The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

This is a brilliant idea. Please continue this column. I promise to continue reading it avidly.

This is the best column theme I've seen since the amazing Froomkin plugged in his keyboard

Great stuff!

Get ready for the red (state) hate mongers - you know the truth has a leeebral bias

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe that someone is confusing casualties with deaths. The figures appear to be American deaths in those wars. Casualties include the injured. That said, Thompson is still demonstrably wrong.

While the idea is great, "fact checking" a minor phrase showing pride in what America has done is laughable. How about fact checking some real issues, such as Hillary Care or Ron Pauls's Trutherism? Will this series have the guts to go after Mrs Clinton, and the whoppers she tells? Will it have the guts to be fair and impartial, as FactCheck.org has always been? Time will tell.

You may have trouble defining liberty, but most rational human beings would not consider the Soviets, whom until they broke their alliance with Hitler, were with him, to have been fighting for anyones' liberty. Fighting to preserve one of the most repressive dictatorships in the history of the world from another does not qualify. And bringing up the ancient history is off base as well. Other than in Greece (which was not known for freeing entire contintents of dictators,) the modern concept of liberty, as Fred is referring to, was first introduced around 1776. Ever hear of democracy? Your 'fact checkers' need to study grammer and history. Fred is right on.

Where have you been for the last eight years!! I truly hope this isn't one of those rules are for other people gimmicks with the WaPo. You know, now that the Republicans have run the country into the ground, it is time to talk about their ethics and to make sure the Dems always tell the truth.

upperdeck4 makes a good point, and shows why reader feedback is so valuable. I thought that the context made clear we were talking about dead, not dead and injured, but agree that the word casualties usually includes injured. I have changed the entry to make clear that we are focusing on deaths.

I agree with the comments of William Teach and Liberty Man.The Post always manages to go the anti-American way. You would probably even hold that the United Nations knows something about liberty. Mr. Thompson was using a point to illustrate what he believes sets the United States apart from the rest of the world. It is that we stand for something or at least we have up to now. Whether we maintain that role as we move forward looks questionable. Our ability to preserve that role is certainly not helped by journalists who like to play games while rogue leaders from Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere are given forums like the United Nations to spout their evil venom. How about checking some of their facts?

Mr Liberty Man,

True, in WWII, freeing Russia was not restoring liberty, as Stalin was in control before and after. If you consult a globe, you might find that there are, in fact, other nations in Europe. Some of them (ok, most) were democracies before and after they were invaded by Germany, and of course there is the obvious thought that restoring Germany to democracy should count as well. But feel free to ignore reality some more if it keeps getting in the way of your ideology.

This 'fact checking' seems very small-minded. If you replaced the phrase 'shed more blood' with 'spent more money' then it would be absolutely true - making this worthy of at most one pinnochio (rhetorical flourish). It does smack of simple-minded anti-americanism on the part of the author.

Liberty Man has a point. Not only should the Soviets not even be discussed in the context of liberty, nor should the pre WWII Brits. They fought to preserve their empire. No nation in the history of the world has fought and left freedom and liberty in its wake like the USA. Spreading liberty was not the main purpose of the US entering WWII, but it was the most important result. MacArthur could have been the king of Japan, the Marshall plan might not have been implimented and Eastern Europe could still be behind a wall. Fact checker doesn't get it. It's LIBERTY Fred is talking about, not liberation of one non-free system by another non-free system. After WWI, the US let the Europeans to their own devises, thus bringing about WWII. The US didn't let that happen again, thank God. Instead, they fostered LIBERTY.

Capt. Geo,

I'll try not to ignore reality in the future. How about the reality that immediately after WWII, the Soviets effectively enslaved Poland, East Germany, and numerous other countries. What kind of warped, twisted mind would consider their contriblutions to defeating Hitler fighting for other peoples liberty? The other democracies of Europe showed their colors immediately after WWI. They were not as interested in liberty as in reparations. Take the USA out of the equation in WWII and any way you slice it, there would be no liberty in the aftermath.
Peace out

I give the Washington Post five Pinocchios for its months-long campaign to smear Fred Thompson, 5 more for its demagoguery on the illegal immigration issue, 5 more for its fact-twisting on campaign finance "reform," ......etc., etc.
.

Uh, given Hitler's plans to invade the British Isles, wouldn't they have been fighting for their *own* liberty?

And given that the total world population outside of Asia as of the time of Napoleon was barely 350 million, what possible support do *you* have for the claim that "hundreds of millions" were killed by tyrants prior to that time?

I commend the Post for its efforts to check facts, but this is 1) an absurd fact to check; and 2) a poor job of doing so.

This is a great feature, long overdue.

Liberty was not invented in 1776 -- Athens in 500 B.C. was a democracy -- unless you define "liberty" as breaking free of a colonial power. If that's your definition of "liberty" (throwing off the chains of occupation by a government not your own) then I think it is fair to say that the Soviets fought for liberty -- liberty from Nazi rule. They had no compunction about imposing their own rule once the Nazis were disposed of, but they nevertheless fought with the United States as an ally in World War II. What they did afterwards was horrific -- but this was a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If you're comparing American deaths in foreign wars to foreign deaths in foreign wars, then Thompson is clearly wrong, regardless of whether Soviet deaths are counted, as the authors of this feature show.

There is nothing remotely anti-American about asking for more precision and less froth from people who are running for the highest office in the land. And I look forward to the fact checks on Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McCain, etc., as well.

To quote somebody else, "bring it on."

I like the concept of this column ("It's about time!"), but as William Teach said at 8:20, I'd like to see it concentrate on more substantive comments relating to policy, attacks on other candidates, or things like that. I don't think anyone will argue with Fred Thompson that a huge number of Americans have died fighting to support other countries, regardless of the exact numbers or ratios.

