Press Release
Public Affairs Office
Headquarters Marine Corps; Division of Public Affairs

Comm: 703-614-4309
Contact:

——————————————————————————–

Release # 0221-08-1659
Associated Press Mischaracterized Civilian’s Opinions as Official Study
Feb. 21, 2008

HEADQUARTERS MARINE CORPS (Washington D.C.) — – In a letter today to Associated Press president Thomas Curley, the Marine Corps raised objections to a story by reporter Richard Lardner which mischaracterized a preliminary internal paper written by a civilian employee of Headquarters, Marine Corps.

Although the paper was clearly marked as the personal views of that employee and not representative of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense, the AP headline and story led readers to believe the work was an official Marine Corps study. Statements that the work represented the personal opinions of the author were placed deep within the article.

In addition, another AP report three days later stated that “The Associated Press first reported Friday that hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps officials refused the request of the commanders.” This statement was presented as fact and not attributed to the author of the paper, as representing his personal views.

As a result of the AP’s inaccurate and imprecise reporting, the Marine Corps was forced to respond to numerous requests for clarification from news organizations, members of Congress and other groups.

“There has been a clear reluctance on behalf of the AP reporter and his editor to accurately state the nature of the civilian’s opinion paper, and to correct the record,” said Col. Dave Lapan, deputy director of Marine Corps public affairs. “So we are. This is an example of how inaccurate reporting leads to continued inaccuracies and ultimately does a disservice to the millions of readers who rely on the AP for accurate and factual information.”

I don’t know that any of us go through life handing out business cards with the word “intellectual” in big embossed Old English script, but that IS a word with a definition, whether you know that definition or not.

You seem annoyed that people here would respond to what you SAID. I think your words are pretty clear, and if you didn’t say what you meant that’s hardly somebody else’s fault. You demonstrate that you’re not 100% in command of your own vocabulary, which might lead one to suspect, again, that it’s on you.

Obviously we like commenters, especially those who add something to the conversation. We’d have preferred that you find a way to move things forward instead of descending into trolling, getting spanked, declaring Mission Accomplished and then huffing off. But since we can’t have that, I guess we can only wish you happy trails.

From Mr. Denny’s story taken from the AP:
Says Mr. Gayl in the study: “If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the [Marine Corps] is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented. While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation.

Since you obviously did not catch on the first time I stated it in my other post I will reiterate, unless Mr. Gayl has something more to offer he has not shown fraud. The only thing he has shown is the possibility our government showed poor judgment, big surprise. But this does not prove fraud against the government. Qui Tam law is very clear.

You stated in your post:
You don’t understand the reason that the military spending $12,000 for a screwdriver and buys it from Lockheed-Martin instead of Home Depot – that’s how the military pays for black programs, so saying that taxpayers are being screwed is naive.

Once again you are either showing your low level of reading comprehension, you are lacking the level of education you claim to have or are being deliberately dense, I will use dense instead of obtuse this time.

My statement was as follows:
Military contractors sit back raking in billions charging $12000 (heavy sarcasm – but probably not far from a correct dollar amount) for a screwdriver that you can purchase at Home Depot for $12. Meanwhile Joe and Mary Taxpayer are being screwed (no pun intended) in the long run.

Let me clarify since you so obviously missed it. “Military contractors” – means Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon and a dozen others I can come up with off the top of my head. As far as your comment about my being naïve about the taxpayers being screwed by military spending goes – who do you think pays for government programs including the military – the taxpayer. We are the people paying for the $600 toilet seat the military purchases. If I remember correctly (and oh yes I AM being sarcastic) it is referred to as, oh what is the word I am looking for, oh that’s right its taxes. So who is it that is being naïve here?

You also stated: As Denny said, generally you’ll be more effective at convincing people to your point if you leave the attitude behind. I freely admit in post #22 I was blunt, I was in a hurry and did not finesse my statements – so it goes. I also told Denny in a later post I thought JSO was being insulting and if I misinterpreted the JSO post it was my error.

You really need to take a GIANT step down from your pedestal, you grossly over estimate your intellectual capacity. And yes I did have the audacity to call you obtuse and despite your inference I am very well aware of the definition of obtuse, as well as dense, but it the shoe fits as the saying goes. Our part of this conversation is now concluded.

