Alaskan Congressman Says War Opposers Should Be Hanged
February 15th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |What a day for Alaskan politicians. First was news of Senator Ted Stevens and his online predator bill that is really just a disguised attack against the free exchange of information and ideas through the ‘internets.’
Then, the state’s lone Congressman, Don Young, used his five minutes of floor time during the Iraq Surge Resolution debate to slander the good name of President Abraham Lincoln by attributing the following quote to him (video available at the link):
“Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.”
Problem is Lincoln never said that. Or anything even close to it. The misquote was actually penned by historian J. Michael Waller in a press release pushing a book he wrote in 2003. When asked to clarify, Waller said,”The supposed quote in question is not a quote at all, and I never intended it to be construed as one. It was my lead sentence in the article that a copy editor mistakenly turned into a quote by incorrectly inserting quotation marks.”
So what here is most disturbing? An elected official misquoting a great president to push an odious course of action? An elected official too stupid to do some basic fact checking? An elected official basically calling for his colleagues to be arrested, exiled, or hanged? Or a neo-conservative ruled, desperate Republican party that will stoop to the lowest levels possible to make sure that more and more American soldiers will die in Iraq?
There have been many idiotic things stated by Republican congress critters during this debate, including the claims that the debate hurts military morale (refuted by military leaders). But unless someone stupider comes along tomorrow, I think Don Young gets the Boobie Prize.
[tag]Don+Young+-AK, Iraq+Surge+Debate, Abraham+Lincoln, J+Michael+Waller, Idiot, politics[/tag]
6 Responses to “Alaskan Congressman Says War Opposers Should Be Hanged”
By tammara on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
we should hang him as a non-supporter of the troops.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
How does one “Fact check” a non-quote. How to prove that Lincoln never said something? He’s supposed to fact check by reading every word known to have been written or spoken by Lincoln to determine that Lincoln never said this? And if he did that, would that prove that Lincoln never said this? What I mean by that is: how would that prove that some historian didn’t find a new letter penned by Lincoln prior to putting out a press release wherein this was indicated to be a quote by Lincoln?
Okay, he could have had an aid ring up a historian at a University somewhere to verify it but even then, if the historian called wasn’t actually a Lincoln historian, he or she might not be aware that this was bogus. Anyway, how often do you, personally, having found a quote by some famous person that makes a point that you wish to make, that quote having been indicated by a historian to be a genuine quote, call around to Universities to verify the quote until you find a prof. that will either verify it or debunk it before using it?
Have you ever done that?
I think you’re being a tad hard on the man. It’s not like he made the thing up whole cloth or like there wasn’t something out there written by a historian that, though erroneous, actually indicates that Lincoln did say exactly this.
Furthermore, quoting this does not necessarily mean that he is saying that this is what should be done. After all, Lincoln never DID arrest, exile or hang a Congressman for saying things that lower troop moral. If he had done that, we would know about it. It seems to me that quoting this is saying no more than that he thinks it a very serious thing for Congresspersons to be saying things that lower moral of the troops and, to bolster the point, used a quote he had reason to believe had been said by Lincoln.
He didn’t actually bring along any police and start handing out warrants, after all.
Furthermore, as evidence that he probably didn’t mean that he was advocating the arrest and hanging of Democrats who oppose the troop surge, he must have known, from the Jefferson ($90,000 in “cold” cash) affair, that congresspersons are constitutionally protected from arrest for statements they make in their capacity as Congresspersons. Heck, even I know that.
In short, this sounds like nothing more than an example of over the top rhetoric rather than a serious suggestion by a Congressperson from Alaska that Democrats should actually be rounded up and hung.
Just my opinion.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Okay, he could have had the aid put the quote into Google’s search engine. This would have brought up an August 2006 article in FactCheck.org that would have told him it was bogus.
Touche against myself.
I still ask, do you go to FactCheck.org before you use quotes in your articles? I don’t.
Of course, I tend not to often quote others unless I have the record in front of me. That is, in comment threads, I will often cut and paste the comments of others before responding to them so that there’s no question about to what my comments are addressed.
In any case, this was sloppy quoting. I hope he retracts it and apologizes soon for it. That’s the right thing to do even if his error was innocent.
By ken grandlund on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
I try to only use quotes that are either pulled from an original news story, someone’s direct comments, or else from a source I consider to be fairly well vetted, like Bartlett’s. I certainly wouldn’t attribute a quote to a legendary figure like Lincoln, especially a quote so inflammatory and during a highly charged debate unless I was damn sure he’d said it.
And it wouldn’t have taken an aid too long to do as you did.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Okay, but original news stories sometimes misquote people. Then what? Then you’re stuck correcting your record once it becomes clear that the news story was wrong.
This was sloppy quoting, I grant you, and a mistake that the Congressperson probably won’t be making in the future but it’s a mistake that anyone can make and probably an unwitting mistake. I think that, as long as he acknowledges his error and apologizes, we should note the apology and move on.
By ken grandlund on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
I would agree with that Craig- the apologize, accept, move on part that is.