Ann Coulter & Vietnam
Wednesday February 9, 2005
Sometimes it seems as though one of the primary tactics of the Right is to rely on the ignorance of the masses - tell lies and falsehoods and assume that they won't be exposed or, if they are, few will learn about it. Ann Coulter is a good example of someone who sounds off utter nonsense on a regular basis without being called on it. At least, she was - then she went to Canada where they still know how to do real journalism.
AK quotes part of an exchange between Ann Coulter and CBC news host Bob McKeown:
Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter: "I don't think that's right."
McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."
McKeown: "No."
Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."
McKeown tags out in script:
"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."
When was the last time you saw someone like Ann Coulter subjected to critical questioning like that in America? It's embarrassing that we need Canadians to do serious journalism on Americans like this. Then again, perhaps Coulter had no idea that McKeown was a serious journalist and, not knowing what the experience is like, showed up completely unprepared. It would be smart of her to avoid interviews with people like that in America — too many of her potential public would be exposed to what she is really like.
Read More:
Comments
While it’s true Canada did not send any Canadian armed forces to Vietnam, something like 50,000 Canadians voluntarily joined the U.S. military during the time of the Vietnam War and many served in Vietnam. Not the same thing, but I appreciate their contribution nonetheless.
Canada in fact sent troops to Vietnam in 1973. This is an easily verifiable fact. Coulter was 100%, irrefutably right. I will keep checking your site for the correction.
Then it should have been easy for you to provide a reference and evidence.
Actually, SHE WAS RIGHT! Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. Certainly not at the scale that the U.S. did, but they did send troops in 1973. It was called “Operation Gallant”. They contributed 240 Canadian forces. In addition 10-40 thousand Canadians served voluntarily side by side with Americans. It is difficult to determine how many because some actually wore American uniforms, which further credits what Ms. Coulter was saying, Canada was our friend.
There is a memorial to their soldiers who served in Vietnam named The North Wall at Assumption Park in Windsor, Ontario. Is that enough reference for you?
Then it should have been easy for you to provide a reference and evidence.
You write an article bashing Coulter for her alleged mistake and fail to do a simple Google search to confirm it *even after someone points you to your error?
Here is a reference for you, from the Veterans Affairs Canada site:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn
Your article would have felt a lot more serious if it had addressed this fact even if to dismiss it, plus the circa 30,000 Canadians who volunteered to fight under the US military.
It’s not my job to do the research necessary to prove someone else right or wrong. That’s the job of the person making the claim.
Thank you for helping prove Coulter wrong. If you go back and re-read the context, you’ll find that the conversation is about sending combat troops to assist America: World War II, Korea, and Iraq.
Canada sent a couple of hundred civilians and members of the military to monitor a cease fire. This clearly isn’t what Ann Coulter was talking about because Coulter was trying to get Canada to commit ground troops in Iraq in the same way Britain was. Coulter wasn’t looking for a couple of hundred UN peacekeepers.
Or to put it another way, Canada did not send troops to Vietname, to take part in the war America was conducting. That’s what Coulter was saying, not the more literal “Canda sent members of its military over the Veitnamese border.” By that literalist standard, should you choose to adopt it, then Coulter would have been “correct” had Canada send troops to fight on the side of North Vietnam — but somehow, I doubt you’d agree in such a context.
Coulter is not arguing about the Canadian government specifically either. She is arguing about Canada in general. And Canada in general added to the Vietnam war 30,000 troops for America, while all Canada seems to do now is to bitch about Iraq.
I disagree with her though, when she apparently (I didn’t see the whole interview) ignores the fact that Canada is fighting side by side with America in Afghanistan. I know of Canadians who think that’s a product of the conservative government and is inviting terrorism wrong, like in the 2006 Toronto Terrorism affair in which 12 people described as being indistinguishable from the general population (all of them Muslims) plotted to wreck havoc in Canada.
Coulter was right. This website stinks of poor journalism. Her point was clearly that Canada was a friend of the US moreso than it is now. The 30,000 Canadians who volunteered to fight in Vietnam is proof of that. You claim the poster above is arguing semantics, when that’s what you’re doing by ignoring the Canadians who fought. I don’t care how old this story is, your poor journalism still smells.
