Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog


Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Bush Vets respond with a letter to Kerry.

Well, Kerry continues with his whining and bashing.  Today, he sent Cleland and Rassmann to the Bush Ranch in Texas to send him a letter calling for him to denounce the Swiftboat ads.

What....they couldn't use FedEx?

In the letter, Cleland and other Democratic veteran politicians called on Bush to "specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry's combat record in the Vietnam War."  However, they specifically want to contrast the difference between the 527 ads and the Swiftboat ads, although they are no doubt the same:

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot. The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander in Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy.

Tough luck, Cleland.  Where were you when not only MoveOn.org but the rest of the mainstream media were questioning Bush's National Guard Service?  I didn't see you opening your mouth then. 

In fact, just as soon as Charles Gibson checked John Kerry over the "ribbons" controversy, what was the first thing that came out of Kerry's mouth?  The very same thing he's done with this incident; he tried to say it was the Bush Administration that was bringing up the controversy through his subordinates (although I doubt Charles Gibson could be considered a Bush subordinate) and then he bashed Bush on his National Guard service. 

In fact, a Kerry campaign advisor bashed Bush's military service three times on Meet the Press, in which the Bush spokesman during that same segment noted.

Anyway, a number of veterans supporting the Bush campaign, mostly consisting of public officials, released their own letter:

...so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.
Precisely.  Kerry trying to silence what they have to say and not directly answering the charges is leaving a very big impression in the minds of all Americans. 

On Monday, the Washington Post called for Kerry to release all of his records:

Indeed, the Kerry campaign ought to arrange for the full release of all relevant records from the time. Mr. Kerry granted historian Douglas Brinkley exclusive use of his wartime journals and other writings; the campaign should seek to be freed from that agreement and to make all the material public. Though the ads are being underwritten by longtime Bush partisans, the Kerry campaign's claim of illegal coordination between the Swift boat group and the Bush campaign is unconvincing.
As far as I know, this is the first major newspaper to call for the Kerry campaign to do this.  Whether he will or not is doubtful.

Posted at 04:26 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home

Russian jets had hijackers?

It's possible:

If you didn't know, two Russian jets went down almost simultaneously today.

This came in over the AP:

The Russian news agency Interfax reported that a hijacking signal was activated on the second plane before it went missing. The signal came at 11:04 p.m. from the Tu-154 airliner, Interfax quoted the source in Russia's "power structures" as saying.
Of course, you can never really know what happened, as Russia is shrouded in secretcy.  In fact, it was my initial opinion that the Russian govt probably blew up the planes themselves - whether accidentally or on purpose.

And take notice that this Sunday Chechnya has their presidential elections.  Terrorists have been trying to pull a Madrid in order to influence that election, which is to replace the former president who was killed in a bombing.

Keep your eye on this one, folks.

Posted at 12:16 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Media Matters and FactCheck.org distort Purple Heart Qualifications.

Every once in a while I check out Media Matters for America, the brainchild created by David Brock to counter the "conservative media", as he calls it.  We can talk about how conservative it is and how misleading that label is later.

Anyway, Gabriel Wildau posted today that Mort Kondracke was wrong in regards to the requirements of a Purple Heart.  On Special Report with Brit Hume, Kondracke said this:

KONDRACKE: Now, there's questions about the third Purple Heart as well. Because in this exhaustive Washington Post analysis of that incident, this March 13, 1969, incident, where [then-Kerry crewmate Jim] Rassmann got knocked overboard. Part of the story is that the shrapnel that Kerry took in his buttocks was from a grenade that he -- that he threw himself. And therefore, that would not qualify for ...

CONNOLLY: But that's a ...

KONDRACKE: Just a minute. He also got -- he also had a contusion, didn't break the skin apparently. A contusion on his arm, and the Purple Heart was awarded for the two of them combined. Now, if it turns out that the -- that the shrapnel in his buttocks, which did bring blood, was self- inflicted, then he didn't deserve that Purple Heart.

To which, Wildau responded:

The truth is that Kondracke is ignorant of the relevant requirements for awarding a Purple Heart. Annenberg Public Policy Center's Political Fact Check pointed out that the buttock wound alone -- which Kerry sustained while blowing up a cache of rice that was a source of food for the Viet Cong -- would have qualified Kerry for a Purple Heart, even without the arm injury Kerry subsequently sustained in full-fledged combat later that day. A "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a Purple Heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters."
Wildau is flat out wrong, and it's obvious that he nor FactCheck.org either didn't read the Military Order or they purposely distorted it.  I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Wildau was just repeating the charge made by FactCheck, but I'm not willing to give the same benefit to FactCheck themselves.

