Except for the fact that Palin turned out to be substantially correct in her Revere story,
Really? Really??
Her original quote.
quote:
He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.
Her later defense.
quote:
"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"
Please show me any historical source or writing that says Paul Revere was intended to warn the British. The ride by Revere, Dawes and Prescott was not a loud raucous affair of ringing bells. A lot of the people in the area were very loyal to the crown and there were numerous British patrols(as shown by Revere being detained by one).
Please show me in what way was Palin substantially correct?
1) He wasn't warning the British, he was avoiding them.
2) He wasn't ringing any bells or firing warning shot.
Did Revere give warning to the British soldiers that captured him? Yes. He told them they were in for a fight at Lexington.
Lets look back at Palin's defense of her comment.
quote:
Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that
No. Wrong. Incorrect. Her defense shows she is clueless.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts