Well, consider this: most liberals consider Palin to be automatically stupid, because she is a conservative.. so naturally, the media (which has a liberal bias.. ), pounced on her "error".. but as it turns out.. she was correct in her statement that Paul Revere did warn the British, and I am not getting this information from a wikipedia page.. No, my dear friends, this vindication of Sarah Palin's statement on Revere (vindication means.. "she was RIGHT").. comes from, of all places, the Boston Herald! (Not exactly a bastion of conservative reporters): Here is the link:
Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account - BostonHerald.com
Before reacting to what I just posted, with a knee-jerk reaction, please take the time to read the article! Turns out she was right "You betcha"..
Paul Revere fired no shots. He rang no bells.
Sarah said this: "[Paul Revere] warned the British that they werent going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as hes 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"
Now, it's true, with the lack of syntax and general rambling nature of this "sentence" that it's hard to say WHO she said was ringing bells and firing shots. But it sounds a lot like she was saying PAUL REVERE did that. He didn't. He also didn't ride through town to warn the British - which is another thing it sounds like she is saying. Sure, he was captured by Brits and warned them that Americans were on the way, but he didn't GO ON HIS RIDE TO DO THAT.
Sarah got lucky. It turns out that he was captured by some Brits and he warned them of the militia that was following him. However, that's not what she was saying, unless you're quite liberal with your use of inference.
Now, her FOLLOW UP statement, which came days later, says this: "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, youre not going to succeed. Youre not going to take American arms." It's less lacking in general structure, and so a bit easier to parse. THIS statement is essentially correct (although she still seems to be placing intent where it doesn't belong - PAUL REVERE WAS TRYING TO AVOID THE BRITS, BUT WAS ACCIDENTALLY CAUGHT!!!), but it is not what she said in her original statement. The historians, if you read your article, are agreeing with this, much later statement, and then saying they think she arrived at this conclusion by accident.
So, yup, i read your article. And nope, it doesn't corroborate Sarah's initial claim.
Vindication indeed.
I do, however, think that Sarah needs more worship, as her statements are so carefully open to interpretation that they read much like a parable, or even a biblical verse.