The Wild-Eyed Right Is Losing Their Cool And Becoming Unhinged
Published August 21, 2004
If those terms ring a bell it's because you've seen and heard the ding-dongs on the hard right and the Bush Mafia using them right now in describing their opponents and their actions, in a well-coordinated effort.
Other words they they've woven into their scripts include: insane, goofy, crazy, reckless, irresponsible, traitor, and more. On blogs and in e-mails, you get to see foaming-at-the-mouth Bush bashers, mealy-mouthed liars, cowards, etc.
This isn't some lunatic conspiracy (almost missed that one), it's an actual conspiracy, or at the very least, a cabal on the hard right edge of American politics, those who have moved so far in that direction they make moderate conservatives look like liberals in comparison.
Really. There's documentation.
I haven't seen their current list of words to use, but it was started by Newt Gingrich. Take a look at what he wrote:
Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo
As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."
That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.
This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used. [Language: A Key Mechanism of Control]
The memo included a positive list to describe right-wing policies and actions, and a negative list to describe opponents. Here's the latter:
Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...
page 1 | 2
- The Wild-Eyed Right Is Losing Their Cool And Becoming Unhinged
- Published: August 21, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Matthews can defend himself but in this interview he asked a question that required only a "yes" or a "No" to answer.
Malkin continued trying to push her "self-inflicted" weasel slur.
Yep... no surprise from this end. And just who's "self-inflicted" weasel slur" was it?
I bet your local community college has a course on offer that includes pointers on reading comprehension.
They may also have a math course to sit in on, you can sit beside Matthews:
# of times Matthews says "shot himself" (or variants) 14
# of times Matthews says "self inflected" (or variants) 01
# of times Malkin says "shot himself" (or variants) 0
# of times Malkin says "self inflected" (or variants) 3
oops looks like Matthews leads in the "slur" department 14 to 0
The previously mentioned course will instruct that "shot himself" is the slur, "self inflected" has many meanings including Kerry's own definition based on his accounts of the incident. And how it is portrayed in Unfit for Command.
The new Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad is now available at their Website:
swiftvets.com
I would LOVE to see/hear Kerry condemn this as "a bunch of lies"...
First the vets say he lied about Vietnam, despite the fact that they themselves had spent three decades bolstering his version of events. Now they're pissed off that he told the hard cold truth about life in Vietnam in 1973. Of course, by that time, it was old news -- we had already lived through William "Throw them in the ditch" Calley by then -- and now it's just ancient history, the stuff of hundreds of news stories, documentaries, movies and books. The Swifties may not be aware of it, but the moral breakdown of Vietnam is part of our cultural history; funny to hear Kerry's words now referred to as "accusations," and the revelation of them as a "betrayal." Such is life in the United States of Amnesia.
"First the vets say he lied about Vietnam, despite the fact that they themselves had spent three decades bolstering his version of events."
Did they? All 260 of them?
"Now they're pissed off that he told the hard cold truth about life in Vietnam in 1973."
John Kerry was 4 years removed from Vietnam in 1973...
Is it up to 260 now? Isn't it about time for that bandwagon to topple?
250, 260, whatever. I dont know the exact number.
But it sure as hell includes more people than the paid-for Kerry supporters...
It's Michelle Malkin's lying weasel slur, Marc.
You know better.
What do you expect, Hal? Malkin is one of the hyperbolic on the right, along with Coulter, Savage, etc. She's extreme by design. That's the persona she markets, just like with the others I mentioned. But she's just one of the extreme true believers on the right. There seem to me to be an equal number of extreme true believers on the left that are cut from the same cloth. It amuses me as paranoid myopia to suggest too stridently that one side vastly outnumbers the other.
If the best anyone can do to find the 'unhinged' right is to point to Malkin, it's to display that you don't understand her persona. She's unhinged for a living.
Oh hey, I see. This post of yours is a response to Al Barger's post. Al says Chris Matthews is coming unhinged, so Hal has to say that Michelle Malkin was unhinged.
