If you can't figure out how stupid that 'analysis' is, here's the HuffingtonPost's John Neffinger:

Biden and Clinton also got the Shuster treatment - he called them both "untruthful." In grasping for words strong enough to describe the harm President Bush has done to the country, Biden spoke during the debate of "how much [Bush] has ruined" it. Exactly no one was confused by what Biden said, but, short of material, Shuster pounced anyway. Citing the dictionary definition of "ruin" as causing "irreparable damage," Shuster declared Biden's usage "pretty amazing" and "a bit of a stretch." For starters, it is not quite so clear whether the harm Bush has done, say, to the ozone layer, or the lives of the residents of New Orleans, is irreparable or not. But that aside, does walking us through the definition of "ruin" really shed light on anything?

Speaking of New Orleans, Hillary made the supposedly grave error of saying that as President she would "put somebody in charge who actually cared about the people of New Orleans," clearly implying that Bush's people hadn't. Again, her statement confused no one anywhere about the facts. Yet Shuster rung her up for untruthfully characterizing the Bush administration's sentiments. I dunno, is it really so crazy to say that Brownie and his gang did not care about New Orleans residents enough to prepare and protect them, even when they were being paid to do just that? As far as I know, the facts more than bear that assessment out (how long ago did Bush himself vow to rebuild the place)? But Shuster concluded "To say that the Bush administration doesn't care about New Orleans - that's a leap."

In case the words "incorrect," "untruthful," and "misleading" didn't make his point clear, Shuster's scolding tone and slightly knitted brow underscored his disapproval. After each of the four video clips he played, he literally made a "tsk" sound as he resumed speaking.

But while Shuster the Lesser is only vicious toward the Clinton family and only tsk tsks Democrats, he is bipartisanly moronic, as in this 'truth squading' of last May's Repub debate (courtesy of and with commentary by the dailyhowler):

Even when the net did its post-debate "truth squad" feature, David Shuster hopelessly bungled the second topic (of two) he discussed. He played tape of Romney discussing abortion, then committed a cosmic gaffe--while claiming, falsely, that Romney had blundered. In the debate, Romney had said that he has "changed [his] mind" about abortion, just like Reagan and Bush 41 before him. For unknown reasons, Shuster offered this bizarre claim on behalf of his network's "Truth Squad:"

   

SHUSTER: Actually, that's not a course at all that George H. W. Bush or Ronald Reagan took. Both were consistent, George H.W. Bush particularly so, on the issue. He was always pro-life.

Truly, that is just amazing; we assume we don't have to explain. [Reagan and Bush Sr. were famous flip-floppers on abortion]

Here's more Hardballhead Shuster cluelessness (with some dailyhowler commentary):

On last night's Hardball, David Shuster was rattling on about "the political war over national security." Fairly quicky, he got to Hillary Clinton. Here's what the savant soon said:

   

SHUSTER (8/15/06): In the case of Senator Clinton, by ratcheting up attacks against President Bush, Clinton is trying to blunt Democratic anger at her for voting to authorize the Iraq war in the first place. But as Clinton steps up criticism of the administration, her Republican Senate campaign opponent is seizing the opportunity to bloody her.

   CAMPAIGN AD (videotape): Senator Hillary Clinton opposes the Patriot Act and the NSA program that helped stop another 9/11. She'd leave us vulnerable.

   SHUSTER: In Virginia, Republican Senator George Allen is getting attacked over national security from the left...

Do you see the problem with that presentation? In fact, Clinton doesn't "oppose the Patriot Act," for which she voted. (Beyond that, it's a tendentious stretch to say that she opposes "the NSA program that helped stop 9/11.") But so what? Shuster broadcast the inaccurate ad--and never said a word about its inaccurate content. To all appearances, it doesn't even occur to these people that they're supposed to challenge or correct bogus statements.

And here's Shuster fumbling the NIE on Iran, again making poor dailyhowler's head spin:

How bad would the factual bungling get? Our analysts nearly fell off their chairs when they heard David Shuster say the following on last evening's Hardball:

   

SHUSTER (4/10/06): Based on Libby's grand jury testimony, much of what Libby told New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the intelligence document was wrong.

   In their crucial July 8, 2003 meeting, Libby told her, quote, "one key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium." But that was not a judgment at all, much less a key judgment, according to CIA officials who wrote the document. And they said the "vigorously trying to pursue" language was not in the document at all.

   In other words, it may have been the same selective use of intelligence to justify the war that was used to sell the war. Ignoring the views of several government agencies, while accepting the views of one.

Say what? The claim that Iraq had been "vigorously trying to procure uranium" wasn't in the NIE at all? Shuster's statement was amazingly wrong; as we noted in yesterday's HOWLER, the NIE stated (on page 24) that Iraq had been "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons" (click here, then scroll down). Somehow, Shuster had managed to bungle this elementary fact.

And finally there's Shuster getting self-righteous and self-important repeating the old lie that Hillary hasn't been a fan of the Yankees since she was a kid:

Last week, Hillary Clinton offered a passing, joking jibe about the way Rudy came out for the Sox--and she was savaged for it, repetitiously, on last Friday's Hardball. First, David Shuster agreed to pretend that something is wrong, oh so wrong, with Clinton's claim that she was a fan of the Yankees. (The accuracy of Clinton's unimportant claim became clear years ago. . . .)

Here's the Shuster Hardball huffiness that howler is referring to:

In the meantime, in front of the cameras, Clinton is ignoring Obama altogether and taking aim at Rudy Giuliani.  The Republican frontrunner recently declared he is putting aside his loyalty to the New York Yankees to root in the World Series for the Boston Red Sox.

CLINTON:  I have been a fan and I remain a fan of the New York Yankees.  No changes, no looking to curry favor with anybody else!

SHUSTER:  Never mind that Hillary Clinton was a Chicago Cubs fan until she moved to New York to run for the U.S. Senate.

(on camera):  But the senator`s own inconsistencies and style do not appear to be hurting her with most Democratic voters.  . . .

I`m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.

Not this week Davey Airhead, a different moron is replacing you.