Chris Matthews Chews up Larry Thurlow on Hardball

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DefRef
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DefRef
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Seems to me that the leftists are getting desperate with this swiftvet stuff, it's like they can't make it go away but are trying as hard as they can...but the only way to make it go away is to get the truth - something they don't seem interested in.
All Kerry needs to do is sign a SF-180 that would release EVERYTHING the Navy has on him. If the SwiftVets are the liars that the shrill Kerry hacks here keep shrieking they are, a release of documents would forever silence them and make Kerry's "dirty work" charges stick.

But, he's not doing that, is he? Instead, he's whining and crying about how mean people are and having his lapdogs in the media run an ad hominem campaign in which they don't deal with the charges, but try to BS us in to ignoring them because <gasp> Republicans are somehow involved. When George Soros gives $15 million to MoveOn, it's all good, but if some GOP member spends $150,000, oh hell, it's the end of the world!!!

Hypocrites.:disgust:
Kerry has the UNITED STATES NAVY backing him up. The Swift Boat Village People are the ones making the accusation. THEY are the ones that needed to provide proof. THEY are the ones that have lied. THEY are the ones that have FLIP-FLOPPED on their story. There's been thread after thread about this. I suggest you get caught up.
Um, news flash, Bub - it's KERRY who had to flip-flop on his Holiday In Cambodia story - a lie he told for DECADES before being called out and shown to be fibbing. And you want us to ignore that and think the Vets are lying. Puh-leeze...

Thread after thread of Kerry Kool-Aid guzzlers telling each other how smart they are and how stupid the other guys are are useless. Screaming "LIAR!!!" over and over doesn't make it so, especially when the accusations DO come with documentation. I'll bet you believe every lie Michael Moore has told about Bush, yet would never believe anything against your annointed, gold-digging, Anybody But Bush candidate.

16 fellow vets support Kerry and over 255 oppose him and you give the credence to the 16?!? If 255 vets came out attacking Bush, you'd believe them, but for some reason, there's no there there for you guys about Kerry.

Hypocrites.

Boy, you better do a little more research before spouting your mouth like that. How about instead of reading other threads, why don't you put down the neocon checklist of bullsh*t and actually think for yourself?

Oh and btw, didn't see F9/11 and won't see it. I do my own research, thank you very much. Do you?
Anyone else noticing that the Kerry minions NEVER offer countering proof, preferring to only sneering that no one knows nothing and tossing the ad hominem buzzwords like "neocon" like a grenade that automatically dismisses the argument they can't/won't take on?

I knew you could.

FACT: Kerry's been lying about being in Cambodia for Xmas 1968.

FACT: Nixon wasn't President then, so Kerry's been lying about that part of his little tale.

FACT: Damn near everyone who served with Kerry hates him except for his "Band of Brothers" - can't he be original? We should be thankful he doesn't call them his "Sopranos" - who probably expect cushy government gigs in exchange for their being used as props. Kerry certainly made a lot of enemies in his 4 months in country, didn't he? (Of course, many probably started hating him after he called them "war criminals".)

FACT: Kerry hasn't signed a SF-180 form that would release the info that could clear his name.

Deal with these facts. If you can, that is.

When you decided to go for the most "electible" candidate to get rid of Bush, you really should've checked to see if he was all he said he was cuz it looks like you got yourself a lying feckless crapweasel who will permanently tarnish the Democratic Party as the anti-American, pro-tyrant, appeasement punks you are and that America's security is at risk when you're in control.

At least we're finding out BEFORE the election and not afterwards. Good for the country; bad for you guys. Wah.
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
This guy is hung up on the Cambodia thing, I guess it's all he has. Meanwhile there is a list a mile long on Bush's lies and Fck-ups, but let's ignore them and scream at everyone instead.

BTW, I'll beleive the 16 in his boat and not the guys who didn't serve with him and are just upset about his Senate testomony. Are some vets bitter at him? Sure, does that make his medals fake and him unfit? Not at all. Like I say, follow the money.. it leads back to Texas Republican millionaires and friends of Karl A$$hat Rove.
Hung up? Dude, your guy is a LYING LIAR and Cambodia is only the tip of the lieberg! If Bush had a whopper like that on his record - cue the shrieks of "AWOL!!!" - you'd make a big deal about it, but somehow, Kerry gets a pass because, well, you hate Bush and he's the "Anybody But Bush" guy.

