Did you hear about that challenge famed oilman T. Boone Pickens made on November 6 when he offered $1 million to anyone that could disprove even one charge made against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Like most people that weren't at the American Spectator dinner the evening Pickens made the offer, you probably didn't learn about this until Kerry accepted the challenge ten days later.
I guess that's when media outlets figured it was news, for at that point, they circled the wagons, and jumped all over a story that had gone totally ignored for nine days.
As reported by the Associated Press Friday (h/t Dan Gainor):
Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' offer of $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry's race against President Bush, responded by saying he won't consider giving Kerry the reward unless he surrenders his combat films, additional military records and wartime journal.
"While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false," Kerry wrote to Pickens. "I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."
Buried waaaaaaay down in the tenth paragraph was the following account of when Pickens made this offer (emphasis added):
Pickens issued his challenge Nov. 6 in Washington, while serving as chairman of a 40th anniversary gala for American Spectator magazine, according to two Internet accounts of the gathering and Kerry, who said he spoke to people who were there.
Any wonder why this went completely ignored until now? Yet, since Kerry made his announcement Friday afternoon, Google news identified 283 articles on the subject.
I guess this would have gone totally ignored if nobody accepted Pickens's challenge.
For those interested, this was Pickens's formal reply:
Dear Senator Kerry:So glad to hear from you regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political ad campaign, and an offer I made public at an American Spectator dinner in Washington, D.C. last week. I am intrigued by your letter, and am certainly open to your challenge.
My concern at the Spectator Dinner was, and continues to be, that you and other political figures were and are maligning the Swift Boat Veterans, and I want to prevent this important part of American history from being unfairly portrayed.
In order to disprove the accuracy of the Swift Boat ads, I will ultimately need you to provide the following:
1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam. 2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years 1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your service.When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans' causes. I now challenge you to make this commitment: If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the Medal of Honor Foundation.
Sincerely,
T. Boone Pickens
If it turns out Kerry refuses to produce the information Pickens has requested, do you think media will report it?
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
*****Update: NBer Gary Hall recommends readers review the following NBC transcript of an interview Lisa Myers did with Adm. William Schachte in August 2004.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
More interesting to me was the rest
November 17, 2007 - 11:18 ET by exLibMore interesting to me was the rest of the article where the author from the AP went on to claim that the news media had already proven many of the allegations false and that many "people" were mad at Kerry for not fighting the SBVT group during the 2004 election, since it was the cause of his defeat.
It was clear from the article, posted on Comcastl.net, that the AP "journalist" was totally ticked off that Kerry didn't fight the allegations from day-one since they were obviously false and the media had already done his job for them.
Anybody want to bet that they don't cover the fact that Kerry is unable to prove anything untrue?
Records
November 17, 2007 - 11:52 ET by ChaitealoverThe article also stated that Kerry has been allowing access to his Navy personnel and medical records to reporters since May of 2005. James Taranto, of WSJ's Opinion Journal, frequently inserts a comment in his column regarding how many days without disclosure have passed since Kerry promised to allow his records to be released.
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
The AP article
November 17, 2007 - 12:01 ET by motherbeltThe AP article says:
While fellow veterans and reporters disproved many of the group’s claims at the time,
The "fellow veterans and reporters"merely put up other vets who said "That's not what happened" and offered their own version. That's not "disproving" anything.
It also starts out with an assumption:
Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record,
I doubt the SBV convinced anyone who was already committed to voting for Kerry to change their mind. In fact, they made his supporters more adamant. Why will they not consider that there may have been other reasons why Kerry lost?
It's easy for everyone to say now that Kerry didn't fight because he didn't want to "legitimize" their claims. (That's their story and they're sticking to it?)
It's also easy for Kerry to say now the he is "prepared" to refute the allegations now. Will he actually do it, when push comes to shove?
The proof is in the pudding, Senator.
Of course MB
November 17, 2007 - 12:32 ET by exLibOf course MB, the MSM has to go out and create another excuse for Kerry losing the election. SBV did it.
