Cherry-Picked History
How They Deceive You
Propaganda
Cherry-picks only negative alliance outcomes across centuries while framing them as an unbroken national tradition of betrayal.
Main Device
Cherry-Picked History
Selects solely negative cases (Oneida through Kurds) and omits counterexamples or contextual multi-party conflicts to manufacture a monolithic narrative.
Archetype
Isolationist historical revisionist
Views US foreign policy as inherently duplicitous and driven by perpetual betrayal rather than strategic or mixed motives.
Cherry-picks negative alliance examples across history and equates them to a 'grand tradition' of betrayal while omitting successes and context.
Writer's Worldview
“Isolationist historical revisionist”
3 findings · 1 omission
What is your news hiding from you?
Same analysis. Any article. Completely free.
Narrative Analysis
The article assembles verifiable cases of US policy reversals toward specific partners but presents them as evidence of a singular national pattern of betrayal.
Key Findings
- Cherry-picking of examples structures the narrative around one-directional cases (Oneida and Lenape alliances in the Revolutionary era, Filipino veterans after 1945, Hungarian refugees in 1956, Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs, and Kurdish forces in later decades) while moving chronologically without counterbalancing instances of sustained commitments. This produces the impression of unbroken continuity rather than the mixed record typical of statecraft across administrations.
- Framing device equates a single contemporary statement by President Trump on Iran with a “grand American tradition” of treachery, using the phrase “They say baseball is America’s national pastime, but you could make a solid case that it’s actually betrayal.” The technique retroactively applies the same moral label to events separated by centuries and differing strategic contexts.
- Simplification of agency in the cited alliances treats partner groups primarily as recipients of US decisions, without noting concurrent calculations by those actors or rival powers (British, French, Ottoman, or Iraqi) that shaped the same episodes.
Omitted Verifiable Context
The article references denial of benefits to Filipino veterans but does not mention the Rescission Act of 1946 (Pub. L. 79–301), which accompanied formal Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, and transferred responsibility for those veterans to the newly sovereign government. Inclusion of this statutory detail would alter the characterization from pure abandonment to a policy tied to decolonization.
Author and Outlet Context
Nick Turse is a Columbia-trained investigative journalist whose prior work draws on declassified Pentagon documents and field reporting on civilian casualties in multiple conflicts. The Intercept, where the piece appears, routinely publishes national-security reporting critical of US military engagements.
Bottom Line
The article rests on documented historical episodes and supplies specific dates and outcomes that can be checked against primary records. Its limitation lies in the absence of diplomatic or legal context that would show those episodes as part of negotiated trade-offs rather than a uniform pattern. Readers gain concrete examples but receive an incomplete map of the incentives and constraints that operated at the time.
Further Reading
No additional coverage comparisons were available for this story.
Neutral Rewrite
Here's how this article reads with loaded language removed and missing context included.
U.S. Policy Decisions on Support for Partners and Allies: Selected Historical Cases
President Donald Trump addressed the Iranian people on February 28, urging them to rise against the government and stating that America would back them with overwhelming strength. Less than five months later, at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, Trump stated that Iranian opposition forces lacked the capacity to prevail, noting they had no guns while the other side had machine guns. In an interview with the Washington Post on the first day of the Iran conflict, Trump described freedom for the Iranian people as a goal. These statements form part of a pattern of U.S. policy adjustments toward groups that had received prior encouragement or assistance.
During the American Revolution, several Native nations assessed their positions amid the conflict between colonial forces and Britain. The Oneida Nation separated from the majority of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which aligned with British forces. Historian Heather Bruegl has stated that Oneida support helped the Continental Army during the winter at Valley Forge by alleviating supply shortages. The Pentagon has recognized this assistance as sustaining the army during a difficult period. Following the war, Oneida land holdings, initially estimated at five to six million acres, were reduced to approximately 32 acres by the early 1900s through subsequent treaties and federal actions.