George Soros is a BILLIONAIRE funding anti-Bush organizations, yet if a Republican spends his money to get his message out, it's a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! Yeesh!

You're a hypocrite and your guy's a liar. All the ad hominems in the world don't change these FACTS.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
This guy is hung up on the Cambodia thing, I guess it's all he has. Meanwhile there is a list a mile long on Bush's lies and Fck-ups, but let's ignore them and scream at everyone instead.

BTW, I'll beleive the 16 in his boat and not the guys who didn't serve with him and are just upset about his Senate testomony. Are some vets bitter at him? Sure, does that make his medals fake and him unfit? Not at all. Like I say, follow the money.. it leads back to Texas Republican millionaires and friends of Karl A$$hat Rove.


Exactly.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: DefRef
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DefRef
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Seems to me that the leftists are getting desperate with this swiftvet stuff, it's like they can't make it go away but are trying as hard as they can...but the only way to make it go away is to get the truth - something they don't seem interested in.
All Kerry needs to do is sign a SF-180 that would release EVERYTHING the Navy has on him. If the SwiftVets are the liars that the shrill Kerry hacks here keep shrieking they are, a release of documents would forever silence them and make Kerry's "dirty work" charges stick.

But, he's not doing that, is he? Instead, he's whining and crying about how mean people are and having his lapdogs in the media run an ad hominem campaign in which they don't deal with the charges, but try to BS us in to ignoring them because <gasp> Republicans are somehow involved. When George Soros gives $15 million to MoveOn, it's all good, but if some GOP member spends $150,000, oh hell, it's the end of the world!!!

Hypocrites.:disgust:
Kerry has the UNITED STATES NAVY backing him up. The Swift Boat Village People are the ones making the accusation. THEY are the ones that needed to provide proof. THEY are the ones that have lied. THEY are the ones that have FLIP-FLOPPED on their story. There's been thread after thread about this. I suggest you get caught up.
Um, news flash, Bub - it's KERRY who had to flip-flop on his Holiday In Cambodia story - a lie he told for DECADES before being called out and shown to be fibbing. And you want us to ignore that and think the Vets are lying. Puh-leeze...

Thread after thread of Kerry Kool-Aid guzzlers telling each other how smart they are and how stupid the other guys are are useless. Screaming "LIAR!!!" over and over doesn't make it so, especially when the accusations DO come with documentation. I'll bet you believe every lie Michael Moore has told about Bush, yet would never believe anything against your annointed, gold-digging, Anybody But Bush candidate.

16 fellow vets support Kerry and over 255 oppose him and you give the credence to the 16?!? If 255 vets came out attacking Bush, you'd believe them, but for some reason, there's no there there for you guys about Kerry.

Hypocrites.

Zzzzz. 16 fellow vets eh? Nice try BUB. I think you dropped a crayon on the floor after you spilled your Kool-Aid. I love parody posters :)
 

Caminetto

Senior member
Jul 29, 2001
821
49
91
I love parody posters

Nah, lots of disturbed people. I must know at least 2 dozen vets that never got over Vietnam and are extremely bitter about the anti-war movement as if it was solely responsible for them not receiving the glory and honor they think they are due. I am not saying that they represent the majority of Vietnam vets, but there's lots of hate and refusal to let go out there.
 

MrNutz

Banned
Oct 18, 2001
851
0
0
Definition of Irony:
Telling everyone how much you loathe Fox's primetime journalists for their tactics and then praising a CNN journalist for using them.


Yes, I just watched CSPAN2 with their interview of Michelle Malkin. The comment above refers to the left-wing callers' beautiful ignorance.

Nutz
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,192
44
91
Originally posted by: Todd33
This guy is hung up on the Cambodia thing, I guess it's all he has. Meanwhile there is a list a mile long on Bush's lies and Fck-ups, but let's ignore them and scream at everyone instead.

BTW, I'll beleive the 16 in his boat and not the guys who didn't serve with him and are just upset about his Senate testomony. Are some vets bitter at him? Sure, does that make his medals fake and him unfit? Not at all. Like I say, follow the money.. it leads back to Texas Republican millionaires and friends of Karl A$$hat Rove.


