This Might Get Ugly

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I wait to hear if Kerry intentionally shot himself in Vietnam.

 

Michelle Malkin mentioned that on Hardball, and while she's hot, that seems a bit.. interesting

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

A guy who would have been looking at certain torture by Uday and Qusay if they were still in power talking about how he'd be an insurgent if he wasn't competing in the Olympics makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

WHAT?!

 

And I rooted for those fuckers in their game against Costa Rica.

 

What's stopping you from strapping a bomb to yourself in the name of Allah you SUB-HUMAN MONKEY fuck?...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bush might not have lied, but SBVFT has.

 

I don't give a shit about this. O'Neill is just Ted Sampley with more credibility because he was previously Richard Nixon's hitman against, that's right, John Kerry.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush might not have lied, but SBVFT has.

 

I don't give a shit about this. O'Neill is just Ted Sampley with more credibility because he was previously Richard Nixon's hitman against, that's right, John Kerry.

About their "lies", consider this:

 

KERRY CAMP FRETS OVER CAMBODIA TALE

 

By Deborah Orin

 

August 20, 2004 --

 

THERE'S now some real angst in Democratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false — and just didn't happen.

 

But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" — that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)

 

Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.

 

Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.

 

"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.

 

Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 — and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.

 

Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident — of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.

 

Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared — seared — in me."

 

Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute — Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas — yes or no.

 

For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out — thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade — Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.

 

The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?

 

The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story — even as much of the press tries to ignore them.

 

For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing — David Alston — after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.

 

A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe — for just one week.

 

This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story — until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday — bloggers have been examining it in detail.

 

On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.

 

Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story — and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.

 

Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility — and its liberal anti-Bush bias.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27161.htm

 

Just a thought.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'll say this -- for $100-150k, those Swiftboat Vietnam Hereos sure got their money's worth. Funny how this ad got Big Media's panties in a bunch over this yet how long and how much money has Geroge Soros been pumping into the airwaves?...

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll say this -- for $100-150k, those Swiftboat Vietnam Hereos sure got their money's worth. Funny how this ad got Big Media's panties in a bunch over this yet how long and how much money has Geroge Soros been pumping into the airwaves?...

Hell, the Vets are getting rather nice donations, too. They aren't going away.

 

And, at some point, Kerry would be wise to address the charges, and not blame Bush for lacking the guts to make them himself.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

BTW: I found this interesting...

 

From Michelle Malkin, who I would love to give a hot beef injection to...

 

Here's a peek behind the cable TV curtain. It's not pretty.

 

So, my publicist arranges for me to go on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on Thursday night to talk about my recent columns on the FBI and national security profiling and my new book. Despite the show's basement ratings, we figure it's a good opportunity to reach out to a new audience. FOX News, with whom I have a contract, has generously allowed me to appear on some competing networks to talk about the book. Thursday was the second to the last day that I could make such appearances.

 

A few hours before the show, a producer calls to tell me I will be on for two segments--the first topic will be the Swift Boat Veterans, the second topic will be related to the book. Fine. This is the news business. I understand the need to go with the flow and cover the hot issues of the day. I am prepared to discuss both topics.

 

In a pre-interview, the producer goes over general questions about Kerry's response to the Swift Boat vets, whether the charges will be an issue in the presidential debates, and the basic themes of my book and its implications for the current War on Terror. I am originally scheduled to be on with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. This was scratched and I am informed at the last minute that the other guest will be former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown.

 

As I am seated at the table with Matthews, who I am meeting for the first time, he cracks a joke--and not in a well-meaning way--about how I look. (There are quite a few people who are hung up on this.) "Are you sure you are old enough to be on the show? What are you? 28?" I grit my teeth. He badgers me again with the same question. I politely answer his question and supply my age.

 

(I wonder how Matthews' wife, the respected TV journalist Kathleen Matthews, who hosts a show about working women, would react if informed about her husband's treatment of a fellow female journalist. I've been in the business a dozen years and would be happy to talk to Mrs. Matthews about my firsthand experience with Neanderthal chauvinism in the workplace.)

 

Needless to say, things went downhill, fast and loud, from there.

 

1) Matthews introduces me, says we'll get to the subject of my book "in a minute," and launches into a spiel about how Bush should order the Swift Boat Vets to stop running their ads. Matthews intentionally mischaracterizes me as "speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign," when he knew full well I was there (with special permission from FOX News) to talk about my book, which he had sitting right next to him on the table and which he had chatted with me briefly about before the start of the segment. I correct him. He does not acknowledge his error.

 

2) When I tried to make a point about how the mainstream media ought to subject John Kerry to as much skull-pounding interrogation as private citizens such as Swift Boat Vet Larry Thurlow had endured from Matthews and the Washington Post, Matthews cut me off and snorted that he had never been thought of as "mainstream." Yeah, keep snorting.

 

3) In response to Matthews' claim that the Swift Boat Vets campaign was orchestrated by the White House, I noted that the Boston Globe--hardly a hothouse of GOP operatives--had raised many of the same questions about Kerry's war record as the Swift Boat Vets had. No response from Matthews.

 

4) Willie Brown expresses exasperation over Swift Boat Vets' questions about Kerry's wounds. He says: "There are questions about the shrapnel wounds. So what else is there? How much he got shot? How deep? How much shrapnel does he have?

 

Note that I didn't bring the subject of shrapnel. (Got that, Keith Olbermann?) Willie Brown raised the issue.

 

Here is how I responded verbatim:

 

"Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

 

Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.

