Condi's Phony History

Slate ^ | 8/29/03 | Daniel Benjamin

[Burkeman1]

See no evil, hear no evil . . . but trust in govinment (as long as the big Chief says he is a Republican and Christian)? Is that it? No questions, ever? Is to question Bush the actions of a traitor? Is to question our President on any issue in a time of war an act of treason?

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[ClancyJ]

The sad thing is that I will have to vote for Bush over the Democratic alterantive.

You don't have to vote for Bush. Join the dems. Appears you agree with them.

[Burkeman1]

Uh- no- it appears even Dean now says he will stay in Iraq "for the long term". Funny - how Neocons and the Left seem to agree on that. Maybe one day in Baghdad they can have open homosexual bars and stripper clubs in neon lights with a Burger King on the corner but the Koran will be banned from the schools or any mention of God- just like in America.

[ClancyJ]

Just where do you think Bush is lying? You don't believe we need to fight? You don't like tax cuts? You don't agree with his trying to protect Americans here?

Weird how you can find such utter hate and disrespect for a man who has protected this nation, took the battle to the terrorists instead of allowing them to fight over here.

I would think you would be looking for a good man, a truthful man to vote into office.

I find that I like Bush, I trust Bush, and I respect Bush. Now just why in the world would I need to rant and rave about him, and attempt to find somebody else?

If you don't like him - fine. But, I do, I agree with this man and his aims to put America first. I see the uphill battles he has in trying to protect America. I don't believe any of that junk that the dems throw around trying to taint him.

Yet, so many cannot stand to see any that like Bush. I am reminded of the reaction vampires have with the sight of a cross. What is your problem. Is it your goal to run people away from Bush so that you can have this site to support something else, is your goal to moan and groan because there is no libertarian or perfect conservative to elect, or is it your goal to just try and make people hate Bush?

Are you an underground du rep trolling this site to put negatives all through it about Bush? To plant seeds of distrust?

Well - it will not work because too many people see this man for what he is and we like what we see running this government and leading the fight against the terrorists and the dems.

[ClancyJ]

So?

Your point is......?

[Burkeman1]

So funny. Thanks- I needed that!

[ClancyJ]

call the DOD and ask for a list of combat casualties due to "resistance" in Germany after the war? Tell me what you find

Why? So what?

[John Valentine]

ANYBODY that worked for Clinton has the stink of him on them, and must be held to a higher standard of accountability, proof, integety, you name it, forever.

They must exist under the weight of distrust and suspicion for the rest of their lives and they must be made to know it.

They must be made to pay a social price for their support of a violent and predatory criminal in the Oval Office.

[secretagent]

Thanks for the info on Dobbin's, and noting your reason for doubting him.

I found this quote from a LA Times article reproduced at a Yahoo message board:

"The Werewolves existed more in the idea or the fantasy stage than ever as a real phenomenon," said Lt. Col. Kevin Farrell, a historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

The Werewolves were founded in September 1944 by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who saw them as a special force that would work behind U.S. lines to sabotage equipment and kill U.S. troops. About 5,000 SS officers were trained as Werewolves.

But according to Perry Biddiscombe, a historian of postwar Germany who wrote a 1998 book on the Werewolves, the force was designed only to assist the German army in winning the war. It was not created to be an underground movement after a German defeat.

As a result, Biddiscombe said, Rice is correct that the Werewolves attacked U.S. troops — but the only documented assaults took place before the Nazis capitulated on May 7, 1945.

"After the end of the war there's a lot more ambiguity," said Biddiscombe, who teaches European history at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

...snip...

For the first month or two after the Nazis' surrender, there were about the same number of sabotage and sniper attacks in Germany as in postwar Iraq. But in Germany, such attacks dropped off after June 1945, a month after the surrender, and for the rest of that year deaths of U.S. troops subsided to "tens," historians said.

"Certainly, there weren't American troops dying at the rate that they are in Iraq," Biddiscombe said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MewBkd/message/5601</a.

[secretagent]

#70 FYI

[Burkeman1]

I watch the History Channel nearly every day and never miss a new broadcast. Could you name for me the piece in which you saw American soldiers from that war, on camera, saying that they witnessed their comrades in arms being killed by Nazi partisans after the formal end of the war?

[secretagent]

oops - the link in #70 worked but the link url reads: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MewBkd/message/5601

[Burkeman1]

Post the full article.

[secretagent]

Can't post the full article.

Remember the FR rule on the LA Times, Washington Post, and their subsidiaries stemming from their lawsuit settlement with FR: Only small portions quotable.

[Burkeman1]

Geesh- your right- sorry.

[secretagent]

No problem.

[ozzymandus]

Slate is leftist propaganda, so what did you expect? If you agree with this article, you aren't too bright. Then again, that's the type of voter the RATs want.

[Peach]

You mean the Title of the History Channel show? Get real.

My husband and I watched it, probably six weeks ago. The soldiers discussed in detail how US and allied soldiers were killed by Hitler sympathizers. They discussed the ways they worked around the sympathizers. The last soldier killed was 1949.

If you prefer to think I'm lying, nothing I can say will change your mind.

[Peach]

And, by the way, the History Channel is on during the daytime, early evening and all night long. Unless you are retired and ONLY watch the History Channel all day long, it would be entirely possible to miss one hour.

My husband and I watch is often and have been commenting in recent weeks we are so glad they have FINALLY made some new shows.