It's so disingenuous to suggest that one side uses propaganda and that the other side- you're side- doesn't. Total BS.
No, Mike, you still don't get it.
1. My post was a response to the White House and their fellow-travelers attacking Kerry using the terms in my headline.
I do know that Al, RJ and many on the neo-right have used terms like crazy, insane, etc. but they didn't prompt my post. However, since I was doing the post, I decided to include some info on where the basic right-wing strategy of attacking through name calling got some of its refinements.
2. I wasn't attacking Al, but why would you feel that he needs you to defend him if I were?
3. Where on earth did I say that only one group uses propaganda? This post was primarily about one particular example of right-wing propaganda style (The Newt Gignrich approach), but I did not claim that it was the only style nor did I claim that only the neocons and far right did it.
Calm down, tamp down some of your biases if you can, and read the piece again.
It could be a learning experience for you.
Oh look Hal and I agree on something. Mike take Hals advice read his post again. Then read mine just below it that includes the entire Matthews/Malkin Exchange. Then you decide where this alleged smear came from.
Hal It's Michelle Malkin's lying weasel slur, Marc.
You're correct I do know better. I know it is better to allow someone to answer a question when it is asked rather than interupt. In attempting to answer the "yes and no" question she was blocked from doing so. Count how many her statements are followed by "...", because she was cut off. She was never allowed to relate what it says in Unfit for Command.
Again 14 Matthews "shot himself" slurs to 3 Malkin "self-inflicted" slurs.
And of course self-inflicted in this entire exchange and in the book does not connote taking a gun and blowing off your foot. It describes taking an action, in this case a grenade, launching it are having the shrapnel blow back and injury yourself. ie "self-inflicted"
Was she ever allowed to complete a sentence to explain that - NO
Was it implyed by Matthews as he continued the use of "shot himself" that it was one and the same - YES
BTW Hal This is way off topic but can you answer this:
Who leaked the identity of the recent al-Qaeda capture in Pakistan. Khan I believe is the name. You know the one. The one the Brits have even complained to the US about.
Do you have any idea who leaked that name Hal?
Getting that excited can't be good for your blood pressure, Mark,
Malkin brought up the "self-inflicted wound:
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.
Matthews asked her to explain it:
What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying?
Then instead of saying "yes" or "no," Malkin goes into evasion mode.
Do read the transcript again, and tomorrow watch the Chris Matthews show, as I'm fairly certain he'll show the "Dodge Ball" segment.
For the rest, my taste doesn't run to red herrings.
Malkin's role in this is that of the water carrier for the reactionary far Right white men who are the actual controllers of the smear campaign. By putting her forward, they attempt to put a female and minority face on behavior that would not be supported by most women or minorities. They also also attempt to protect themselves from counterattack. If anyone points out that Malkin, a woman who clearly hates herself for not being white, is also a member of the neo-Confederatte and scientific racist movements, and anti-immigration (unless the immigrants are white), the far Right will respond will squeals of 'racism.' But, considering that many people who know who Malkin is are in the know about her pathetic record, I believe the smear campaigners may have erred in selecting her as their water carrier.
Silly me, Hal. I saw Al's post dated one day before yours and assumed that since it took exactly the same tack, but on the other side, that it was the inspiration for yours. But, hey. You're an original and I don't get it. That's cool.
True enough, Hal. I do believe I've never seen you state a belief that your side doesn't use propaganda. So I'll give you the chance to do so now.
I should probably not hold my breath as I wait, should I?
"If anyone points out that Malkin, a woman who clearly hates herself for not being white,"
WTF?
"is also a member of the neo-Confederatte"
[sic]
"and scientific racist movements, and anti-immigration (unless the immigrants are white), the far Right will respond will squeals of 'racism.'"
The irony of that last bit is rich. Teresa-Heinz-Kerry-rich...
Hopeless.... Well OK reading comprehension isn't a strong suit. Lets try cause and effect.
Cause
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?
Effect
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.
Instantaneously followed by
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying.
