MS NOW⁠95%

The Pentagon can honor our military dead this Memorial Day by committing to fight the right way ⁠95%

By Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.)⁠0%

5/25/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 40 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Indoctrination, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.9% saturation with 542 hits. Analysis detected 3,623 faulty-reasoning hits from 952 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,208 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

On this Memorial Day, we should take stock that the U.S. military remains one of the most respected public institutions in America. 
And for good reason. 
Our military has strived mightily since its Vietnam War nadir to foster professionalism grounded on honor and implemented programs to help ensure that the American way of fighting comports with the law of war and American values to the greatest extent possible. 
The Pentagon should honor service members who have paid the ultimate sacrifice this Memorial Day by recommitting to the American way of fighting. 
It should pay tribute to the fallen by reinforcing moral integrity for those currently serving. 
The U.S. military remains one of the most respected public institutions in America. 
One tangible way our military and civilian leaders can do this is by firmly and quickly owning the mistakes that have killed or injured civilians in our war in Iran. 
Prompt and transparent investigations should lead to lessons in how to avoid future tragedies and assure those in uniform, the American public and our country’s allies that our military operations comport with U.S. values and the law. 
This is not a hypothetical plea. 
A U.S. missile strike killed almost 200 Iranian girls and their teachers on the first day of the war, and there has been no formal U.S. acknowledgment, explanation or apology to date. 
There are also credible allegations, reportedly verified by The New York Times, that the U.S. has struck 22 civilian schools and medical facilities in Iran. 
President Donald Trump’s Pentagon has systematically dismantled the “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response” program, a comprehensive effort to mitigate civilian deaths and injuries caused by U.S. military operations. 
A recent Department of Defense internal report found the gutted program is both ineffective and legally noncompliant. 
President Trump has also repeatedly threatened to commit war crimes that would severely harm Iranian civilians, such as destroying all Iranian power plants. 
One would hope that our senior military leaders would come out to strongly state that’s not how the U.S. military wages war. 
Yet when Adm. 
Brad Cooper, the U.S. 
Central Command commander responsible for combat operations in Iran, testified on Capitol Hill this month, his words and demeanor did not give the American people or our service members confidence that military operations are being conducted according to the law and American values. 
When Sen. 
Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., citing the above-mentioned Times report, asked Adm. 
Cooper, “How do you explain the publicly available information that 22 schools have been hit and multiple hospitals?” 
he responded, “There’s no way we can corroborate that. 
No indication of that whatsoever.” 
The law and our values require that our military do its best not to destroy schools and hospitals, and that our military professionals do everything feasible to avoid killing innocent Iranian civilians and investigate claims that innocents have been harmed. 
But despite estimates that more than 1,700 Iranian civilians have been killed and detailed reports of more than 20 strikes on specific schools and medical facilities, Adm. 
Cooper told Congress that there’s only “one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions” — the Feb. 
28 U.S. 
Tomahawk strike of the girls’ school in Minab. 
The law and our values require that our military professionals do everything feasible to avoid killing innocent civilians and investigate claims that innocents have been harmed. 
Given that the highly capable U.S. military with its vast intelligence resources reports exact numbers of Iranian missile launchers destroyed in the Iran war, it should be easy for the military to quickly determine if it struck other hospitals and schools. 
U.S. 
Central Command’s own targeting assessment processes include post-strike battle damage assessments. 
Adm. 
Cooper acknowledged that he had not investigated specific claims of civilian outside the “complex” investigation into the strike on the girls’ school mentioned above, but to his credit, he pledged to investigate all such claims of civilian harm, with transparency. 
He should have already done so. 
But a good way to move forward would be to restore the personnel in his command dedicated to mitigating civilian harm back to their positions. 
As the Memorial Day weekend kicks off, it’s worth noting that the transformation of U.S. military culture after Vietnam was not one of superficial legal compliance but of ethos. 
A culture was built in which service members take pride in following the law, a culture that recognizes that real warriors risk themselves to protect the innocent and exercise restraint. 
The U.S. military continues to learn that following laws America helped craft, such as doing everything feasible to minimize the effect of military operations on civilians, is key to operational legitimacy, contributes to strategic success and is central to the moral health of U.S. service members. 
It’s important in this moment that adherence to such a professional culture be reinforced by senior military leaders. 
If Adm. 
Cooper comes back to Congress with explanations for not only the strike that killed Iranian school girls and their teachers, but for all the reported incidents of civilian casualties he was asked about, with evidence that processes and personnel dedicated to preventing such tragedies have been restored, such a culture would seem to be back on track. 
U.S. service members deserve to know that the processes that help ensure they aren’t part of an operation that bombs schools or hospitals are back in place and that their senior leaders are dedicated to minimizing civilian harm in war. 
Such reassurance and restoration would honor them, as well as those who have sacrificed everything in this war and wars past. 
A toast of gratitude and remembrance to all the fallen this Memorial Day. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 4.4%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 1.9%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.2%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 8.5%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.9%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 7.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.0%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.6%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.3%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.6%This article: 6.1%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias6.1%This article: 20.8%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 7.8%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 5.8%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion5.8%This article: 6.3%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 2.6%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.3%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 15.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 3.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias15.2%This article: 5.7%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.5%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 25.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 10.7%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias25.2%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 4.5%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 3.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.6%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 5.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 8.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 4.3%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.3%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 4.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 15.5%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 3.8%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma15.5%This article: 2.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.8%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope2.4%This article: 1.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.2%This article: 12.1%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 5.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.6%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 16.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion29.6%This article: 9.6%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question9.6%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.3%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.3%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof15.3%This article: 4.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.5%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.2%This article: 4.8%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division4.8%This article: 3.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.5%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.4%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.5%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.7%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground6.0%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading4.2%This article: 0.0%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 1.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.3%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.0%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.3%This article: 56.9%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 23.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice56.9%This article: 28.9%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 12.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination28.9%This article: 2.6%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 2.9%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 2.9%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.9%This article: 3.2%Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham (ret.): 0.7%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

952 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.4%attributed speech920writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 18 words • 100.0% coverageBrad Cooper • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Cooper • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kirsten Gillibrand

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words56% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+95.3 ptsWriter: 4.7%Kirsten Gillibrand: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-58.9 ptsWriter: 58.9%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-29.9 ptsWriter: 29.9%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.3 ptsWriter: 0.3%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.