 

I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

 

Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did. The book raises questions by vets, many of whom were with Kerry, about whether there was or wasn't enemy fire during the Dec. 1968 incident that led to his first Purple Heart (Patrick Runyon is quoted in a Boston Globe account on p. 35 saying "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.") and whether the injury came from a self-inflicted wound after he caught a tiny piece of shrapnel when he fired a grenade from his M-79 grenade launcher too close (p. 36); whether or not there was "intense rocket and rifle fire" during the Feb. 1969 incident that led to his second Purple Heart (Rocky Hildreth, officer of an accompanying boat on Dam Doi Canal that day, says there was no "intense rocket and rifle fire" on p. 78); and whether the shrapnel wound in his buttocks, which Kerry says he sustained in March 1969 and led to the awarding of his third Purple Heart, was the result of a mine explosion while on a mission or from a wound from his own grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy (p. 87). See also pages 30-31. I was trying to get to these points, but Matthews would not let me finish a sentence.

 

Well, guess what? This foaming jerk Matthews, who called me irresponsible and kicked me off the show admitted that a) he himself had not read the damned book, b) he was not interested in asking Kerry about the specific doubts raised by vets about his wounds, and c) he had not and would not question Kerry about these specific allegations.

 

"Are you saying he shot himself on purpose?" Matthews hammered. I repeated myself again clearly that I was referring to the allegations about self-inflicted wounds in the book. When I tried to explain that the vets who were with Kerry had cast a lot of doubt on whether enemy fire occurred during the first two incidents, Matthews cut me off again. "Why did you say that?" he badgered. Because, I said, I was talking about what was in the book, which he had admitted he hadn't read.

 

"Don't you wonder?" I asked.

 

"No, I don't," he bellowed. "It's never occurred to me."

 

With that, I was kicked off the second segment.

 

As the show broke for commercials, Matthews scrambled for his producers to see if what he said was true. And I'm irresponsible? One staffer ran to the office where I had left my copy of the book, and handed it to Matthews, who--for the first time, apparently--started flipping through it. I asked for my book back and politely said thank you. After I left, he trashed me again on the air and his scurrilous charges were repeated by his MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann, who called me an "idiot."

 

I am used to playing hardball. I expect it. I am used to ad hominem attacks. I get more in a day than most of these wussies have received in their lifetimes. But what happened last night was pure slimeball and the unfair, unbalanced, and unhinged purveyors of journalism, or whatever it is they call what they do at MSNBC, should be ashamed.

 

What I take away from all this is that the Democrat Party waterboys in the media are in full desperation mode. I have now witnessed firsthand and up close (Matthews' spittle nearly hit me in the face) how the pressure from alternative media sources--the blogosphere, conservative Internet forums, talk radio, Regnery Publishing, FOX News, etc. --is driving these people absolutely batty.

 

Keep bringing it on.

 

***

 

By the way, the full MSNBC Hardball transcript is here. Matthews and Olbermann's blog bloviations are here. Olbermann expresses incredulity that I was simply reporting what the Swift Boat Vets' book says, rather than spouting off in a half-baked manner:

 

Ms. Malkin wouldn’t even go so far as to attribute the suspicion to herself. It was in the book.

 

Olbermann, alleged journalist, is smearing me because I agreed to discuss and analyze claims made by the authors of Unfit for Command and actually referred to what was in the book--rather than cluelessly spew uninformed opinions about the book a la Chris Matthews (of whom Olbermann drools, "never prouder of you, Chris.") Parroting Matthews' conspiratorial line, Olbermann ignorantly suggests that I am following orders from the Swift Boat Vets to "steer the Kerry-Shot-Himself flotsam into the mainstream media." I suggest he talk to the producer, Dominic Bellone, who booked me about the circumstances of my appearance on the show and ask whether I was dispatched by the Bush campaign or Swift Boat Vets operatives or anyone else associated with the vets' book.

 

The feedback e-mail for Hardball is [email protected].

 

Chris Matthews' phone number is listed in the Spring 2004 News Media Yellow Book as 202-885-4600.

 

***

 

Just wanted to end with what I think was the most significant exchange on the show involving Wille Brown, who made a stunning admission from a fellow Democrat about John Kerry's core deficiencies:

 

 

BROWN: John Kerry is the kind of a guy who is always laid back. He is always been dealing with people who were gentle, who were in every way respectful, who have a sense of dignity about themselves and a sense of honor. John Kerry may not be fit for the terrible battles and wars of the world of politics.

 

He may be absolutely perfect as a president. But in term of a candidate, he probably has a series of imperfection that‘s may be fatal in his successful, in his pursuit of a successful candidacy. That‘s not to take anything away from his integrity. He should have been doing exactly what he‘s doing today. He should have been doing that from day one.

 

MATTHEWS: Do you think Massachusetts politics is softball?

 

BROWN: I think Massachusetts politics is always been very respectful of the other person‘s view and very committed to the idea they don‘t want to seem negative and they don‘t want to be criticized for an absence of integrity.

 

MALKIN: He is a boy in the bubble, Chris. And...

 

MATTHEWS: What does that mean?

 

MALKIN: He hasn‘t been subjected to this kind of heat. And as Willie Brown is suggesting, if he can‘t stand the heat from his fellow veterans, do we really want to trust him to stand up to Islamic extremists?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Here's the transcript...

 

Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin. 

 

Malkin is that the correct pronunciation? 

 

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:  Malkin.

 

MATTHEWS:  Malkin, I like it better.

 

She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.”  We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.

 

What do you make of the president‘s—this campaign being run on behalf of the president, if not officially to try destroy John Kerry‘s war record? 

 

MALKIN:  I don‘t think that President Bush orchestrated this at all. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Why doesn‘t he call up and say stop it. 

 

MALKIN:  Well, look he‘s already made his statement.  The White House said, it doesn‘t associate itself with these 527 campaigns, any of them.  And he said that Kerry has served nobly.  What else do you want him to say?