Ultimately as far as this website goes I have had an opportunity to do some surfing through your website, blogs and various other websites and you people are a joke. You post an article to your website then your own writers post to your blogs, you receive very few hits and virtually no outside communication and when your run into someone outside your circle with a brain that you cannot bully or nit-picking to death over a single grammatical error you are not pleased. So basically this is just your own coffee house discussion with you patting each other on the back for your imagined intellectual prowess.

So, Dr. Slammy, no I was not in error when I used the term pseudo intellectuals, this term was more than apropos. But I do agree with you on one subject – Buster Keaton was an absolutely incredible man.

Have fun with your circle jerk and mental masturbation. I am exceedingly bored and out of here, have fun writing to one another.

You’ve made a number of unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiable, claims without proof. You assume that Mr. Gayl is not a whistleblower but haven’t given us a reason why (your Qui Tam point is valid, but you’re assuming that he doesn’t deserve protection because there was no fraud, when the known facts of the situation don’t provide any more substance to that conclusion than the do the conclusion that he does deserve protection).

You assume that Mr. Gayl is jockeying for political advantage, and while that’s a valid interpretation that may even be correct, you failed to connect the dots in a way that could be followed.

You don’t understand the reason that the military spending $12,000 for a screwdriver and buys it from Lockheed-Martin instead of Home Depot – that’s how the military pays for black programs, so saying that taxpayers are being screwed is naive.

You’ve assumed that the military bureaucracy is a negative impact on the operation of the military (your use of the word “suffered” implies as much) without providing examples or proof.

In my opinion, its opinions like these – offered without any indication that they were informed by actual knowledge – that Slammy made his original comment. And these same opinions, offered up as if they were facts that, naturally, everyone had to know already, are why I believe that JSO made his original comment. I don’t know that, of course, as I’m not telepathic and privy to JSO’s and Slammy’s thought processes.

Your use of language matters, SM, and if you want people to actually take you seriously, I recommend that you get better at saying precisely what you mean. Meaning is hard enough to convey via text when done well, never mind done when done badly.

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

Mr. Angliss – I will address you first as you have obviously never misspoke at any point in time in your life. Yes – I used an incorrect term. I am, therefore, walking talking proof that multi-tasking can lead to errors in grammatical precision on occasion. Oh my god – so now the earth will stop spinning on its axis and civilization, as you know it, will cease to exist. Which may not be such a bad thing considering the world if full of blithering idiots.

Dr. Slammy – With regard to my misuse of vocabulary please refer to my response to Mr. Angliss. As to your other question – what is a real intellectual?

A real intellectual does more reading about a subject rather than run with a ‘whistleblower’ story that has no foundation in good journalism. In order for there to be a legitimate whistleblower action there has to be proof of fraud committed against the government. There was an obvious lack of good judgment if the government believed the MRAP would save lives and they did not deploy its use – but it is not fraud. In the future do a little research into Qui Tam law procedure before picking up this banner and running with it. And unless Mr. Gayl has something else to offer other than this “leak” his claims have no merit and it is not good journalism or a good source to run with this story or maybe Mr. Gayl is just trying to add credence to an already shaky claim. Furthermore if Mr. Gayl has actually applied for whistleblower status then he has violated his Qui Tam seal, a seal issued by the DOJ.

The heart of the post of Mr. Denny’s story goes to the whistleblower status of Mr. Gayl, which is questionable in this particular instance, good journalism and a good source and the criteria for the aforementioned subjects are not being met. Also a good portion of this blog aims to turn this into a political issue and I quote, “citizens and voters can make better social and political decisions, especially in election season”. Everything in the political realm is subjective and to tout this story as a solid fact for our citizens to make a solid decision in an election year is in error.

So, yes, JSO an unsupported opinion based on non-existent facts can fool many people and often does. Our biased press corps often run with and print stories that blur the line between fact and fiction and short-sighted individuals do not recognize this line. And whether you choose to ‘listen’ to what I have to say has absolutely no bearing on me.

I think the dialogue this point has gotten somewhat derailed. This is generally what happens when a couple of pseudo intellectuals try to stilt the discussion beyond what is warranted given the topic. For being as intellectually slanted as both of you try to flaunt, you have missed one basic tenant. There is no such thing as fact, what one might call a fact is just an opinion wrapped up in the cloaks of academia and intellectual discourse. Unfortunately until the discussion centers around the issues at hand we are stuck in an exercise that amounts to no more that mental masturbation.(emphasis added)

There is nothing “obvious” about your statement being specifically targeted at the MRAP issue. In fact, the style of language you used says the opposite. Saying “you have missed one basic tenant(sic)” implies that what you’re about to state is a fundamental rule. In fact, “tenet” means “a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true”.

