Malkin attempted to imply that Kerry's wound was self inflicted and intentional.

Mathews asked her if that was what she was saying Kerry deliberately wounded himself, and did she have any corroboration. Mathews asked her over and over.
Malkin would not answer Mathews.
She could have said "Not a deliberate self inflicted wound"

She preferred to smear Kerry with innuendo.
Mathews rightly called her on it.

Sorry, explitive, she did not say that Kerry intentionally wounded himself, it was Chris Matthews that kept insisting on that wording. All Malkin said was that the wound was self inflicted, and we now know that she was right.

And wasn't it Willie Brown who opened the door in the first place?

Expletive,
I'm not sure what you were watching but that isn't what I saw. It was Matthews who implied that Malkin said it. She did not and he refused to let her finish her sentence. Pat Buchanan nailed Matthews and he conceded. Read the transcript and show us where she said he did it deliberately. Go ahead, show me the quote. I watched it. Did you?

Yep!

The video Malkin Mathews

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/malkin.html

My first dickalanche! Cool!

Self inflicted can also mean deliberately self inflicted and it was Malkin's intention to smear kerry with that innuendo.

Actually Malkin does accuse Kerry of having shot himself on purpose, but as Mathews was pushing for an answer from her I believe she misspoke losing the thread of her script.

"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. "

The Transcript
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

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.

He didn't hear her say it because she didn't say it. Neither did I and neither did you. She was addressing what the book said about the issue and she never implied anything.

Nice try.

Michelle could have easily said that Kerry accidentally injured himself. She chose to make the wording obscure, in my opinion.

A friend of mine from high school died from a self-inflcted bullet wound.

First off, she couldn't have said it because she wasn't there. That was her entire point.

Her info came from the book and if Matthews had read it then perhaps they could have actually discussed it.

Self-inflicted means you inflicted it on yourself. It says nothing about intent, or lack thereof. It certainly doesn't mean you "shot" yourself with a hand grenade, a concept Matthews made up out of whole cloth.

Xrlq,

Michelle passed up every opportunity to claim an accidental injury.

And Chris Matthews was mild compared to how attorneys ask questions in depositions and courtrooms.

Refusing to speak to intent is what makes it a smear.

"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?"

He gave her the door all right and she wouldn't to take it. Refusing to give a "yes" or "no" answer to that question can only be an evasion due to serve some ulterior motive. I'm with the innuendo school.

But Matthews is still a dick.

Rosemary:

Give it up -- Malkin was completely out-gunned by Matthews.

All she had to do was say "no" once -- ONCE! -- when Matthews asked her if she was saying that Kerry shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart. You know it, I know it, Matthews certainly knew it.

He asked her TWELVE TIMES and she couldn't bring herself to say "no" just ONE FREAKING TIME.

She deserved what she got.

Matthews didn't hear her say it because he wouldn't shut up long enough for her to answer his ranting question.

But that's really beside the point now isn't it? Matthews looked and was out of control.

Never lose your cool if you want to win the argument.

He asked her twelve times. She had twelve chances to utter a simple "no." All she had to do was say "no" ONCE!

She couldn't (or wouldn't) say it.

So, she got flattened. Boo-f**king-Hoo.

Michelle Malkin is an amateur who deserved what she got.

Malkin should have said "no" to the blow-dried TV asshole and shut him up.

I hear she's written a book defending President Clinton. It's entitled "In Defense of Internment".

But, as Ted Kennedy said; "That's water under the bridge."

More seriously, it would be interesting to see a debate between Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin over the issue of the World War II internment of the Japanese.

I finished Coulter's "Treason" a few days ago. Very good. I don't always agree with Coulter, but I totally agree with her on McCarthy, Communism, the Hiss vs. Chambers controversy (which continues to divide the West), and the greatness of President Reagan.

Anyway, Coulter pointed out that the internment of the Japanese was carried out by the founder of modern liberalism, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and was supported by Earl Warren, then Governor of California -- but was opposed by J. Edgar Hoover. She also stated that not a single Japanese spy was found.

I think Malkin could give her an argument on that. It turns out that there indeed were some Japanese who were working for the enemy. By the way, if the internment was motivated by racism against Orientals, as Leftist charge, then how come the Chinese here weren't interned as well? Questions about it all... It's a very difficult question. It's the old dilemma our Founding Fathers wrestled with: how do you keep the government strong enough to defend the country, but not so strong that it becomes tyrannical?

