WSJ's Fund falsely claimed there are "about 16,000" U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, challenged Mark Green to "[l]ook it up"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Hardball, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund falsely asserted that the United States has maintained "the same number of troops" in Saudi Arabia "that we had five years ago, about 16,000." In fact, the State Department reported that the United States withdrew its troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and a July report by the Congressional Research Service stated that about 300 U.S. military personnel remain there. Moreover, five years ago, there were reportedly about 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.
On the August 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund falsely asserted that the United States denied Al Qaeda a "signal victory" after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by maintaining "the same number of troops" in Saudi Arabia "that we had five years ago, about 16,000." Fund then challenged Mark Green, a Democratic candidate for New York attorney general who disputed Fund's assertion, to "look it up." In fact, according to the State Department, "[i]n August 2003, following the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March and April 2003, the United States withdrew its troops stationed in Saudi Arabia." And according to a July 11 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), "[a]pproximately 300 U.S. Army and Air Force training personnel remained" in Saudi Arabia as of May 2006.
Even Fund's claim that the United States had 16,000 troops in Saudi Arabia "five years ago" is well off the mark, according to news reports. A September 30, 2001, report by CBS News stated that the United States had 4,500 troops in Saudi Arabia, and, according to a January 20, 2002, report by CNN.com, "[n]early 5,000 U.S. forces are stationed in Saudi Arabia, a presence that dates back more than a decade to the Persian Gulf War."
From the August 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
FUND: We have, from the interrogations of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants, their belief that we had pulled out of Beirut, we had pulled out of Somalia, we had not acted to really get Osama after the Tanzania and the Kenyan embassies, and the USS Cole, we never went after them after that, either.
So they presumed that maybe, if we had a cataclysmic terrorist attack, we might just pull our horns out of the Middle East. And that was ultimately -- or Saudi Arabia, at least. Getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia would have been a signal victory for them. I don't think they anticipated the extent of the attack because our previous responses were so weak.
GREEN: We are out of Saudi Arabia.
FUND: No, we have troops there.
GREEN: We have largely pulled out the way bin Laden wanted, and I don't disagree with that.
FUND: We have the same -- we have almost the same number of troops there that we had five years ago, about 16,000. Look it up.
GREEN: All right, I'll defer to you on that. I think it's less, John. But in any event, I don't know why they attacked. And it may have been just to show it to America that he was powerful. And since then, bin Laden has -- that bin Laden is more popular than the American president in Muslim and some non-Muslim countries is only one indication of the immense cost to our goodwill. [Defemse Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld himself says, ultimately, it's a battle for hearts and minds. The military may be able to defeat a fixed state. It can't defeat a guerrilla movement.
It never ceases to amaze me that guys like "Elmer Fund" can endlessly spout their lies, inaccuracies and just plain BS without being challenged. This is the secret of right-wing punditry--say it loud and act arrogant. Green should have had a better grasp of the facts and shut him up. But that's the difference between the two parties, Democrats, in general, are reluctant to just shout statements without checking, so they are perceived as "wishy-washy."
Great googly-moogly!
With his grasp of numerical facts, I hope Fund isn't responsible for managing anybody's life savings.
I love this place more each day
This would be stupid rather than funny if Fund didn't work for WSJ. Perhaps Fund would be so kind as to disclose his sources for this 16,000 number.
Let's not forget that Fund was the ghostwriter for at least one of Limbaugh's books, which are similarly noted for their scrupulous honesty (wink, wink).
I saw this segment live. The democrat on the show kind of cowered and said "I'll defer to you on that". I immediately wondered whether those numbers were accurate. Like the prior post, something about how Fund said it loud and arrogant reminded of how other cons signal when they are lying or distorting: they talk loud.
If they're lying, they simply talk.
But the point is taken, by all those who commented on the Neocon speakers: They say something loud, or even outrageous (Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate.) and it's accepted as fact.
That's the depth of critical thought today. Blame that on the media who're spending all day whining about Jonbenet...
I saw this live and thought that very large number quite odd, even suspect. Thanks for clearing that up.
Another lie and the "representative Democrat" caves in. Why did Green cave so freakin' early. He should have said "Okay John, let's do that. Mr. Host, can we borrow internet access for the moment." The Democrats just love to get the sssss kicked out of them without a whimper. We are losing the propaganda war. WAKE UP!!! The right wing controls everything because they're prepared, as was said, to shout down their opponents if all else fails. And now, another opportunity to prove a right winger is lieing is completely lost. ugh I can't take it.
