Saturday, May 10, 2008

Who you gonna call? NEWS BUSTERS!

We here at TRS found a great site this morning, News Busters. The Busters analyze the news for liberal bias or misstatement. This morning they have a great display of the Drama’s historical deficiencies.

As the Iranian back Hezbollah terror organization launches another civil war in Lebanon, with Iranian backing of course, the first class folks over at News Busters have caught the Drama in a major misstatement about objective American history.

In an attempt to buttress his childlike positions that strong nations negotiate with their enemies as a sort of historical premise, the Drama claimed that FDR, Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy were known for talking with their enemies.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. FDR pursued a no negotiations other than unconditional surrender in WW2. Harry Truman never negotiated with the Soviets, nor even the Chinese or North Koreans personally. Like GWB, FDR knew our friends, and you won't find too many pictures of FDR with Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini or Hideki Tojo.

As for Kennedy’s limited contact with Khrushchev, well let us say that virtually no historian, including Kennedy himself, thought the Vienna summit worked to the American advantage upon its completion.

Obama is engaging in the kind of historical revision that liberals routinely employ in making arguments to the public. More dangerously, this false history is what our children learn in the failing government schools, where liberal indoctrination has replaced real education.


Anonymous said...

Drama got his information from the NEA issued history textbooks. They don't teach real history anymore ya know. They teach history as they wished it had occurred.

Thus, Drama's "informed" opinion.

Art A Layman said...


Let us not forget that Roosevelt conversed at great lengths with Stalin when he and Churchill both knew Stalin was more enemy than friend.

Then there's Truman talking to MacArthur when Harry was of the opinion that MacArthur was an enemy.

Just a couple updates for ya.

KenRichards said...

"Well, hello Mr. Helper" - Sam Kinison (Back to School)

Art, conversations between President Truman and US Theater Commander/UN Commander in the person of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur could hardly be considered equal to a future US President sitting down for tea with a Rogue State leader such as Kim Jong or take your pick of Islamofascist leaders all of whom openly call for the destruction of the United States and Israel.

Moreover, it turns out Roosevelt misread Stalin and did not regard him as an enemy at all. Art, it seems your updates are filled with falsehoods designed to justify the incredibly stupid statements and actions of Democratic leaders seeking audiences with those sworn to kill Americans. Perhaps you should read a little history before making outlandishly silly pronouncements. History lesson over Mr. Helper.

RF said...

For all the bitching and moaning about D/liberal domination in education (referenced here and in many comments on TRS), why don't conservatives run for school boards and vote for the kinds of candidates they want on the boards? Don't conservatives care about their kids' schools enough to get involved? I care, and that's why I'm involved in my school district's affairs.

Anonymous said...

If liberals dominate the news media, how can it be that a British newspaper has said the top 50 influential pundits are overwhelmingly not liberals?
1. Karl Rove
2. Chris Matthews
3. Sean Hannity
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. John Harris And Jim Vandehei
6. Matt Drudge
7. Tim Russert
8. Jon Stewart
9. David Brooks
10. Mark Halperin
11. Stephen Colbert
12. Bill O'Reilly
13. Keith Olbermann
14. Chuck Todd
15. Bill Maher
16. Glenn Beck
17. Andrew Sullivan
18. Frank Luntz
19. Donna Brazile
20. Joe Klein
21. David Gergen
22. Dick Morris
23. Mike Allen
24. Laura Ingraham
25. Michael Savage
26. Arianna Huffington
27. Pat Buchanan
28. James Carville
29. Ron Fournier
30. Peggy Noonan
31. Juan Williams
32. William Kristol
33. Roland Martin
34. Howard Kurtz
35. Joe Trippi
36. Newt Gingrich
37. Eugene Robinson
38. Michael Barone
39. Dee Dee Myers
40. Tony Snow
41. Mark Shields
42. Bill Bennett
43. Paul Begala
44. Jeffrey Toobin
45. Fred Barnes
46. Mark Levin
47. JC Watts
48. Paul Krugman
49. Mary Matalin
50. Rachel Maddow

---------Spotlight wonders

Art A Layman said...


You really do need to get a life. Jesus I was just havin a little fun. Take the damn socks out of your jock strap and loosen up a little.

KenRichards said...

No worries,

I agree that I need to have a little more fun in my life and once I retire I will make up for a lot of lost time on the beach.

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking or just a bunch of retired guys drinking coffee at McDonalds helping you form historical opinions but the facts in books contradict your conclusions a great deal of the time.