I would also hope that this can be expanded from presidential candidates to current officials. With so much spin being used to attempt to manipulate the public's perception of current events, a prominent, unbiased check on the rhetoric would be a valuable public service.

And who ,pray tell, is going to rate the fact checker?The Truth can be twisted to look like a lie; a lie can be twisted to look like the Truth!

In response to Joseph Dalton, the answer is You, dear reader. All the facts and Pinocchio ratings issued here are subject to reader criticism and challenge. Nothing here is ever the Final Word on the subject.

I love this idea! And I believe that WaPo will be fair to both sides. So, no doubt there will be lots of comments from the "haters"...

Guest Wrote, "Uh, given Hitler's plans to invade the British Isles, wouldn't they have been fighting for their *own* liberty?"

Yeah, but the U.S. entered both World Wars, only after we were attacked, so by that measure we were just defending ourselves as well. And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Nazis would have left Britain well enough alone until after they had dealt with the Soviets (who probably would have beaten them anyway).

I think it's foolish and offensive to suggest that the Post is attacking America or it's contributions to spreading freedom. Thompson's comment was outrageous and arrogant, and is the kind of jingoism that spreads mistrust and resentment of America abroad. Certainly not the kind of statement I want to hear coming from our commander in chief.

And lest we forget, we enjoy our own liberty largely thanks to the willingness of the French come to our aid when we were fighting our own revolution. Remember that the next time you are denigrating them, and renaming your fries.

America's ideals have been invaluable to the world, but I think that there is a lot more that we can do to live up to them. A good start would be to acknowledge that the world isn't black and white.

Including the Soviet Union in this comparison WAS inappropriate - they held back until Hitler attacked them and until then were happy to help Hitler carve up Poland. After winning they sure didn't institute liberty in eastern Europe. The Fact Checker ought not have included them amongst those fighting for other people's liberty.

But Britain, and France, they entered WWII as a treaty obligation to free countries. And they incurred far far more costs in blood and infrastructure and money than the US did when it finally got around, after 2+ years, to supporting those who had been fighting our war for us. If Britain had surrendered, would we in the US have survived? Fighting Germany from forward bases in Iceland? Fighting an Axis that had taken India? Britain was fighting for OUR liberty. We only entered after being attacked ourselves. Our motivation was (mostly) not other peoples' liberty. That was just a gloss to make us feel better about ourselves, rather than admit how our selfish isolationism had kept us out too long.

With respect, your own scale defines two Pinnochios as "Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily..."

That's all Thompson seems to be doing, exaggerating. I would even question whether it really is a significant exaggeration, but significance is highly subjective, I suppose.

And BTW, everyone involved in the world wars were drawn in by their own interests completely unrelated to "spreading liberty", except of course the principal aggressors who no doubt wish to spread to the world their version of "liberty".

While I am not a fan of Thompson, could he have been including Union deaths during the Civil War? Being from Tenessee, that might be unlikely, but that war was in part about fighting for "other people's liberty." Even if not, this is a statement that is open to more than one interpretation, and thus probably only warrants one or two Pinnochios.

James said it all for me.

Fred Thompson's vs. Fact Checker, who is correct? Depends on the meaning of "other people's liberty".
My definition is going to a foreign county, fighting and dying to preserve or enhance their way of life (must make it clear, enhance by US beliefs), then leaving for them to self govern.
Self preservation and Global conquest are not considered shedding blood for other people's freedom.
James wrote "Yeah, but the U.S. entered both World Wars, only after we were attacked, so by that measure we were just defending ourselves as well." The US was an isolationist country during those times. Until provoked, the US would not have gotten involved. World War I actually started in 1914 (US involved 1917) and World War II started in 1939 (US involved 1941).
What is the Fact Checkers definition of "other people's liberty"?

Richard and Rob have driven home the point that Fred's quote is more subject to interpretation than to straight fact chacking. Fred no doubt has the opinion that the US was fighting for other peoples liberty (given that we were attacked by Japan and proceded to deal with Germany first) in WWII and most of the other allies were fighting for their own, as the Nazi threat was more immediate to them. More than likely, Fred also weighs the outcome and aftermath of WWII, and possibly the cold war, heavily in his statement. Certainly there is an element of truth to both sides as to whose liberty the US was fighting for and whose the Brits (who entered the war because Poland was invaded - though the treaty could be seen as ultimately protective of Britain) and the French (when they were fighting - as opposed to surrendering)were fighting for. Britain and France made in clear after WWI that they didn't give a hoot about the liberty of the rest of Europe. Fact Checker Dobbs should stick to facts and leave debatable positions alone. As he brings up the Soviet participation in WWII and the Napoleonic wars, he clearly is not on the same page as Fred when it comes to defining "fighting for other peoples liberty."

Yes, the Soviets used WWII as an opportunity to expands its borders. But lets not forget a foreign war forgotten in the list of wars presented: The Mexican-American War. The Soviets at least had the common decency to establish puppet states and governments rather than annex the eastern bloc outright. And did the Soviets keep, say, Poland under oppressive military rule longer than we did the Philippines?

This is the best you got? Sounds like the WAPO may need a fact checker to check their facts. This is the age old line figures don't lie but liars figure. America has been and I hope will continue to be the nation that stands for liberty and freedom. Russia fought for neither and Britain for the most part prior to WWII fought not for liberty but conquest and the same for every other country. So try running those numbers again mr fact checker and while you are at it try looking at something that is meaningful too. Also keep sticking with the also rans on the dem and do your best to rip on republican front runners so you can help out Hill or Obama.

In looking at what Thompson said and what the Fact Checker says, I tend to give Thompson more slack on this. On the one hand, I don't think we ever went to war solely for altruism; there was always at least a perception (sometimes misguided) of national interest. So for him to suggest that we have shed blood solely for other people is a bit hyperbolic.