Gore didn't lose, the SCOTUS decision robbed him of it. Despite months of litigation, Gore didn't do the right thing by the MSM of abdicating, he did the wrong thing by not fighting the "unfair" decision.
This puff piece about Kerry amounts to an identical condemnation of "not fighting the injustice". The guy says, we did the work for you, all you had to do was show up and you would have won. But, Kerry blew it by not taking the MSM water they were "kerrying" for him.
Of course at the time, the MSM gave this heinous woman 3 days of exclusive time on all the nets to spout vitriol against the president, claiming that he did cocaine with his mother or some such nonsense. That was suitable for primetime and the public needed to know.
However, all the "journalists" wrote of the SBV before they got to square one, saying that the allegations weren't worth reporting on. It wasn't until the book went to #1 on NYT and Amazon and Fox News did a bunch of interviews that the Nets decided they had to do damage control for Kerry.
Finally, what really tees me off is the insistence that Kerry's war service trumps the service of the 200+ SBV who wrote the book. The tactic used was to tie the allegations to Bush, whose service was constantly under attack. Anytime you hear about the SBV it's always about how a "Veteran" could be attacked.
It's very similar to the McCain kerfuffle, which no one seems to want to deal with is that it was a WOMAN who called another WOMAN a B...
Speaking of Judges
November 17, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Del Dolemonte"Gore didn't lose, the SCOTUS decision robbed him of it. Despite months of litigation, Gore didn't do the right thing by the MSM of abdicating, he did the wrong thing by not fighting the "unfair" decision."
The fever swamp denizens have a real problem with this premise. They seem to forget that if SCOTUS had ruled against Bush and Gore had become President, Al would have also been "appointed" by the Supreme Court Justices.
And to make things even more surreal, if Gore had in fact prevailed, it would have meant that SCOTUS agreed with the Florida Supreme Court, which would have made Gore the only President in US history to have been apointed by TWO Supreme Courts.
Actually, Bush wasn't
November 17, 2007 - 13:06 ET by robert108Actually, Bush wasn't appointed President by the Supreme Court; they simply stopped the endless series of recounts by which the Gore campaign sought to overturn a duly certified election. If they had ruled for Gore, though, they would have essentially appointed him to the Presidency, if he had managed to rig a favorable recount.
Not part of the script Del
November 17, 2007 - 14:37 ET by exLibBut Del, the narritive is this:
Gore WON, we ALL know it, it's INDESPUTABLE.
So the SCOTUS HAD to give the election to Bush. If the SCOTUS had ruled for Gore, it would have been the "Right" decision.
So says Dan Rather.
I'll never forget that night, ALL the news casts led with RBGs dissenting opinion and called the 5-4 decision a Partisan decision and a Ruling that "Tarnished the Authority of the Court".
The Hubris of the media to think THEY know Election Law better than a Supreme Court Justice.
Irony of the situation is that they tacitly admit the 4 US Supreme Court Justices are shills for the Dems.
Trying to paint Bush as illegitimate
November 17, 2007 - 15:38 ET by nkviking75"Why will they not consider that there may have been other reasons why Kerry lost?"
They did. The company which provided the voting machines to Ohio is owned by Republicans, and they used the technology to throw the election to Bush. That's the claim, anyway.
I also think the Swift Boat line the MSM uses continues the "Bush is illegitimate" meme. Kerry supposedly only lost because he was lied about.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I dunno --
November 17, 2007 - 11:23 ET by dervishSeems to me that Pickens has given Kerry a loophole. By demanding his journal, service records, et al., Pickens sort of moved the goalpost from his original challenge. Kerry has only to point that out, refuse to play, and -- presto! -- he's vindicated again without, again, disproving a single point.