If you didn't attack TRS with such false logic I would not be inclined to expose you so often.

Art A Layman said...


I have yet to see any "facts in books" that contradict my conclusions posted here. I see a lot of "opinions" of facts posted here that I find lacking in good sense and logic.

While not perfect, most of my logic is sound, not false, and sporie has often, in replies to me and others, proven far from a bastion of sound logic. You are often even further from that standard. I fail to recall where you have "exposed" me at all, let alone often.

One has to presume that sporie did not expect his blog to be nothing more than a testament to his inerrancy. I'm sure that he revels in the applause from his followers but the inanity and inconsistency of many of his posts pleads for a voice of reason to respond. I am but one of many of those voices.

Your motherly instincts for defending and protecting sporie are often curious. He seems quite capable of handling the many attacks he receives here all by himself; notwithstanding that his responses are often illogical, emotional ranting.

I have suggested before that you and sporie and others posting here should not take yourselves so seriously. Positing opinions, often sprinkled with a little history, some of it revisionist, attempting to make your opinions appear more valid and intellectual than they are, nets to merely opinions, not epiphanies.

KenRichards said...

OK, dill weed, ignoring your plethora of outlandish statements for the last five months and concentrating only on the statement you made in this thread you are 100% wrong in your OPINION that Roosevelt viewed Stalin as an enemy. Of course, your statement certainly had the ring of someone quoting a FACT and since you were called out you decided it sounded a lot better to call it an OPINION with a shifting baseline of validity test at your convenience.

Art wrote “Roosevelt conversed at great lengths with Stalin when he and Churchill both knew Stalin was more enemy than friend.”

Wikipedia wrote “Roosevelt asked for Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin demanded a Soviet sphere of political influence in Eastern Europe, as essential to the USSR's national security."

Since Roosevelt sought Soviet assistance invading Japan, China, Korea, and French Indo China, and didn’t resist Soviet designs for Eastern Europe we can deduce he either willingly accepted Soviet Expansion or viewed Stalin and the Soviets as our friends. There is no scenario, based on the agenda at Yalta, which demonstrates ever Roosevelt knowingly dealt with an enemy.

KenRichards said...

The internet and history books agree that Roosevelt did not consider Stalin and enemy. Yahoo answers has a great recap of the events which are entirely consistent with my statements and inconsistent with Art's.

"The Big Three" arrived for their summit conference in Yalta with very different agendas in mind. The end of the war in Europe was clearly only a matter of weeks away: Germany was on the point of collapse. But the war in the Pacific raged on, and although the Japanese were definitely losing, they remained far from beaten.

Stalin came to Yalta determined to use the Red Army to grab control of as much of Europe as possible, and to keep the territory thus gained in Russia's grip. Russia was not at war with Japan, and Stalin was not interested in the Pacific theatre of war.

Churchill came to Yalta deeply concerned at what had already happened in Poland following the arrival of the Red Army (the free Polish leaders had been arrested and/or executed, and Russian stooges had been installed in power), and seeking to set limits to further penetration by the Russians in Europe.

Roosevelt came to Yalta a very sick man: he was to die soon afterwards. He came suspicious of Churchill's motives for resisting Stalin, believing that Churchill was just an old-fashioned British imperialist. He came believing that he could use his charm to get "Uncle Joe" Stalin to be reasonable and friendly. He came willing to give the Russians what they wanted in Europe, as long as they would promise to help defeat Japan in the Far East. And he came with no way of knowing that several key officials in the US government, advisers who had helped prepare his briefing for Yalta, were actually communist agents.

Churchill had, in fact, got it right. He was perfectly correct to be suspicious of Stalin's intentions for the minor countries of Europe. But he got absolutely no support from Roosevelt. By now, Britain was by far the smallest of the Big Three allies in terms of its fighting strength. So Churchill was easily outvoted when Roosevelt sided with Stalin against him in arguments about the occupation of Eastern Europe.

Roosevelt got it as wrong as he possibly could. He completely misread Stalin's affability, completely underestimated the cunning and capacity to lie of the Monster from the Kremlin. He gave away the store in terms of spheres of influence in Europe, in exchange for a promise that the Russians would declare war on Japan as soon as Germany was defeated and the Red Army's fighting units could be moved to Siberia. The Russians did indeed keep that promise, but their attack on the Japanese made no difference to the outcome of the war in the Pacific. That was determined by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not by the Ruusian offensive in Manchuria.

