Lil White Lies: Boxer Jam

This is what Bill O’Reilly had to say about what Barbara Boxer said to Condoleezza Rice back in 2007 (read full Politifact piece here):

“Summing up this ridiculous display, if Senator Barbara Boxer represents a sane view of the War on Terror — including the Iraq War — we're all in very big trouble.

We need professionals in Congress, not foolish ideologues.

And that's The Memo.”

Bill O’Reilly, Talking Points, January 12, 2007

So Barbara Boxer said in a recent interview: “…I was criticizing the fact that she [Condi] didn't know how many people died in Iraq. Absolutely I was. And I said it's even more on our shoulders because we don't--we're not making a personal sacrifice. I'm not. And she wasn't. That we really follow this war. And we bring troops home. And I--I as you know did not vote for that war and therefore was very strong on the point that we owed it to our men and women in uniform to bring them home as soon as possible.”

It would have made more sense if she had meant “expected” number. Suppose Boxer had said “…I was criticizing the fact that she didn't know how many people died were going to die in Iraq. Absolutely I was. And I said it's even more on our shoulders because we don't know—because we're not making a personal sacrifice. I'm not. And she wasn't. That we really follow this war. And we bring troops home. And I--I as you know did not vote for that war and therefore was very strong on the point that we owed it to our men and women in uniform to bring them home as soon as possible.”  So just a few words would have made a big difference.

However, PolitiFact made this the headline of the article….so to say she might have meant something else is not acceptable. On this one I am in agreement with Bryan: I am surprised that PolitiFact even rated this statement. Getting into the “personal price” part of it was another matter.

Title and Link	“Sen. Barbara Boxer says Condoleezza Rice didn't know how many troops had died in Iraq.”
Who?  Affiliation	Barbara Boxer (Democrat)
Ruling	Pants On Fire!
Checkers	Robert Farley (Writer/Researcher); Bill Adair (Editor)
# of Words	847
#Sources Cited	Three (3)
Argument Summary	Point (1) Boxer claimed that in 2007 she queried Condoleezza Rice how many “people” died in Iraq.  The truth was she actually asked Rice to project the expected number of casualties from the planned Iraqi *surge.*  Point (2) After, Boxer made a comment to Rice about the “personal price” military families paid, but not by she nor Rice, since neither had any immediate family in the war.  Rice and certain media took this as a criticism of her being single and childless.
Bryan’s Argument	Bryan agreed with Point (1) but said that Boxer may have answered Point (2) disingenuously and PF did not deal with Boxer’s explanation with enough skepticism.
Quick Interpretation	Point (1) Yeah, OK. Point (2) Tony Snow at Fox already did a pretty good job at being skeptical about how Boxer treated Condi. And Bill O’Reilly, too.  They might do the same with this.
My criticism:	What if someone asked Boxer if she meant number of expected casualties at past tense, since it is now past?
Guidelines PF Excuses	Reasons (1) Beyond PF scope, and (2) Subjectivity: Agenda of charitable interpretation (see “Quick Interpretation” Links above), AND (3) Too much information on second point.
Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies	None.
DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING?	No, I might have given Boxer a pass at “False” for mixing up “had died” versus “expected to die” as I am not sure if she was deliberately misleading.
My view	Boxer 2007: “…I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old. My grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay the price, as I understand it, with immediate family.” Boxer 2010:  “…I said to her that she and I were in the same position. I didn't have anyone who served there, and neither did she.” For the "liberal" viewpoint on this, try Politics at MSNBC.
Comments	Actually, it is possible Bush/Condi could offer an estimate of casualties and they may have been estimated in 2003.
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct)	Aside from the fact Boxer misled in her recent comment concerning expected versus previous casualties in the Iraq War, in regard to the “Personal Price” inquiry with Condi:  “… Boxer [may have] spoke disingenously. The point was always that Rice was uncaring; Boxer regarded herself as simply the better person for caring more than Rice despite the fact that neither had family members in Iraq.”
Bryan’s Rating	One Pepé for getting bogged down in the “Personal Price” part
PF Rating	Two Pepés because this one belongs in the category of “scraping the gold leaf off Georgia’s capitol dome” but is only more legit; may serve itself up as PF  evidence of “let’s put a lefty Pants on Fire one in here to make us look good.”