:thumbsup:
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Michelle Malkin deserved everything Chris Matthews gave her. She was making outlandish accusations on the show that Kerry shot himself to get his medal and Matthews called her out on it. If you didn't know, this is what Matthews does. He doesn't ask the typical questions, he tries to throw his guests off so you can see their actual thought process.
 

MrNutz

Banned
Oct 18, 2001
851
0
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Michelle Malkin deserved everything Chris Matthews gave her. She was making outlandish accusations on the show that Kerry shot himself to get his medal and Matthews called her out on it. If you didn't know, this is what Matthews does. He doesn't ask the typical questions, he tries to throw his guests off so you can see their actual thought process.
So basically, you're saying his tactic is to make uninformed statements to mislead his guests into thinking he's an idiot.

If you did your homework you make the unbelievable discovery that she was invited to the show by his producers to make references to the veterans' book and to promote her own, un-Kerry related, book. :confused:

EDIT: Oh yeah, she never said anything about Kerry shooting himself. You can find proof of that in MSNBC's transcript.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: DefRef
Originally posted by: Todd33
This guy is hung up on the Cambodia thing, I guess it's all he has. Meanwhile there is a list a mile long on Bush's lies and Fck-ups, but let's ignore them and scream at everyone instead.

BTW, I'll beleive the 16 in his boat and not the guys who didn't serve with him and are just upset about his Senate testomony. Are some vets bitter at him? Sure, does that make his medals fake and him unfit? Not at all. Like I say, follow the money.. it leads back to Texas Republican millionaires and friends of Karl A$$hat Rove.
Hung up? Dude, your guy is a LYING LIAR and Cambodia is only the tip of the lieberg! If Bush had a whopper like that on his record - cue the shrieks of "AWOL!!!" - you'd make a big deal about it, but somehow, Kerry gets a pass because, well, you hate Bush and he's the "Anybody But Bush" guy.

George Soros is a BILLIONAIRE funding anti-Bush organizations, yet if a Republican spends his money to get his message out, it's a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! Yeesh!

You're a hypocrite and your guy's a liar. All the ad hominems in the world don't change these FACTS.

Well.... my e-penis is bigger than yours.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: MrNutz
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Michelle Malkin deserved everything Chris Matthews gave her. She was making outlandish accusations on the show that Kerry shot himself to get his medal and Matthews called her out on it. If you didn't know, this is what Matthews does. He doesn't ask the typical questions, he tries to throw his guests off so you can see their actual thought process.
So basically, you're saying his tactic is to make uninformed statements to mislead his guests into thinking he's an idiot.

If you did your homework you make the unbelievable discovery that she was invited to the show by his producers to make references to the veterans' book and to promote her own, un-Kerry related, book. :confused:

EDIT: Oh yeah, she never said anything about Kerry shooting himself. You can find proof of that in MSNBC's transcript.

No she implied it which was much worse then saying it directly and admitting that she was accusing him of shooting himself in the leg. Chris called her out and asked her to back up the statement she made. You can't play the spin game and imply something on his show without having real 100% certifiable proof to back up your statements. Oh and that disgrace of a book which is nothing more then a bunch of false accusations is not proof enough. Only a blind partisan hack would not see what she was trying to do during the show. She never did back up her statement and never did take responsibility for it and now she is crying because she was called out and made a fool of on a prime time tv show. If she can't take the political heat then maybe she should go back to the kitchen and bake us some cookies.



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.
 

villager

Senior member
Oct 17, 2002
373
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: MrNutz
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Michelle Malkin deserved everything Chris Matthews gave her. She was making outlandish accusations on the show that Kerry shot himself to get his medal and Matthews called her out on it. If you didn't know, this is what Matthews does. He doesn't ask the typical questions, he tries to throw his guests off so you can see their actual thought process.
So basically, you're saying his tactic is to make uninformed statements to mislead his guests into thinking he's an idiot.

If you did your homework you make the unbelievable discovery that she was invited to the show by his producers to make references to the veterans' book and to promote her own, un-Kerry related, book. :confused:

EDIT: Oh yeah, she never said anything about Kerry shooting himself. You can find proof of that in MSNBC's transcript.