You may have a point, but I
November 17, 2007 - 13:36 ET by mattmYou may have a point, but I don't see how Kerry could debunk the SBVs without releasing his records...which he won't do...simply because, if releasing them would have proven the SBVs wrong, he'd have done it.
but won't Tehreaser
November 17, 2007 - 11:25 ET bybe pissed at John for donating her money?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Smart move by Pickens,
November 17, 2007 - 11:41 ET by midnight cowboySmart move by Pickens, Pickens can do a rope a dope with Kerry. Kerry obviously won't release his records. At that point pickens should up the offer and encourage other supporters to join him and continue to up the ante raising the pressure on the "Flipper" making him realize he stepped in it big time.
This sounds like Kerry
November 17, 2007 - 11:47 ET by motherbeltThis sounds like Kerry "offering" to produce proof, just like he continually "offered" to release all his medical records, but never did.
My Way News also has this story. They report that:
In May 2005, he began allowing reporters access to his full Navy
personnel and medical records - something he refused to do during the
campaign.
Those records mostly duplicated documents Kerry released during the 2004 campaign.
So Kerry promised all the records, then gave them access to pretty much the same documents he put out during the campaign. It will be intersting to see if he does the same with Pickens.
In the My Way story also, Kerry invites Pickens to go with him to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, to see how the money will be used (Kerry said that's who he will give the money to.)
What the heck would that have to do with it? My thinking is Kerry wants to milk this for all the publicity he can get, up front.
Good for Pickens, specifying what he will accept as "proof." It's his million, he has a right to do that.
Form 180
November 17, 2007 - 11:50 ET by WoodyMKerry promised in an old interview with Tim Russert that he would sign Form 180, which would open his miltary and military medical records to everyone--not just his buddies at the Boston Globe. If he wants to clear the record, just sign the form. Fat chance. You would think that if he was so proud of his military record that he would want to put it on display.
Again, I don't think so.
November 17, 2007 - 11:55 ET by dervish"Disproving a single charge" is substantially different from giving up all journals, films, and military records. Kerry's going to weasel out of it, and (filtered through the media) look reasonable in doing so. I predict he'll come up with an eyewitness who absolutely contradicts some point the SBVs made, claim he won the bet, and then let the media deal with Boone's counterclaiming.
Boone doesn't strike me as much of a chessplayer.
Right to Cross-examine
November 17, 2007 - 12:04 ET by WoodyMThe prosecution will demand to see all known records held by the defendent to cross-examine and contradict any so-called eye-witness. It will end up being a Mexican stand-off, which Kerry was against before he was for it.
But, you're right, the press will give Kerry a pass and claim that all records were already made public--you're just not allowed to see them, but someone at the Boston Globe has, and no one from the media would mislead you.
Dervish, I think you're right.
November 17, 2007 - 12:11 ET by motherbeltWell, after re-reading Pickens' demands, I agree with you. I think he overreached. No way Kerry is going to give up all that stuff. Pickens should have just asked him for relevant journal entries and records that would disprove any one charge, and specified that he can't just bring up stuff that's already out there and claim that it proves anything, because that's already in dispute.
Still, it will be intersting to see if that's what Kerry does. He ahs been claiming for three years now that he has released everything. So how is he going to come up with more "proof"?
Kerry has already issued a statement, MB,
November 17, 2007 - 12:16 ET by RJto the effect that Pickins has changed the rules.
Even if nothing comes of it, Pickins has pointed out that Kerry has NOT released his records....
No surprise there.
November 17, 2007 - 17:06 ET by motherbeltI knew it Kerry wanted to just take the same papers he's been touting since 2004 and shove them under Pickens' nose as "proof." Just like he did when he said he was "releasing his records" before. I wish I knew the number...James Taranto of Opinion Journal (WSJ) keeps track..how many days since JFK promised to release his records....
The press has already
November 17, 2007 - 12:28 ET by DaBirdThe press has already "decided" that Kerry refuted the Swift Boat ads. Which should make this whole exercise mute. By Kerry coming out and saying that he can disprove their claims (which the media already believes he did) shoots the media's whole theory of Kerry refuting the claims made. So which is it MSM? Kerry already HAS refuted the claims or he CAN refute the claims?
