Moore, Malkin, and Vietnam (oh my!)
Thanks to David Neiwert for making this transcript available on his blog. Michelle Malkin, author of In Defense of Internment tries to pitch herself as an expert on Kerry’s service in Vietnam. She tries to make an outrageous accusation and then pretend it’s just a legitimate question, and she gets busted for it: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 [the] 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: You're 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 ever 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 Purple 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.
Malkin essentially made a criticism through the guise of “asking a question” for which she had no factual basis. It might be somewhat comparable to the “how many times do you beat your wife?” fallacy. Forcing one’s opponents to deny ridiculous accusations puts doubt in the minds of voters. It’s designed not to prove anything, or make any point, but to do precisely the opposite. It’s designed to at once attack a person without basis and shield the attacker from rightful criticism. It’s gratifying to see someone called on the carpet for this.
Giggling aside, this brings up a relevant objection a friend of mine mentioned while we were discussing my criticisms of Moore. Moore, he explained was merely fighting fire with fire. Like it or not, political commentary like this is important to both parties in order that they win an election. To expect the left to not have its Malkins is ridiculous. Victory depends on having people who can do this kind of attack work for you.
I have to admit he’s got a point (though one might further question how effective Moore has been). But it’s not satisfying to me. I want something more. It seems to me that we have a responsibility to call debate in bad faith what it is. Accuracy and fair argument are worthy goals, and having an intelligent democracy requires some standards of public commentary, standards that I think we all too frequently fall below.
And no, there was no golden age where debate was “fair and balanced.” I do not see why that negates my hope for a better future.
posted by Michael Benson @ 7:28 PM
3 Comments:
Not a Michelle Malkin fan, but Chris Matthews is a pretty obvious blowhard. In fairness we should point to Malkin's description of what happened on the show.
Here's the meat of the thing:
Willie Brown expresses exasperation over Swift Boat Vets' questions about Kerry's wounds. He says: "There are questions about the shrapnel wounds. So what else is there? How much he got shot? How deep? How much shrapnel does he have?
Note that I didn't bring the subject of shrapnel. (Got that, Keith Olbermann?) Willie Brown raised the issue.
Here is how I responded verbatim:
"Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."
Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.
I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.
Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did. The book raises questions by vets, many of whom were with Kerry, about whether there was or wasn't enemy fire during the Dec. 1968 incident that led to his first Purple Heart (Patrick Runyon is quoted in a Boston Globe account on p. 35 saying "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.") and whether the injury came from a self-inflicted wound after he caught a tiny piece of shrapnel when he fired a grenade from his M-79 grenade launcher too close (p. 36); whether or not there was "intense rocket and rifle fire" during the Feb. 1969 incident that led to his second Purple Heart (Rocky Hildreth, officer of an accompanying boat on Dam Doi Canal that day, says there was no "intense rocket and rifle fire" on p. 78); and whether the shrapnel wound in his buttocks, which Kerry says he sustained in March 1969 and led to the awarding of his third Purple Heart, was the result of a mine explosion while on a mission or from a wound from his own grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy (p. 87). See also pages 30-31. I was trying to get to these points, but Matthews would not let me finish a sentence...
As the show broke for commercials, Matthews scrambled for his producers to see if what he said was true. And I'm irresponsible? One staffer ran to the office where I had left my copy of the book, and handed it to Matthews, who--for the first time, apparently--started flipping through it. I asked for my book back and politely said thank you.
There aren't "legitmate questions" about whether or not the wound was self-inflected.
"I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it."
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose. I haven't heard you say it.
That's not what he's accusing her of doing. He is accusing her of trying to accuse Kerry without accusing him. Her comments later are entirely consistent with that.
And her response? She does it again: "One staffer ran to the office where I had left my copy of the book, and handed it to Matthews, who--for the first time, apparently--started flipping through it." Right, obviously anytime someone goes back to a book looking for something it's clear they have never read it once.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home