BRILLIANT!!! Thanks !!!!
SOME POINTS TO PONDER, SWIFTLY Is Matthews a witless waterboy D who doesn't understand that 'self-inflicted' doesn't imply 'intentional'... or is he a colluding waterboy D who does? (A distinction without a difference, I suspect....)
Why don't Matthews and Olbermann have the intellectual curiosity, if not the professional ethics, to subject John Kerry to the same relentless inquisition to which they so casually subject his swift boat accusers?
Why don't the Washington Post et al. expend as much effort digging up both John Kerry's military/medical records and the contemporaneous after-action reports/records of all the swift boat officers and commanders who did missions with Kerry as the effort they have expended digging up swiftee Larry Thurlow's (and George W. Bush's) military (and medical) records and on attempting to discredit the swiftees, generally?
Corollary: Are Matthews and Olbermann and the Washington Post et al. ignoring supportive documentation, e.g., the contemporaneous after-action reports/records of all the other swift boat officers and commanders that support the charges against Kerry made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Because the focus of Thurlow's Bronze Star citation was not his boat but Kerry's, and because Kerry's boat was not the focus of the underlying event, why wouldn't the obvious explanation be that it was Kerry's self-serving after-action report that was the source of the citation data? (That would explain the "contradiction" about whether or not there was hostile fire.)
Why isn't it obvious to Matthews and Olbermann and the Washington Post et al. that Jim Rassmann, traumatized by the mine blast and, by his own account, mainly submerged underwater, was not the best eyewitness to the events surrounding Kerry's Bronze Star incident?
Corollary: As Jim Rassmann was the only person who recommended Kerry for a medal for this incident (other than Kerry, himself: his own self-serving after action report constituted an implicit self-recommendation), perhaps Kerry did not deserve the award, after all.
Why didn't Olberman notice that the logic of the Washington Post story yesterday that purportedly impeaches Larry Thurlow's account of the circumstances surrounding Kerry's Bronze Star was circular, at best?
Why do Matthews and Olbermann and the Washington Post et al. start with the assumption that John Kerry is telling the truth and his accusers are lying? Just the opposite has already been demonstrated to be the case about multiple charges.
It has, thus far, been demonstrated that Kerry lied about Cambodia, lied about throwing out his medals, lied about fleeing after the mine blast (the Bronze star event), "was over the top" (Kerry's own words) about the war crimes accusation.
Whatever happened to the following inescapable rule of thumb: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?
Why do Matthews et al. refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that the Swift Vets for Truth is a politically diverse group whose only common thread is the conclusion that John Kerry is dangerously unfit to be commander in chief?
My wife asked the same question after witnessing the lying Chris Matthews make a complete idiot out of himself with Thurlow and Malkin. My answer: Because they don't want to. What would they do if they found out the Swifties for the Truth are actually telling the truth?
thank you :)