Here's what the Military Order website actually says:

b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
This is not "friendly fire", as these were grenades set off by both Kerry and Rassmann themselves.  Friendly fire comes from other members of your unit, not from yourself.  Second, this passage explicitly states "heat of battle", meaning that you have to be engaged by enemy troops.  Now unless you are trying to assert the rice bin was attacking Kerry and Rassmann, then this does not constitute as the heat of battle.

The Military Order also states this:

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

Now check out (g) and (h).  (g) specifically states:  "Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action."  Those grenade explosions would constitute as an explosion that was not caused by any enemy action, unless, once again, the rice bin attacked Kerry and Rassmann.

Now having said that, it is possible that an argument could be made that this was "related to" enemy action, considering they did it for the express purpose for hurting the VietCong.  But then you have to decide whether a VietCong rice bin standing by itself bothering no one constitutes an enemy action.  *shrugs*

(h) is the killer.  "Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence."  Do I really need to go into detail about this one?  Does this not sum it up in regards to what actually happened with Kerry, if this account is indeed true?

Media Matters needs to correct their false allegation.  Of course, I know they won't.  But it's always good to hope they had some sort of integrity. 

Posted at 07:24 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Why Kerry vs. Swiftboats is important.

I was able to check out a glimpse of Booker's News today.  Responding to a commentary by Sowell, Molotov asked this:

Maybe it's because it happened when we were 1 year old, but why are the candidates and media talkin' about old crap? We care more about what they're gonna do now about the military, war on terrorism, etc.

Alot of people have asked the question, "Why are we talking about Vietnam again?" 

Well, actually we're talking about something that happened during Vietnam, but we aren't talking about Vietnam in and of itself.  I know that may sound confusing, but gimme a second to explain:

This is less about Vietnam than it is about a presidential candidate that boosted his image at the expense of thousands of veterans; some of which he served with.  And now that he is being checked on that, he's crying foul.  And it's quite interesting to see how he has reacted to it.  Kerry has taken criticism by Bush and the media, mainly for his flip flops, that ribbon controversy, and the like.  However, during a good amount of that time most weren't paying attention to Kerry like they are now.  Now there is more attention being placed on Kerry since the Democratic National Convention.

And how has he reacted?  Instead of facing these challenges head on, like he said he was going to do (i.e. the steering the boat into the attack thing), he has done nothing but run from the accusations.  He has used lawyers to try to intimidate television stations into pulling the ads from off the air, claiming they are lying while using faulty information themselves.  He has intimidated the publisher, Regency, calling for them to pull the book claiming it's all lies.  He's tried to paint this as a Bush attack, trying to say that the Bush campaign is bankrolling all of this.

I think Malkin put it best:

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?

Precisely.

This is the man who wants to be the next President of the United States at a time where we are at war with Islamic terrorists...but can't even handle the rigors of basic American politics.  As a phone call that was reported by Drudge suggests, John Kerry wasn't even prepared to have to defend himself on Vietnam despite his anti-war statements denouncing these people and the way he trashed some of his own commanding officers in his own biography.

It goes into the heart of this man's integrity; an integrity that has been questioned ever since he was nominated as the Democratic Presidential Nominee.  Most people have believed that John Kerry would say and do anything to get elected, and this incident serves as a big reason why.

That's why this issue is so important.

Posted at 05:49 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home




Monday, August 23, 2004
Glen Reynolds creates a parallel universe.

Reynolds over at Instapundit has created a great satirical column that seems like it would be a perfect fit for The Onion:

EAST HAMPTON, NY (IP) -- Democratic Presidential nomineee John Kerry laughs when told that most voters don't realize that he served in Vietnam, winning three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star.

"Why should they? That's several wars ago," Kerry laughs. "Old stuff. I'd much rather people be talking about my detailed plan to rebuild Iraq, using an oil trust mechanism that would give the Iraqi people a stake in reconstruction. That's why I focused on that in my acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. What was I going to do, rehash events from 35 years ago?"

