about”.
Since he omitted the last part, it does look like he was keen on taking the intellectual high ground… with all that said, I also can see why peacekeeping troops are irrelevant insofar as he wanted to dispute Ann Coulter’s claim. Within that context which is the world most of us seem to be living in, Coulter was wrong and McKeown was right. End of story. OTOH, you are looking for journalistic perfection as defined in your world.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, even in a hijack, check out how Oscillococcinum was discovered and is made. Sorry, I do realize that this thread has already been hijacked a-go-go, but before you blow big bucks on sugar pills you should know what you’re getting.
Thanks, but I’m mostly better. Over the counter for the fever and under the covers for the rest. Hot cranberry juice mixed with honey for the throat and I’ll be back to the opera in no time…well, soon as I find my half face mask and get that restraining order lifted. Just hope they haven’t moved my sewer pipe organ. 
Now I understand your point but still have a problem seeing why this needs such a long argument. If it’s clear that Ann meant combat troops, then it should also be clear that the reporter meant combat troops as he was refuting her point.
He could and possibly should have been more clear, but you’re assigning more to the situation than is warranted.
I think people have missed this from Muffin. I’ve been trying to find some links since page three of this thread.
Some supporting info regarding Iraq in any case:
I’m sure during the time period in question that there were soldiers on exchange with the US military. Did any of them serve with the US in Vietnam like there are serving now in Iraq?
Although if there was it doesn’t mean that Canada was a full participant in the action, but I think there is some form of tacit approval if you let your soldier go to war even if they are seconded to that ally and not completely under your control at the moment*. Otherwise, you’d recall them home.
*I assume you only exchange soldiers with allies and not potential enemies here, but given Canada’s support of people like Castro (and Trudeau 
) I feel we don’t always know the difference between enemies and allies and how to choose them at times.
Possibly so, but all I’ve said from the beginning is that, in my opinion, both were wrong. That really isn’t assigning much at all.
That might be a good point, if you were telling the truth. But you aren’t, so it isn’t.
From our then Prime Minister when being questioned on the matter in our House of Commons as reported in The Hansard which is the official record of our House of Commons (at 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, edited Hansard, Number 083, Wednesday, April 2, 2003, Time 14:25): Debates (Hansard) No. 83 - April 2, 2003 (37-2) - House of Commons of Canada
My point being that Canada has not supported the USA in Iraq II by sending troops. That is our government’s position, and that is common knowledge. Yet it is also a fact that a handful of our troops did indeed end up there, side by side with the Americans.
This illustrates that context is everything, and that arguing trivial points out of context reduces the argument to absurdity.
In the CBC interview, the pundit put forth that Canada fought in the US-Vietnam as an ally of the USA, as it had in WWII and Korea, and that Canada has not fought in Iraq II as an ally of the USA. The journalist pointed out that Canada “sat out” Vietnam.
Any discussion of what sending troops to Vietnam means in this conversation must be placed in this context. Arguing that Canada sent troops to fight as an ally alongside of Americans in the US-Vietnam war based on Canada having sent some peace-keepers prior to and at the conclusion of the US-Vietnam war is rediculous, just as it would be equally rediculous to argue that Canada has sent troops to fight along side of Americans as allies in Iraq II based on Canada having had a handful of toops on exchange with the USA who landed up in Iraq at the outset of that war.
Within the context of Canada having sat out the US-Vietnam war, and presently sitting out Iraq II, arguing that Canada sent troops to Vietnam is truly ignorant, just as it would be truly ignorant if one were to argue that Canada has sent troops to Iraq II. This message board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not spreading it.
For the record, the second contingent of Canadian peacekeepers was not sent to Vietnam at war’s end, but during the war, when a ceasefire was called. They went in January, 1973 and left in July. During the time they were there, one Canadian soldier, Captain Charles Laviolette of the 12e Regiment blindé du Canada, was killed in a chopper crash. Two others, Captain Ian Patten and Captain Fletcher Thomson of The Royal Canadian Regiment, were kidnapped by the Viet Cong, and held prisoner for 17 days. The war did not end until April, 1975.
I agree that this may be splitting hairs, nor do I agree that Ann Coulter was correct because of the context of her conversation, but it is not ignorant to say that soldiers being paid by Canada are under Canada’s control where ever they serve.
What if Canada had an exchange program with Iraq at the same time this war is occurring? It would have seen Canadians fighting each other both in the employ of the Canadian government and that wouldn’t have been allowed to stand no matter what contract was signed. We most certainly would have pulled those exchange soldiers out of Iraq and probably from the US in the interest of fairness. Yet, we allow them to continue to serve in the US army during an invasion we say we don’t support. If the US ended up using their troops in a way that is completely detrimental to Canada would we not pull our soldiers home? Of course we would. So, I say there has to be some tacit approval of the operation in Iraq because we have not pulled those troops out.
Let me go over it in a different way: Say one of those soldiers gets killed. How do you explain that to the family of that soldier? Can you see explaining that we don’t approve of the war, but just not enough to stop your husband from getting his head blown off by calling him home because of some minor agreement? I can’t.
Because this is a minor agreement. It should be relatively easy to say that we don’t want our soldiers going to Iraq. Send them to Afghanistan or somewhere else, but not there. That shouldn’t be a hard request to make, or one that jeopardizes relationships. Not doing so certainly does make it seem very hypocritical as the Bloq MP was trying to argue.
Gaah. I can’t believe this has gone on this long.
I’d rather eat tinfoil than defend Ann Coulter on anything, but the OP seriously oversells the excerpt. I was expecting a comprehensive refutation of several major assertions. If catching her out on one small, stupid remark constitutes “owning” her, then she comes very cheaply indeed.
Get back to me when a journalist (Al Franken doesn’t count) seriously calls her out on her pervasive idiotic pronouncements. And raise your standards, people.