 

MATTHEWS:  Well, back when we had the Willie Horton Act, back in 1988, all that Jim Baker or anybody at the White House campaign had to do was call on behalf of President Bush Sr., and say stop running that racist ad.  Nobody ever did, OK.  I‘m asking if you‘re speaking on behalf of President Bush, why doesn‘t he make a phone call to these veterans, including Mr.  Thurlow and say stop running the ads.  Why doesn‘t he do that?

 

MALKIN:  Well first I‘m not here speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign.  Second of all...

 

MATTHEWS:  Well, do you think these guys should be running.

 

MALKIN:  Well, second of all, you brought up Willie Horton.  I think that‘s quite interesting that you did.  The underlying implication is that some how this is a Republican orchestrated thing, just like the swift boat campaign.  Of course, it was Al Gore who brought up Willie Horton first. 

 

MATTHEWS:  No, the ads.  No the ads were ran, by something called the American Security Council supporting President Bush.

 

MALKIN:  And who made the issue—who made the issue germane, Al Gore and the Democrats.  And it‘s the same thing here, John Kerry said, bring it on and the Swift Boat Veterans have brought it on.

 

MATTHEWS:  Fair enough.  So you—lets get your position here on the program, since you are on the program.  Your position it‘s OK, for the veteran groups to attack John Kerry on this issue?

 

MALKIN:  They are exercising their free speech, absolutely.

 

MATTHEWS:  And the president is totally innocent in this campaign.  He has nothing to do with it.

 

MALKIN:  Well, I don‘t think so.  Yes.  Yes, there were Bush supporters who helped fund the ads.  But this was not directed from the White House. 

 

MATTHEWS:  When the president says publicly that he has no problem with John Kerry‘s war record, in fact he finds it noble, is that hypocritical or is that honest? 

 

MALKIN:  I think it is absolutely honest. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Because what?  What makes it honest? 

 

Because how they are attacking Kerry?

 

MALKIN:  He can‘t—he did not control these—there was no—can you show me directive that said, Swift Boat Veterans do this. 

 

MATTHEWS:  I‘m waiting for the phone call that said stop doing it, buddies. 

 

MALKIN:  It is interesting.  I saw the interrogation of Larry Thurlow.  All I can say if the main stream media interrogated these private citizens, and did that as aggressively as...

 

MATTHEWS:  Nobody has ever called me mainstream before but thank your for the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).  I guess I‘m big time now.

 

MALKIN:  Aggressively as...

 

MATTHEWS:  I think the president, if he wanted this to stop would make one phone call.  Karl Rove, would make one phone call and that would be the end of the ads.  That‘s what think, and you know that‘s true, right?

 

MALKIN:  Well, there...

 

MATTHEWS:  Is that true?  If he wanted to stop them, he could stop them. 

 

MALKIN:  No, I don‘t think he could.  No.  I don‘t. 

 

MATTHEWS:  OK, let me go to Mayor Brown.  Mayor Brown, what do you make of this salient attack from these 527 groups, they‘re called, they‘re independent groups attack the war record of John Kerry. 

 

Do you believe in any way the president could be held politically responsible for these attacks? 

 

+

 

WILLIE BROWN, FORMER SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR:  He should be held politically responsible, Chris.  When I served as speaker of the California legislature as well as mayor, whenever any independent group did anything that was for my benefit, and it was a slimy and as below the belt and as dishonest as these ads are, I had for purpose of my own integrity, denounced them and asked that they be stopped, just as I would if I was just being not effective at all.  Period. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask but the nature of this campaign.  Why is John Kerry so unsuccessful as a candidate, that he‘s allowed his challenging role to be determined to be transformed into a defendant‘s role? 

 

Instead of him carrying the fight against incumbent president which is the norm in a American society in a reelection campaign, he has become the issue himself.  How did he let that happen?

 

BROWN:  John Kerry is the kind of a guy who is always laid back.  He is always been dealing with people who were gentle, who were in every way respectful, who have a sense of dignity about themselves and a sense of honor.  John Kerry may not be fit for the terrible battles and wars of the world of politics.

 

He may be absolutely perfect as a president.  But in term of a candidate, he probably has a series of imperfection that‘s may be fatal in his successful, in his pursuit of a successful candidacy.  That‘s not to take anything away from his integrity.  He should have been doing exactly what he‘s doing today.  He should have been doing that from day one. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Do you think Massachusetts politics is softball? 

 

BROWN:  I think Massachusetts politics is always been very respectful of the other person‘s view and very committed to the idea they don‘t want to seem negative and they don‘t want to be criticized for an absence of integrity. 

 

MALKIN:  He is a boy in the bubble, Chris.  And...

 

MATTHEWS:  What does that mean? 

 

MALKIN:  He hasn‘t been subjected to this kind of heat.  And as Willie Brown is suggesting, if he can‘t stand the heat from his fellow veterans, do we really want to trust him to stand up to Islamic extremists? 

 

By the way, it‘s not just—not just these right wingers who have been questioning his record.  The “Boston Globe” isn‘t, aren‘t operatives of the Bush campaign and they have said the same thing as the veterans did about all three incidents regarding the purple hearts.  You were hammering Larry Thurlow about specific name. 

 

BROWN:  He volunteered twice.  He volunteered twice in Vietnam.  He literally got shot.  There‘s no question about any of those things.  So what else is there to discuss?  How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel? 

 

MALKIN:  Well, yes.  Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg.  They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound. 

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

MATTHEWS:  What do you mean by self-inflicted?  Are you saying he shot himself on purpose?  Is that what you‘re saying? 

 

MALKIN:  Did you read the book...

 

MATTHEWS:  I‘m asking a simple question.  Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

 

MALKIN:  I‘m saying some of these soldiers... 

