Wash. Post's Dobbs criticized Clinton for citing "somewhat misleading" 1996 Post report that the Post has yet to correct
SUMMARY: In his "Fact Checker" column, The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for "cit[ing]" a Post article about her 1996 trip to Bosnia -- an article Dobbs described as "somewhat misleading." However, the Post has yet to correct the article that the Clinton campaign has cited.
In his March 27 "Fact Checker" column for The Washington Post, staff writer Michael Dobbs faulted Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for "cit[ing]" a March 26, 1996, Post article to "bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a 'war zone' by a first lady since World War II." Dobbs' reason: The article's "factoids ... offer a somewhat misleading picture." In other words, Dobbs faulted Clinton for relying on an article in his own newspaper, which the Post has yet to correct.
Dobbs wrote: "The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post, to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a 'war zone' by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began." The 1996 Post article had reported that Clinton's trip to Bosnia was "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." Referring to that article in particular, Dobbs wrote: "Just because something has appeared in a newspaper does not mean that is entirely accurate." He added, "How these factoids got into the Post story is unclear, but they offer a somewhat misleading picture of the relative risks being run by the three first ladies [Clinton, Barbara Bush, and Pat Nixon]."
Dobbs concluded, "[I]t is worth correcting the record about Pat Nixon's visit to Vietnam in July 1969." The online Washington Post archive and the LexisNexis database show no correction appended to the March 26, 1996, Post article.
From the March 27, 2008, edition of the Post:
The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post, to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began.
THE FACTS
Just because something has appeared in a newspaper does not mean that is entirely accurate. The Clinton camp has circulated a March 26, 1996, quote from a Post article describing Clinton's Bosnia trip as "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." The article went on to say that "other first ladies have visited troops abroad but never in front-line positions," citing the examples of Bush and Nixon.
How these factoids got into the Post story is unclear, but they offer a somewhat misleading picture of the relative risks being run by the three first ladies. By almost any measure, the Nixon trip to Saigon in July 1969 should surely count as the most dangerous of the three visits. Unlike Bosnia in March 1996 and Saudi Arabia in November 1990, South Vietnam was an actual, not "potential," war zone in the aftermath of the 1968 Tet offensive, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gene Boyer, the Nixons' chief helicopter pilot.
[...]
There would seem little more to debunk about Clinton's adventures in Bosnia. But it is worth correcting the record about Pat Nixon's visit to Vietnam in July 1969.
McCain didn't criticize France. He smeared their nation by comparing them to an aging actress who tries to claim privileges she is no longer entitled to. It's a smear that demonstrates a lack of respect to say that France didn't have the right as a sovereign nation to disagree with us. Turns out they were 100% right too.
It's all about respect. John McCain is saying that there should be respect between nations like France and the USA, but he failed to demonstrate that same respect when he smeared them.
Hey you guys...
Stick to the Article...!
The Post is being disingenuous-- first of all, "Saigon" was not a war zone in 1969. Nor was Saudi America in the 80's.--
So Clinton is right-- and the Post's not corrected-correction-- is erroneous.
But you have no idea what you're talking about if you're saying that Saigon was not a war zone throughout the war. It was safer than some places, but don't minimize Vietnam to build up Mrs. Clinton.
Saigon was most definitely a war zone throughout the war.
Are you seeing more unnecessary hyperbole here as well? If the conservative misinformation is so obvious, one needn't jack up the vocabulary by using words that make the situation look worse. Just sayin'......
Uncritically speaking, there is no such thing as constructive criticism against a fellow liberal Democrat, it's always labeled a smear......and that ain't no smear.
After your illogical tirade about Al Gore's implications yesterday, I no longer care who started the snarkiness or not.
I'm sorry you took my opinion on Al Gore's internet creation comment so personally.
And we're ALL sorry that you constantly refuse to acknowledge your ignorance.
Another example of raising the level of discourse. Where's Brab when you need him?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could find some real journalists to do some real reporting on real stories? If each network or newspaper just fired one overpaid pundit, they could each probably hire half a dozen investigative reporters.
News outlets reporting the news.... what a novel concept!
Apparently there were numerous sources cited by the Clintons, of which the Washington Post was one. MMFA doesn't name the other sources or whether or not those sources corrected themselves.
"The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post..."
MMFA doesn't dispute the word "accounts" in the above statement.
Nevertheless, I think the Washington Post should issue a correction immediately.
"In the 60's and 70's, Saigon was bustling with commerce and business. It was the cultural center and the capital city of South Vietnam. Already heavily influenced by the French in terms of culture and style, the city had an air of a French provincial town with a Vietnamese twist. Saigon was dubbed the "Pearl of the Orient" by the foreign press. The city was alive with activities and cultural diversity that rivaled any Asian city at the time."
http://www.vietscape.com/travel/saigon/saigon.html
It wasn't until the mid-70s, long after Pat Nixon's trip, that Saigon was attacked and fell to the North Vietnamese.
Saigon circa 1969 was a picnic compared to Bosnia or even Baghdad outside the green zone today.
You're right that Saigon didn't fall until later, but you could have been killed on any given day in any given city or town in The Republic of Vietnam.
But much more dangerous than Bosnia based on the word of Pat Nixon's helicopter pilot?
I wish Dobbs would have left the comparison alone.
It seems rather ironic that Mrs. Clinton, who is rumored to have some role in the creation of this website which monitors gaffes and mistakes put forth in the media, would rely on that same media for accurate information, especially regarding her overseas trips as First Lady......and then turn around and point fingers at them to explain why she said what she said.
Tsk, tsk, better spend more time here Mrs. Clinton, you will see just how unreliable that pesky media is.
;)
"(G)affes and mistakes" or flagrant disregard for facts and overriding desire to support false arguments...you make the call! :)
Sen. Clinton's "mistake", "misspeak", "lie"...whatever you want to call it...we know about it now, we know about it thanks to some fine investigative work (like, you know, actually LOOKING for video), and I sure hope that everyone has factored that it to their ginormous scales of political justice.
For my part, I think this very article is the Post's correction to the 1996 story they ran. It works for me.
But come on...I see MMfA as helping me to sift through the chaff to find the very few grains of truthiness...this site helps me determine who is actually WORKING to BS citizens regarding candidates. It isn't a "gaffe or mistake" in my mind when multiple media outlets parrot a talking point without any effort to provide context or backup or facts or proof (see "maverick", "straight-talk", "mommy & daddy" et al ad nauseum).
Sorry, I'm all about context today! :)
Tommy, you make no sense. You say that you can't understand how Clinton relies on the Washington Post, which to you is "the same media" as Media Matters for America?
I don't get it. Explain your reasoning.
What MMFA ignores is that this particular lie originated with the White House. Looks like she just wanted an excuse to compare herself to Eleanor Roosevelt.
USA Today (3/26/96), emphasis added
"The White House said no first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.
"The first lady was clearly proud of that distinction. 'I wanted to (visit) so that maybe people back home would see it, not through the eyes of a secretary of the Army or somebody in a position of the military, but like Eleanor Roosevelt, who has always done everything first,' she said. 'To visit our troops and to say 'Thank you.''"