I hear that some Germans were interned as well. I hope so, in that case. Fritz Kuhn and his German-American Bund were only one of a large number of pro-Nazi organizations working to subvert our War effort. John Roy Carlson wrote the book on it in 1943, "Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld of America -- The Amazing Revelation of How Axis Agents and our Enemies Within Are Now Plotting to Destroy the United States"

I keep thinking back to that book and what he revealed in it about the Enemy within. I keep thinking of the ominous parallels between today's "peace" movement and that earlier "peace" movement: defeatist, disloyal, treasonous, totalitarian, anti-Semitic...

By the way, I did not support the impeachment of President Clinton for having oral sex in the Oval Office. It's one of the few things I liked him for. I often said during his administration that he showed no backbone, but at least he was stiff in one place that counted.

Now you know that WJC was not impeached because he got his knob polished in the Oval Office. Repeat after me "He lied under oath. He lied under oath. He lied under oath". I would have too if I'd been him. Very embarrassing.

My prediction is that WJC will be remembered as the President who prompted nine year old kids to ask "Mom, what's oral sex?" after catching the 6 O'Clock news. And I have heard that there is a great deal more oral sex going on in the fourth grade ever since the impeachment. Shame. Kids used to be so...innocent, weren't they?
%^) I guess it's just another case of unintended consequences, eh? 8-(.

SMA, I'm reading Malkin's book now. Very interesting stuff. I remember arguing with my dad about internment, when I was in my 20s. He kept telling me "boy, there were spy rings, they had the evidence, and you have no idea how vulnerable we thought we were".

I'll have to give him this book when I'm done.

Oh, and those jokes were funny.

Yes Ara, obviously Matthews has more on camera time than Malkin does. All the more reason he came off as an ass for screaming at her non-stop.

Dave:

All she had to do was say, "no" any one of the twelve times he asked her the question. She wouldn't, or couldn't. She deserved what she got.

But I digress.

jane m:

And I have heard that there is a great deal more oral sex going on in the fourth grade ever since the impeachment. Shame. Kids used to be so...innocent, weren't they?

I have no idea if you have kids, jane m. I have four (ages 5-17, 3 boys and a girl) and I can tell you that they are all at risk and are constantly being exposed to a culture that is drenched in sex. Sex talk, Sex images, pressure to have sex, etc. etc. etc. Ever talk to a 13 year old girl about the choices she has for going to the movies, for example? Have you ever watched cable TV programming aimed at teens? Read any magazines? Talked with any teenagers lately?

Yes, oral sex is rampant among this age group. Why? Some teens actually think you can't get infected if you don't "have sex."

All of this predated the Clinton years.
Granted, he didn't help, but it isn't something you can blame on him.

I blame unregulated free-market capitalism + sexually repressed culture = smut sells.

Ara

My remarks were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm a grandmother's age although I have no grandchildren. Nonetheless, I'm appalled at the cultural influences innocent (innocent? only those locked in bedrooms with no tvs or radios, movies, or perish the thought HOME SCHOOLED)kids are having shoved down their throats by this culture. Protecting your children from the "sex drenched" culture you speak of is a full time occupation for parents who care about the kind of adults their children will become.

I am well read and well informed on the norms of our culture today and compare with great reservations the quality of life the average American kid lives today with the one I lived as a typical American raised in the 50s. Yes the 50s. The "good old days" were good. I was allowed to be an innocent child until I was ready emotionally to delve into the more adult aspects of life like sexuality and propogation of the species. I began to experience adult feelings and relationships when I was knowledgeable enough about human nature to make informed choices. EVERY child should be able to live as a child should until they are equipped as I was to experiment in adult relationships.

Of course Clinton didn't singlehandedly corrupt the 9 year olds of the nation but he sure didn't help. As a role model for kids, he failed big time. I'm surprised you can't acknowledge that 9 year old kids who didn't know what oral sex was in the late 90s soon found out from listening to Dan Rather on the 6 O'clock news and that kind of knowledge is far too advanced for elementary kids. I know, I know, they've been talking about sex since the dawn of time. We did too in the 50s but 9 to 14 year old kids were NOT engaging in this behavior in anything but a very small percentage even in the 70s and 80s. Each decade brings a new low to the level of decadence we allow our children to be exposed to. We could use some of that old fashioned prudery about now, I think. At least when it comes to what we let our kids have access to as a society.