 

MATTHEWS:  And I‘m asking question. 

 

MALKIN:  And I‘m answering it. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Did he shoot himself on purpose.

 

MALKIN:  Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds. 

 

MATTHEWS:  No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose. 

 

MALKIN:  That these were self-inflicted wounds. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act? 

 

MALKIN:  I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the... 

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

MATTHEWS:  I want an answer yes or no, Michelle. 

 

MALKIN:  Some of the veterans say...

 

MATTHEWS:  No.  No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

 

MALKIN:  Yes.  Some of them say that. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Tell me where that... 

 

MALKIN:  Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. 

 

MATTHEWS:  This is not a show for this kind of talk.  Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

 

MALKIN:  I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

 

MATTHEWS:  Give me a name. 

 

MALKIN:  Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph). 

 

MATTHEWS:  They said—Patrick Runyan...

 

MALKIN:  These people have...

 

MATTHEWS:  And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound? 

 

MALKIN:  These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

 

MATTHEWS:  That‘s cast a lot of doubt.  That‘s complete nonsense. 

 

MALKIN:  Did you read the section in the book...

 

MATTHEWS:  I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart. 

 

MALKIN:  I‘m not sure.  I‘m saying...

 

MATTHEWS:  Why did you say? 

 

MALKIN:  I‘m talking about what‘s in the book. 

 

MATTHEWS:  What is in the book.  Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart?   On purpose?

 

MALKIN:  On. 

 

MATTHEWS:  On purpose?  Yes or no, Michelle. 

 

MALKIN:  In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event. 

 

MATTHEWS:  Did he say on it purpose. 

 

MALKIN:  There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not.  And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me. 

 

MATTHEWS:  I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose. 

 

I haven‘t heard you say it.

 

MALKIN:  Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions? 

 

MATTHEWS:  If he shot himself on purpose.  No.  I have not asked him that. 

 

MALKIN:  Don‘t you wonder? 

 

MATTHEWS:  No, I don‘t.  It‘s never occurred to me. 

 

Look, thank you Mayor Brown.  We‘ll stay with Michelle Malkin. 

 

Still ahead, David Gergen and Dana Milbank on the battle for the White House.  We are going to keep things clean on this show.  No irresponsible comments are going to be made on the show.

 

And don‘t forget you can keep up with presidential race on Hardblogger, our election blog Web site.  Just go to hardball.msnbc.com. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MATTHEWS:   Dana Milbank is a White House correspondent for “The Washington Post” and David Gergen was an adviser to four presidents.  He is now the director of the Center For Public Leadership at Harvard University.  Dana, what did you make of that exchange we just had with Michelle Malkin there saying that there are rumors out, there are certain people out there that say that John Kerry shot himself on purpose to get a Purple Heart.  This is how bad it‘s gotten, I think—Dana.

[Guest MikeSC]

Good lord is Matthews is a douche. She owned him.

 

Does it even need to be mentioned that the horribly uneducated Keith Olbermann thinks she is an idiot? That, right there, is a good thing for her.

-=Mike

...Keith, go back to ESPN. You've embarrassed yourself trying to play the role of "real" journalist...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Just a thought.

        -=Mike

Again, I don't care. I don't give a rat's ass what happened decades before I was born. That the arguement about Kerry has shifted to what the man did in his twenties is unfortunate.

 

This is a conservative 527 group. It is to GWB what moveon.org is to John Kerry. It's members seem to have conflicting stories, are getting caught in lies, and now they're getting smacked around and so are all their friends that believed them.

 

Malkin is, historically by what I've seen on shows, the most submissive debate talking head I've ever seen. I'd crush her under my thumb, and I'm glad Matthews took the time to do it. BOO HOO! He's so much more confrontational than Fox News! I wonder why? Oh boo...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Again, I don't care. I don't give a rat's ass what happened decades before I was born. That the arguement about Kerry has shifted to what the man did in his twenties is unfortunate.

 

I agree greatly. What Bush and Kerry did or did not do 35 yrs. ago shouldn't be an issue in this election. Though Kerry's over mentioning of his war service has brought a lot of this on himself.

[Guest MikeSC]

Just a thought.

        -=Mike

Again, I don't care. I don't give a rat's ass what happened decades before I was born. That the arguement about Kerry has shifted to what the man did in his twenties is unfortunate.

 

 

It's unfortunate, but only one person can possibly be blamed for it. You know, the guy who mentioned it ad inifinitum.

This is a conservative 527 group. It is to GWB what moveon.org is to John Kerry. It's members seem to have conflicting stories, are getting caught in lies, and now they're getting smacked around and so are all their friends that believed them.

Seeing how badly Chris Matthews has gone off the edge, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. Lord, he interrupts and cuts people off FAR worse than O'Reilly ever dreamed of.

 

Shall I post Michelle Malkin's comments on her appearance on the show?

Malkin is, historically by what I've seen on shows, the most submissive debate talking head I've ever seen. I'd crush her under my thumb, and I'm glad Matthews took the time to do it. BOO HOO! He's so much more confrontational than Fox News! I wonder why? Oh boo...

Except it was all bullshit.

 

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

 

She WASN'T there to speak for the Bush campaign. She made that clear also.

 

She didn't say his injuries were intentional. Just self-inflicted. Since Chris OBVIOUSLY didn't read the book he bashed (which he gets a total free pass on, mind you), I'll go ahead and tell you: According to EVERYBODY there, INCLUDING his C.O, there WASN'T enemy fire at all. Kerry was injured when he fired a grenade that hit a rock and piece of shrapnel BARELY hit him.

 

In fact, his C.O wants to know how he got the Purple Heart, since he said he did not recommend him for one.

