"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 was given at most a few hours notice to debate a controversial book written by someone else, in a hostile environment. That's precisely the point regardless of what you think of her. How well do you think you would do under those circumstances, especially with an asshole interviewer who kept interrupting you? Not well, I suspect.

"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.

Oh, boo frigging hoo. I pointed out correct military terminology and somehow, you think your manhood is insulted. Sounds like you have issues. Go cry on someone else's shoulder, like perhaps some one who gives a damn.

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..."

She kept trying to refer to what the book said. Are you really so dense that you can't see that? Look again at the transcript. To make it easy, I've highlighted where Malkin was referring to the book.

BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?

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...

Let's recap:
"Did you read the book"
"Some of the soldiers have made allegations"
"I'm saying that I've read the book and some of the..."
"Some of the veterans say"
"Some of them say that"

Sounds like she's trying to convey what is said in the book rather than her own words. Since she was asked to discuss the book (and had actually read it, unlike Matthews), she kept referring to what was written in the book. Got it?

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.

Listen, the book made the allegation that Kerry's wound was self-inflicted. Eye witness testimony seems to suggest that the allegation is true. If you were in the same situation, expected to defend someone else's words against a bombastic host, you'd probably do no better (and quite likely much worse) than Malkin.

Did at any point Malkin say that "I think she shot himself." No. She repeated the allegations in the book, the actual topic of the interview. Matthews (and apparently you) are stupid enough to confuse what she said with what was in the book. You're both fucking idiots, only Matthews has a bigger audience. Too bad it's only about 1/5th that on an equally annoying show on Fox News by O'Reilly.