How is it “poor journalism” to point out the truth that both you and Coulter are wrong?
So, if one’s “point” is correct, even if made through falsehoods, that’s OK? That’s the opposite of “poor journalism”?
Not at all. It’s not “semantics” to point out the extreme difference between “sending troops” and people volunteering to go on their own, or “sending troops” to deal with a threat and sending people to monitor a cease fire.
“Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends, and vice versa.”
That was her main statement. It was and is correct. The statement of Canada sending troops was only mentioned in support of that statement. Her phrasing was poor, which is excusable in an interview where things can move quickly. She should have used the words “Canadians went to Vietnam is support of the US in a way they don’t now”. Then, people like you couldn’t argue the semantics. The point is, Canadians went to vietnam in support of an ally. They went and they died. You shouldn’t be so quick to disregard that fact just to try to prove someone wrong whom you dislike. That is poor journalism.
“Not at all. It’s not “semantics” to point out the extreme difference between “sending troops” and people volunteering to go on their own, or “sending troops” to deal with a threat and sending people to monitor a cease fire. ”
Absolutely it is.
Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, phrase or sentence.
You’re arguing over what she meant. Since her main thrust was that Canada used to be a more loyal friend than it is now, the fact that Canadians fought and died in vietnam should be enough to support that. Your argument is on her wording, that “technically” Canada didn’t send troops, even though Canadians were there in a capacity as “loyal friends” just like she claimed. Nothing I can say will make you get it apparently. You’re bound by your dislike of the woman so you clearly won’t try to understand what she was saying, instead deciding to dissect each word to prove her wrong. Again, that’s poor journalism.
Her statement here was in reference to the Canadian government, not individual Canadians. The context was the failure of Canada (the Canadian government) to send troops to Iraq, not the failure of individual Canadians to volunteer to go to Iraq. Read the end of the above passage again: “for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.” That was a true statement which contrasts with Coulter’s false statement.
So, given the context of her comments, her phrasing was not poor. Instead, it was simply a falsehood.
The only one guilty of arguing “semantics” are those trying to argue that she meant something other than what context dictates. I’m just pointing out that the meaning is plain from the context.
The fact that individual Canadians volunteered to go to Vietnam on their own isn’t relevant to the topic: namely Ann Coulter’s tenuous relationship with facts and reality. She made a false claim to someone who knew far more than she did and, rather than later admit the truth, she moved on without looking back.
If I am guilty of “poor journalism,” then so is Bob McKeown who caught Ann Coulter in her error. I’d rather be associated with the “poor journalism” of non-American reporters who dare to ask critical questions and keep pushing when they don’t get answers than with right-wing hacks like Ann Coulter who make a living on falsehoods or pseudo-journalistic sycophants in the American media who don’t know a critical, probing question from a hole in the ground.
And, frankly, I think that’s why Coulter’s supporters are so annoyed here with McKeown. He caught Coulter in a blatant error and wouldn’t let her get away with it. It’s something no American “journalist” has ever taken the time or trouble to do.
I can understand why you hate Ann Coulter. She’s rude and sensationalist and creates controversy to get publicity and sell more books. But you shouldn’t let that subvert rational thought.
Her point was not whether the troops were government sanctioned. Her point was that a level of kinship existed between Canada and the US that has weakened. She said as much. But you’re so hung up on her choice of words and your hatred of her person that you can’t see it.
The next time you want to argue that Canada didn’t send troops to Vietnam, I suggest you visit the following link.
http://www.glanmore.org/cdncas/memorialair.html
Read the names. Then tell the families of these men and women that Canada sent no troops. You’ll understand what semantics means then. Canada DID send troops. Canada the nation supported the US effort in Vietnam. Canada the nation gave the lives of many of its sons for a cause. It’s as simple as that. A real journalist would be able to see that. Those men weren’t “just men”. They were Canadians.
anyone who claims coulter is right is a liar. Her claim that Canada sent troops to Vietnam was ment to say that the govt. sent troops to fight for America, clearly understood through her saying they were allies. Canadians choosing to go to America and fight does not constitute Canada sending troops. Canada sending troops to Vietnam in 1973 as a peacekeeping force as A U.N. nation in no way supports her point in the context she was talking about Canada did not send troops. Using Wikipedia as your sole source proves nothing.