Yes the press follows the DNC narrative
November 17, 2007 - 19:25 ET by bulbasaurThe press desperately wants to believe John Kerry successfully refuted the Swift Boat challenge, but they know he didn't. So they spin the story that John Kerry could have refuted the facts.
The narrative goes like this: John Kerry would have responded more aggressively against the facts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but he lacked the financial resources to launch an ad campaign.
Unfortunately for the driveby media, John Kerry apparently ended his failed bid for the Presidency with a positive balance in his campaign account. It was reported at the time that the democrat party was furious about this since, even though Kerry was doomed to fail, the money could have bought votes for democrat candidates in other national races.
If he had a response, and wanted to win, he would have given the response. He didn't give a response at the time.
Therefore, he either didn't have a response, or didn't want to win. Both are devastating conclusions for the democrat party, too painful to accept.
Since they can't refute these painful facts, the hard-left must once again win by rewriting history. The stakes are too high. You have to break a few eggs to make an omellete.
Kerrys Postwar activities
November 17, 2007 - 12:29 ET by IamTinmanI believe most Vietnam vets think as I do, that while John Kerry at a minimum stretched the truth about his service, at least he served for 3 months anyway, and I give him credit for not ducking out of any service like the gentleman from Arkansas. All politicians embellish their past record, I would be more surprised if he didn't, given his political affiliation. As far as I know however, regardless of what Kerry and the media have said, there has been no proof offered that any of the swifties allegations are false, and I would take their word over Kerrys' any day.
What I cannot forgive however are the despicable postwar activities he engaged in with the "winter soldier" hearings and the Vietnam Veterans against the war (VVAW). The lies that he and that group spread with the willing assistance of the MSM instilled a poison in the American soul that still exists today and wrongly impugned the honor of a military force I was proud to be a part of.
The residents of any state that would elect Ted Kennedy and John Kerry ought to get their moral compass reset!!
Don't be too quick to give Kerry "credit" for his service Tinman
November 17, 2007 - 13:18 ET by RJHe didn't go to war willingly.
He attempted to pull strings to study in Europe (deferment) after graduating from Yale. When the draft board refused, he joined the Navy Reserve (he said so he could be an officer), rather than get drafted.
He volunteered for swift boat duty when they were being used for coastal interdiction, but the assignment was changed soon after to the more dangerous interior waterway patrols.....and we all know how quickly he bailed out of that assignment.
As for "yeah, but he did serve", his dispicable behavior afterwards completely negated any possibility of his deserving a "thank you for serving."
He didn't end up in Canada
November 17, 2007 - 14:59 ET by IamTinmanKerry also didn't end up in Russia like another presidential candidate, he didn't spend his tour being babysat like Al Gore. He very likely per the swifties was not the war hero he made himself to be. So I give him credit, however small it may be for his service.
I agree 100% regarding his post service activity. Too many names on the Wall are there due in large part to the actions of he and his allies in the media and there is no Hell too hot for them.
As a vet, I give Kerry absolutely no credit for serving
November 17, 2007 - 15:11 ET by RJHe's a filthy, disgusting, self-serving, POS whose behavior caused harm to my fellow servicemen.
...but that's just me....
RJ
November 17, 2007 - 18:09 ET by ricklailI keep hearing the praise being heaped on Max Cleland about his service and his debiliating wounds from the dumbass libs. For gosh sake the man was injuried horseplaying with a grenade. Had it happened in say Fort Hood, he would have never got the accolades.
I don't hear the libs heaping praise on the real heroes of war. Did Kerry do anything like General Pace and leave his rank insigina at The Wall for a fallen buddy? I will give him, Owlgore and Cleland credit for their service but they were no where near heroes.
Southern by birth, Tarheel by the grace of God!
Wouldn't it be more
November 17, 2007 - 12:42 ET by RovinWouldn't it be more prudent to ask Kerry and the senior senator from Mass, (Kennedy) why Boy Scouts in their state aren't allowed to support our military? Some would love to see this headline: "Boy Scouts Frog-march Mass. Senators Out of Office?