The disagreements at Yalta were real and profound. But they were essentially between Churchill and Stalin+Roosevelt. So, with the best grace he could muster, but with profound misgivings, Churchill smiled and waved along with the other two.

And Eastern Europe's nightmare began.

KenRichards said...


Once again you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting!

The Real Sporer said...

Art your characterization of FDR's view of Stalin as an enemy is absurd.

You need to read some contemporary history regarding FDR's view of Stalin and the contemplatled future relationship with the socialist USSR and compare it to FDR's view of the British monarchial Empire, just for starters.

You need to identify some sources for the historical view that FDR viewed the USSR as an enemy.

Art A Layman said...


My! My!

You have gone to great lengths to disprove a statement that I have already said was posted in jest.

Just as your disregard for my Truman/MacArthur on the grounds that it was not analogous to Obama's declarations was indeed true, it is also the fact that the Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin analogy was just as misplaced. Stalin was an ally in the war. Notwithstanding Roosevelt's feelings about him, it was necessary for him to work with Stalin, especially when seeking help in the Pacific. That situation is not analogous to our talking with Iran, etc.

I am not quite as full of myself as you and sporie would seem to be with yourselves. Life is too short not to have a little fun along the way.

I had expected sporie might take the bait and carry on as you have done. Obviously he is brighter than you.

In your blank ledger of debate points with Art, go ahead and log an entry in your favor. An asterick might be appropriate however.

I am sorry that I forced you to spent valuable time reading Wikipedia; that completely accurate, voluminous fount of all that portends truth.

At least your fingers got some exercise. Next try exercises for the brain.

Art A Layman said...


Apparently I was wrong about sporie. Hmmmm. Two peas in a pod?

KenRichards said...

The, “I was joking defense” probably works less often than the insanity defense but thanks to Art, we have a living example of someone attempting it. Of course, a stand up guy willing to take one on the chin would admit his mistake and move on but not Art, he was just “joking.”

Therefore, everything Art writes should be viewed as jokes rather than facts or opinions. I love that defense we should all use it whenever possible. Let’s see how Art’s logic works in the real world.

"Your honor, I didn't rob the bank, I was just joking when I asked the teller for all the money."


"Excuse me Mr. Pitt Boss; can I have my money back? I was just joking when I put all my money on the hard double down before it busted 22."

So it turns out there are many applications for Art's logic and in the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson, "probably pretty good advice if you have shit for brains."

Art A Layman said...


Is that similar to the defense of, "but your honor, I knew she was a 70 year old woman when I hit her but she propositioned me."

Since both my presentations were far from comparable to sporie's proposition in his post, does it not follow that they were not meant as serious argument?

Now, of course, that would presume some semblance of logical ability on the part of the reader. I would not have expected you to comprehend the satire.

Since you have never exhibited the ability to win an argument with me, I can understand your euphoria upon reading my dissemblings and rushing to Wikipedia to compile your data to finally get a leg up. Your ecstacy got in the way of your good sense (damn, you and good sense is a stretch) and the inanity and incongruity of my comparisons went right over your head (ideas going over your head is not a stretch).

Now, finding a little egg on your face, you must mock me rather than just admit you overeacted. It is the practice of simple minds. Believing that you have finally got me, the embarrassment of your overzealousness requires keeping the dream alive.

Lacking even the degree of intelligence I would have given you credit for, I would suggest you read all my posts carefully for I do, indeed, frequently pepper my posts with humor, satire and sarcasm.

KenRichards said...


Your claim that you were joking falls on deaf ears because I highly doubt you were joking about Stalin and Roosevelt. Your trivialization of MacArthur might be less than serious but given your extreme hatred of all Republicans it is far more likely you were serious about that one too.

Your post of 8:17 claimed your statements are generally logically and historically accurate. You even wrote that I have yet to expose any of your statements as false. For that reason I found citations for the rediculous statements you made about FDR and Stalin since evidence was required to back up my point.

You keep trying to turn the tables by arguing first that you have yet to be called out for a mistake and second that you were just joking all along. Finally, you claim I am unable to handle a joke and went overboard in my response.

All of the above are simply your pathetic efforts to avoid admitting you made a mistake while arguing liberal justifications for appeasement minded Democrats who believe we should talk to world leaders who openly seek our destruction.

Art A Layman said...


Had time to read your long post regarding Yalta, was busy this morning and had to rush through it.

At first glance it appears to be written from a perspective of someone of the Republican persuasion but that aside it fails totally to dispute what you maintain was my fallacious statement about Roosevelt regarding Stalin as an enemy.