So you specifically stated that it was a fundamental (ie “basic”) principle or doctrine that facts don’t exist. “Basic” can also mean “concerned with fundamental scientific principles”, BTW, and fundamental scientific principles are generally believed to be universal (ie gravitation, quantum mechanics, general relativity, Maxwell’s equations).

So you either intended to imply universality and are backpeddling because you got called on it, or you mis-spoke and used English incorrectly.

For instance:

There were several articles printed prior to this ‘study’ stating the fact the troops have these vehicles available to them yet we did not and would not send them.

But … but … but … there ARE no facts, right?? Those articles can only be stating opinion, in your mind. And if it’s only opinion, well, then it may or may not be true. A 50/50 proposition, what, what?

And this statment:

Do not be fooled, this article was printed (yet again) by a biased press in order to sway the outcome of our upcoming election.

It seems that every member of the “press” has a stake is swaying the upcoming election. No proof is needed, of course, since there are no facts. And what are we not supposed to be fooled by? Our own opinions? Someone else’s? How can unsupported opinion, not backed up by non-existent facts, fool anyone?

Socrates (Plato says) had a word for those who espouse this sort of non-fact thing: “Sophists.” Which gives us the very useful word “sophistry.”

Dr. Denny – Unfortunately things do not come off as well in print as they do in actual conversation. I was under the impression JSO was insulting me and if I placed the wrong slant on his comment then that is my error.

Before I wade in any deeper, though, can I ask you to define a term for me? Apparently we’re all “pseudo-intellectuals.” Can you tell me what would count as a REAL intellectual? This really matters, actually.

You comment would have been far more credible without the snark in the first and last grafs. You accuse a few commenters of “derailing” the point; you did the same. Insults to other commentees did not enhance the credibility of your point.

There is no such thing as fact…

Excuse me? If you cared to limit that statement to a few narrow subjects like philosophy, I might – might – be able to agree that it was at least possible. But as an engineer, I work in a field where facts abound.

My design works – that’s a fact right there. My design uses a particular part – there’s another. The temperature in my cube as I type this is 25 C, +/- 2C is another fact. There’s no opinion involved, informed or otherwise.

Mr. Gayl wrote his study report is another fact – the question is whether the information contained within that report qualify as fact, informed opinion, or uninformed opinion. And that’s what we, as outsiders, lack enough data (ie facts) to determine.

In the future, please don’t make universal statements like you just did unless you intend for them to apply universally. And if you do intend them to apply universally, I recommend you don’t make statements that are so easily countered with, um, facts.

The problem at hand with the MRAPs highlights problems of our entire system and each branch of service.

1) In terms of new procurements, each service suffers from the bureaucracy that has taken over military operations. On this point I am not just talking about MRAPs, but body armor, the right color camouflage, V-22, structural fatigue in major assets from DDG’s to F-15s, and the list obviously continues.
2) We are currently asking our military to do more with minimal resources. We expect our military assets to be on the battlefield longer that their designated life cycle, and we are replacing those assets at a slower rate than we are retiring and replacing aged assets.
3) When a new asset arrives (ie MRAPs) they are much needed and generally rushed into service, as was the first generation of MRAPs raced to the battlefield. Leading to the additional lost of life, not the miracle solution that the media marches in front of us.

Ultimately we cannot wage any kind of war where the power is removed from the military structure and placed in the political realm and ultimately (thanks to the media) in the public eye. This war has created more armchair generals than any other time in history. And the two of you want to sit here and debate about fact versus opinion versus informed opinion. And who is to decide fact and opinion – you? Furthermore, who is to determine an informed opinion versus and uninformed opinion? Then do we continue to peel the onion and let you decide who has informed opinions, and which sources of ‘information’ are deemed acceptable? Please, when the two of you take a humbling step off of your intellectual pedestal and want to talk about the real issues behind the facade that your discussion feeds let me know.

Agreed. No problem with informed opinions, but I usually need just a wee bit of proof before I buy things.