John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Straybow]

mb, the point of Ned raising Chris Matthews' on-air performance is to highlight the extent to which Democratic shills avoid the substantive questions.

Matthews was badgering the guest to say that Kerry deliberately wounded himself, and would not let the guest actually answer the question.

It appears two of his wounds were certainly too insignificant to merit the PHs, and one was apparently self-inflicted by error and the other possibly self-inflicted through error.

It reminds me of the M*A*S*H episode where Frank gets startled by an artillery explosion nearby and gets a fragment of eggshell in his eye... which he files as "shell fragment in eye" and gets a PH.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
MtG, I think you are mathematically challenged. A fragment can have serious wounding potential at a distance of 15 m but can't penetrate the skin at 18+ m?

Are you literacy challenged? Or just creating a strawman? I said the maximum blast radius was 15 meters, nothing about a fragment having "serious wounding potential" at that range.

The probable lethal range is only 5 meters, and as I stated before in another post, most of the effect is concussive, not fragmentation. 18 meters is also the minimum arming range, as I've stated before. Not standard, minimum. The arming range for this type of round is 18-36 meters, so rounds fired 18 meters won't even reliably be armed and won't detonate to full effect, if at all, on impact.

A ricochet event can translate angular KE into linear KE, effectively increasing the range at which a fragment could penetrate the skin.

We're talking about an alleged richochet event that would have to return the fragment full range to the shooter, not a small angular deflection. And we're also talking a thin-cased HE round fuzed to explode on impact, not a solid ballistic object like an FMJ smallarm round.

And we are talking about a fragment that barely penetrated the skin.

According to what? One individual's claim "seared into his memory?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
mb, the point of Ned raising Chris Matthews' on-air performance is to highlight the extent to which Democratic shills avoid the substantive questions.

Matthews was badgering the guest to say that Kerry deliberately wounded himself, and would not let the guest actually answer the question.

It appears two of his wounds were certainly too insignificant to merit the PHs, and one was apparently self-inflicted by error and the other possibly self-inflicted through error.

So what?

It has nothing to do with Kerry- again, Ned just ropes in a Kerry reference as if he or his campaign was responsible for what some telejournalist does or thinks.




I know, let's connect Bushbaby with all the outright lies and misinformation put out by the likes of the 'highly reputable' conservative hacks and hackettes such as Coulter and Limbaugh, et al.

Just as with the Republican Presidential scandals, you'd like to have it that only Democrat faeces stinks.

And with regard to his wounds - frankly you're just speculating.

Have you seen his medical records?


More to the point- has your whole country gone mad?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by molly bloom

More to the point- has your whole country gone mad?

Only a desperate minority.

[Drake Tungsten]

I know you're just a teenager, honey

I'm 25 years old...

Only a desperate minority.

Yep. And it's really sad to see that you've become one of them, MtG. Honestly.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Only a desperate minority.

It might make for a pleasing balance if some of Kerry's detractors in these posts had exercised as 'scorching' a direct gaze on the records of previous Republican Presidents and the incumbent.

Seems to me, I recall George Bush Sr.'s wartime heroics' account changing over the years, to present him in a better light.


Then of course there's the Bush family's part in Savings and Loan, but hey, that wasn't in Viet Nam, so who cares, it was only taxpayers' money.


And of course, Iran Contra, but that was only Americans held hostage in Lebanon, aid to terrorists, and breaking laws, no Khmer Rouge involved.

Oh, and of course, being an alcoholic war evader, who drops out of drug tests, and can't remember whether he had a criminal record, and when exactly it was that he had one, and how many times he may have broken the law, but then well, he's a Republican, those things don't matter that much, when you're voting for people on their 'reputation'.

[notyoueither]

What is it that people accuse UR of doing every time someone is critical of China? Oh yeah, they accuse him of obfuscation by bringing up bad things in or about other countries.

I'm curious, how is the UN supposed to react to the US being led by an admitted war criminal?

Have many people outside of the US given any thought to what effect Mr. Kerry could have on US trade policy?

