wingnut butchery of history
I suppose you'd have to be one of the more deliberately uninformed assholes on the planet -- which is to say, you'd have to be Dan Riehl -- to make.
The problems with Bruce Bartlett's pseudo-historical WSJ piece are almost too numerous to contemplate. For starters, it's laughable for him to suggest -- as he evidently does in the subtitle.
Andrew Roberts in The Telegraph brushes the dust bunnies off the weak and overused Truman analogy to explain once again why the Bush administration -- which has been a perfectly.
Speaking of conservative histories, I'd be remiss in not mentioning A Patriot's History of the United States, a jaw-droppingly terrible book that would only appeal to readers who aren't literate.
Scott Johnson's book report about the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit offers yet another recitation of the completely uncontroversial point that the 1961 Vienna meetings did not go well for Kennedy. Johnson concludes.
Another McHistory lesson:“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in.
Red State wonders why Democrats are so stoopid:Of course, it could just be that the Democrats are clueless about the military. Someone should ask the Democrats if they think we're.
You really have to hand it to people like Jules Crittenden, who refuse to allow Dith Pran's near-total total silence on Iraq to deter their efforts to use Pran's death.