No she implied it which was much worse then saying it directly and admitting that she was accusing him of shooting himself in the leg. Chris called her out and ask her to back up the statement she made. You can't play the spin game and imply something on his show without having real 100% certifiable proof to back up your statements. Oh and that disgrace of a book which is nothing more then a bunch of false accusations is not proof enough. Only a blind partisan hack would not see what she was trying to do during the show. She never did back up her statement and never did take responsibility for it and now she is crying because she was called out and made a fool of on a prime time tv show. If she can't take the political heat then maybe she should go back to the kitchen and bake us some cookies.



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.

.

Actually Runyan and Zeldonaz back Kerry.

"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 launcherLink
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
I saw it. If the guests were allowed to answer questions, and the answers were bad, you might have a case. In this situation, Chris Matthews came UNHINGED in Carvelesque fashion (very entertaining I might add, I may watch more often) and simply didnt allow answers to the questions, then claimed victory because nobody was allowed to answer the questions.

I would have LOVED to hear the answers. I thought Michelle was gonna answer the self-inflicted question with "according to the book, he had self-inflicted - not necessarily intentional - of an accidental nature." I dont know if I buy that or not, but it would have been nice if she was allowed to finish one sentence.

However, I dont think she got much past "according" before Matthews started foaming.

Incidently, she was scheduled for 2 segments, and Matthews dismissed her after the first one... AFTER absconding with her copy of the "Unfit" book. I wonder if she got it back
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
No she implied it which was much worse then saying it directly and admitting that she was accusing him of shooting himself in the leg. Chris called her out and asked her to back up the statement she made. You can't play the spin game and imply something on his show without having real 100% certifiable proof to back up your statements. Oh and that disgrace of a book which is nothing more then a bunch of false accusations is not proof enough. Only a blind partisan hack would not see what she was trying to do during the show. She never did back up her statement and never did take responsibility for it and now she is crying because she was called out and made a fool of on a prime time tv show. If she can't take the political heat then maybe she should go back to the kitchen and bake us some cookies.

She said there were legitimate questions that needed answers. She never said that he shot himself, she never IMPLIED it. Self-inflicted wounds do not have to be deliberate, they can be accidental (I holster a unsafty'd gun and shoot my toe off... I certainly didnt intend to do it, but it was self-inflicted). She never asserts HER opinion, she simply states "this is what these guys said."

Or at least that is what she attempted to do. They need to check Matthews for rabies... I think he was foaming.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
She never said that he shot himself, she never IMPLIED it.

That about summerizes the whole Bush presidency and campaign. When they get caught lying, they blame others. Otherwise the skirt up to the edge of lying and imply it. So she implied it, she is an Ann Coulter wannabe, good ridence to her.
 

MrNutz

Banned
Oct 18, 2001
851
0
0
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
No she implied it which was much worse then saying it directly and admitting that she was accusing him of shooting himself in the leg. Chris called her out and asked her to back up the statement she made. You can't play the spin game and imply something on his show without having real 100% certifiable proof to back up your statements. Oh and that disgrace of a book which is nothing more then a bunch of false accusations is not proof enough. Only a blind partisan hack would not see what she was trying to do during the show. She never did back up her statement and never did take responsibility for it and now she is crying because she was called out and made a fool of on a prime time tv show. If she can't take the political heat then maybe she should go back to the kitchen and bake us some cookies.

She said there were legitimate questions that needed answers. She never said that he shot himself, she never IMPLIED it. Self-inflicted wounds do not have to be deliberate, they can be accidental (I holster a unsafty'd gun and shoot my toe off... I certainly didnt intend to do it, but it was self-inflicted). She never asserts HER opinion, she simply states "this is what these guys said."