Kerry's friends say that, like other veterans, he's been known to tell a few tall tales about his service over beers with others who served, but that he seldom talks about his combat experience otherwise. "He's put that behind him," says his wife Teresa. "And he thinks it would be unbecoming to make a big deal about his service when others, like [Senator] John McCain or [former P.O.W.] Paul Galanti went through so much more."

"I would have invaded Iraq regardless of the WMD issue," Kerry observes. "Saddam Hussein was a threat, and a menace to his own people. And a free, democratic Iraq will be the first step toward addressing the 'root cause' of terrorism -- despotic Arab regimes that spew hatred to distract their people from their own tyranny. But as I said last year, the reconstruction needed more resources. That was why I voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction money, but urged the Bush Administration to ask for more, to do it right."

Kerry also takes a dim view of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. "I think that his film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was scurrilous and dangerous to the morale of our troops. That's why I asked that he be excluded from the Democratic Convention, despite Jimmy Carter's wishes. And that's why he wasn't seen there. In a time of war, we don't need guys like that. We can win this campaign based on our ideas, not propaganda films. That's also why I told Chris Matthews to 'stuff it' when he tried to make an issue out of President Bush's National Guard service."

Kerry's detailed plans for Iraq, and for carrying the war on terror to Al Qaeda and its backers elsewhere, seem to have left the Bush Administration floundering. Sources close to the Bush campaign say that some Bush operatives are considering an attack on Kerry's Vietnam record, but many are skeptical. "I don't think that'll work," says cyber-pundit Glenn Reynolds, who calls Kerry's Iraq plan promising. "Most voters have no idea Kerry was even in Vietnam. He never talks about it, so where's the traction? It's ancient history."

Others are even harsher. "They can't attack the message," says Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect, a liberal publication. "So they're attacking the messenger. That's because they don't want to talk about Kerry's real accomplishments, the ones Kerry touted at the Convention, like his role in busting BCCI, the terrorists' money laundry. Kerry's talking about that, and his plans for Iraq, and they're talking about Vietnam? Who cares about that? Pathetic."

Ha.  I'm sure there are some Democrats out there right now that wish this was a real column.

Posted at 12:27 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Bob Dole calls for Kerry to apologize.

Huge story today on Bob Dole on CNN tonight:

Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

I'm telling ya, although the media is trying to trash and discredit this story as much as they can, it gets hotter and hotter as the days go by.  The Swifties are doing damage to John Kerry's campaign, and people are realizing that something is wrong with the rosy picture that John Kerry is trying to portray.

I knew this was coming, however I thought his downfall would come once they exposed his anti-war record and the accompanying support by Vietnam organizations to George Bush.  CBS's poll shows Bush and Kerry neck-and-neck, when they had Kerry up by 6 points after the convention (personally
I think Bush was ahead the whole time).  However, it does show that Kerry has taken quite a hit out there by the attention given to the Swiftboat Vets, whether negative or positive.  People have been able to hear their side of things and seen that Kerry has some explaining to do about his record.

Posted at 12:02 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Sunday, August 22, 2004
John Kerry has been busted.

Quite an interesting article by Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post:

As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.

Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."

This should end all of the questions surrounding this incident, in which Kerry ended up getting a Purple Heart for.  These two simply did not get far enough before the grenade exploded.  And this was not a combat experience; it was a case of two men that ended up getting rice stuck up their asses for doing something that could be interpreted as stupid. 

And remember:  this is coming from Kerry's boy.  Rassmann claims Kerry saved his life in the Bronze Star incident.  Hence there can be no excuses about this being a Bush plot.

I wonder if the mainstream press will push this account?

Posted at 08:07 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Friday, August 20, 2004
Kerry campaign intimidates SwiftVets book publisher

Drudge is reporting that John Kerry is calling for the publisher to withdraw the Swiftboat Vets book.

The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...

I tell ya; Kerry is getting very desperate.  With no bounce coming out of the DNC Convention, and he's now facing potentially a double-digit deficit after Labor Day, the last thing he needs is these guys making him look worse.  He's got to hold Bush off until the debates.  That's why he's resorting to these sort of tactics.  Of course, it isn't the first time he's done this.

Posted at 10:33 am by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home

Malkin vs. Matthews

There were alot of fireworks on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, as Matthews got heated with both Swiftboat Vet Larry Thurlow and the queen of controversy, Michelle Malkin.