On the other hand, we have entered wars when our territory & people weren't directly threatened, and our victories have left nations (both those we allied with and those we conquered) free rather than part of an American empire. So his argument does carry some weight, IMHO.

And I agree with those who took exception to discussing the Soviet Union at all as a freedom-fighting entity. That probably deflated Fact Checker's argument far more than it helped it.

Great addition to washingtonpost.com. Look forward to lots more of this!

Your assessment is so unfair; can't you see that Senator Thompson is merely asserting that American hearts are bigger than the hearts of others? With that premise, it's obvious how less American fatalities can still mean more blood shed.

Yesterday Fred Flintstone said we need to drill for oil in the Florida Everglades and off the shores of our coasts and I agree but Florida voters may not agree.

Well, if you define the terms so that America and only America is fighting for "liberty," the I guess we win every time! Good deal!

But is it impolite to notice that we came out of WW2 with a global empire? Whatever the rhetoric, we were fighting in fact for world domination, as surely as the Romans ever were -- and we got it. The language of liberty and democracy and freedom is used to justify our imperial ambitions. Thompson isn't the only one to go down this road -- but he is a big fat liar nevertheless.

Let's see. Um, liberty.. LIBERTY! The flag waves... blah blah... democracy must rule! USA! Um... Manifest Destiny. Dems and WP eds, traitors! The Lord said unto the GOP... Hey, did I mention LIBERTY?

Still, Fred Thompson is a jingoistic windbag.

What about the hundred thousand innocent people we killed in the Philippines to expand our empire? Or the war we started with Mexico so that we could steal their territory?
For those who think America is always a beacon of god in the world, coming to the rescue to spread liberty should read some history. Last time I checked murdering a couple of hundred thousand innocent men, women and children for land and natural resources isn't very liberating...

What exactly makes a person an "American" or anti-American? Who is defined as a patriot and who gets to define?

"Your 'fact checkers' need to study grammer and history."

Liberty Man, it's hard to believe you would have mastered grammar and history when your spelling leaves so much to be desired.

How nice to see an American recognise the contributions of other nations in WW2.

Most Americans have no idea how offensive their sweeping (and inaccurate) statements about WW2 are to other people.

I strongly disagree with those who think this was a trivial fact to start with.

It's a great example of how a nationalist buffoon like Thompson would accelerate America's alienation from the world.

...not that his supporters would care. They want the world to hate and fear America.

Great idea for a column -- but lets stick to fact checking statements about policy or about other candidates. All campaigns fall back on jingoism every now and then, Thompson's statement, while absurd, really did no one any harm. There are plenty of falsehoods on the campaign trail that mislead voters and sway results, lets take a look at those!

Great idea. Not only because it asks whether particular claims are true, but also because it differentiates between small fictions and major lies. I particularly appreciate that this system can make the distinction between candidates who are fairly honest, vs. candidates who consistently tell "whoppers". It will be interesting to see if patterns emerge among the candidates.

I think it's hilarious that some of the other posters are complaining that the "truth" does not exist. If it's political, everything's relative, right? Believe it or not, in far too many cases, this is not correct.

For me (as a scientist) one of the sorriest things I've seen happen over the past few years is the deliberate misinterpretation of science to further political goals. I think this sort of fact checking could be valuable to try and get past the easy slogans, to what the available evidence does support. If more MSM were to follow WaPo's example, so much the better.

PS, the US didn't declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbour, only on Japan. They said nothing at all about Germany for four days, after which Hitler got bored of waiting and declared war on the US.

That's a historical fact - look it up. The US had even chosen to forgive the torpedoeing of two US destroyers by U-boats in the weeks before Pearl Harbour, including one, the USS Reuben James, that sank with over 100 dead.

Britain, which declared war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941, is entitled to wonder if the Americans were actually hoping to let us fight the Germans alone, while America fought an easier and more profitable war for control of the Pacific.

I've never heard an adequate explanation for America's failure to declare war on Germany.

However imperfectly, the US has been in the vanguard of liberation for as long as it's been around. The USSR was never a liberating power because replacing one dictatorship with another is not a liberation. It's just changing which boot is on your neck. To call the USSR a liberating power in any sense is not only factually wrong, it's obscene.

Similarly, casualties (in any definition you care to use) fighting to preserve and/or expand one's national or multinational empire is not liberation either. That's imperialism and only the most strained of "white man's burden" arguments can make a case that imperialism was liberation. I thought the Washington Post didn't swing that way.

No, Thompson might yet be wrong but this "fact checking" is utterly useless in demonstrating it and is revealing (in all the wrong ways) more for the publication biases in the paper than anything else.

"If you replaced the phrase 'shed more blood' with 'spent more money' then it would be absolutely true - making this worthy of at most one pinnochio (rhetorical flourish). It does smack of simple-minded anti-americanism on the part of the author."
Posted by: | September 19, 2007 09:11 AM

And if you qualified "spent more money" with "spent a larger percentage of its national resources" where would you be? Splitting hairs that way seems small-minded to me.

You can quibble about the Soviets, but then you better also quibble about why the U.S. has *really* been involved in various conflicts as well. The larger point still stands, even if you eliminate the Soviets from the equation: Thompson's claim is wrong and absurd, and shouldn't stand unchallenged.

I also find it bizarre that even something like pointing out Thompson's demostrably faulty claims automatically becomes evidence of "liberal media bias." So, how wrong does a Republican candidate have to be, and how gently does the media have to treat it, to avoid such an accusation?