 

Just checking, though --- O'Reilly is the partisan attack dog who will lie, right?

 

BTW, rudeness and lying is not quite the same thing as solid debating. If that is YOUR modus operandi, I feel for you.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I find it funny that a certain poster constantly whines about the bullying tactics of a certain host on a certain cable news network that makes us all laugh out loud in a certain election year, but yet gives Chris a pat on the back for employing a similar tactic.

 

Again, I don't care. I don't give a rat's ass what happened decades before I was born. That the arguement about Kerry has shifted to what the man did in his twenties is unfortunate.

 

I agree, but it would be nice if a certain VIETNAM WAR HERO would SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. I don't blame him for trying to get the hell out of a conflict that he probably didn't agree with, but to turn around 30 years later and make it the cornerstone of a campaign makes me lose any pity for him and his current troubles...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/i...00303292321.xml

 

A Clackamas County prosecutor and decorated Vietnam veteran who appears in an ad attacking Democratic presidential contender John F. Kerry's war record said he did not witness the events in question and is relying on the accounts of his friends who served with the senator.

 

The 60-second ad, which aired for seven days this month in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, features 13 Vietnam veterans, including Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney in Clackamas County.

 

In the ad, French says: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record."

 

The ad was paid for by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of 300 Vietnam veterans who served in Swift boats and say Kerry has lied about his war record and disgraced his fellow veterans by publicly opposing the conflict upon his return home. The group said the ad will be aired again, though it has not decided where it will be shown.

 

French, in an interview Thursday, said Kerry lied about the circumstances that led to one of his Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. Kerry received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam.

 

French said he is relying on the accounts of three other veterans who were friends of his at the time. A fourth veteran with whom French was acquainted corroborated their accounts.

 

"I was not a witness to these events but my friends were," said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war. "I believe these people. These are people I served with."

 

One of the men is Larry Thurlow, a leader of the veterans group and one of Kerry's most vocal critics. Thurlow, who served alongside Kerry, has disputed Kerry's claim that the senator's boat was under fire in March 1969 when he pulled Lt. Jim Rassmann out of the water.

 

But according to Thurlow's military records, obtained this week by The Washington Post, the five-boat flotilla was under enemy fire that day.

 

French -- relying on friends' accounts -- said Rassmann would have been picked up by another boat if Kerry had not helped. And French said any shots that were fired came from U.S. soldiers providing cover as Rassmann and two others were rescued.

 

"It's not like he wouldn't have been saved if Kerry had not been there," French said. "I don't believe they were under any fire when that happened. None of the other boats were damaged."

 

He said Rassmann's rescue did not merit a special honor.

 

"Somebody fell off your boat and you go back and pick him up," French said. "It's not worthy of a Bronze Star in my opinion."

 

Rassmann, who lives in Florence and is campaigning for Kerry, said the ad is motivated in part by some veterans' anger over Kerry's antiwar stance upon returning home -- a charge French acknowledges. Rassmann said the group's claims are completely false.

 

"To come back 35 years later and conjure up fabricated stories is the lowest form of politics," said Rassmann, who said he does not know French.

 

"I honor these guys for their service," Rassmann said. "I know they were very courageous, along with John Kerry, and it saddens me that they are all at one another's throats."

 

French, a registered Republican, said he was reluctant at first to take part in the ad but ultimately "decided it was something I needed to do."

 

French said his one-year tour of duty in Vietnam overlapped Kerry's by two months. He said they served together in the same unit in January and February 1969. He said he did not know Kerry well during that time.

 

A married father of three, French is a well-regarded prosecutor who has spent most of his career in the Clackamas County district attorney's office.

 

Known for his reserved and steady manner, he is one of the prosecutors assigned to the double-murder case against accused child killer Ward Weaver.

 

Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote said French didn't need approval from him to appear in the ad.

 

"He has a right to his own personal opinions," Foote said.

 

And he isn't worried that French's public stand on the presidential race will affect his work.

 

"I have a lot of confidence in Al French and in his ability to do his job fairly," Foote said.

 

Hmm.. a guy who didn't know John Kerry well, relying on the word of his friends since he didn't witness the incident, would like you to know that John Kerry is lying. Convincing.

 

Seeing how badly Chris Matthews has gone off the edge

 

It was unfortunate that Malkin encountered the rabid Chris Matthews. Malkin reacted in a mature way.. by posting Matthews phone number.

 

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

 

Mentioned once, for a split second, if I recall correctly. Right now, wouldn't it just be her word against whoever else when it comes to the reason why she was on the show? The segment ended with 10 minutes left in the show. So if they were planning to talk about her book, they didn't have too much time.

 

She didn't say his injuries were intentional. Just self-inflicted.

 

and then she defended that by asking why Chris Matthews didn't ask that, while not making a distinction between the two.

 

According to EVERYBODY there, INCLUDING his C.O, there WASN'T enemy fire at all. Kerry was injured when he fired a grenade that hit a rock and piece of shrapnel BARELY hit him.

 

Hmmmm..

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid..._on_their_side/

 

Yes, there have been questions about whether the wound Kerry suffered that night really merited a Purple Heart, though those decorations were handed out rather liberally. But rather than quoting the two men known to have accompanied Kerry on that mission, "Unfit for Command" asserts a third person was along. William Schachte, later a rear admiral, "was also on the skimmer," the book claims.

 

It offers this account: "After Kerry's M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel . . . to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out." Schachte could not be reached for comment. But in a brief interview yesterday, O'Neill asserted that Schachte had told him, as well as other military men, that he had been on the skimmer.

 

"I spoke to Admiral Schachte," O'Neill said. "He places himself on the skimmer." O'Neill also hinted that Schachte will soon address the issue himself. So what do William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, the two men who were on the skimmer with Kerry at the time, say?