Sounds like you’re trying to excuse a falsehood by arguing that there was some larger “point” that was “true.” That’s shoddy and disingenuous.
Once again, you’re relying on an emotional appeal over the deaths of Canadians who personally chose to go to Vietnam to avoid the fact that Canada sent no troops to fight in Vietnam.
Men fought. Men died. Men from Canada. Anything else is arguing semantics. Period. You guys are just sad that you hate someone so much you’re willing to deny men and women their sacrifice just to prove someone wrong. Really sad.
It’s more than “semantics” when the specific statement made by Coulter was false. She didn’t merely claim that Canadians went to Vietnam and she didn’t merely claim that Canadians died in Vietnam. Ergo, the question is not about whether or not any Canadians died in Vietnam.
Do note that I haven’t denied that Canadians died in Vietnam, but you refuse to admit that Bob McKeown was correct.
Once again, no one has denied that any Canadians died in Vietnam. Implying otherwise is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. Moreover, I object to their deaths being used to distract attention away from Ann Coulter’s false statement. It’s an insult to their deaths.
Yes, Canadians volunteered to go to Vietnam on their own and some died there.
No, Canada did not send an troops to fight in Vietnam alongside America as it did in Korea and World War II. What Ann Coulter said was false. At first this false statement might merely have been dismissed as a mistake or one more example of her deep historical ignorance, but her failure to admit it later is evidence of her overall dishonesty. Far worse is how her sycophants come along and try to make up excuses for her failings and use every means imaginable to distract us from the simple fact that what Coulter said was wrong. Serious adults would acknowledge her error and move on.
I have reached a similar assessment.
Just to clarify, the Canadian “government” did “not” send troops to serve _in_ the Vietnam War as Coulter stated. What Ms. Coulter tried to state ws that the Canadian Government sent Canadian Forces to the Ashau, to Khe Sanh, etc. Which Is in no way the case.
Canada sent troops, as people have mentioned, to supervise the ceasefire, but this not, as Coulter tried to bamboozle in, the same as serving “in” the Vietnam War - Not at all.
Personally, given the risks that Canadians who crossed the border and volunteered to service with United Forces (including possible treason charges for serving in a foreign army in a War that Canada was not involved with, is an insult to those who came home and certainly an insult to those Canadians who made the Ultimate Sacrifice while serving in United States Forces during the Vietnam War.
Coulter’s statement also completely mispresents Orders of Battle and Honors for Canadian Forces.
I’d also like to point out that this continued misrepresentation by Coulter (and those who carry it on) is just.. well, right now Canadians and US Forces (and others, but in terms of this issue) are fighting as allies is the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. This is a Remembrance page for Canadians who have made the ultimate sacrifice in that theatre and support areas.
http://www.glanmore.org/CdaRemembrance.html
None of the Orders of Battles for the Princess Patricia’s the Regiments, reflect any service “in” the Vietnam War. And this continued misrepresentation by Coulter and afficionados, misrepresents them too. Which is appalling to me.
And all of this because Ann(e) Coulter does not, apparently, have the content of character to admit she was completely off-base in that CBC Interview.
No, I have no respect for Ann Coulter at “all”. She’s a troll who doesn’t care anything about the truth of service.
Jmo.
interesting debates going on, what most people have stated are all true, it just seems that everyone keeps taking things out of context to defend themselves..whats sad, only because i hate anne coulter, is that she is technically correct when saying canada sent troops to vietnam, but you can tell in her context she used the example as to say canadians sent tens of thousands to help aid america. perhaps she just assumed the thousands of volunteers were sent by canadian gov. either way canada sent troops to vietnam..now,”Canada did not send an troops to fight in Vietnam” as austin says, which is true, but ann did not say this..she merely siad canda sent troops to vietnam.