And zero chance to further explain....
And leave it to Mac Diva too play the race card like most other comments and posts she produces.
Malkin wanted to play with the big boys but when she tried to slip in her propaganda, she got spanked so she went running to Uncle Rush who consoled her and stirred up the Stepford-right.
"My side" on which issues, which arenas, Mike?
Sometimes Republicans are "my side," sometimes they're not. With this administration, they're heavily in the "not" column at the Federal level mostly because of the take-over by the neocons.
At the state level here in California, it's the Democrats in the "not" column.
I don't think Camejo will ever represent "my side" with his monomaniacal "Tax the Rich" approach to governance, but Nader has in the distant past and may at some time in the future.
My original post can be seen as being about "sides" because of the administration's recent blatant use (and extension) of the disparagement technique formalized for the right by Newt Gingrich nearly a decade ago. Since they're doing it and I disapprove, obviously I'n not on "their side." I thought it would be useful to post because it shows that some on the right use name calling and denigration bordering on slander and libel as part of their normal approach to politics, issues and the public be damned.
Do you approve of this?
The Orwellian nature of the Bush Administration and their attack dogs is astounding.
BTW: Just for the record -- In Shark's World, EVERYTHING is propoganda; Our's is used for Good, Theirs is used for Evil.
But They are much better at it.
Hope that helps!
re: Kole + Barger
Hal, if you haven't noticed, they're a helluva tag team match, sorta yer Libertarian version of something out of the WWF.
(But it's yet to be determined if their 'pain' is faked.)
Regarding Al, Mike. I see that he did use "unhinged" in his post on the 20th.
He must have a direct line to the Republicans, as that was the party line that day. Had it only been Al, I'd have left it alone but here are all three of the phrases heading this post used by Republicans:
Marc Racicot [Chairman of the Republican National Committee]: "I think they have completely unhinged. Senator Kerry, Tad, although I've certainly had time to get to know him, he looks to me to be wild-eyed." [CNN, Inside Politics 08/20/04]
Scott McCellan [White House Press Secretary]: "I do think that Senator Kerry losing his cool should not be an excuse for him to lash out at the President" [White House Press Briefing, Crawford Middle School, Crawford, Texas 08/20/04]
Which makes me wonder about Al. Thanks for pointing this out.
Mike, why would you want to be an apologist for Malkin (not to mention Al, but that's probably another topic):
mike: She's unhinged for a living.
And if your statement is true, does that make her any less unhinged?
Unhinged for a living? Yes. Malkin is. But, I think she is unhinged, period. I am acquainted with people who have known "Little Lulu" for years. They say there never been a time when she did not offer herself up as a water carrier for white conservatives. And, I've actually read self-hating, racist crap she writes. Those of you who have been around will remember when Al Barger invited ultra-bigot David Yeagley to Blogcritics. Suffice it to say that Malkin and Yeagley are backed by the same reactionary financiers and have appeared together in a traveling minstrel show for those people. The far Right, as evidenced by the swift boaters, is so out of touch with the mainstream that it may simply not realize what a loser Malkin is.
What's funny is the right's attack on MIchael Moore, George Soros, hollywood celebrities (Sean Penn and Ben Affleck come to mind), and other citizens who speak their liberal mind, but hold a candle to a right-winger's feet and get her to specifically state what she's implying and ohhhh, boy, there's more noise made than when a fox is in the henhouse.
I thought Michael Moore is the left wing equivalent of someone like Rush Limburgh, who most righties will flock do defend. Who are the leftwing loons equivalent to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mike Savage or David Yeagley?
Well, the professions/analogy mightn not be perfect, but the bottom line is they are all citizens free to speak their mind. Including Malkin. I don't see why the right is so bent out of shape over holding her to her words, or asking her to clarify what she's saying. THey did that to Michael Moore, right? The difference is that he shrugged it off, he didn't go crying to the left's equivalent of Uncle Rush.