 

"Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry," says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry's first swift boat, "we were the only ones in the skimmer."

 

"There definitely was not a fourth," says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren't completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher.

 

"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."

 

Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?

 

"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.

 

Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.

 

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

 

And in this case, until there is clear and compelling evidence to the contrary, any fair-minded person has to credit the account offered by Zaladonis and Runyon.

 

Yeah.. a grenade.. that's the ticket.. it was a grenade.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seeing how badly Chris Matthews has gone off the edge

 

It was unfortunate that Malkin encountered the rabid Chris Matthews. Malkin reacted in a mature way.. by posting Matthews phone number.

*snip*

*yawn*

Next! I'll let you continue grasping for straws.

Malkin handled it BEAUTIFULLY. She did not call anybody an idiot (as Keith Olbermann, who is an embarassment as a news reader,id).

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

Mentioned once, for a split second, if I recall correctly. Right now, wouldn't it just be her word against whoever else when it comes to the reason why she was on the show?

Well, there is:

Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin. 

 

Malkin is that the correct pronunciation? 

 

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:  Malkin.

 

MATTHEWS:  Malkin, I like it better.

 

She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.”  We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.

He did mention it before anything else. Obviously, she wasn't there to discuss the Swift Boat Vets or the Bush campaign.

The segment ended with 10 minutes left in the show. So if they were planning to talk about her book, they didn't have too much time.

REALLY?

 

YOU DON'T SAY?

 

No way a TV host would EVER do that to a guest. *snicker*

 

Yeah, him leaving her no time is proof that she was not there to discuss her book.

 

Simple question: WHY WOULD SHE BE THERE?

 

Do you have any idea how many times she commented on this controversy on her website? Any idea?

 

ONCE. One time only.

 

Try and use a little logic here.

She didn't say his injuries were intentional. Just self-inflicted.

And then she defended that by asking why Chris Matthews didn't ask that, while not making a distinction between the two.

If he READ the book, he'd know the difference.

 

But he didn't read it.

 

He just bitched about it anyway.

According to EVERYBODY there, INCLUDING his C.O, there WASN'T enemy fire at all. Kerry was injured when he fired a grenade that hit a rock and piece of shrapnel BARELY hit him.

 

Hmmmm..

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid..._on_their_side/

 

Yes, there have been questions about whether the wound Kerry suffered that night really merited a Purple Heart, though those decorations were handed out rather liberally. But rather than quoting the two men known to have accompanied Kerry on that mission, "Unfit for Command" asserts a third person was along. William Schachte, later a rear admiral, "was also on the skimmer," the book claims.

 

It offers this account: "After Kerry's M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel . . . to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out." Schachte could not be reached for comment. But in a brief interview yesterday, O'Neill asserted that Schachte had told him, as well as other military men, that he had been on the skimmer.

 

"I spoke to Admiral Schachte," O'Neill said. "He places himself on the skimmer." O'Neill also hinted that Schachte will soon address the issue himself. So what do William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, the two men who were on the skimmer with Kerry at the time, say?

 

"Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry," says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry's first swift boat, "we were the only ones in the skimmer."

 

"There definitely was not a fourth," says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren't completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher.

 

"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."

 

Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?

 

"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.

 

Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.

 

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

 

And in this case, until there is clear and compelling evidence to the contrary, any fair-minded person has to credit the account offered by Zaladonis and Runyon.

 

Yeah.. a grenade.. that's the ticket.. it was a grenade.

Then why was there no hostile fire report filed? And Schachte was only the PERSON IN COMMAND OF THE MISSION. Yeah, I'm sure HE'S making it up.

 

Hell, Runyon didn't even know Kerry was wounded. Grant Hibbard, the CO, disputed the story.

 

He went to Hibbard's office the next day and asked for a recommendation for a Purple Heart.

 

He REFUSED. He doesn't know how Kerry got the Heart at all.

 

Hmm, an incident where NOBODY can actually claim that the enemy fired upon them? Yeah, NO reason to have doubts there.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seeing how badly Chris Matthews has gone off the edge, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. Lord, he interrupts and cuts people off FAR worse than O'Reilly ever dreamed of.

If he starts telling people to shut up then I'll stop watching him for good.

 

Shall I post Michelle Malkin's comments on her appearance on the show?

 

Not really. Watching her get owned by D.L. Hughley on the Bill Maher show pretty much shows how ineffective she is as a TV talking head. Maybe Ann Coulter can give her some training.

 

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

A show called Hardball is not where you go to pimp your book and duck questions. She should have gone on the Sean Hannity show if she wanted that treatment.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seeing how badly Chris Matthews has gone off the edge, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. Lord, he interrupts and cuts people off FAR worse than O'Reilly ever dreamed of.

If he starts telling people to shut up then I'll stop watching him for good.

 

Shall I post Michelle Malkin's comments on her appearance on the show?

 

Not really. Watching her get owned by D.L. Hughley on the Bill Maher show pretty much shows how ineffective she is as a TV talking head. Maybe Ann Coulter can give her some training.

Hard to be "owned" by a guy with an IQ well into the single digits on one of the least humorous, most slanted shows on TV. But, if it makes you pop wood to believe --- have at it!

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

A show called Hardball is not where you go to pimp your book and duck questions. She should have gone on the Sean Hannity show if she wanted that treatment.

Ah, so just checking --- it's OK to invite people on to a show under false pretenses and to discuss something they are unprepared for. Just so long as their conservatives.

 

Man, you're going to have a hard time criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity EVER again.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I just have to say, regardless of what one feels about her, that Michelle Malkin is a real cutie.

[Guest MikeSC]

I just have to say, regardless of what one feels about her, that Michelle Malkin is a real cutie.

