Hardballed

Michelle Malkin did not have a good experience on MSNBC's Hardball the other night. As this transcript shows, Chris Matthews savaged her for alleging that some of the wounds for which John Kerry recieved Purple Heart medals in Vietnam were self-inflicted:

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.

I've now read Unfit for Command - I hadn't been planning to, but Regnery sent me a review copy (along with a copy of Malkin's new book, In Defence of Internment, which I'll get to as soon as possible) - and as Malkin notes in her blog post (but did not make clear on Hardball), the book does not allege that Kerry deliberately shot himself to get a Purple Heart. The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" allege that he got two such medals in incidents where he was accidently hit by shrapnel from his own M-79 grenade launcher, and that the wounds were relatively minor.

From what I've seen of John Kerry, I'm certainly willing to believe that's possible. But like most of the allegations in Unfit for Command, it all comes down to Kerry's word against that of his fellow veterans. So far, the record is mixed at best: for instance, Larry Thurlow's allegation that he and Kerry were not under fire when Kerry got his Bronze Star is contradicted by Thurlow's own military records. On the other hand, as InstaPundit has repeatedly noted, it now appears clear that Kerry's story about spending Christmas, 1968 in Cambodia - a story allegedly "seared" into his memory - is blatantly false. (According to Unfit for Command, Kerry said he was in Cambodia, illegally, on Nixon's orders. No journalist noted that Nixon was not even President at the time.)

Only the first half of Unfit for Command deals with Kerry's conduct in Vietnam. The rest of the book attacks his activities as a spokesman for "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" upon his return - and that's when it really becomes clear why so many of Kerry's former comrades are working against his election in 2004.

John Kerry's 1971 testimony before a Senate Committee, and the stories he repeated in television interviews and speaking engagements (and a book, The New Soldier, were shocking:

[Veterans] told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Keep in mind that many of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were still in Vietnam when Kerry was making this speech. Imagine how they must have felt about the allegations, or about his infamous protest on the Capitol steps, when he joined several other veterans in symbolically throwing his medals in a garbage can. (His service ribbons, at least; when it became more politically expedient to make himself look like a war hero, the medals themselves were framed and hung in his Senate office.)

Many of the allegations against Kerry the antiwar protestor and politician are dubious; for example, the book makes a big deal of the fact that Communist newspapers reported on his VVAW activites, and notes that a 1993 photo of Kerry and a congressional delegation, meeting with Vietnamese politicians, hangs in the "War Remnants Museum" in Saigon Ho Chi Minh City. Stop the presses! But his strong allegations, and the over-the-top - often pro-communist - rhetoric of his VVAW colleages, are very much a part of the public record. The people behind Unfit for Command are angry at Kerry thrashing the war in 1971 but portraying himself as a noble war hero in 2004, and they have a point.

I can't help thinking they've gone a bit too far. The propaganda value of John Kerry's old colleagues simply endorsing and campaigning for President Bush, after Kerry has made such a big deal about his Vietnam service, would be absolutely devastating. But in making some very damning allegations against Kerry, they've set themselves up for a serious backlash which could end up hurting Bush's campaign. Kerry's service record should be fair game for criticism, just like Bush's National Guard record - but if you're going to allege a person's war medals weren't deserved, you'd better have solid proof. Much of Unfit for Command is believable, but very little of it amounts to "proof".

That said, are any of the Democrats so upset about this book ready to denounce Fahrenheit 9/11? If not, they really should stop whining about "dirty politics".

Posted by damian at August 22, 2004 03:12 PM