I see no equivalent to Coulter, Savage or Yeagley. The liberal media might bias it's news (thinking of Aaron Brown, Brokaw, Rather, etc.), but they do NOT report with the slander and venom of the right. There is no comparison. Hate exists on one side only.
Oh look Hal... even the Kerry campaign is using the term "self-inflicted". Not only that but they have done a backflip and called into question Kerry's first Purple Heart:
GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.Yep... it's possible, anything is possible for the Kerry campaign.
BTW boomcrashbaby, here is your left equivalency.
Atrios who is now crying that Bush called for an end to all 527 ads. Knowing full well that would mean Moveon couldn't run their newest ad blitz. Whose director of the video said this:
Hip-hop impresario Benny Boom, who has directed videos for P. Diddy, Lil' Kim and LL Cool J, didn't need to have his arm twisted to join an anti-Bush advertising campaign.And this:
"I felt like Bush stole the last election and the whole country kind of got robbed and bamboozled, and I wanted to make sure I did my part besides voting," he says. When he was approached by the liberal MoveOn PAC, "I was like, yo, I want to do an ad myself."
"I'm more passionate about being opposed to Bush," says Boom. "George Bush is probably the first real gangsta we have had in office."So you have Kerry surrogate calling Bush a gangster, and pumping out the "Bush stole the election" meme. Will Kerry/Edwards denounce that?
And here is some more equivalency from the left, Oliver Willis, Ted Rall, and dKos.
PLEASE, I'd say you were being disingenious.. but I think you have to be at least partly a genius first.
Mark, "unintentionally self-inflicted" makes the situation unambiguous.
Malkin used only "self-inflicted" then refused to erase the implication that it was deliberately done. And refused and refused and refused ...
She showed herself for exactly what she is.
BTW boomcrashbaby, here is your left equivalency.
And here is some more equivalency from the left, Oliver Willis, Ted Rall, and dKos.
I've never heard of these people, except for Rall, whom I've never read except when right wingers bitch about him here at Blogcritics.
Do these people reach the audience of Rush? Over 25 million per day? Since I've never heard of them, I'd say probably not.
It's possible to find someone typing on a blog that reaches several dozen people and saying 'there's the equivalent', but I'm not convinced there's equivalency there.
She showed herself for exactly what she is.
That may be true - in your eyes.
What's also true is Matthews has gone over the edge in his support for Kerry, and lost all crediability as a journalist.
And note I didn't use "unhinged."
boomcrashbaby:
i didn't realize you placed a viewership/readership threshold of 25 mil on your comment.
You can read about Paul Krugman and some of his nonsense here. He has gone so far as to say that Michael Moore, with his dungumentary has performed a public service. As a columnist for the NYT he is syndicated world-wide. Certainly reaching far in excess of 25 Million people.
As for Atrios I gave you the link. You can follow it, read his tripe and also note his hitcounter while your there. And more than likely add a comment of your own to one of his mostly baseless diatribes. You can even call Bush Hitler over there and be praised for it.
Have fun...
Hmmm, while I know webpage counters can be unreliable, they just might count the visits to a page, so one person could visit 20 times and have it count as 20 visits, and while a NYT columnist might be syndicated to millions, it doesn't mean that millions read every inch of the paper.
However, since I don't care to research the statistics and am just willing to concede point that perhaps some 'over the top' liberals can reach an audience to the same extent that 'over the top' conservatives can, I will only be conceding that which makes me glad...ergo..I am heartened to be proven wrong in this case.
Well thank you BCB, thats very big of you. Good choice, there are many shrill voices on both sides of the political spectrum.
Hal I suppose you would call this comment about Malkin utterd by Matthews on Monday appropriate.
Before we go to Dick Cavett, we want to get some final thoughts from Doug Brinkley and Stanley Karnow.Oh and look Kerry flack Brinkley has used the phrase "shot himself." Will you condemn him also. Of couse he is only parroting the same BS Matthews started.
Let me go to Doug Brinkley on a hot point on this program.