End of Rant (And now commence telling me that kids had sex and plenty of it even in the 50s - they didn't, not that much. I know I was there and we all talked. We knew who did what.)

And don't give me that hooey about sexual repression. Sex needs to have restrictions and societal taboos. Americans haven't been sexually repressed since the end of WWII. Ara nailed it. Our culture is drenched in sex and it's the kids who are being messed up by it the most.

jane m.,

You're kidding, right? In this culture a woman's breasts are considered to be a sexual organ rather than what they are, a food delivery organ. The reason we are titillated by seeing them, there’s a multi-$billion portion of the porn industry devoted to them and women feel compelled to be surgically mutilated for bigger (and bigger) ones is the same reason our Attorney General (for God’s sake) had to spend $16K covering up their depiction ON A F*CKING STATUE. Visit any African backwater (or the French Riviera if you want to have more fun) for proof that this sexual perversion is the result of our puritanically-based sexual culture and look around you to discover that is has only become more perverted since WWII. That’s just one (or two ;-) example(s).

Oh for pete's sake. I see no embarrassment over sex anymore, Ashcroft is an anomaly not a common denominator. That's why he gets so much attention. Everybody else is blaze about sex. Is Europe sexually repressed? They seem to produce a lot of porn and interesting intertainment as well. Sex is recreational in this country and very out in the open. If women are getting their breast enlarged it's for moola. Pam Anderson anyone? Who the hell is repressed? You're kidding right? Its hip bones and belly buttons with all the teen agers. Nobody bats an eye.

Sexually repressed? Preposterous. You're kidding, right?

jane m.,

I don't think you understand what I'm saying when I say repression leads to perversion (not embarrassment). What I'm saying is, if we didn't have our sexual roots (if you will) in sexually repressed Puritanism and Protestantism, we’d have a much healthier approach to sex and sexuality than what the culture has created as sexual manifestation, e.g., a $12 billion pornography industry, breast mutilation, the marketing of teen sexuality, the marketing of sex to sell everything, Viagra as aspirin, Pam Anderson, mandatory bikinis for Olympic Beach Volleyball, Olympic Beach Volleyball, etc., etc., etc.

Oh yes, now I understand. You meant PERVERSION and thought it was REPRESSION under discussion. Well, geez, Shep, how do you explain Europe, the new playing ground for child pornographers and guys who eat their murdered lovers? They had no Puritans, did they?

What do you propose be done about our Puritan and Protestant perversion producing heritage? Is there a cure? I haven't heard Puritans and Protestants blamed for sexual perversions for a long time. I thought we stamped that out but you're shedding new light on this problem.

You really do have a way of twisting, Shep. Let me get this right:

It's the church-going American tradition that is responsible for perverted breast enlargements and the invention of viagra and a burgeoning porno industry, prostitution, etc. Do you include the plethora of pedophilia among the clergy? (Hmmm. Perhaps the clergy are repressed and hence perverted. Celibacy is NOT healthy just like always said.)

You cited Africa as some place less perverted or repressed (I forget which). I guess that's why they aren't dying by the millions from STDs and aren't forcing women into sexual slavery as well as selling their 12 year old daughters as wives to middle-aged men. Oh and don't forget the African Muslims who aren't mutilating the genitalia of pubescent girls so there sure to not enjoy sex. There's a perversion for you that isn't happening.

No, sexual perversion happens only in America where the Puritan heritage has turned us into insatiable psycho-sexual monsters. Boy do those 16th and 17th century Christians have a lot to answer for. I hates 'em, yes I do.

I forgot all about Thailand. No sexual perversion there either. Unless you're a 12 year old boy.

jane m.
"Do you include the plethora of pedophilia among the clergy?(Hmmm. Perhaps the clergy are repressed and hence perverted. Celibacy is NOT healthy just like always said.)"

There IS hope for you, jane. And, um, the Puritans and Methodists (and Catholics) came from...where?

Thailand? I never said anyone had a corner on sexual repression or perversion. God forbid?