The GOP myth makers know that the Bush backer's don't read, watch, or listen to anything that isn't Party line. They can get way with murder, and have in Iraq, and elsewhere.
Rightwingers engage in "truthiness." They state "FACTS" as they WISH them to be true, and they become the TRUTH in their universe.
The truthiness of Fund is as real to him as the notion that America's economy has never been better, and we're just about to turn the corner and "WIN" in Iraq.
"Truthiness" cannot be a LIE, because Fund believes what he says. So, as a REPORTER, he can state his truthiness as FACT, and arrogantly challenge people who claim contradicting facts which are actually true.
This way, the PUBLIC can be "informed" by his position of "pundit" and "expert" into believing things that are absolute fantasy. This is the genius of the rightwing; fooling the gullible and stupid enough to maintain a 30% favorable rating for their president.
Now I know why this idiot lost the Mayoral race in NYC, he cant even fight this moron Fund.
All the Cons have a severe case of Tourettes' Syndrome-can't seem to control the plagues that fly out of their mouths. As their power wanes, they go crazy, like HAL 9000 singing 'Bicycle Built For Two'.
I'm not saying I've never caught the lefty in a "misstatement", but in general, the liberals do tend to be much more cautious about stating facts they're not certain of.
In a world of 2 minute talking head segments and short attention spans and memory cycles, this can hurt a person or group who values their own integrity and credibility.
The right has a pretty large army of spokes-zombies who seem unfazed by being caught in lies on a rgular basis.If it even comes up the next day, after somebody checks the facts,the old "misstatement" or "out of context" seems to clear the slate.
Just look at the Con posters here- they obviously see piles of examples of their heroes lying, but those are all forgotten when that "not so important" misinfo. comes up, and they can say "boy, MMFA is really stretching for this one"
It seems one can do pretty well in the GOP, as long as you say something true once in a while.
MR. WHITE WROTE: "I saw this segment live. The democrat on the show kind of cowered and said "I'll defer to you on that". I immediately wondered whether those numbers were accurate. Like the prior post, something about how Fund said it loud and arrogant reminded of how other cons signal when they are lying or distorting: they talk loud."
I swear, the wingnuts are like children -- they think they're slick, they think they're fooling everyone. WRONG.
Look, we may be frozen out of all power, we may be a loathed minority, we may be losing the propaganda wars, but DAMNED, we've finally got their number.
I apologize if this has already been brought up, but doesn't it seem like stories like this should have a link directly to Fund or to the WSJ? Hardball is of course responsible for letting misinformation go by, but it seems even more appropriate to contact the actual misinformer.
What a surprise. John Fund was loud and wrong again. But, what else could we expect from someone who claimed, on Joe Scarborough's show, that G.W. Bush is actually intelligent? I'm just disappointed that Mr. Green wasn't familiar enough with the facts to assert the truth. Oh well, maybe next time. I hope MM contacted Mr. Green to let him know that he was actually correct and in the future, instead of deferring to a fabricator, he should be more prepared and confident.
I don't fault Green at all. Fund's point was based off of largely dynamic information that would have to be looked up recently.
This is often done in public debates. Usually people will believe you even if you are full of it, if you are loud and arrogant about your "facts".
I don't see how researching would have led Green to know the troop levels in Saudi Arabia. Remember Green is a former mayoral candidate.
Why would Green know this?
You can't just call Fund out because you suspect he is lying. That would make Green look like a moonbat without evidence to back up his charge.
The Department of Defense publishes detailed personnel and casualty statistics at it's Statistical Information Analysis Division website. Here's the link: [link to siadapp.dior.whs.mil]
Military Personnel data is provided at this link: [link to siadapp.dior.whs.mil]
The Military Personnel Data includes quarterly data for Active Duty Military Personnel by Service by Region/ Country.