Read- Marine General Smedley Butler's ( two time winner of the congressional medal of honor and Republican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) assessment of our wars of liberation in his book "War is a Racket" http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
We are more typically in it to LIBERATE other countries of their natural resources on the financial behalf of the captains of our extractive industries. Using fear, it's all sold to us as patriotism because "we can't handle the truth." Or rather they couldn't handle us if we knew the truth. What happened to Republicans like Eisenhower who experienced 2 world wars and that experience wisened him such that in his parting speech warned us to keep a check on the runaway power of the military industrial (media) complex? read Eisenhower's final address to the nation to see the how the future was foretold by someone who could see it coming in January 1961.

Another conveniently forgotten fact in this country: the US did not "enter" the war against Nazi Germany. It only started fighting once Hitler declared war December 11 and started sinking US merchant ships within sight of Manhattan. In fact, until then (and for several days) many Republicans were arguing for focusing on Japan. The country had to be kicked in the nuts (twice) to fight the Germans.

First off, what a fantastic column. Please do not discontinue it after the 2008 presidential contest. So many facts get shaded in American public discourse (thanks to the 24-hour news cycle), and the blogosphere is not a credible venue for vetting the commentary of public figures.
That said, I don't think Thompson's comment is an egregious whopper. Here's why: When you count the 360,000 Union soldiers who died in the US Civil War, in substantial part due to the fight against human slavery, that certainly minimizes the outrageousness of the comment.
We'll see bigger lies from Thompson yet. Keep your powder dry.

thompson is just another conservative that is bought and paid for by the lobby.
WAR means big bucks for his buddies and himself.
SOUNDS LIKE BUSH AND CHENEY doesnt it?
and what really takes the cake is
THIS PARTY CALLS THEMSELVES THE MORAL MAJORITY
WHAT A JOKE!

First, John Toland ("Adolph Hitler") and William Shirer's (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich")approximate that between 26 million and 29 million Soviet Deaths resulted from Hitler's aggression or Drang Nach Osten. These authors indicate that Russian civilians and military deaths were largely the result of Hitler's "War of total annihilation"/invasion.

Second, after Dunkirk and the fortuitous exit from mainland Europe, the British military mindset - like the Russians - was to take steps to defend the homeland/motherland. During the Battle of Britain, Churchill articulated why their finest hour was in defense of the Isle.

So, while Thompson alludes to altruistic assists in far off places where American blood was spilt on foreign soil (its back was not up, against a "wall" like Russia [Stalingrad/Moscow] and England, your "fact- finders" find a way to make Britain and Russia as similarly altruistic and selfless. Wilson and Roosevelt sought isolationism for America...Britain and Russia had no such choice - in fact, with Molotov's treaty, Russia was "pac-ed-up" with the Nazis.

Instead of doing a number of Pinocchios I think you should do a longer and longer nose - it would be much funnier!

I'm someone who would never vote for Frederick of Hollywood, but you have to give me a break on this one. Bloodshed for other people's liberty is such a vague statement that I'm not sure it's even subject to a fact check. Was the UK fighting for "other people's liberty" in WWII after the invasion of France, or were they acting to preserve their territorial integrity (one could easily make the argument that they were fighting for Polish liberty with respect to the casualties they suffered (very few) in defending Poland in the early stages)? Was anyone fighting for liberty in WWI? Certainly not the Russians, who were the UK's allies. And the Germans/Austrians never meant to subjugate the UK or France in that war (maybe reclaim Alsace/Lorraine).

Dunno how you could evaluate this claim without defining "fighting for other people's liberty" first, and then calculating. But your definition is going to be so open to argument that it's not worth it in the first place.

Why don't you fact check Frederick of Hollywood on a meaningful issue.

Add the north's enormous civil war casualties, around 360,000 lives given and bodies torn to free others, and Thompson's figures are more plausible, but still shaky.

Let me add that the effort to fact check this statement has the effect of devaluing this entire exercise. I think a good fact check section by the WaPo would be great. But fact check something meaningful, like the candidates' statements about the Iraq war, health care, taxes, or the environment.

I think someone should fact check whether Freddie Thompson is alive or dead. Cancer or no cancer, dude is just unhealthy looking. He's my pick in the Dead Pool. His liberty statement was just ridiculous and was proved wrong, deal with it. That's how life works inside the Beltway, crackers. There's no way in hell that he will ever be President, deal with it

"Of course, it can be argued that Soviet soldiers were primarily fighting to free their homeland from Nazi occupation. After fighting their way to Berlin, the Soviet Union imposed its own dictatorship over eastern Europe. "

This statement also overlooks the fact that Stalin and the Soviet Union had crushed the liberties of the Baltic states(Estonia, Latvia and Lithunia) before WWII began by invading them, had tried to do the same with Finland, had partnered with Hitler in the invasion of Poland and dividing Poland up with Germany, all acts of naked agression that should have put Stalin in the dock at Nuremburg with the Germans.

I find it really pathetic how so many people refer to anyone who criticizes US policy as "anti-American." So it's anti-American to call Fred Thompson on his obvious exaggeration/lie? It's anti-American to say that historically our motivation to go to war hasn't been to "liberate" people? Gimme a break!

All the talk about Liberty is the propaganda, the rallying cry, that they (in the immortal words of G. W. Bush) "catapult" at us to justify the seedier motivations for going to war.

VAR: Americans may not care if their politicians' sweeping statements about history are correct, but foreigners who share that history do.

The President is America's first diplomat, and one who has a habit of belittling foreigners to throw red meat to the base (like GW Bush) can cost America big on the world stage.

"U.S. military deaths in all wars combined remain lower than those of the British Commonwealth ('a combination of nations,' in Thompson's phrase) in World War I and World War II. According to the Commonwealth War Graves commission, 1.7 million soldiers of the British commonwealth were killed in the two World Wars."

