"Why was she expected to explain someone else's book? What's so hard about that question? Why didn't Matthews ask the people who wrote the book rather than a 3rd party who had only read it?"

I don't care, its irrlevant to the topic at hand, and has very little to do with her recorded archived behavior. Besides which, she had full knowledge abut the topics she would be interviewed on- so it was by her consent. Crying foul now is not only irrlevant, its simply dishonest.

"Malkin used the proper terminology. Too bad Matthews is too ignorant of the military to understand.

This is often where you run and hide- military expertise is somehow a premise in an argument. Its not. Courage, 'manhood' and correctness in argument is not handed out at military recruitment offices, I am sorry to inform you. I would re-examine how you define these things if I were you.

When she tried to explain, she was baggered by Matthews then thrown off the show. Mathews was the one who misinterpreted the phrase "self-inflicted wound" and kept harping on it

Look, this is a really screwed up reading of the transcript- one that you have manufactuered to suit your worldview. Regardless of Mathews mis-interpreting her terminology or not, he asked her point blank three times if his interpretation was what she was trying to say. At no point did she say 'NO'. Instead she referred to the suppositions and claims made by third parties. At any point she could have said one single word.

In fact, she tries to lay a case, and I quote: "‘m saying that‘s what some of these..."

then lied about it when he claimed that Malkin said Kerry had shot himself. She never did. What's so damned hard to understand about that?

Whats so damned hard about this: You are lying Larry. You may believe this devoutly (you seem to have an easy time slurping crap down- remember our endless debates on Tertrorist ties and WMD stockpiles?), and other faithful partisans may believe you, but it doesn't change the case you are intentionally and delierately arguing a case that can't be reasonably drawn from the facts. Thats simple unethical immoral dishonesty. You may really really want a black and white world filled with brave reublicans crusading against eil'doers, but its just not the case.

I don't like Kerry, at all. I don't like his politics, his personality, his tactics or his record. I don't like Bush either, and I dislike him much more than I dislike Kerry. In this election I am simply voting against an administration and an accountability structure that I find dangerous to our countrys future. But what I don't want to have happen is to have little hate-filled whitebread brainwashed 'butt monkeys' like you countenencing slander because of your politics. Its why I took a stand against the 'Bush is a deserter' garbage. I guess that just speaks about the difference between you and I.

To sit here and accuse others of blind partisanship on this issue because they won't mis-interpret and mis-represent the blanck-and-white transcript is the peak of absurdity. Its pathetic. Its the sort of reasoning that took Germany to the Nazis.

Davin L