The Lenape people signed an agreement with the emerging United States that included pledges of mutual support and provisions for a Native-governed territory. The agreement dissolved shortly afterward. State Department historical records note the death of Lenape leader White Eyes, with American officials attributing it to smallpox while other accounts indicated militia involvement. Some Lenape fighters continued to assist Continental forces, and a delegation sought to restore the arrangement. In 1782, Pennsylvania militia killed 96 members of a neutral Christian Lenape settlement at Gnadenhutten, including 39 children.
In World War II, approximately 250,000 Filipinos served in units integrated with U.S. forces. After the war, Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed the Rescission Act of 1946, which excluded that service from eligibility for certain U.S. military benefits. The act was enacted on the same day the United States granted independence to the Philippines on July 4, 1946, transferring responsibility for veterans’ affairs to the new Philippine government.
Also during World War II, the Office of Strategic Services provided arms and training to Vietnamese forces opposing Japanese occupation. In September 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnamese independence in Hanoi, drawing language from the U.S. Declaration of Independence. U.S. policy subsequently supported French efforts to reestablish control in Vietnam. Over the following decades, the United States provided military aid, advisers, and combat forces to the government of South Vietnam. In 1973, the United States and North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords. Two years later, U.S. forces completed their withdrawal from South Vietnam as North Vietnamese forces advanced.
Counterintelligence officer Stuart Herrington, who participated in the final evacuation from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in April 1975, later described assurances given to Vietnamese personnel on the embassy grounds. The evacuation proceeded by helicopter without accommodating all those present. In neighboring Cambodia, the U.S.-supported government fell in 1975. In Laos, Hmong forces that had cooperated with U.S. operations faced reduced support after 1975; some survivors remained displaced into the 2000s.
Before the 1956 uprising in Hungary, U.S. radio broadcasts and leaflets criticized the government and referenced the possibility of external support. János Rainer of the 1956 Institute Foundation has noted that these messages created expectations of assistance. Soviet forces suppressed the uprising, resulting in approximately 20,000 casualties and subsequent executions and imprisonments. Writer Tamás Aczél, who left Hungary that year, later observed that Western statements on liberation had not been matched by military action.
In 1961, the United States trained and equipped Cuban exiles for an operation at the Bay of Pigs. Participants had been told to expect air support and possible reinforcement. President John F. Kennedy canceled a second round of airstrikes. The landing force was defeated, and surviving personnel were captured. CIA operative Grayston Lynch later reported radio exchanges with U.S. Navy vessels that declined direct intervention under standing orders.
U.S. contacts with Kurdish groups date to the 1920s and continued through later decades. In the early 1970s, the United States coordinated with Iran to provide assistance to Kurdish forces in Iraq. After the arrangement ended, Iraqi government forces conducted operations against Kurdish areas. A subsequent congressional report described the operation as a limited effort without expectation of sustained commitment. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated that covert actions should not be equated with missionary work.
During the 1991 Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush publicly called on Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein. Shia populations in southern Iraq and Kurdish populations in northern Iraq initiated uprisings. Iraqi government forces suppressed both, with reported deaths reaching approximately 20,000 Kurds and up to 60,000 Shia. No direct U.S. military intervention occurred in those regions at that time.
After the 2003 Iraq war and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State, Kurdish-led forces participated in operations against that group between 2014 and 2017. In September 2017, a referendum in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq showed 93 percent support for independence. Iraqi federal forces, supported by Hashd al-Shaabi militias, later retook disputed territories including Kirkuk. The United States did not provide military assistance to the Kurdish side during that operation. In 2019, the United States withdrew forces from parts of northeastern Syria, after which Turkish military operations began in areas previously held by the Syrian Democratic Forces.
During the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of Afghan nationals worked with U.S. military, diplomatic, and contractor personnel. Following the 2021 withdrawal, many of those individuals faced uncertain status regarding relocation or protection.
These episodes illustrate repeated instances in which U.S. policy toward local partners changed in response to shifting strategic priorities, domestic legislation, or decisions by subsequent administrations. In each case, the groups involved had operated under earlier understandings of support that were later modified or ended.
Investigation Log · 35 steps
Starting investigation...