I'm sure her husband agrees.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And her two kids :(

 

=- kkk, who can't understand why people that are aggressive on these news analysis shows get criticized by some viewers, but yet those that try to be polite and mature also get blasted...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Edit: to hell with Quotations!

 

Next! I'll let you continue grasping for straws

 

To be fair, the dislike for Chris Matthews is bipartisan. I think they use the best technology to remove the white foam which is coming out of Matthews' mouth

 

Malkin handled it BEAUTIFULLY.

 

 

[don't worry, I find her cute too]

 

She did not call anybody an idiot (as Keith Olbermann, who is an embarassment as a news reader,id)

 

from MichelleMalkin.com:

 

Update: Keith Olbermann said I had made a "fool of myself," not that I was an "idiot." I stand corrected and apologize for mistakenly characterizing his insult.

 

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

 

Mentioned once, for a split second, if I recall correctly. Right now, wouldn't it just be her word against whoever else when it comes to the reason why she was on the show?

 

Well, there is:

Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin.

 

Malkin is that the correct pronunciation?

 

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Malkin.

 

MATTHEWS: Malkin, I like it better.

 

She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.” We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.

He did mention it before anything else. Obviously, she wasn't there to discuss the Swift Boat Vets or the Bush campaign.

 

And it appears the thing was derailed after the self-inflicted claim was made. *shrug* I'm sure we missed out on Malkin talking about how internment camps weren't so bad, with the former Mayor of San Francisco around.

 

Yeah, him leaving her no time is proof that she was not there to discuss her book.

 

Simple question: WHY WOULD SHE BE THERE?

 

Do you have any idea how many times she commented on this controversy on her website? Any idea?

 

ONCE. One time only.

 

Try and use a little logic here.

 

Well, then again, the self-inflicted thing did eat up some time.

 

I also congratulate her on commenting once on something that happened about 28 hours ago. *claps*

 

She didn't say his injuries were intentional. Just self-inflicted.

 

And then she defended that by asking why Chris Matthews didn't ask that, while not making a distinction between the two.

 

If he READ the book, he'd know the difference.

 

But he didn't read it.

 

He just bitched about it anyway.

 

For a segment which would be about Malkin's book, it seems that Matthews not reading the O'Neill/Corsi book is a point of contention.

 

According to EVERYBODY there, INCLUDING his C.O, there WASN'T enemy fire at all. Kerry was injured when he fired a grenade that hit a rock and piece of shrapnel BARELY hit him.

 

Hmmmm..

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid..._on_their_side/

 

Yes, there have been questions about whether the wound Kerry suffered that night really merited a Purple Heart, though those decorations were handed out rather liberally. But rather than quoting the two men known to have accompanied Kerry on that mission, "Unfit for Command" asserts a third person was along. William Schachte, later a rear admiral, "was also on the skimmer," the book claims.

 

It offers this account: "After Kerry's M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel . . . to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out." Schachte could not be reached for comment. But in a brief interview yesterday, O'Neill asserted that Schachte had told him, as well as other military men, that he had been on the skimmer.

 

"I spoke to Admiral Schachte," O'Neill said. "He places himself on the skimmer." O'Neill also hinted that Schachte will soon address the issue himself. So what do William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, the two men who were on the skimmer with Kerry at the time, say?

 

"Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry," says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry's first swift boat, "we were the only ones in the skimmer."

 

"There definitely was not a fourth," says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren't completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher.

 

"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."

 

Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?

 

"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.

 

Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.

 

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

 

And in this case, until there is clear and compelling evidence to the contrary, any fair-minded person has to credit the account offered by Zaladonis and Runyon.

 

Yeah.. a grenade.. that's the ticket.. it was a grenade.

Then why was there no hostile fire report filed? And Schachte was only the PERSON IN COMMAND OF THE MISSION. Yeah, I'm sure HE'S making it up.

 

Strange how he wasn't on the skimmer either.

 

Hell, Runyon didn't even know Kerry was wounded. Grant Hibbard, the CO, disputed the story.

 

He went to Hibbard's office the next day and asked for a recommendation for a Purple Heart.

 

He REFUSED. He doesn't know how Kerry got the Heart at all.

 

Must have been the "Kerry-Hypnosis" which makes the Navy give medals to him, as part of the master plan.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Holy Crap.

 

You were actually WATCHING MSNBC to take those pics?

 

And here's my caption for the top right photo: "Well, just swallow it..."

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

#1- I'm trying to get the quotation things to work

 

#2- I didn't take those pics, I did watch the replay though

[Guest MikeSC]

ooh, images. THAT proves it right there! Definitive proof!

 

Of what, I have no idea.

She did not call anybody an idiot (as Keith Olbermann, who is an embarassment as a news reader,id)

 

from MichelleMalkin.com:

 

Update: Keith Olbermann said I had made a "fool of myself," not that I was an "idiot." I stand corrected and apologize for mistakenly characterizing his insult.

Wow, huge difference. Funny that Olbermann says anybody "made a fool of him/herself", considering how shitty his career has gone since he left ESPN.

She WASN'T there to discuss this. She was there to discuss her book --- as Chris mentioned, but didn't come back to.

Mentioned once, for a split second, if I recall correctly. Right now, wouldn't it just be her word against whoever else when it comes to the reason why she was on the show?

Well, there is:

Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin.

 

Malkin is that the correct pronunciation?

 

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Malkin.

 

MATTHEWS: Malkin, I like it better.

 

She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.” We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.

He did mention it before anything else. Obviously, she wasn't there to discuss the Swift Boat Vets or the Bush campaign.

 

And it appears the thing was derailed after the self-inflicted claim was made. *shrug* I'm sure we missed out on Malkin talking about how internment camps weren't so bad, with the former Mayor of San Francisco around.

