This is just another example of why we all need to be so thankful that we have outlets like Media Matters. Still today there are elements in the media that will rewrite and change history to suit the right wing agenda.

Not now , not ever, no revision of history allowed right wing!!!

Thank you MMFA for putting Sam Roberts on notice.

Once again, MMfA opens the doors and shows everyone the inside of MINITRU.

what is MINITRU ?

The Ministry of Truth, a la Orwell's 1984.

"it is time the ranks of the left acknowledge that the United States had (and has) real enemies and that finding and prosecuting them is not evidence of repression."

Who are these "ranks of the left"? The rest of the statement really begs the question: When have ranking members of the right (by this I mean McCarthy, Bush, etc.) ever found or prosecuted the "real enemies"? 

McCarthy tied up the government looking for communists in the military and all he found was a sympathizing army dentist.  Bush has detained thousands of people with no trial, dragged us into an endless war with a guy who didn't attack us, all  while the Taliban continues to become stronger in Afghanistan.

B.S. like that should always be challenged.  We should stand up and say, "no more of this". No more questioning our patriotism by trying to make us look like we stand in the way of "getting the terrorists".  In fact, anyone who unconditionally stands by Bush or tries to rewrite history sacrificing truth to reflect ideology should have their patriotism questioned.

The Venona transcripts clearly show that Julius Rosenberg had a code name. He was a Soviet spy. He was guilty. Period.

Case closed: The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies (LAT, 9/17/08)

Why is left so hell-bent on trying to dishonestly re-write history on unflattering moments from their past?

--- The Rosenberg were spies.

--- Gov. Casey was banned from speaking because he wanted to deliver a pro-life speech at the 1992 DNC convention. ("The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and the 1992 DNC Convention")

--- Oreo cookies were passed out to mock Michael Steele at the 2002 Maryland debate. ("Michael Steele Oreo Incident Eyewitness Report")

Yet MM and others on the left are on a dishonest mission to re-write these episodes. Why?

The Rosenberg were spies.

Them was? Really?

Ethel's only offense was being married to Julius.

By the way, you have a code name here on MMfA, also. It's "Uninformed Liar."

<yawn!> Look who's back trying to rewrite history again...

Your other two stories about Casey and Steele are also bald-faced lies, debunked many times.

But facts are never an issue when shoes89 AKA "Uninformed Liar" takes to the keyboard.

I just read your "Oreos" link. Kevin Martin is a well-known liar, and his statement about  Oreo cookies "as a means of intimidation" is laugh-out-loud ludicrous.

One lying "eyewitness" does not a truthful observation make.

Easy,

Although the Oreo story is off topic, I'm interested in why you say Kevin Martin is a well known liar? I am not familiar with him. Do you have any examples?  Thanks.

Um, I think MMFA's writers documented pretty exhaustively that Casey might have been denied a speech not just because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate, but also because he wanted to deliver a speech that was only about Casey's pro-life philosophy. So I must admit I haven't even clicked on your link, because when you say "because he wanted to deliver a pro-life speech," you're not really disagreeing with, for instance, what Jamison Foser wrote.

What MMFA has repeatedly pointed out is that the false claim frequently advanced is that Casey was denied a speech "because he was pro-life." Now, please study those two quotations for a moment, because there's a subtle difference, but an important one: 1) "because he was pro-life," and 2) "because he wanted to deliver a pro-life speech." Can you see the difference? It's hard to pick out, but here's a clue: in item one (the falsehood) it's Casey himself who is pro-life, and in item two (the possibly partly correct one) it's because his speech is pro-life. Obviously, if the first item were true, it would be a little more "unflattering" than the second one.

I have to say, as a member of the left, and, I'll even admit, of the Democratic Party, I'm not especially hell-bent on re-writing that moment. Perhaps it might even shock you to read it, but I don't even consider it all that unflattering that my party denied a speech to somebody who wanted to speak only about his stance in opposition to the party platform (and who wouldn't endorse the party's nominee). In fact, I rather think it fairly smart.

Why, after you refused to deduce all this when Jamison Foser made it so abundantly clear, have I bothered to spend so much time writing about it? Well, I'm hoping other people will laugh at how willfully dumb you would have to be to still not understand.

shoes wrote:

>>Gov. Casey was banned from speaking because he wanted to deliver a pro-life speech at the 1992 DNC convention.

Nope

In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at that convention and at every convention since, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason he was not given a speaking role. Additionally, The New Republic's Michael Crowley reported in 1996: "According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808260018?f=s_search

>>Oreo cookies were passed out to mock Michael Steele at the 2002 Maryland debate.

Nope

Sun reporter Andy Green was already doing just that. In a story published the next day, Green quoted several nonpartisan sources who were at the event and who disputed the governor¿s account and that of his spokesman, Paul Schurick, who is quoted in the story as saying, "It was raining Oreos. They were thick in the air like locusts. I was there."


"That's insane," says former Sun reporter Sarah Koenig, who covered Ehrlich in the 2002 campaign, and who says she didn't see any Oreos that night. "The air was not thick with anything except political bullsh*t."

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=11150

Shoes, you're like the Wile E. Coyote of MMfA. From your own LA Times link;

... a federal court judge in New York released previously sealed grand jury testimony of ...Ruth Greenglass, Julius' sister-in-law. It turns out that a key part of her testimony for the prosecution -- that Ethel had typed up notes for her husband to hand to the Soviets -- was most likely concocted.

That doesn't mean that Ethel was innocent... But what is clear is that in seeking to get the defendants to confess to Soviet espionage, the prosecutors overstepped bounds and enhanced testimony to guarantee a conviction. Americans should have no problem acknowledging when such judicial transgressions take place, and in concluding that the execution of Ethel was a miscarriage of justice.

I won't try to talk you out of supporting the murder of people who you disagree with when that justifies your means, as long as you're consistent and don't pretend to be "Pro-Life".

Of course, that wasn't the topic here, but as long as you're tossing out BS,...

John McCain said today that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were two of Barack Obama's most trusted advisers.   ;>)

And when asked for comment, Sarah Palin said that she can see Russia from Alaska.  ;>)

Looks like MMFA has taken up the grievance way after the fact - and when a co-defendent said Rosenberg was guilty.

Gee?  I wonder why?

I was wondering about this too, anotheramerican, and after careful research, I've concluded that MMFA might be taking up this grievance now because The "New York Times' Roberts contradicted his own earlier report."

Hi Mr. Hebert. I think you're new here, but this is something you should get used to if you plan on posting here in the future.

   Several long-time trolls have nothing better to do that try to nit-pick flaws with MMFA's items, based mostly on their own confusion. One of the most common and hilarious tactics is this; Some media outlet reports misinfo. today about some event from years ago, and MMFA reports it. The addle-brained troll then chimes in with criticism of MMFA for dwelling on dated issues.

I know, it seems obvious to you and me, but these are the people who are responsible for Bush's 20(?)% approval rating that you're dealing with. Don't waste too much time trying to have a discussion with these meatheads.

Oh no! Julius Rosenberg might have actually been a spy? But that was a pillar of my faith in my extreme leftist philosophy! Now I might have to reexamine whether I think we should preserve personal freedom, or keep religion out of government, or impose regulations that prevent corporations from screwing up our economy, or our environment, or whether we should refrain from invading foreign countries without really needing to, or...