Doug, there was a woman on the show the other night, Michelle Malkin or something, who was discussing in rather loose terms the idea that maybe John Kerry had purposely wounded himself to win a Purple Heart. Where would she get such an idea?
BRINKLEY: Well, from the Internet, from talk radio. This is a right-wing August takedown on John Kerry, and rumors, accusations, innuendoes flying. And that's just how gutter politics is played sometimes in America. I feel it is a completely irresponsible comment and she needs to apologize for making it. There's no evidence that says John Kerry ever shot himself.
"Malkin wanted to play with the big boys but when she tried to slip in her propaganda, she got spanked so she went running to Uncle Rush who consoled her and stirred up the Stepford-right."
Hal! You misogynist you! ;)
Awful quite now isn't he RJ.
Maybe he finally took my suggestion on that reading comprehension couse.
I'm not quiet, Marc - I'm on the West Coast and just logged on (it's 7:47 AM).
Matthews' comment was not only appropriate, it couldn't be seen as anything else except by loonies on the right.
And RJ, sorry to disappoint you but I love the ladies.
pet stairs Probaly you should read this. pet stairs Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy pet stairs now! God bless you.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18914)
Let me preface this by saying Malkin certainly could have handled this interview much better than she did. Thats especially true considering the recent mugging John O'Neill received by Matthews and John Hurley.
Lets start at the very top of this interview.
MATTHEWS: John Kerry's speech was part of a new strategy to fight back.
Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin.
Malkin is that the correct pronunciation?
Odd, as well known as Malkin is (hundreds of TV appearences) Matthews isn't sure how to pronounce her name. Coincidence? Or is woefully ill-prepared for this interview? Or is it an editorial trick to set her off guard, so to speak, in any case not very professional.
Seeing the the premise of your post is to discuss propaganda, lets look at some that may border on just that:
MATTHEWS: Malkin, I like it better.[in ref. to her name pronounciation]
She's the author of in "Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling." We'll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.
What do you make of the president's--this campaign being run on behalf of the president, if not officially to try destroy John Kerry's war record?
"If not officially." Matthews knows very well thats not true, any more than Moveon is connected to the Kerry campaign. By using "if" he leaves the impression to the viewers that it's possible Bush is directly connected to the SBVT. A slip of the tongue? Or editorial "foreshadowing" telling his audience that anything said about the SBVT can be dismissed because they might be connected to Bush? Or a blatant display of propaganda of the part of a supposedly impartial host?
Lets move on to your statement Hal: Matthews didn't want this implication to remain nebulous and asked Malkin: "What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying? " Malkin then started playing dodge ball, refusing to commit herself while repeating the phrase "self-inflicted."
First question is how did this enter the conversation? Why it was none other than Willie Brown (D Ca.) former Mayor of San Francisco:
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.
As you correctly quote Matthews is the one who first uttered the phrase "shot himself," vice "self-inflected," and he continued his attempts to have Malkin take credit for it rather than ask what she was refering to. You are calling Malkin's exchange "didge ball" so it's plain you have already made up your mind. But lets let the other readers see the entire exchange and allow them to decide independant from your fogged view.
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.
Look, thank you Mayor Brown. We'll stay with Michelle Malkin.
"Dodge ball"... indeed. More like "head'em off at the pass," like the old western movies. "Hey Tonto, lets head Black Bart off at the pass!" (As the Lone Ranger jumps upon his trusty steed.) Show me a Malkin quote in this passage where Malkin was allowed to complete an answer before being badgered and interrupted by Matthews and the words "shot himself?"
Let us do a little census count.
# of times Matthews says "shot himself" (or variants) 14
# of times Matthews says "self inflected" (or variants) 01
# of times Malkin says "shot himself" (or variants) 0
# of times Malkin says "self inflected" (or variants) 3
And the telling passage is where Malkin asks if Matthew had read Unfit for Command. She got zero response because, again he was ill prepared to conduct this interview and hadn't read the book.
Like the John O'Neill interview a few days before, this was another attempt to pad his resume for any hoped for job as Kerry speech writer.