Posted on 07/05/2018 9:18:10 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
My understanding is that when Federal agents seized the book, it was whole. No missing pages. Boothe was dead, so he didn't rip any out.
Somehow while in Federal custody, someone ripped out a whole lot of pages from that diary.
None that you would believe. Stick with your conspiracy theories.
I believe the Boothe affair was designated by the government to be a factual "conspiracy", not a theory.
But you can go on believing it's just a theory if you wish. You seem to do that with other real world provable facts.
You also believe that biographers set out to trash their subject, so I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between your beliefs and "X-File"-level conspiracy theories
Ward Hill Lamon anyone? Didn't you say all the biographers said he was a braggart and a liar or something?
Sounds like you believe biographers will trash their subjects too.
I know you do. We've had this conversation before. The truth is out there and all the rest.
I’m not disputing that he had a duty and that is why he was in that place. I’m only repeating what I’ve read in one the Brady-Tim Sullivan books that I own. One can only depend on what one reads because I wasn’t actually there to witness it despite being one of the long time freepers here.
Of course, some biographers set out to trash some subjects - anyone who enjoys bios of George Armstrong Custer knows that. And some biographers love their subjects. One of the reasons one must read a variety of books to get a handle on the subject. Lately, I’ve been sticking to first-hand accounts and completely skipping some modern biographers.
Hope you had a happy 4th!
I didn't think the idea was at all controversial. Didn't Kitty Kelly trash Nancy Reagan? Of course Biographers often have an agenda!
Hope you had a happy 4th!
I did, and I hope you had a happy 4th as well! Still the best country in the world! :)
Yes, indeed it is the best country!
No, negative bios and history books are not a controversial or new idea at all. I never understood why a writer wanted to spend years researching someone they disliked - unless it was someone of major consequence like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I remember when Kelly’s bio made the front pages of The New York Times - that’s when I knew the paper was starting to sink irretrievably.
Bookmark
I was unaware of media bias until 1992 when I saw them deliberately manipulating the news to make it look like the economy was in shambles just to damage George HW Bush. That's when I realized they were attempting to manipulate the election, and I have noticed this attempted election meddling ever since.
I suppose you’re younger than me. I noticed it around Nixon! LOL!
I'm old enough to remember Nixon, but my commentary at the time would have been more along the lines of "Mommy, why are all those people picking on the President? " :)
I remember voting for Nixon in my "Weekly Reader" poll. :)
Yes, Nixon got a very raw deal by the Democrat Media Weapon. Obama did extreme abuse of power, and the media covered up all of his wrong doing. Had they treated him like Nixon, he would already be in prison.
My first vote should have been for Nixon. I sat it out being very a-political at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.