Rovin
I know what John Kerry has hidden
November 17, 2007 - 13:07 ET by Lame CherryI broke this on my blogging in 2004 in researching John Kerry and I know why Kerry jumped on this million dollar bid..........and why he will refuse Mr. Pickens formal request for records.
What John Kerry is hiding is his discharge. He never received an honorable discharge. There are 3 discharges, honorable, dishonorable and the "OTH" discharge (other than honorable).
John Kerry for his unpatriotic throwing medals, meeting with Vietcoms in France was expunged from the military as the cull he was.
His officers in Vietnam held him with contempt for his faked "battle scratches" to his self inflicted rice in the buttocks. The only reason John Kerry got his wounded ticket out of Vietnam is because the superiors had had it with him as a glory hound politico with indications he got US soldiers killed.
Kerry's infamous slaughter of an unarmed Vietcong teenager who was not 100 pounds dripping wet in which he ran after the kid and executed him is at the heart of the Kerry psychopathy. He has been trying to be a hero and at the same time trying to be outed as the dishonorable person he is.
John Kerry never received an honorable discharge and I predict right now he will never release his official records as that is what he is hiding.
http://usmilitary.ab...
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Way to grab Kerry by the
November 17, 2007 - 13:13 ET by wiwfWay to grab Kerry by the balls, Pickens! But make sure to wash up when you're done.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Lame
November 17, 2007 - 17:55 ET by ricklailThere is a general discharge also.Are you saying that is the OTH? Had a guy that works for me got one. Reason: After his regular service he failed to complete his time in IRR. He was supposed to make drills with a guard unit but never did. The reason I know this is he tried to go back into the Army. He has to spend 6 months in the guard first. He couldn't get the bonus for joining the guard either because of the general discharge.
Southern by birth, Tarheel by the grace of God!
It's amazing
November 17, 2007 - 13:43 ET by pbthinkerIt's amazing that the media won't report this, but they will allow Clinton's comments about his wife being "Swift Boated" during a debate. If the term Swift Boating is to continue to have a negative connotation, to Democrats, you'd think one of them would take up the challenge. Until they do, Swift Boating means exposing a lieing Democrat for what they are, and not allowing them to use their falsehoods for propaganda.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
why can't they just go away?
November 17, 2007 - 15:27 ET by pmohbuckhey jimmy carter, al gore and john kerry ... hint, hint ... you all suffered humiliating defeats in presidential elections ... that translates into "YOU'RE NOT WANTED" by the american public (yes, even yo al gore ... after you eliminate all the illegals that probably voted for you ... you LOSE the popular vote too)
so, here's a hint: follow the footsteps of george h.w. bush, bob dole and even ross perot ... gracefully enter retirement and work for the people, not punish them by hanging around, whining and complaining about events that happened 10, 30 and 40 years ago. for the love of all things ... JUST GO AWAY!
carter - you suffered the most humiliating defeat for an incumbent in history ... deal with it ... right now, you look like a living PSA for dementia ... you make no sense and your fondness for arafat proves you didn't deserve another term
gore - you are the fungus of american politics ... you look more and more like a fool every year. your concerns for your own self-image are evident ... you bring nothing to the table ... take your giant carbon foot and stick it where the sun doesn't shine ... you're lame.
kerry - a proverbial crybaby ... waaaah, waaaah ... be thankful of the fact that you will be remembered in history for the term "swift-boating" ... otherwise you would be annonymous ... because other than losing the 04 election, you've done nothing worth remembering.
Excuse Me...
November 17, 2007 - 16:01 ET by Wildcatter1980Excuse me while I laugh. After reading about the Mayor of Columbus and how the local newspaper (the Columbus Dispatch) alleged has held onto or "watered" down stories that would be damaging to the mayor, damaging to the point of seriously jeopardizing his recent reelection campaign had they been published before the elections, the only answer to Noel's question is "No, the media will not report Kerry's failure to meet Pickens' conditions."