In the report "ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (309A)" dated 30 Sep 2001 the US reported the following Active Duty military personnel in Saudi Arabia: [link to siadapp.dior.whs.mil] Total: 4,805 Army: 285 Navy: 29 Air Force: 4,444 Marines: 47
This number has dropped as follows: 30 Sep 2001: 4,805 30 Sep 2002: 776 30 Sep 2003: 953 30 Sep 2004: 235 30 Sep 2005: 258 31 Dec 2005: 269
according to the Deibold calculator he was using, his 160 million troops in Saudi Arabia was accurate. How could a Deibold machine be wrong, it wins elections? This guy is a goof and another Republican SISSY who was always the last bow-tied, shorts wearing little boy picked . And guess where they all palyed, you are correct, RIGHT field. Need anyone say more.
You can't expect a Dem spokesperson to have command of every fact that might conceivably come up, but Green said "we are out of Saudi Arabia" so he must have been at least partially acquainted with the numbers. He had to have known that 16000 is too high and should have slammed the idiot.
...and it turned out that Fund was at least somewhat right - say, we had 10,000 troops there now.
If he "slammed" Fund:
- Rush Limbaugh would have replayed it ad nauseum and mocked Green.
- Sean Hannity would have replayed it ad nauseum and mocked Green.
- Bill O'Reilly would have replayed it ad nauseum and mocked Green.
- Ann Coulter would have repeated his "mistake" ad nauseum and mocked Green.
- Tucker Carlson would have replayed it ad nauseum and mocked Green.
- Powerline, Michelle Malkin, LGF, and every other wing-nut blogger would have posted about it for weeks.
And so on...
In fact, Green did ALMOST the right thing - if you don't know a fact, don't say you do.
It might have been better to say: "John, I don't know the exact figures, but I'll check - if you're wrong, you can apologize to me publicly in your column and the next time you're on Hardball."
Or:
"John, where exactly did that statistic come from? Because I want to look it up myself."
But "slamming" Fund on this stat would have been a bad move if Green wasn't sure himself.
And, by the way, that IS an obscure fact - one I wouldn't expect someone even with Green's intelligence to know. Fund framed his argument in a way Green couldn't have anticipated, and it's unreasonable to expect him to be able to counter every fact that Fund might use.
Two other points:
First, look at my list above. Now that Fund's been proven a liar, who will call him on it, besides MMFA, Air America, and some liberal bloggers?
Second, now that Fund's been proven a liar, Chris Matthews should demand an apology, on his show, before Fund can reappear. Think that'll happen?
I think an unspoken part of this story is that Osama Bin Laden demanded US troops be removed from Saudia Arabian soil. In 2003 they are withdrawn. Sounds like Bush listened and removed the troops. He caved. Kind of like sending missles to Iran in the 80s. Republican talk tough. They even act tough when it is comeone else doing the dying. Chickenhawks. Look it up.
We caved to OBL's demand, yet nobody seemed to notice.
I forget what the country's attention was on at the time... maybe the Republicans were sporting their extra-large codpieces?
But but but but Someone put more smoke into a picture!!!
We still have troops in Saudi? Call LGF!
Is there anyone in the media besides Olbermann who can take this kind of propaganda to the mat?
The ISSUE was whether Bush caved in and gave Bin Laden WHAT HE WANTED in regards to our troops in Saudi Arabia.
FUND could not let THAT point be made, that BUSH was an appeaser to terrorism. So he LIED, LOUD, and ARROGANTLY, to get past the moment.
Now that we know the TRUTH, the main issue again can be addressed:
IS Bush an appeaser to terrorism?
The answer -- despite Fund's attempt to distort the record to the public -- is a definite YES! Bush IS an appeaser to terrorism ... gives them exactly what they want.
The facts have got to be wrong, because what should be so, is so, or, in the event that it isn't, something has to be terribly wrong, and nothing at all will make sense anymore, and I can't be responsible for anything so . . .Fund.
Where is Irene Dunne when we truly need a conservative to slap some sense into these silly opinioneers!
Look it up, stupid!!
Of course, all these loud bloviators can say anything they want because they NEVER get challenged by the host- if they are corrected by another guest, the host is always quick to say "we'll all just have to agree to disagree"- it makes no difference if one guest is telling the truth and the other is lying.
Watch Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc. clips from the 1960s and 70s-- guests on those shows would never have dared to spew an outright falsehood, because the REAL journalists who hosted them would have called them out, and then they- and their cause- would have been severely discredited.
Now, they all know that only liberal elite geeks will actually bother to look stuff up. 99% of the viewers believe it because it was said forcefully and loudly.