Or at least that is what she attempted to do. They need to check Matthews for rabies... I think he was foaming.
Its ridiculous, he read the transcript and still said "admitting that she was accusing him of shooting himself in the leg." Where exactly is the connection between "self-inflicted wound" and "shooting himself in the leg"? There's alot more ways than to accidently shoot yourself to cause a self-inflicted wound. And Chrissy Matthews would have known exactly what she was refering to if he did some research like a good, non-biased journalist prior to the interview. Instead he came off like a fool who didn't even read the book, made an accusation, and didn't want to give Michelle a chance to even complete her sentence which would prove how dumb-founded his accusation was.
This was clearly an example of a liberal media farce to slam the truth about Kerry. They invited Michelle to the show to talk about her book and also, on the side, discuss the veterans book. Instead, they slammed Michelle and kicked her off the show before she could even talk about what she was initially invited for. If you read Michelle Malkin's Blog, you would see that one of Matthew's stage hands ran and grabbed her copy of the veteran's book to see if they could back up the "shot himself" claim they just made up. That proved they had no idea what they were talking about and they didn't even have their own copy of the book before the interview.
I don't care what your political views are, this is clearly biased, sloppy journalism. And even if you think that there was no bias there, you have to agree that a journalist on a national broadcast news program should not only obtain a copy of a book, but read it too before questioning what it says. :confused:
 

viivo

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
3,345
32
91
Originally posted by: Todd33
She never said that he shot himself, she never IMPLIED it.

That about summerizes the whole Bush presidency and campaign. When they get caught lying, they blame others. Otherwise the skirt up to the edge of lying and imply it. So she implied it, she is an Ann Coulter wannabe, good ridence to her.

I don't believe Michelle is near the pathology exhibited by Coulter. When she was on Real Time she admitted that Bush lies, so she's not totally past the ledge of partisanship and into delusion just yet.

Edit: Also, Matthews is a crank. He's always been a hack looking for the ratings and is no better than O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.
 

MrNutz

Banned
Oct 18, 2001
851
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
She never said that he shot himself, she never IMPLIED it.

That about summerizes the whole Bush presidency and campaign. When they get caught lying, they blame others. Otherwise the skirt up to the edge of lying and imply it. So she implied it, she is an Ann Coulter wannabe, good ridence to her.
And you just summed up the liberal media... make up a story from extremely vague details. And above all, don't ever attempt to get the full story first. Because the truth is just not as interesting. :confused:

I guess it just makes you guys feel good that you can fit everyone into some genre. What genre are you? Comeon, don't just spit out an answer, really take a look at your lifestyle, music interests, etc... and think of what scheme marketers use to condense you into a category and target ads for you...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The truth comes out. These guys are just pissed at Kerry for his anti-war stance and are out to smear him.

Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Senator's Activism Made A Lasting Impression
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20242-2004Aug20.html
William Ferris was confined to a bed in a military hospital, his severed sciatic nerve reminding him of the attack on his Navy Swift boat in a Vietnamese river. A shot from a recoilless rifle had pierced the boat's pilothouse and then Ferris's body, leaving him in constant agony.

But it was what appeared on Ferris's television that really pained him. John F. Kerry, a decorated fellow Swift boat driver, was testifying before Congress about atrocities in Vietnam, throwing his medals away, speaking at antiwar rallies. Ferris, who was trying to rehabilitate himself back to active duty, felt betrayed.

"I was livid," Ferris, 57, of Long Island, N.Y., said yesterday, recalling how his dislike for the presidential candidate began in the early 1970s. "I said to myself at the time, this is someone who is using his experience for his own purposes, and this was long before he ever ran for office. I thought he was using, actually manipulating, what he had done in Vietnam. Just like he's doing now."

Ferris is one of 250 Swift boat veterans who in May signed an open letter to the Massachusetts senator asking for full disclosure of his military records, specifically focusing on events during a four-month tour in Vietnam for which Kerry was awarded medals for bravery in combat. The veterans group -- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- has criticized Kerry for using his military experience as a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, arguing that the Democrat has exaggerated his experiences at war for political gain.

"I thought he was just another hot dog just trying to build his reputation," said Wayland Holloway of Searcy, Ark., who says he crossed paths with Kerry in 1969, one day before the future presidential candidate pulled Jim Rassmann from a river. "The first time I met John Kerry, frankly, I thought he was a very disingenuous person."

But while the group appears to be rooted in Republican politics and big money, several veterans who signed the letter said in interviews yesterday that they are casually into politics and generally are not convinced that Kerry is lying, but they do not like the candidate because of his polarizing speeches in the 1970s.

James Zumwalt, who attended the group's first news conference in May, said he joined the group solely to set the record straight about the allegations of war crimes included in "Tour of Duty," a Douglas Brinkley book about Kerry's Vietnam service. Now, Zumwalt says, "I kind of have mixed feelings" about the tone of the group's attacks. "I would not try to question the awards given to him or his service."