Just my $0.02
Kerry
November 17, 2007 - 17:43 ET by WR JonasI 'll bet Kerry has a mystery "eye witness" . A cambodian named hol dam ting who scoped all of the action on that fateful ( was it ?) Christmas Eve across the border and up the river. The rest of the action was a " he said , she said " scenario so give him the money Slim!
This is gonna be a lotta fun watchin the back spin from the drivebys. Soros is probably cussin John F'in Kerry and screaming "sit down and shut up".
What I find more abhorrent
November 17, 2007 - 17:44 ET by jdhawkWhat I find more abhorrent about Kerry and one of the reasons that I didn't vote for him as I think many Americans didn't is that he did nothing during his entire time in the Senate prior to his bid for the presidency. Since then, he has continued to do nothing.
He has never authored a major piece of legistlation. He has never championed a major piece of legistlation. As far as I know, he does not sit on any major senatorial committees.
Here is a record of his recent legislative sponsorships: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery . Note, the majority of the bills that he sponsors are BS stuff like, " . . . Senate sense of . . ." Also, note that overwhelmingly his sponsored bills are referred to committee never to be heard from again.
The conclusion that I've come to is that by just being a senator he wastes away his time and others there at our expense. It is as if he doesn't have a clue as to what to do, so he makes busy work for himself and those all around him.
The reason that Americans didn't vote for him for president is that they came to the same conclusion. He is just another empty suit.
Folks can say the goalposts
November 17, 2007 - 17:49 ET by ckc1227Folks can say the goalposts have been moved if they want, but that doesn't change the fundamental point of the challenge, which is disproving one Swift Boat claim. If Kerry had nothing to hide, he should have no problem agreeing to these new stipulations, which aren't really new, just more detailed. If it weren't Kerry, I suspect nothing would change. Of course you'd require Kerry to provide this stuff though. To not do so would be like telling Kerry to prove he didn't shoot someone without requiring access to his gun.
The million dollar contribution is an addition though, but I suspect he did that because it IS Kerry, he can afford it, and it goes to charity, which is a good thing. If it were just some shmoe off the street, he wouldn't have added these stipulations.
But these are all moot if Kerry can disprove anything, which I suspect he can't. That's why he won't take the challenge.
Reporting by Media
November 17, 2007 - 19:16 ET by HadaAbecheJust heard ABC report Pickens challenge w/$1million to Kerry if he could prove any untruths by the SwiftBoat Vets on their top of the hour radio newscast....!
It would appear Pickens,
November 17, 2007 - 19:42 ET by JerIt would appear Pickens, having shot off his mouth, is now inserting his foot in it. He made the offer, Kerry accepted it. If Kerry can prove his case without the production of any more records than those already made public, he should not be required to. Tacking on new demands reeks of desperation and suggests T. Boone now realizes he may have stepped in his own b/s. My odds in favor of you, Mr. Texas billionaire? Pretty slim, Pickens.
Jer
point is Jer
November 17, 2007 - 19:54 ET bythe case can not be proven with the existing records, else it would have already
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
If that is so, botg,
November 17, 2007 - 20:02 ET by JerIf that is so, botg, obviously Kerry would then need to release the relevant records or shut up.
Jer
but jer
November 17, 2007 - 20:17 ET byhe will do neither and wait for the MSM to assert that it's consensus no debate needed
(cuz dats what leftists do bestest --- tigger<adapted>)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Actually, Pickens wins by default
November 17, 2007 - 20:33 ET by WingletDriverJer,
Kerry is an idiot to rehash this. There was no story before Kerry "accepted" the challenge. Now he's re-fighting the Swift Boat ads all over again. Need I remind you that (according to him, all Dems and the MSM) he lost this debate. It's like watching last year's Super Bowl and hoping that Chicago will win it.