Let me guess --- you didn't READ the book, did you?

 

Hmmm?

 

Stick with commenting on what you know.

Yeah, him leaving her no time is proof that she was not there to discuss her book.

 

Simple question: WHY WOULD SHE BE THERE?

 

Do you have any idea how many times she commented on this controversy on her website? Any idea?

 

ONCE. One time only.

 

Try and use a little logic here.

 

Well, then again, the self-inflicted thing did eat up some time.

 

I also congratulate her on commenting once on something that happened about 28 hours ago. *claps*

Which, again, begs the question --- WHY THE HELL WOULD SHE BE ON TO DISCUSS THE SVBT WHEN SHE DOES NOT MENTION THEM?

 

It doesn't seem even a little illogical?

She didn't say his injuries were intentional. Just self-inflicted.

And then she defended that by asking why Chris Matthews didn't ask that, while not making a distinction between the two.

If he READ the book, he'd know the difference.

 

But he didn't read it.

 

He just bitched about it anyway.

 

For a segment which would be about Malkin's book, it seems that Matthews not reading the O'Neill/Corsi book is a point of contention.

Well, considering that HE brought it all up in the FIRST place...

Then why was there no hostile fire report filed? And Schachte was only the PERSON IN COMMAND OF THE MISSION. Yeah, I'm sure HE'S making it up.

 

Strange how he wasn't on the skimmer either.

He says he was --- as does Hibbard --- who COMMANDED THE ENTIRE GROUP.

 

Yup, they have NO idea what their troops are doing.

Hell, Runyon didn't even know Kerry was wounded. Grant Hibbard, the CO, disputed the story.

 

He went to Hibbard's office the next day and asked for a recommendation for a Purple Heart.

 

He REFUSED. He doesn't know how Kerry got the Heart at all.

 

Must have been the "Kerry-Hypnosis" which makes the Navy give medals to him, as part of the master plan.

Well, there is a way to answer it.

 

It involves opening ALL of the records. Which means more than cherry-picking them for his site.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ah, so just checking --- it's OK to invite people on to a show under false pretenses and to discuss something they are unprepared for. Just so long as their conservatives.

 

Man, you're going to have a hard time criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity EVER again.

-=Mike

I never said either host did that. I said O'Reilly wins through volume and interruptions and Hannity only likes people who kiss his ass.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so just checking --- it's OK to invite people on to a show under false pretenses and to discuss something they are unprepared for. Just so long as their conservatives.

 

Man, you're going to have a hard time criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity EVER again.

        -=Mike

I never said either host did that. I said O'Reilly wins through volume and interruptions and Hannity only likes people who kiss his ass.

Which is, of course, MUCH worse than inviting a guest on for one reason and ambushing them with something else, right?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

When did I complain about that, last time anyone cried of that happening was O'Reilly on Fresh Air, and I didn't complain about it either.

 

The fact is that Hardball is a DEBATE show. So is H&C and O'Reilly, as tilted as they are. It is not Larry King Live. It is not David Letterman. It is not Regis.

[Guest MikeSC]

When did I complain about that, last time anyone cried of that happening was O'Reilly on Fresh Air, and I didn't complain about it either.

 

The fact is that Hardball is a DEBATE show. So is H&C and O'Reilly, as tilted as they are. It is not Larry King Live. It is not David Letterman. It is not Regis.

It's also classless and amateurish to invite somebody onto a show to discuss one topic (BTW, her book is fascinating) and ambush them with something completely different.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

ooh, images. THAT proves it right there! Definitive proof!

 

Of what, I have no idea.

It's called a joke.

 

Anyways, the desired come back was "Those pictures are out of context"

 

Wow, huge difference. Funny that Olbermann says anybody "made a fool of him/herself", considering how shitty his career has gone since he left ESPN.

 

Strange how Malkin "misheard" Keith Olbermann.

 

"made a fool out of".. "idiot".. they sound alike too.

 

Let me guess --- you didn't READ the book, did you?

 

Hmmm?

 

Stick with commenting on what you know.

 

Did you read the unnamed book?

 

(I don't have any intention of buying either Malkin's book or "Unfit for Command". And it's not like i'm on a book review thread for either one)

 

{one more note on Unfit, in theory, I could go to a bookstore, read it there, take notes and all that, that might take some time. Also, since there's no known sanction for downloading it for free, like with F9/11, that's not a recommended route}

 

Which, again, begs the question --- WHY THE HELL WOULD SHE BE ON TO DISCUSS THE SVBT WHEN SHE DOES NOT MENTION THEM?

 

It doesn't seem even a little illogical?

 

Hmm.. a quick check of the transcript shows us that she mentioned a SBVT claim (the sharpnel).

 

WILLIE BROWN [Former mayor of San Francisco]: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There's no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?

 

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

 

Well, considering that HE brought it all up in the FIRST place...

 

*checks transcript*

 

first person to mention a SBVT claim: Malkin

 

first person to mention the SBVT book: Malkin

 

Damn Chris Matthews

 

Well, there is a way to answer it.

 

It involves opening ALL of the records. Which means more than cherry-picking them for his site.

 

Hmm.. yeah.. I hate the cherry picked 1.3MB Kerry file on his awards that doesn't want to load for me ( http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/...ryrecords_1.pdf )

 

and I hate the 49 other cherrypicked documents

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's also classless and amateurish to invite somebody onto a show to discuss one topic (BTW, her book is fascinating) and ambush them with something completely different.

-=Mike

Hi there, would you like to appear on our debate show? You'll get promotion for your book if you appear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gee, do you expect to get involved in a debate if you go on the show? Likely so, and as Rob said, she started it.