O’Reilly: There's no difference between Arianna Huffington and Goebbels

[DCUBED]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/01/bill-oreilly-stands-by-his-smear-of-arianna-huffington-theres-no-difference-between-her-and-goebbels/

Bill O’Reilly stands by his smear of Arianna Huffington: There’s no difference between her and Goebbels




BillO obviously is feeling some heat over his vile words the other day when he compared Hitler and the KKK to some anonymous commenter’s on the Huffington Post and attacking Arianna. In his perverted defense, he says that the use of propaganda by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews is an honest comparison to some idiots leaving comments on a blog.

[Dig]

There is becoming little difference between Arianna Huffington and Bill O'Reilly

[Dok]

What is the Least Credible History Book in Print?

We asked our reader community to send us their nominations for the least credible history books around, and the response was enormous (including an article in the New York Times)! From dozens and dozens of nominees, we've taken the top five most submitted.

What the Experts Say
The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson by David Barton
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo
1421: The Year China Discovered America by Gavin Menzies
Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

 

http://hnn.us/articles/what-least-credible-history-book-print

Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever
By Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard

“Killing Lincoln” ... resurrects an old canard debunked long ago by serious historians: that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was involved in the plot to kill Lincoln, in the hope that he might ascend to the presidency. There is no credible evidence to support such an assertion, nor do O’Reilly and Dugard provide any. (In fact, “Killing Lincoln” offers no direct citations for any of its assertions. In a three-page summary under the heading “Notes,” the authors assure readers that they have consulted “hundreds” of sources; they list the secondary sources they have relied on.)

-- Ellen Fitzpatrick, professor of history, University of New Hampshire [from the Washington Post]