Many of the veterans, scattered across the country, learned about the anti-Kerry group through friends, at reunions for Swift boat vets or on the Internet, and most have limited their involvement to signing the single letter to Kerry. Some say they voted for Al Gore in the last election but are still deeply hurt by what Kerry did when he returned from battle.

Kenneth Knipple of Erie, Mich., who served three years in Vietnam, backed Gore in 2000 but joined the anti-Kerry movement after leaning about it from a fellow vet. "For him to be wounded that many times and lie as many times as he did, I don't want him to be president," said Knipple, who served on Swift boats, but never with Kerry.

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message.

Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

The effort has gained momentum in the past month, as the veterans group began airing a controversial television commercial questioning Kerry's version of his service and asking him to disclose his military records. The Kerry camp has been attacking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, calling it a front for President Bush's reelection efforts.

The May 4 letter arose out of a broader effort coordinated by a longtime Kerry foe and Republican supporter, Texas lawyer John E. O'Neill, also a Swift boat veteran. At the behest of the Nixon White House in 1971, O'Neill debated Kerry on television about the war.

O'Neill, who co-wrote "Unfit for Command," an anti-Kerry book published this week, gathered other Swift boat veterans to start the group and allowed word to spread. The group's core membership -- which has met three times and has had several conference calls -- includes a seven-member steering committee and about 10 other members.

"We really got this thing going in the hopes the Democratic Party would listen to us and perhaps nominate someone else," said Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, whom O'Neill recruited onto the steering committee. Lannom bristles at the thought of Kerry being elected to the presidency. "He's lying, and he's betraying us," Lannom said. "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."

Unlike casual participants, the most committed members say they are driven by desire to expose Kerry as a fraud who doctored his record to win medals and an early release from Vietnam. But they are a minority in the larger group.

John L. Kipp of Brown County, Ind., said he learned about the letter to Kerry while surfing the Web and added his signature because he does not believe that Kerry is telling the whole truth. Kipp, who commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam, doubts that Kerry would have left his boat to attack an enemy, as he has asserted. "It really bothered me when he started to ballyhoo his war record," said Kipp, 62. "You don't turn on your comrades and say these terrible, awful things that I know I had never seen. There's something about keeping faith with those you served with."

Don Hammer, a veteran from Bloomington, Ill., said he admires Kerry. Hammer also said he believes Kerry was within his rights to speak out against the war. But still, Hammer has questions. "My goal is to tell Mr. Kerry to open up his service record," he said. "I don't know what happened. Nobody else knows what happened."
 

MrNutz

Banned
Oct 18, 2001
851
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The truth comes out. These guys are just pissed at Kerry for his anti-war stance and are out to smear him.

Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Senator's Activism Made A Lasting Impression
Hmm... I see the point you were going for here but I think you missed the boat. Or maybe you didn't even read the article. It says nothing about an anti-war stance. It actually is excerpts from a number of veterans with first-hand experience from that time/area. No, not first-hand experience of Kerry. What they are saying is that they know what things were like there and what Kerry has been saying for the last 30 years doesn't add up. A few of his statements are clearly false. (i.e. Cambodia/Nixon topic)
They didn't write the book, they are just backing the authors b/c what Kerry says doesn't make sense to them. Remember, they were there and most of them had similar experience.
I know you will believe what you want, but at least try to educate yourself on the issues here... Kerry's stories vs Veteran's. A good rule of thumb for reading anything is to try and be unbiased as possible. Then read it from your opposite bias to get what your opposition may be trying to prove. You will get much better comprehension and understanding of what message the author/interviewee is relaying.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
I don't think Ann Coulter is that hot.... and after listening to her yadayada, definetely a turn off
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
heh. I see we have some members of the Bush campaign lies machine still attempting to propagate the lies. The SB guys have been outed so many times, exposed for the liars they are, yet they are still defended as though there is truth behind them. LIARS. Get it through your fat heads: LIARS. :D
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I didn't see the Malkin interview but hear she was seriiously OWNED. Does anybody know the reader's digest version of what transpired?

Never mind, I see it above. Sorry. I'm slow and old and in the way. :) :)

-Robert