- I find this statement offensive as the British used soldiers from India (2.5 mil), South Africa (.25 mil), and other colonies.

Granted those soldiers died for the British,
they were not British in blood.

Otherwise this article is pretty sound.

Yours is an excellent column. Fred Thompson tried to learn from President Bush, distorting facts to deceive the American public to make political gains. But the trouble is, most people make important decision based on emotional appeal and ideological affiliation rather than facts. That is why the Iraq war is still on going.

Greatest idea in the Washington Post since having those two smart-guy punks go figure out what happened at the Watergate that night!

It's great to have the fact checker. Too many politicians get away with utter BS. That said, the fact checker is at times off base on this score. Clearly, the USSR did not provide liberty to any country it conquered in the course of WWII. Recall also that it helped Germany invade Poland in the first place, and following that it conquered the then independent Baltic countries. The weak point in Thompson's argument is the fact that other than WWII, other American wars were hardly about liberty (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq II).

In response to Richard Weaver: It is not at all clear that Britain's battles against Germany had anything to do with American freedom. According to British historian John Keegan, Hitler would have preferred to avoid a war with the US. He declared war primarily because he thought that the Japanese could defeat the US and because Roosevelt was already aiding the UK and the USSR through the Lend-Lease Program. American involvement in the struggle against Hitler, even prior to its military role, was truly enlightened. Thompson's comments, unfortunately, are not.

I'm a little confused here. 99% of the naysayers in this thread seem to be discrediting the entire article because of the mere mention of Russian casualties in WWII. Did you guys get past the first few sentences? In the article I read, Mr. Dobbs noted the Russian war dead and a possible interpretation of 'fighting for liberty,' but then went on to point out the difficulties with that interpretation and then discussed other, less problematic interpretations (such as British and French losses in the two world wars)... ALL IN THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS!!!

Though I agree with the dissenters that this type of thing is difficult to define and quantify, not one of them has forwarded a definition of 'fighting for other people's liberty' that would satisfy Thompson's assertion. I am not necessarily claiming that the case cannot be made- perhaps it can be quite convincingly- but I find it more troublesome that the dissenters in this thread would rather defend Thompson's statement simply because he made it or simply because it feels right.

'Fighting for other people's liberty' has never been the primary reason for going to war. Even in the 'noblest' of all wars it was not the primary motivator for Stalinist Russia, democratic yet colonial Britain, or democratic yet isolationist USA. Economic, strategic, and geopolitical factors are always the primary consideration. The difference is that, for modern liberal democracies who hold 'liberty' as a prevailing virtue, ensuring that liberty becomes a motivation and a justification to continue the fight and to prevail.

So it is impossible to quantify how many soldiers died from any particular country whose prevailing reason to fight was to ensure the liberty of others. But what can be quantified is the number of soldiers lost by a liberal democracy in a conflict against an illiberal regime where one of the major motivating factors was to replace tyranny with liberty (or when that is simply the de facto result of the conflict). This is the framework Mr Dobbs uses to analyze Thompson' assertion, and it seems to be quite a reasonable one.

We all know what Thompson was trying to say: that, historically, America has been a defender of global liberty. And I agree with the commenter who said that this isnt really a 4 pinnochio offense, more of a simple exaggeration that need not be blown out of proportion. But there are ways of conveying the same message while respecting historical accuracy, and the great sacrifice of our allies. Just because liberty is a virtue that we hold dear, doesn't mean we own it- Liberty Man- and it may shock you, but it is possible to concede that we aren't #1 all the time, and still love our country.

Good idea for a column, bad execution on this point. Author's bias shows by the award of 4 pinochios, when at worst Thompson was guilty of a little exageration.

The author points out the nub of the issue up front, in defining what constitutes fighting for other's liberty. Given the difficulty in such a definition, he then ignores the problem and concludes that the Soviets were somehow fighting for other people's liberty. May I ask, whose liberty were they fighting for?

IMHO the USA has, more than any other country, gone to war to liberate other people. While its true that other factors have been at play in each decision toe go to war, the end result is what Thompson was talking about; were we or were we not fighting with the intended result of liberating people? If this is the standard, then I think Thompson's comment is correct. WWI and WWII were primarily about liberating Europe. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada were all conflicts that impacted US interests, but in which the US was fighting for the liberty of the people living under or threatened by oppresive regimes.

Of course, other countries have also fought for the liberty of others, primarily through UN joint efforts like Korea or Bosnia, but Thompson was stating his beleif that, based on his definition of liberation, the US has done this more than any other country.

Given the difficulty of defining the issue fo what constitutes fighting for other's liberty, this was a poor choice for a "fact" check. At the least, the difficulty in the definition should have factored into the award of the Pinochios.

Looking forward to better selections of statements to fact check. But I suggest you stick to facts, and not subjective statements.

Fred doesn't know anything and everytime he speaks he gives the Gonzo I'll get back to you. Fred is only in this race for money not the job. His health isn't good and he could care less about what's happening to this country or our troops. It takes alot of money to keep a young wife when your and old old man. Without the money the young wife might move on to someone with the money to keep her.

How can we consider this question with any seriousness when the number of lives and liberty we've taken outnumbers what we've given by the millions.

To wit, consider the deaths the U.S. has caused as a result of its colonial adventures: the slaughter of American Natives; William Walker's failed advetures in Central America; the wars against Mexico; the Phillipines; Puerto Rico; the conquest of Hawaii; over two million dead in Vietnam; and so on, and so on.

For this will Thompson give us an 'atta boy'?

Or this part of our buried history--an inconvient truth outside our National mythology?

This is the dumbest column I have ever read in a mainline newspaper. The soviets were fighting for freedom as they raped and subjected eastern Europe?

This tells me the Post has lost all ability to think.

