NBC issues correction after Trump’s Robert E. Lee comment. Yet more proof of why their logo looks like a turkey.

“CORRECTION: An earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as ‘incredible’ at a rally in Ohio. It was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not Gen. Robert E. Lee. An attached video clip lacked the full context for Trump’s remark,” the network said in the posting.

11
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
7 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
MGAPwhiskeyriverJPTravisStrinaMdeepthinker Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
PsychoDad
Member

…..

StrinaM
Member

Another reason they earned the title Fake News

deepthinker
Member
deepthinker

The msn is hell bent to stir shit no matter what. Lee was a smart general. His smartes strategist was Thomas Stonewall Jackson.

Back to Trump he was on a roll yesterday and had the crowd fired up. That’s what drives the dip shits and msm insane.

PsychoDad
Member

Not an original thought, but you notice how the errors are never slanted TOWARDS Trump?

Anyway, regarding this, you can recognize Lee as a great leader and great general without necessarily endorsing his cause. Any historian or commentator can recognize Ernst Rommel as a great leader and great general too without subscribing to Naziism.

JPTravis
Member

What you say is true, I don’t think anybody would quibble with calling Lee a great general. Where I quibble is when people call him honorable. I’ve had many debates about that. He was wearing the uniform of the United States of America when the Civil War started and he changed sides–as far as I’m concerned that makes him a dishonorable traitor, no different than Benedict Arnold. ESPECIALLY since the entity for which he fought was so downright evil.

But what I think happened with the Trump speech is all about the ignorance of the journalistic class. You will notice that Trump didn’t mention Grant’s name for a long time. He actually mentioned Lee’s name before Grant’s. He started out talking about an “incredible general who drank too much.” Those of us who are educated took note of where he was speaking and immediately realized he was referring to Grant, but the journalists had no clue. They heard the name Lee and automatically assumed he was referring to Lee and raving about Lee. Ignorance is dangerous and most of the entire journalism profession is profoundly ignorant.

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

JP I can see we may have a spat over this, I disagree with your assumption that Lee or any of the “rebels” were traitors. The Civil War was unique, something we have not seen before or since, and it produced a unique set of problems. The Confederates were not fighting against America per say, they were still Americans but fighting for state rights.

Looking at it that way General Lee and all those who fought for the Confederacy were honorable men, fighting for what they thought were their rights in a free nation. There were atrocities commited by both sides in that bloody war, that always ends up being part of any war. The south was treated horribly after the war but the south was welcomed back with open arms to become part of the nation at the same time.

Like I said, it’s a complicated issue but General Lee was an honorable man, doing what he thought best at the time. That is the point Trump brought up. He fought for state rights not the overthrow of the the government. Grant was the better commander and won the war which united us all again. Nothing complicated about what Trump said but the lame stream media went nuts anyway.

JPTravis
Member

“The Confederates were not fighting against America per say, they were still Americans but fighting for state rights.”

Bullshit. That’s Confederate propaganda that hasn’t changed one iota in over 150 years. Complete and utter bullshit. They were fighting for slavery pure and simple, a fact which you can prove by asking any Confederate apologist what SPECIFIC “states’ rights” issue they were worried about. There was only one. Slavery. The states’ rights issue was how they sold this evil empire to the common man, the vast majority of which didn’t own any slaves. They couldn’t tell those poor slobs, “Hey, we’re fighting for the right to own slaves.” States’ rights was a consciously manufactured propaganda issue to get the common man to enlist emotionally in a war that was actually about preserving the outlandish style of life of the plantation owners… who by the way were busy destroying themselves with piss-poor farming techniques and an inefficient economic system. (Slaves don’t really work very hard and they steal and they will actually do anything to make their owner fail.) That’s why they kept abandoning their plantations and moving further west, where the land hadn’t been destroyed yet. Which is why the issue of whether new states were going to be slave or free became so damn crucial to them. They destroyed any land they touched by over-farming tobacco and cotton, then they’d go bankrupt and set up somewhere further west. If the western states didn’t come in as slave states, they were going to run out of places to go.

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

I’m going to agree that we disagree on the subject, I’m done. 150 year old history is nothing to get in a snit about.

MGAP
Member
MGAP

I think you’re both wrong.

PsychoDad
Member

Here’s some interesting material I just gave him, the actual declarations of causes of secession from the half dozen states which made them. Yes, most specifically and explicitly name slavery as the reason for the conflict.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

PsychoDad
Member

I would agree it is complicated, but the simple fact remains that the Confederates states seceded from the United States of America after opening fire on a military installation of the USA.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Read the various Declaration(s) of Causes of Secession. They are all quite clear and explicit that they are severing their ties with the USA, as clearly as the authors of the Declaration of Independence made clear they were seceding from the British Empire.

On the subject of states’ rights — yes, the various Declarations mention them, but fail to specify any one which does not ultimately refer back to the right of a white man to own a black man.