In search of Lee Harvey Oswald. Hey, airbrushing history, often wholesale, is what leftists do. Stalin was famous for it.
10 thoughts on “Airbrushing History”
Comments are closed.
In search of Lee Harvey Oswald. Hey, airbrushing history, often wholesale, is what leftists do. Stalin was famous for it.
Comments are closed.
Hmm. My only thought on her post so far is: “while people were busy bitching about ‘right wing vitriol’, or whatever they called it in those days, ‘silly little communists’ were enslaving and killing millions.”
But you know, some people want to keep their money instead of having it go to Washington to pay off senatorial favors, oops I mean buy puppies for poor children. Oh, the vitriol!
Me, I’m just tired of “liberal” clinging to outmoded ideas. Wake up and smell the gunpowder, libbies; I did. Or is that too violent?
One of the cable networks that brings us what PBS claims only it could (and doesn’t) had a story about the Secret Service and particularly the agents that served to protect JFK. In that story, they mentioned the same stuff “Violet Socks” makes. When they travelled into Dallas, they had heightened concerns because the town politically was hostile to JFK. Nobody was particularly surprised that an assination attempt was made there (though, of course, the Secret Service was trying and failed to keep it from being successful). What they were surprised to discover was that the gunman had nothing to do with the concerns they had going in. Indeed the investigation was complicated because of the original misconceptions.
Apparently, nothing has changed.
What they were surprised to discover was that the gunman had nothing to do with the concerns they had going in. Indeed the investigation was complicated because of the original misconceptions.
If the Press were covering the story today, they’d end up saying something like with the Duke lacross “rape” case: “The narrative was right but the facts were wrong.”
That is, they’d say it if they could bring themselves to admit they were wrong.
As they say at the NYT, “Fake but accurate.”
As they say at the NYT, “Fake but accurate.”
I think that was CBS News after they tried to foist those forged documents a few weeks before the 2004 election. Of course, the NYT may have also said it.
Oh, come on. Hasn’t anyone seen the TRUE story of what happened in Dallas? I of course mean the movie a “JFK.” How can anyone argue with Oliver Stone?
How can anyone argue with Oliver Stone?
Arguing with the likes of Oliver Stone is like mud wrestling a pig – you both end up dirty but the pig enjoys it.
The fundamental issue is the framework of thought in the brain. The reason Oswald can be left out of a story where he is arguably the main character is because it doesn’t fit into that framework.
The left is about projection. Their framework doesn’t allow self doubt. If all wackos everywhere without exception were left wing, they’d still project them all to be right wing. They are incapable of anything else.
They must be dealt with as the mentally defective children they are. Adults deal with self doubt and reality. These children don’t but like many children they are relentless, “Mommy can I? Daddy? Mommy? It’s his fault! I did not! No, you’re the liar! Can I? Please. Please. Can I?”
“Aw right, shuddup already. Here’s some money. You can have your PBS. Go away.”
I found it interesting he didn’t mention his own father, who was also assassinated and after whom he was named. Wasn’t there vitriolic political rhetoric (and actual political violence) at the time of RFK’s assassination too?
Hasn’t anyone seen the TRUE story of what happened in Dallas?
There are explanations for many tastes, both conspiratorial and nonconspiratorial…