Grading PolitiFact: Power Line and the Pelosi Paradox

"The Amazing Criswell"

The Amazing Criswell was a dimestore prophet who parlayed his act into a series of appearances in the films of Edward D. Wood Jr., the latter widely recognized as one of the worst film directors of all time.  The following snippet from the script of the film "Ed Wood" will help explain why the image of Criswell leads off this review:

                             ED
               Hey Cris, how'd you know we'd be
               living on Mars by 1970?  How'd you
               know it wouldn't be 1975, or even
               1980?

                             CRISWELL
               I guessed.

                             ED
               I don't understand.

                             CRISWELL
               I made it up.  It's horseshit!

The issue:

Now for a more customary image:

Though PolitiFact credits the statement to "various posts on the web," all four owe (and offer) credit directly to John Hinderaker at the Power Line blog.

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor


Analysis:

We note at the outset that the headline and deck material (image copied above) are accompanied at the PolititFact site by the "Truth-O-Meter" graphic set at "Half True."

Let's get the explanation from PolitiFact:

On May 2, 2011, the conservative PowerLine blog posted a quote it said came from Pelosi in 2006. Others followed, including Michelle Malkin’s blog, Fox Nation and Commentary magazine. Here’s the PowerLine version:

"(E)ven if (Osama bin Laden) is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer."

The "PowerLine version" is the same as all the other versions, of course, because they are all the Power Line version.

PolitiFact:

The blog paired that with a statement that Pelosi -- the former House speaker and now the House minority leader -- released shortly after President Barack Obama announced bin Laden’s death to the nation on May 1:

"The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. … (T)he death of Osama bin Laden is historic."

Again, the blogs that reproduced Power Line's side-by-side comparison of Pelosi quotations used exactly the same version.  On with the fact check:

PowerLine went on to argue that her seemingly different sentiments may have been colored by the fact that the White House in 2006 was occupied by a Republican (George W. Bush) and in 2011 by a Democrat (Obama).

"It is unfortunate that many public figures are unable to view events otherwise than through a partisan prism," PowerLine argued. "Osama bin Laden's operational significance had undoubtedly dwindled over the years, and al-Qaida, after nine years of relentless attacks, is a shadow of its former self. But bin Laden's death is obviously an important and helpful milestone in the long war against radical Islam. …

PolitiFact uses the root term "argument" in a broad sense.  Hinderaker doesn't bother offering trying to convince anybody of anything.  He quotes Pelosi and then offers a direct assessment.  Hinderaker does not state his premises and inferences directly.

PolitiFact presents Pelosi's quotation in context, stating that Pelosi at the time was charging Republicans with failing to implement all of the 9-11 Commission recommendations.  PolitiFact says "bloggers" quoted Pelosi accurately:

We think the bloggers are accurate in reporting Pelosi’s 2006 quote. She did indeed say that taking out bin Laden wouldn’t make the U.S. any safer, though we should also note that, from the context, it’s clear that she thought bin Laden should be pursued regardless.

The bloggers’ reporting of the second Pelosi quote -- the one from after bin Laden’s killing -- is incomplete, however. The final sentence of Pelosi’s statement reads, "Though the death of Osama bin Laden is historic, it does not diminish our relentless pursuit of terrorists who threaten our country" (emphasis added). In other words, the full text of what Pelosi said on May 1 communicates a more nuanced view, and one that’s less in conflict with her 2006 statement.

As to the former paragraph from PolitiFact, it would have been interesting to hear Pelosi describe why bin Laden should be pursued if it wouldn't make us safer.  Would the pursuit occur solely for the purpose of retributive justice?

As to the latter of PolitiFact's paragraphs, is the omitted portion of Pelosi's statement important to Hinderaker's point?  PolitiFact claims, without any developed argument, that the missing context makes for "a more nuanced view" "less in conflict" with her earlier statement.

How much conflict does Hinderaker need to make his point?  And can PolitiFact sustain its point without determining Hinderaker's need?  PolitiFact appears to concede that the two statements conflict to at least some degree.

PolitiFact:

Ultimately, we think the bloggers overstated the degree to which Pelosi’s 2006 and 2011 comments were contradictory.

To what degree did "the bloggers" overstate the degree to which Pelosi's two statements contradict each other?  As noted above, Hinderaker simply makes a short assessment after quoting Pelosi directly and (according to PolitiFact) accurately.  Hinderaker does not mention contradiction, paradox or compatibility.  We only see that type of thing only in the headline used in the Fox news aggregation ("Pelosi Caught Flip-Flopping Big Time on Bin Laden").

How does PolitiFact know that Hinderaker overstated the degree of contradiction?  They guessed.  They made it up.  It's horseshit.

Hinderaker's point about an ideological prism stands perfectly well with any degree of disagreement between Pelosi's two statements.  In the former case, Pelosi seemed prepared to minimize the significance of bin Laden's death if accomplished by the Bush administration.  In the latter case, Pelosi spared no superlative in lauding the accomplishment of the Obama administration.  Wasn't that clearly Hinderaker's point?  And didn't he obviously convey the point without exaggerating the discrepancy?

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Martha Hamilton:  F

We have another case where if somebody doesn't quite state the fact PolitiFact wants to check they'll be happy to pretend otherwise.