After reading the piece about Fort Hunt in today’s WaPo, I’m going to propose a new rule for wingnuts: All efforts to recruit the historical legacy of the “greatest generation” to amplify the significance of the War on Terra should henceforth avoid conversations with actual representatives of that generation. Otherwise, if you’re the sort of […]
Category: wingnut butchery of history
If he weren’t merely fulfilling one of the emptiest of right-wing obligations for seeking the presidency, I’d have to nominate this as about the most objectively ahistorical thing I’
Peter Rodman: Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the prospects for South Vietnam鈥
More squirrel bait regarding the American war in Vietnam, today from Peter Rodman, whose ongoing devotion to Henry Kissinger — his first boss — is touching if nothing else: Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the […]
I suppose it’s comforting to see the President continues to know fuck-all about the American war in Vietnam. On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Fore
So Dean Barnett is speaking in tongues again: In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone. Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boome
I think Rob gets credit for coining one of my favorite LG&M tags — “wingnut butchery of history” — a phrase that aptly summarizes aptly describes the subject of David Halberstam’s posthumous Vanity Fair article, “The History Boys.” (h/t Ralph Luker). [NOTE: Sorry for the ambiguity in the original sentence . . . ] There, […]
Nearly everything worth saying about this week’s Parents Involved decision has probably already been covered in previous threads (and elsewhere), but I want to highlight one piece of relevant hi
Peter Rodman and William Shawcross had an op-ed in the New York Times on Thursday that was staggeringly mendacious even for neo-conservatives. First, we have the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer defense, which
This doesn’t make a goddamned bit of sense: You know, if we had been firm in 1979, [Iran] wouldn’t think they could get away with these kinds of threats. If we responded firmly now, we’d get less of that in the future. But we probably won’t, because our political culture makes a firm response to […]
( . . . for anyone who thought this post title was clever, it was — when Scott first used it back in November . . . My bad!) The laughing-stock of the historical profession is at it again. Berna
.jpg "Imperial Nostalgia")
“Holy shit” doesn’t quite describe this piece in McKristol’s Quarterly Concern, wherein the author not only fails to spell Thomas Hobbes’ name correctly even once, but al