I'm kind of pissed that I didn't see the show, and due to MSNBC's Olympics coverage there weren't any replays tonight.  But by just looking at the transcript  it seems quite obvious that Matthews's objective from the get go was to discredit any and every allegation that was brought up by the Swiftboat Vets, instead of an objective analysis.

But see, the first problem in how people view Chris Matthews is that they consider him objective and credible.  Matthews is "mainstream"?  Maybe.  Only when the real mainstream media can use him for their own purposes, like they have with this Swiftboat story.  But Matthews AND Olberman are nothing but political analysts. opinionated and full of bullshit.  And it shows by their ratings.  Hell; I probably know more people on a personal level than Keith Olberman has watching his show.

Here's some of the Matthews/Malkin exchange:

(Matthews):  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 starts right off the bat spinning like a top:  Why did he go all the way back 16 years ago to the Willie Horton ads? 

If he really wanted to talk about 527 groups, he could have brought up MoveOn.org and the numerous other 527 leftist organizations that have received over $18 million from George Soros.  Now contrast that to the $200,000 that was used to get the Swiftboat Vets started.
Or how about talking about the James Byrd ad  created by the NAACP that tried to depict George Bush as racially insensitive at best and racist at worst by not sponsoring a hate crime bill after Byrd's death?  But you never hear anything about that.

Also, Malkin did a good job mentioning that it was Al Gore who first brought up the prison furlough law.  I don't recall him mentioning Willie Horton himself, but he did mention two other murders that killed again during their furloughs, although not by name.  But there is no doubt that Al Gore did bring up the issue, and it was a credible one.

Moving 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. 

But why should they stop?  Because Matthews and Kerry said they should?  The Swiftboats have every right to voice their opinion about John Kerry.  As Malkin stated, show the directive that said, Swiftboat Veterans do this.  But Matthews completely dismisses that point and tries to create a strawman, distracting the fact that Matthews has NO EVIDENCE (remember that word, Chris?  It was what you were trying to get out of Thurlow) that the White House is in charge of this operation.

It's also funny how Democrats didn't seem to mind when it was their organizations that were doing the muckraking, but now that an organization steps up to do it to John Kerry, now they have problems with it.  That's not going to work, boys.

Here's the most controversial part of the segment:

(Former San Francisco Mayor Jerry) 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. 

A few things here:  Malkin should have been more forceful in getting her point across.  She states on her blog that she never said he shot himself on purpose, and that's technically true.  A self-inflicted wound does not mean you tried to shoot yourself on purpose.  You could have shot yourself by accident, which is what the Swiftboat Vets actually stated.

But Malkin didn't do a good job clarifying her argument.  In fact, at the end of this segment, Malkin asked Matthews, "have you tried to ask John Kerry these questions?"  And Matthews stated, "If he shot himself on purpose.  No.", in which Malkin replies, "Don't you wonder?"

There are two things we have to remember:  1.  This is a constant interchange.  Therefore it's possible that the transcript missed statements that Malkin and Matthews said through the crosstalk.  2.  Malkin could have been shaken by the sudden aggression displayed by Matthews, and fumbled her argument.  Either way, only watching the show itself could accurately depict what was being said.  But it doesn't look good for Malkin so far.

After the show, Keith Olberman gets on the so-called "Hardblogger" and starts cheerleading.  It's quite sad when you start brownnosing your own co-workers.  He should have took the mugshot down and showed a picture of himself in some pompoms.

Here's how retarded this guy sounds:

When I raised this prospect with John Harwood of 'The Wall Street Journal,' several viewers e-mailed to chastise us for not recognizing the difference between wounds that are “self-inflicted” and those that are deliberate attempts to injure one’s self. Throw a grenade, wipe out an enemy enclave, and get a piece of shrapnel in your head in the blow-back, and you’ve received a self-inflicted wound. It isn’t intentional and it isn’t dishonorable.

But of course that’s not what Thurlow said. He spoke of some vast Swift Boat Conspiracy in which Kerry steered not a crew of soldiers through hell, but rather, steered history. “A plan,” Thurlow said. “Included not only being a war hero,” Thurlow said. “But (also) getting an ‘early out’,” Thurlow said.