[Ned]

Molly, For your doubting eyes, here is a transcript of the Chris Matthews show. Malkin was supposed to come back for the next segment. She did not.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

"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)"

[Ned]

Of course, the incident to which Malkin referred was the M79 grenade incident that got Kerry his first purple heart (after it was denied originally). His mates believed Kerry got his wound from grenade schrapnel. The chicken**** nature of Kerry's request for a purple heart for a self-inflicted "wound," er, scratch, followed him throughout his subsequent Vietnam career, and it seems, to this very day.

[Ned]

In his blog, Matthews had this to say about Malkin:

"• August 19, 2004 | 8:10 p.m. ET


On tonight's interview with Michelle Malkin (Chris Matthews)

One of my jobs on 'Hardball' is to cut through to the truth. Tonight on 'Hardball,' one of our guests pushed the idea that John Kerry had won his Purple Heart by deliberately shooting himself. The charge was without merit and baseless, as our guest under close questioning herself admitted.

We'll keep covering the political issues and will stand up against any attempt to broadcast misinformation."

My comment: those who know about the M79 grenade incident know that Malkin was correct in using the term "self inflicted." Matthews misunderstood, I believe, but refused to be corrected.

[Agathon]

I saw that Malkin woman on Dennis Miller. It appalls me that anyone so obviously stupid should be given TV time.

[Drake Tungsten]

She's hot, though.

[Agathon]

That's true... I'd **** her.

But I'd tape her mouth shut or find some other means to keep her quiet. I'm horrible like that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
In his blog, Matthews had this to say about Malkin:

"• August 19, 2004 | 8:10 p.m. ET


On tonight's interview with Michelle Malkin (Chris Matthews)

One of my jobs on 'Hardball' is to cut through to the truth. Tonight on 'Hardball,' one of our guests pushed the idea that John Kerry had won his Purple Heart by deliberately shooting himself. The charge was without merit and baseless, as our guest under close questioning herself admitted.

We'll keep covering the political issues and will stand up against any attempt to broadcast misinformation."

So that show differed substantially from right wing shows how?

Have you ever seen Margaret Thatcher interviewed? Actually, 'monologued' would be a better description.
She meted out that kind of treatment to her interviewers, or at least anyone callow enough to put up with it.


Do people like Limbaugh talk across awkward callers?

Do they shut them down, and their staff say they'll never get on air again?


Again, this has nothing to do with Kerry- he's in no way responsible for the behaviour of a talk show host.


'Molly, For your doubting eyes'

Ned

Gee thanks, Ned, but as I stated in another thread, in the O.T. it's only: 'In God We Trust', everyone else has to provide a cite, quote or link.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
I think Che's point is most valid:

The Nixon admin. did set itself out to investigate Kerry becuase they saw him as a threat- in fact, in PBS they had part of a documentary in wich hear tapes of Nixon talking with his Chief of Staff and Kissinger about the protests Kerry was in, talking about him, and they also talk about O'Neil as a counterweight. It was a very good interview, at it also showed that Nixon and his machine was trying to discredit him- if any of these accusations had much validity, they would have begun back then, not now all of a sudden.

Well it seems to be the most oft-repeated, a sure sign that it has been handed down by the Kerry campaign as a talking point. I'm not so sure about it though. IMO they did a much better job of getting their points across by using O'Neil as a spokesman for their policies (and having him debate Kerry) than they would have by tearing Kerry down, assuming that they even knew he was vulnerable on the medals issue. And I also doubt that they would have known for sure that something was (perhaps) fishy about Kerry's war record. Certainly a document search yields them nothing, because everything is based upon a few reports generated sometimes haphazardly by a unit in combat, and some of these reports are going to have been written by Kerry himself. To pursue this line would have meant exhaustively interviewing the people who served with Kerry who in the end might be inclined to protect him / expose your investigation. I can see no reason why the administration would have any reason to assume that such a line of action would have paid dividends. Nixon may have been a fvck, but he wasn't a stupid fvck.

People like to quote the Bronze Star Citation as proof that such and such happened, but citations are ritualized paragraphs which at best only summarize what has already been reported in official combat reports. This means that eyewitness accounts (in sum) are better than the documentation generally because all that the documentation amounts to is one person's (or in some cases a few people's) eyewitness account, jaundiced by the immediate need to make himself / his friends look good. At least with the bulk of surviving witnesses making their views heard we'll have a balance of different political motivations and perhaps somehow a little truth will leak out.