By Username
Enter a URL of an MRSS feed

The Washington Post did a hit piece on Bill O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln, and of course within a matter of minutes the slimes at the Huffington Post picked it up and put it up as a leading story almost all day Sunday. The reason I know this is because I have the sleaze-ball Huffington Post as one of my "news" sources on my home page. I do this because if you don't know what your enemies are doing, then they will some day take you by surprise. As I read the piece on the Huffington Post, (piece of what, I think you know), I knew that there must be more to the story, but even without knowing that there was more, there was even less. They stated that there was a plethora of "factual inaccuracies" in the book. So I surmised from that that there were more than two, that there were more than a few, and in fact that there were a very large amount of factual inaccuracies, or that is what they wanted me and others to think. But as we have now found out, there were four factual mistakes and two typo errors. I do not believe that consists of a plethora of factual inaccuracies. But then again, this was reported by the Washington Post and the Huffington Post. So of course they used it for all it was worth, which in the end was not very much. I wonder if one could say that the article by the Washington Post contained a plethora of factual Inaccuracies. jbranstetter04