Example of PolitiFact (and rdean) being wrong

[Amelia]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

 

[Valox]

This is not a first time that they have been busted. Plus, they like to argue semantics.

I have lost stock in them awhile back when I was reading a few of their analyses and it was contingent on a specific word or two that was not taken fully into context.

 

[Conservative]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

 

[Vel]

but..but... 6% of what they said was true.

 

[edthecynic]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

 

[Conservative]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

link?

 

[edthecynic]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

 

[Conservative]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

again... link please?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

Don't tell Billy, he loves Politifact, even when he doesn't read what they say.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Yikes.god bless our military.3 are apparently in the gulf in irans direct..must be prepping something...

 

[edthecynic]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

link?

Don't doubt me!

US Ship Force Levels

U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2011


Date 9/30/07 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 9/30/11 Carriers 11 11 11 11 11 Cruisers 22 22 22 22 22 Destroyers 52 54 57 59 61 Frigates 30 30 30 29 26 LCS *
1 1 2 2

Submarines 53 53 53 53 53 SSBN 14 14 14 14 14 SSGN 4 4 4 4 4 Mine Warfare 14 14 14 14 14 Amphibious 33 34 33 33 31 Auxiliary 46 45 46 47 47 Surface Warships 115 118 121 123 122 Total Active 278** 282 285 288 285
Notes • Cost increases encourage construction of more affordable class of littoral combat ships, intended for inshore or 'brown water' operations in high risk environments.
* Littoral Combat Ship
** Low since 19th-century

 

[Conservative]

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

link?

Don't doubt me!

US Ship Force Levels

U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2011


Date 9/30/07 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 9/30/11 Carriers 11 11 11 11 11 Cruisers 22 22 22 22 22 Destroyers 52 54 57 59 61 Frigates 30 30 30 29 26 LCS *
1 1 2 2

Submarines 53 53 53 53 53 SSBN 14 14 14 14 14 SSGN 4 4 4 4 4 Mine Warfare 14 14 14 14 14 Amphibious 33 34 33 33 31 Auxiliary 46 45 46 47 47 Surface Warships 115 118 121 123 122 Total Active 278** 282 285 288 285
Notes • Cost increases encourage construction of more affordable class of littoral combat ships, intended for inshore or 'brown water' operations in high risk environments.
* Littoral Combat Ship
** Low since 19th-century

I doubt anyone who has to be asked multiple times to provide a link for something they claim as fact.

In this case, you happen to be correct, as I just found the same source myself via GOOGLE.

However, the difference is only 10 ships in the last 4 years. Different, but not startlingly so.

EDIT: actually, according to your link, the difference is only 7 ships... 278 vs 285 (not 288).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Clinton/Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

 

[Conservative]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

 

[Conservative]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Clinton/Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

the man did get a Nobel Prize for doing nothing. Why not give him credit for increasing the size of the Navy by 7 ships too?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

The Adams class was planned when Clinton was president, most of the funding came under Bush. Giving Obama credit for them is ridiculous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Clinton/Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

the man did get a Nobel Prize for doing nothing. Why not give him credit for increasing the size of the Navy by 7 ships too?

Because I am a racist.

 

[Conservative]

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Clinton/Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

the man did get a Nobel Prize for doing nothing. Why not give him credit for increasing the size of the Navy by 7 ships too?

Because I am a racist.

as is anyone who criticizes 'the Obama'.

 

[edthecynic]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

Hey genius, Bush wasn't even president in 2000, so if you can give Bush credit for ships ordered before he was ever in Washington, then Obama gets credit for being president when the ships came on line.

But no matter how you slice it, Mittens was STILL "pants on fire" lying!!!