Investigating The Intercept
Investigating Nick Turse
Source: The Intercept
The Intercept is a nonprofit online news outlet launched in 2014 by First Look Media with $250 million pledged by Pierre Omidyar. It initially published Snowden documents, maintains English and Portuguese editions, and reported $5.6 million revenue in 2024. Co-founders Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras departed in 2020 amid controversies including the Juan M. Thompson fabrication scandal.
Source: Nick Turse
Nick Turse is an investigative journalist and historian with a PhD in sociomedical sciences from Columbia University (2005) and an MA from Rutgers University–Newark. He serves as senior reporter at The Intercept covering national security and foreign policy, associate editor/research director at TomDispatch, and has written for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Harper’s, The Guardian, and Vice. His work draws on declassified Pentagon records, veteran interviews, and field reporting, earning awards including the Ridenhour Prize, Guggenheim Fellowship, and Pulitzer Center grants.
Searching for "Oneida Nation land loss after Revolutionary War acres"
Verify claim about Oneida homelands reduced from 5-6 million to 32 acres.
Searching for "Lenape treaty with US Revolutionary War White Eyes death Gnadenhutten"
Verify Lenape alliance and massacre details.
Searching for "Filipino WWII veterans Rescission Act 1946 benefits denied"
Confirm Rescission Act impact on Filipino service members.
Searching for "US betrayal of Kurds historical instances"
Verify the pattern of US-Kurdish alliances and abandonments cited.
Searching for "Hungary 1956 uprising CIA leaflets US support promise"
Check accuracy of US role in encouraging Hungarian revolt.
Searching for "Bay of Pigs invasion CIA promises air cover Kennedy cancellation"
Confirm details on promises made to Cuban exiles.
Searching for "Ho Chi Minh OSS support 1945 Vietnam independence"
Verify US/OSS role with Ho Chi Minh during WWII.
Cherry-Picking
Selected only negative historical examples of US alliances (Oneida, Lenape, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Hungarians, Cubans, Kurds) while omitting any instances where the US honored commitments or succeeded in alliances.
Creates impression of unbroken pattern of treachery rather than complex mix of successes and failures typical of great-power diplomacy.
Framing
Opens with Trump Iran comments then immediately equates them to centuries of US policy as "grand American tradition" of betrayal.
Uses contemporary partisan example to retroactively color all prior US actions with same moral judgment.
Omission
Omits that many cited groups (e.g., Native tribes, Kurds) were also engaged in complex multi-party conflicts with their own strategic calculations, not passive victims solely of US perfidy.
Simplifies agency and reduces historical actors to props in US-betrayal narrative.
Missing Context
The Rescission Act of 1946 was passed in the context of granting Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, shifting responsibility for veterans to the new sovereign nation.
Provides the policy rationale and legal context for the benefit denial rather than pure betrayal.
Writing analysis narrative
Writing verdict summary
Writing neutral rewrite
Investigation complete. Preparing report...
Analysis narrative ready
Neutral rewrite ready
**Investigation complete.** The article's core historical claims (Oneida land loss, Lenape treaty/massacre, Rescission Act, OSS-Ho Chi Minh contact, Bay of Pigs promises, Hungary 1956 leaflets, repeated Kurdish abandonments) are factually supported by primary records and scholarship. However, the piece systematically frames these as an unbroken "grand American tradition" of betrayal. **Key findings recorded:** - Cherry-picking: Only negative alliance outcomes presented across 250+ years; no counter-examples of honored commitments. - Framing: Trump Iran comments used to retroactively paint all US history as treachery. - Omission: Diplomatic/legal context (e.g., Philippine independence rationale for Rescission Act) and multi-party conflict dynamics left out. **Verdict:** F (propaganda grade). Main device: Cherry-picked history. Archetype: Isolationist historical revisionist. The narrative prioritizes a monolithic betrayal thesis over balanced diplomatic history.
The Compass
You see how this outlet sees the world.
How do you see it? Find your political shape in a few minutes.
Take the testOr check your own article