The British commonwealth was fighting for other people's freedom? Not to mention that the British commonwealth is not a single nation, as posited by Thompson.

It's scary to think that people liked this obvous drivel. If we can't think along straight lines, we are in big trouble.

The Post has fallen by the wayside. Even the most casual familiarity with history would have alerted the editors that this column was garbage. Yet they printed it.

I agree with those who have noted that the Fact Checker badly misinterpreted what Thompson was saying. What he actually meant may still be false, but it was immediately apparent to me that it was a far different claim than the one the Fact Checker debunked. The truth of Thompson's intended claim depends heavily on issues of interpretation that can honestly be argued either way.

Fact-checking the fact-check:

"Neither Britain, nor the United States was invaded or occupied in either of the two world wars."

The Channel Islands, part of the British Isles (but whether they are part of the UK proper is up to debate) were occupied during World War II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands

The Aleutian Islands of Alaska, which was a U.S. territory and could only be consider part of the US at the time, were invaded and occupied by the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands

Two Pinocchios

"Britain entered World War I to fulfill its treaty obligations to France and Belgium. . ."

The BBC contradicts this, putting its entry into WWI in historical terms:

"Britain went to war because it saw a German victory as a threat to its security. For centuries, Britain had fought to maintain the balance of power in Europe, to ensure that no state became overmighty. The Kaiser's Germany followed Napoleon's France, and preceded Hitler, as a threat to stability. In particular, Britain was highly sensitive about Belgium. In the hands of an enemy, Belgian ports offered a major threat to the British naval supremacy and hence the security of the British Isles. Britain had no real option but to go to war in 1914. If France had been defeated, Britain would have been faced with the nightmare that since the days of Elizabeth I it had fought to avoid: the continent dominated by a single, aggressive state."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_03.shtml

One Pinocchio.

Sorry, "Fact Check", you shouldn't delve into the realm of historical argument in this project. Stick to things like marriage rates in countries with domestic partnership laws.

Fred,

"The soviets were fighting for freedom as they raped and subjected eastern Europe?"

No they werent... he was throwing out figures and quickly points out the trouble with using Stalinist Russia as an example... I wasnt aware that Mr. Dobbs concluded that the USSR was the great protector of liberty.

"The British commonwealth was fighting for other people's freedom?"

Well yea, every bit as much as we were. Whether you believe that was a primary motivator or a secondary one, how can you say that the Brits, with a similar representitive government, close historic ties, and shared English-speaking Western Judeo-Christian culture... were any less compelled to action because of the plight of the european people than we were. (Its a trick question... you cant)

"Not to mention that the British commonwealth is not a single nation, as posited by Thompson."

I wasnt aware that Fred Thompson was positing any analysis of the supranational dynamic of the United Kingdom. Moreover, Mr. Thompson said "any other combination of nations in the history of the world"... that would include any and all nations, commonwealths, protectorates, kingdoms, papal states, etc. He was saying all nations thoughout all of history combined, not just one at one time. That was part of what made the comment so asinine, he didnt take the time to think before it came out.. kinda like your comment.

"If we can't think along straight lines, we are in big trouble."

If we start with the assumption that our politicians are right and our press has no place to criticize them we are in bigger trouble.

Bush supporters love to quote Winston Churchill when denigrating opponents of the Iraq war. But they don't address the fact that Churchill gave credit to the Soviets fighting Hitler. If they hadn't we would have lost many more (perhaps bolstering Thompson's argument). As one poster said of U.S. involvement, freeing countries may not have been their intent, but it was the result.

The main point of course, is that Thompson's statement confirms the rest of the world's view of us as an arrogant do-no-wrong admit-no-mistake cowboy superpower.

Agreed. It is easy to say that the noble cause of liberation was our intention when it was going to be the de facto result of victory anyway. Hitler took over most of Europe and imposed tyrannical rule, so defeating him (whatever the primary motivation) would require the liberation of half of Europe. Defeating Nazism would go hand in hand with Liberating Europe... so anyone committed to defeating Nazism could also be committed to liberating Europe- not just the US (but as we have established, it helped to be a western democracy, and the soviets would have had a tough time making the case for protecting liberty). But in this sense, any war against an occupying force could be justified under the banner of liberation.

You could argue that the US is different because in the modern era, it has aimed to promote a lasting 'liberty' in the form of representative democracy in postwar germany, south korea, and now iraq... but as altruistic as that seems, the reality is that we've realized it is much easier to negotiate and trade with a democratic capitalist state (don't get me wrong... that's a good thing). The Marshall Plan was a radical and generous redevelopment package but it was also a way to build a European market for US goods and to coax German rebuilding away from the military and toward the commercial. Nothing is totally altruistic and to say that the US fights for liberty for the sake of liberty is incredibly naïve.

"If you look back over our history, it will not take you long to realize that our people have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world." -- Fred Thompson, stump speech in Iowa, September 6, 2007.

What part of that comment does it seem believable to anyone, regardless of their history education?

Our history (200+ years) blood shed is greater than the world's history (millions of years)blood shed. Yes. Santa I believe you.

For other's people liberty? Yes. Santa I will be good and I will not lie anymore.

Patriotism and religion, the latter not part of this argument, are just simple but effective tools to control the masses - Freddy Boy Thompson knows that and apparently a lot of people on this thread fail to realize it.

Jethro, you obviously fail to recognize one key point - every war we fight is to free "SOMEONE ELSE". Every war someone else fights is to free their own lame selves. That's reason #23 why we went into Iraq, isn't it? And aren't those Iraqis just the luckiest people EVER? Hm... now who can we free next......

I'm awarding WaPo eight Pinnoccios for this garbled mess of analysis being presented as "facts." Yeah, Thompson's comments were a little scattershot, but no more so than this supposed fact-checker's comments.