At the outset let me admit that I am not well read or knowledgeable about the Tehran or Yalta meetings. I made my assertion, as I said, strictly to poke a little fun at sporie. It did make sense to me, given my limited knowledge, that Roosevelt would have known Stalin, though an ally, was not a friend. Roosevelt's distrust or skepticism about Churchill is far better known.

When positing what you suggest is logical argument it is customary to premise facts which dispute your opponents assertions. The article you posted does not even come close to that standard. It goes to great lengths to present Roosevelt as a fool or an idiot but does not reference whether he considered Stalin a friend or foe.

Politics, as we all know, makes for strange bedfellows. War engages those bedfellows in a virtual sex act and it is up to history to explain to us, who was making love to whom.

It is interesting that the article you posted fails to mention the other major effort of Roosevelt at Yalta and that was getting Stalin to sign on to the UN charter as envisioned by Roosevelt. Stalin did in fact do that. Roosevelt and Churchill were also successful in getting Stalin to sign the Declaration on Liberated Europe which was viewed as a major mistake made by Stalin:

Whatever history's final judgment on FDR's policy toward the USSR, it is only fair to point out that Stalin himself was not error-free either at Yalta or in his general approach to the West. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has observed: "Signing the Declaration [on Liberated Europe] was from the Soviet point of view a grave diplomatic blunder. . . because the Declaration laid down standards for Eastern Europe, and Stalin's subsequent violation of these standards exposed him, once the club was out of the closet, to persuasive charges of bad faith and of breaking the Yalta accords."33 Many years after Yalta, Molotov told a Russian biographer that he had warned Stalin at the time that the American draft was "going too far." According to Molotov, Stalin responded, "Don't worry. . . work it out. We can deal with it in our own way later."34

Further Roosevelt stated in 1940:

In a speech in February 1940 to representatives of the American Youth Congress, he asserted: "The Soviet Union, as everybody who has the courage to face the facts knows, is run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world. It has allied itself with another dictatorship [i.e., with Hitler's Germany], and it has invaded a neighbor. . .infinitesimally small" [i.e. Finland]. Earlier, at the time of Stalin's invasion of Finland at the end of November 1939, FDR had privately expressed dismay and remarked: "No human being can tell what the Russians are going to do next.''1

Both of these quotes can be found at:

That there may be differences of opinion in historical perspectives regarding motivations, actions and relationships between powerful parties is well known. The true feelings and the necessities of give and take are left for historians to sort out and provide us with varied analyses, usually without a definitve answer.

The point of all this is not to all of the sudden justify my original statement. It was, as I have stated ad nauseum, merely an attempt at humor hoping to elicit a long tirade. My expectations were greatly exceeded. The other point is to suggest that one should be careful in what they spout as absolute truth.

I find I must appeal to your military honor and request that you remove the debit you had placed against my account in your ledger of blog victories.

KenRichards said...

I am not after victories I am simply pointing out you're shoveling BS whenever possible hoping to smear Republicans and TRS and your understanding of history is not all that great.

Art A Layman said...


Once in awhile take off your polarized political blinders and realize that all is not about hatred of one side or another. Do I disagree with conservatives? You bet your life! Do I often have disdain for their peevish, whining assertions? Take it to the bank! Do I enjoy having fun with them? It is a certainty!

Do I hate them? Not on your life! I don't hate anybody, Dumbya comes awfully close though.

If you were to compare my original post to sporie's assertions you would see that the situations are nowhere near analogous. I know it. sporie knows it, sort of. You recognized it in the Truman analogy. That you failed to see it in the Roosevelt analogy speaks to your first inclination: First, take no "liberal" prisoners!

KenRichards said...


You finally got one thing right when you wrote take no prisoners but you got it wrong as to the target. I don't hate liberals despite my OPINION they are misguided and self-destructive rather I hate our enemies who seek to kill us. Liberals get in the way of good sound policy when they line up with our enemies at every opportunity for the sake of political gain. Fortunately for liberals we're still killing our enemies, which is exactly what we should be doing to them, so our enemies are not strong enough to harm the US. Unfortunately for America the liberals are gaining just enough strength to possibly reverse the country's course in the War on Terror and hand victory to a defeated enemy.

Terri said...

I love NewsBusters. I've been commenting there for over a year. It is a great place to get information. Glad you found it. Hopefully you will get an account and join the fun.

Anonymous said...

way to go, terri!

you got the last word on this blog!


Amazon Bookstore