Everybody's talking about Michelle Malkin's odd-job performance on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, but frankly, Matthews's rhetoric was at least as professionally objectionable as Malkin's—though let me insert a great big glaring neon Vegas caveat by saying that no single individual in journalism is as ethically, morally, and criminally objectionable as Michelle Malkin. You read don't have to read her spittle-filled defense to acknowledge the point that "self-inflicted wounds" does not equate to "intentionally shooting yourself." When my enemy's enemy is a cable news personality I suppose I ought to expect these hurdles.
All Matthews or anyone else ever needed to say was that these sort of accusations need to pass a certain credibility standard before you reframe the presidential debate with regard to disputable narratives; and these don't pass the laught test. The "questions need answers" tactic may have vaulted the Clinton "Troopergate" drug smuggling and murder lies into the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, and SBVT will have a permanent seat on the front page of the Washington Times up until and perhaps after the election, but it's obviously not flying in the mainstream media. And Kerry has been exceedingly smart to not acknowledge their presence except insofar as to link them to President Bush.
I'm happy to see the media hold their nose on this "story," and I'll be even happier when major outlets stop printing wingnuttery for the sake of upholding some vaulted notion regarding balance. Internment is not an issue in need of balance—internment is bad. The Japanese internment during World War II was specifically bad, and anyone who says otherwise should absolutely be blacklisted. What would you do if your local fishwrap printed David Irving?
My final word on Malkin: If you're interested in reading a professional and thorough demolition of her terrible new book, In Defense of Internment, let me direct you to David Neiwert, who has not only worked with her in the past but also written a book on the subject of the Japanese wartime experience called Strawberry Days: The Rise and Fall of a Japanese American Community. Neiwert recognizes that rehabilitation precedes denial, and just as happened in the efforts preceding slavery and Holocaust denial, Malkin has laid the foundation—and not just for internment camp denial but for the rehabilitation of the procedure. Impossibly crazy. You'll say I cross the line for saying so, but she, truly, is the portrait of the graduated process by which the Nazi pathos came to dominate a society. She's nearly one herself—as close as they come.
Posted by Kriston at August 20, 2004 11:50 AMNo doubt. Lately I'm just getting so damn fatigued reading stuff in the blogosphere. Totally fatigued.
Posted by: Balasubramani at August 20, 2004 12:23 PMYou read don't have to read her spittle-filled defense to acknowledge the point that "self-inflicted wounds" does not equate to "intentionally shooting yourself."
Not necessarily, anyway. Although, in this case, it did.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_atrios_archive.html#109300906013325732
Posted by: The Editors at August 20, 2004 12:30 PMHmm. First you say that you didn't like Matthews unprofessional rhetoric and then you call Malkin a Nazi.
Yeah, that makes sense. In a Kerry-supporter, flip-flop kind of way.
Posted by: Jim Valvis at August 20, 2004 1:13 PMYou know . . . she makes the same rhetorical arguments that have led to atrocities in the past. Frankly, I may have been too hard on Matthews, because the fact of the matter is that Michelle Malkin does truly believe that Kerry's actions in Vietnam were political scheming 30 years in the making, and Matthews was good enough to recognize that. Perhaps, next time, he should not allow her onto his show.
But it doesn't matter. She wrote that book and it's indefensible and Chris Matthews should have called her the n-word.
Posted by: Kriston at August 20, 2004 2:48 PMWe can only speculate on the content of a discussion of Michelle's book, as Matthews cut out her segment. Perhaps he reasoned it better to just discuss one book he hadn't read rather than two.
As for the mainstream media sitting on the SwiftVet "wingnuttery", the charge of Christmas in Cambodia has already been shown to be false, acknowledged by the Kerry campaign as inaccurate. Who should we thank for unearthing the falsity of Kerry's "seared" memory? The mainstream media? Or the SwiftVets and the internet bloggers?
Should the mainstream media really be holding their noses on stories that are TRUE?
Posted by: Damien at August 20, 2004 4:06 PMShould we be thankful for them exposing that the date Kerry used in the story was off by a month? Or should we be angry that people who haven't bothered to follow the dissection of SBVFT's story all the way through will be left with a more damning and wholly incorrect opinion of a presidential candidate? I vote for option #2.
To borrow some rhetoric, don't move the goalposts. Three different lines of SBVFT attack have been discredited; all they're left with is a "lie" about a specific date. The value of this piece of truth is up for debate. What's clear is that it doesn't excuse the lies that preceded it.
Posted by: tom at August 20, 2004 4:31 PMYou bash her book. Have you read it? Seems to me that both sides are willing to launch personel attacks on those that disagree with their point of view. So what makes you different then say Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore? I read the book and whuile I don't agree with everything in the book I do understand they government had reasons to act in the manner it did based on the information at the time. Seems to me that it is easy to look back at the issue and criticize now. But since that was then and this is now what makes your view aay more correct for that moment then say FDR's? I don't know the truth behind the swift boat accusations but to be honest John Kerry has more immediate problems then a 30+ year old story.
Posted by: James Kotthoff at August 20, 2004 6:34 PMJames--read the Neiwart link. MM lies, lies, lies, to make the internment seem reasonable. There was no credible evidence outside of racist hysteria that 99%+ these people were a security threat. None was found after the fact, either. The evidence she cites was discredited many years ago. It's a fraudulent effort in support of a racist position.
Posted by: djw at August 21, 2004 6:01 AMTom, Kerry used the Christmas in Cambodia story a number of times to affect key policy decisions. (Nicaraguan turmoil in the 80's for instance) It's legitimate to call him on it and the mainstream media HAS...NOT!
--s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at August 21, 2004 12:15 PMScott: how would the fact that he was really there in January as opposed to Christmas eve affect said policy decisions? It's a rhetorical embellishment (and likely an honest mistake at that), not an outright lie like, say, the cheese-whiz escapade. He was still there when the official line was that he was not, that was the basic point, right?
Posted by: Mike D at August 21, 2004 12:28 PMHe's yet to produce evidence that he was EVER in Cambodia. He lied, it was an embellishment.
But to be honest with you, I'd rather the blogosphere "move on". I think I'm going to use some self-restraint and committ to ignoring Vietnam for the rest of the campaign. -s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at August 22, 2004 9:46 AMWhat kind of evidence would there be? This was a covert mission that the government officially denied, but that we know actually happened often. The fact that there is no evidence of this hardly proves him a liar.
By your logic, George Bush is definitely lying about his National Guard service, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Mike D at August 22, 2004 10:11 AMMike, he testified before Congress on the record that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. He lied. I don't really care. But this widespread denial by some of you folks is unsettling. --s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at August 23, 2004 9:16 AM