Brad said....

Your assessment is so unfair; can't you see that Senator Thompson is merely asserting that American hearts are bigger than the hearts of others? With that premise, it's obvious how less American fatalities can still mean more blood shed.

====
Well, God is an American
And when we report Deaths in Iraq, we rarely if ever mention innocent Iraqi Deaths.... so an American Life is worth 10-15-100 times more... I don't know the ratio... how many Iraqi dead are equal to an American

But Between God being "our God" and "our lives" being worth some unknown but substantial percentage more.... it's easy to see how we come out on top --in the old "blood for manifest destiny" department.

If he said.... who gave more money to the Pagan Babies after an earthquake than Americans.... he'd be on the money there, too

When Fred pulls a public boner Just remind Republicans That Disgraced ex President Richard Nixon is on public record as saying "Thompson is dumber than dirt.... But good at "ah gee shucks"....

In other words.... don't expect much of anything deep from this guy --on any topic, and you won't be disappointed. Nixon KNEW THAT 30 YEARS AGO. He's a DIM BULB.

Republican leaders love these kinda guys (hence George W.)--they can smile and eat barbecue, stand and wave.... get their photo taken and repeat the slogans they are told to "sell the status quo"

And the pathological social base loves those guys too..... makes them feel "almost average".

From Wiki:

U.S. military advisers first became involved in Vietnam in 1950, assisting French colonial forces.

In 1956, these advisers assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.

We show a lot of concern here with image and the notion of whether or not we are alienating people in other nations around the world.We should be more concerned with who we are as Americans and whether we are doing enough to uphold what our nation stands for. We cannot spend our time being preoccupied with what the people of other nations think about us. Just do what is right. This is the spirit of Fred Thompson's remarks.

The Washington Post appears to have hired an eighth grader to figure out whether this was factually true. The eighth grader says.

While heavy, U.S. military casualties are still relatively low in comparison to the military casualties of its World War II and World War I allies. In World War II alone, the Soviet Union suffered at least eight million military deaths, or ten times the number of U.S. deaths in all wars combined. According to Winston Churchill, the Red Army "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine." Of course, it can be argued that Soviet soldiers were primarily fighting to free their homeland from Nazi occupation. After fighting their way to Berlin, the Soviet Union imposed its own dictatorship over eastern Europe. Even so, Soviet sacrifices clearly contributed greatly to the liberation of western Europe from Nazi domination. Soviet soldiers died for their own country and their own tyrannical regime, but they also spilled blood on behalf of their western allies.
That is such an embarrassing answer. It is a miracle it ever made it into the paper. The people that built the Berlin Wall, the people who shot innocent civilians as they fled the tyrannical state in East Germany - these were fighting for other people's liberty?

The people who conquered and subdued Eastern Europe, milked it of its resources - spied on every citizen, made family member spy on family member - these are the Post's idea of "fighting for other people's liberty"?

You can see the extent of the intellectual rot at the Post. This is downright scary. How could they ever have said so many stupid things in one column? The answer seems to be: our universities. These seem to be things that the average student learns at ivy league colleges these days. They come out so impenetrably ignorant - dangerously ignorant - that it is not funny anymore.

Even if we exclude the Soviet Union from the calculation, U.S. military deaths in all wars combined remain lower than those of the British Commonwealth ("a combination of nations," in Thompson's phrase) in World War I and World War II. According to the Commonwealth War Graves commission, 1.7 million soldiers of the British commonwealth were killed in the two World Wars.
Well, first of all, nobody was talking about comparing numbers of dead in wars. Thompson was talking about numbers of dead who fell during wars to defend other countries and to insure their liberty.

In most cases they fell trying to defend their own countries, of their colonies. It is intellectually sloppy in the extreme to just list the numbers of war dead.

This exhibits a fundamental inability of the Washington Post to THINK anymore. Somehow, their reporters don't know how to rigorously analyze anything. All they know is political ideological response. Theire professors use this canted-mind style of argument all the time. They have learned that the way to respond to a proposition is to obscure the issue, bring in extraneous facts that don't relate at all to the matter under discussion, and declare victory.

It's hard to have anything but solid contempt for the writers of this piece. They have absolutely no idea about history; no idea about how to discuss an issue in an intellectually honest way.

If we delve back into "the history of the world," as Thompson suggests, and consider all possible combinations of nations, we could start with the wars of the ancient Greeks. Surely some of the hundreds of millions killed by tyrants from Alexander the Great to Napoleon were fighting for "other people's liberty" in addition to their own. Three million people died in the Napoleonic wars alone.
The Napoleonic wars were wars of CONQUEST, you MORONS.

The sentence before that makes no sense. "Surely" some of those "KILLED by tyrants" were fighting for "other people's liberty". If this is so obviously the case, why is not a single example given? Because there are none. The people killed by tyrants were, almost by definition, fighting for their own countries.

Then, the dolts give Thompson 4 little pinnochio pictures for lying.

This is the age of stupidity. Our great newspapers are in the hands of demonstrable fools.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

A Commenter to the article says:

And given that the total world population outside of Asia as of the time of Napoleon was barely 350 million, what possible support do *you* have for the claim that "hundreds of millions" were killed by tyrants prior to that time?
It turns out the Fact Checker appears to be giving OPINIONS, not facts. When a commenter named Joseph Dalton asked who was going to check the "facts" of the Post, the fact checker responded to him:

In response to Joseph Dalton, the answer is You, dear reader. All the facts and Pinocchio ratings issued here are subject to reader criticism and challenge. Nothing here is ever the Final Word on the subject.
And so the facts just might not really be the facts on the fact checker site. They might be ideological garbage.

What a revelation.

