[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you for your letter to the Washington Post.

The next poster has it right. Douglas Brinkley is a biased historian. On the other hand, it is bad for any historian to put in print any statement that can be proven to be false. Witness the anti-gun historian from Vanderbilt who lost both his reputation and position for such a fault.

And Binkley would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to realize that every word he writes about Kerry and Cambodia will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Kerry may want Brinkley to write a CYA article in the New Yorker, but Brinkley may not want to throw his career in the dumper for the benefit of Kerry.

It is always wise to backtrack when any politician backtracks. What are the real reasons, not the stated reasons, for such an action?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Says the Wuss: Ma, He's Touching Me"

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[Bonaparte]

"Witness the anti-gun historian from Vanderbilt who lost both his reputation and position for such a fault."
_________________________________________________________________

Will you settle for Emory? ;-)

Michael Bellesiles (the "Fraud") was a highly regarded historian at Emory University in 2000, when he published the book in its first edition with Vintage. The work's basic thesis was that early Americans were far less dependent upon, skillful with, and inclined to use firearms than the NRA would have you believe. The book's evidence was thrown into question, the author shamed, and publication discontinued in 2003.

As more and more liberal academics are exposed as liars and frauds, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember who came from Emory, who came from Holyoke, who came from fill-in-the-blank. We probably need a super-computer that can handle a massive database for this.

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

"And Binkley would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid..."

Like the rest of the Kerry supporters?