He’s not talking about an inadvertent blow-back wound. It was all a plan. And if the wounds weren’t deliberately self-inflicted (again, kudos Chris— he immediately told Malkin that such an act constituted a criminal offense), they must have occurred thanks to the timely cooperation of the Viet Cong, who were good enough to shoot Kerry on cue so he could go back home with all those medals and ribbons. You know, the ribbons he threw away in protest.

The problem with this is that he threw a grenade at a time when there was no enemy fire, at least according to Thurlow.  Military regulations specifically states that you receive a Purple Heart by being injured during actual combat.  THAT'S the problem.  Hence, all it takes is a little common sense to realize that you can accidentally injure yourself without actually being in combat.  As a national political analyst, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

And people wonder why MSNBC is constantly rumored to be cancelled?

Also, please note that Malkin was not initially supposed to be there to discuss the Swiftboat Vets.  She was there to promote her book.  She was supposedly told that she was going to have two segments: one for the Swiftboats, which she agreed to, and one for the book.  However, after the interchange Matthews and his producers pulled the plug. 

Malkin is one of my favorite pundits, and I love her work.  If there is anything that both her and I can learn from this is that YOU have to control the atmosphere.  Guys like Matthews are hard-up on making themselves look good.  I hope she fairs better on Washington Journal, as she is supposed to be on it this morning around 9:00.

Posted at 07:47 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Thursday, August 19, 2004
Iraqi soccer team bashes Bush

I almost threw up when I read this:

Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir scored a goal here on Wednesday night, setting off a rousing celebration among the 1,500 Iraqi soccer supporters at Pampeloponnisiako Stadium. Though Iraq -- the surprise team of the Olympics -- would lose to Morocco 2-1, it hardly mattered as the Iraqis won Group D with a 2-1 record and now face Australia in the quarterfinals on Sunday.

Afterward, Sadir had a message for U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements.

In those spots, the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear as a narrator says, "At this Olympics there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes."

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

Ahmed Manajid
, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes."

Talk about a bunch of damn ingrates!  This is the same Iraqi soccer team who fell victim to the sadistic Uday Hussein.  If Bush hadn't "committed so many crimes", their asses would be wondering if they would have teeth after Uday got finished with them.

Here's one story about the Iraqi soccer team before the U.S. "slaughtered so many men and women":
In 1997, FIFA, the governing body for international soccer, sent soccer officials from Qatar and Malaysia to Baghdad to investigate a report that members of the national team were imprisoned and had their feet caned after losing a World Cup qualifying game to Kazakhstan. FIFA exonerated Iraq, saying they found no evidence of torture after interviewing and physically examining 12 players.

Sharar Haydar, who was on the Iraqi team at the time but sat out the game with an injury, told ESPN.com that players, indeed, were tortured. He said his teammates joked with each other about their inability to tell the truth to the FIFA officials during their two-day visit.

"I mean, nobody was going to say anything," Haydar said.
This is what the Iraqi Soccer Team had to face under Uday Hussein.  When their ungrateful asses were being airlifted out of Baghdad, they never had to worry about being imprisoned.  They actually could speak their minds freely without having to worry if they were going to be tortured once they got back to Uday's Olympic headquarters.

And what makes this worse is the fact that Bush never mentioned them in the ad.

I've seen the ad.  All the ad says is that there are two new free nations and two less terrorist regimes being represented at the Olympics, and they just put the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan on them.  That's it.  Bush didn't even mention the Iraqi soccer team or any other team in the ad.  You would have thought the ad showed a picture of the Iraqi soccer team with Bush superimposed into it.

It's things like this that make you not feel no remorse or pity for them while they were under Saddam's regime.  It's things like this that make people say, "To hell with them; let that piece of crap they call a country turn into a hellhole."  It's our men and women that risk their lives every day so not only the people in this country can live in a safer place, but so they may be able to live in a place where their people can live free and will be safe as well.

I hope the Australians beat their asses on Saturday.  These jokes do not deserve a medal, and they do not deserve cheers.  They are ungrateful, and despicable people.  It would be one thing if they just wanted to stay out of the fray, but to try and bash the man that saved their sorry asses that would have otherwise been tortured each time they lost a game shows a lack of integrity on the part of that soccer team.

Let's hope the rest of the Iraqi athletes have a little more decorum than these jokes.

Posted at 09:11 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home




Next Page



   









Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed

BLOGDRIVE
TEMPLATES

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Blogdrive