Count the people we killed as well. Fred didn't say it was just American blood

To "We cannot spend our time being preoccupied with what the people of other nations think about us. Just do what is right."

do you mean by that, "do what is right" in any country in the world you feel like it.. ie killing civilians, destroying economies, and so on, whether the people there want you or not... but ah, yes, God sent you, so it's all good.

I think this writer is an idiot!!!

Why do people keep asserting that the U.S. was fighting for "other peoples' liberty" in WWII? We went into WWII because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, until then we were happy to watch the people of Europe be slaughtered by the Nazis.

I agree with mike, the notion that we were fighting for other people's liberty in WWII is ridiculous. We were attacked, we defended ourselves, same as the Soviet Union. Up to that point we were happy to sit on our hands and watch, just like the Soviet Union

why do "foreign wars" only begin in 1898 with the Spanish-American and the repression of Philippino Independence? Wars against Indians,British Canada and Mexico were no less "foreign."

For those of you proclaiming Fact Checker's liberal bias, read the Checker's lengthy and critical comments about the MoveOn.org General Betray Us ad.

Politicians of all stripes running for office, perhaps most especially those running for President, are wont to use generalizations and exaggerations to say something without saying much of anything at all. And more annoyingly, they sometimes string them all together in non-sequiturs.

Here is the context of Fred Thompson's speech - "There is a major disconnect between Washington DC and the American people because we look to Congress and we see division, acrimony...looking toward the next election and not the next generation...It's kind of ironic that Democrats are moving more and more to the western European system...when countries like France are moving our way...based upon our traditional principles....The rule of law underlies everything else in this country....Unfortunately the rule of law is violated, more often than not, by judges themselves....That's why I was so happy to stand by Chief Justice Roberts' side....We need another one or two."
"My friends, this is what I believe and how I believe and will continue to...I think this is what you believe. I think it's what the American people believe....Whatever the issues are that we face....the application of those first principles, the application of those common sense conservative beliefs will result in a stronger, stronger nation. That's what this is all about. That's why I'm here today.....We are citizens of the greatest nation on Earth....That carries with it certain obligations...that we leave this place a little better....Our people have shed more blood for people's liberty than any other nation in the history of the world....I don't think we have anything to apologize for."

Kind of all over the place. But, such is the nature of some stump speeches. Historical facts and interpretations of history aside, Mr. Thompson's statement should be examined both within the context in which it was given and evaluated against the content of the rest of the speech. In that sense, the statement loses any power it may have when taken out of that context.

In a moment of very great candor, it might very well be that Mr. Thompson, himself, might admit he didn't really put much thought into the statement, but that it just came out. It has been 2 weeks since he said it and he doesn't appear to have expanded on it in any way in other settings.

I agree that the Fact Checker could have chosen something meatier to consider. But, there will plenty more opportunities to dig into something that really matters and it is so very important that someone takes the time to look into what is said. When our politicians feel that they can just make up stuff because it sounds good and not be concerned about someone "checking the facts", we all suffer.

Hey, CNN, check THIS fact... the war in Iraq has cost us too many lives, too much money and all of the prestige we had at the end of the Cold War. And worst of all, it's revealed us as something much less than a great super power.

Looks like Sadforamerica is so upset he/she forgot which website they were on. But the sentiment is right on!! Bush has destroyed our super power status.

JEFF:

Great, well-thought out comment. I encourage fact checker for the very reasons you outlined. What Thompson said was jingoistic, and someone needs to be there to say,"Hey, wait a second - is that statement really true??" Shouldn't our elected officials think before they open their mouths? Or is it okay if they realize what they think only after they hear it come out of their mouths....

Many of the comments made here, both pro or con about what Thompson said, only goes to show how deprived of historical truth Americans have become thanks to agenda driven media.

Before most of you make comment, read a couple of non-McGraw-Hill history books.

Remember, thinking it true does not make it so.

Wow, you need to give yourself four Pinocchios on this one!

It has always been clear that America has gone far outside her own interests when it comes to waging war against people like the Nazis and Communists.

It is ridiculous to compare (for example) American deaths in Europe during WWII (clearly a war we did not *have* to fight) against European deaths in WWII. Those countries were all fighting for their own interests in that war and much of the deaths occurred in countries fighting *against* liberty: Germany and the Soviet Union.

Total casualties tell you nothing. You need to look at the motivation behind the conflicts. In that view Thompson was and is correct: more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other country.

Shame on the Post!

Mr Thompson is only trying to appease to the the people of the here and now. Given the poor education system now in place( poor History lesssons) how could the uneducated, with family members serving our country and giving the ultimate sacrafice, know any better about the casualties sustained during prior wars/conflicts? To much of our American History has been swept under the carpet, as far as educating our children, that young voters, I dont know how in the world they can go to the polls and vote for any of the people that are running for President next. TOO MUCH SMOKE AND MIRRORS from all the candidates I believe!!!

While I may be considerably late, I feel it is necessary to address a problem in Mr. Dobbs's interpretation. Sen. Thompson said "our people have shed more blood for OTHER PEOPLE's liberty." The British Commonwealth shed a lot of blood in WW2, but it was done primarily to protect themselves. Certainly, their agreement that they would declare war should Hitler invade Poland shows they were at least minorly concerned about Poland, but Hitler also threatened Britain herself.

Uh . . . Stalin's defense of Russia by sacrificing millions of Soviet Union citizens was certainly NOT to preserve "other people's liberty".

Your twisting of the truth with half-truths and outright lies (so typical of the left) is much worse than any statement Fred Thompson made about the subject.

Perhaps your difficulty in finding truth in Thompson's comment is in your misunderstanding his words "our people have shed more blood." Read to mean "our people have shed more blood of other people" and it may make sense.

And what about the Civil War-- any liberty issue there?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.