Furthermore, the MSM have spun everything in Kerry's favor up to now. They can squawk about being "swift boated" and how unfair it was. But they don't want to get any further. If this goes on, they will have to talk to T. Boone. Some people will claim he is welching on his bet, but most will realize that Kerry (and the MSM) haven't proven anything.
Kerry doesn't want to feel as irrelevent as he really is. And he is too arrogant and stupid to just keep his mouth shut when he clearly did not earn his medals, clearly was nearly as hated among Swifties as the Viet Cong, clearly faked his own war footage and clearly was caught doing it.
WingletDriver...it will be
November 17, 2007 - 22:06 ET by JerWingletDriver...it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I read impeccably sourced articles which convincingly refuted several of the Swift Boaters claims, but during a political campaign, it is often difficult to devise an ideal strategy for handling controversial matters like this one. Do you ignore it, or do you confront it and intensify the publicity.
Many within the party felt Kerry should have been much more forceful in defending his record and exposing the Swift Boaters. Now, he is not constrained by any of those considerations.
By the way, my understanding is that after Pickens made his grandstanding challenge, Limbaugh picked up on it and started 'rehashing' the same old taunts. And Kerry was just fed up with it.
Grab some popcorn.
Jer
Jer it is Boone Pickens
November 18, 2007 - 03:01 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer it is Boone Pickens challenge and he can state any rule he wishes. No conditions were mentioned during the challenge and Im sure if it had been some yahoo and not Kerry himself the rules might have been different.
So the gaols were not moved only clarified to meet the challenger. Now if Kerry has nothing to hide then he will comply but if he is the skunk he potrays he will not.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Disagree with you Dan...
November 18, 2007 - 16:38 ET by JerDisagree with you Dan...Now, if Pickens initial challenge had been something along the following lines...
I will pay a million dollars to John Kerry (or a charity of his choice) if he will make public all of his heretofore unreleased military records, and those records conclusively refute one or more of the Swift Boat claims...
I would agree. But he didn't.
Jer
We'll see how it plays out
November 18, 2007 - 13:16 ET by WingletDriverYou're right about that Jer. But Kerry and the MSM--who ignored it or were Kerry apologists--have had 3 years to put this to bed and they are still fighting the last fight. If he shut up about it, the topic would die. He's not running for POTUS. He's not a target of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Every time he brings it up he sounds like a child crying for attention.
Who is impeccable these days?
November 18, 2007 - 19:10 ET by IamTinmanThere are a large number of us who think the swifties are an impeccable source since they were there with Kerry. Unless you have somebody with an unaltered video, there is no such thing as an unbiased source.
botched joke
November 18, 2007 - 12:35 ET by i b squidlyUnmentioned anywhere is that Pickens challenge was a response to Kerry's declaration a week earlier. He said if he ran again he was ready for the Swifties not with a full record release to prove his case but with dossiers on the Swifties to launch ad hominems.
The AP reporter on the Pickens challenge reveals the ignorance typical of MSM. He repeats the nonsense that Kerry served two tours in 'Nam. 4 months does not one tour make but it's on par with the rest of the flatulence with which the Kerry campaign filled the air.
Until Kerry signs off on a full 'privacy' release his decorations based on his own after-action reports can't be proved nor will his original discharge be revealed. My information is that he received an Executive Order of Dismissal. You'd think a good lib' would be proud to have been blackballed by Nixon.
First, kill all the lawyers.
-Wlm Shakespear
Hmmm.
November 18, 2007 - 13:02 ET by dervishYou're right about Kerry raising the issue first -- check this article from the LA Times.
Read down to the end, though, and note that Kerry's group is already crawfishing, on the basis of Picken's new stipulations.
squidly... Does being
November 18, 2007 - 20:27 ET by Jersquidly...
Does being stationed off the coast of Viet Nam for several months qualify as a tour of duty or add to the time served in Viet Nam. If so, your 4-month figure is inaccurate. Otherwise, you are correct.
Kerry's declaration to which you refer was just a few hours--not a "week"-- prior to Pickens' challenge, so it's unlikely the challenge was a response--although it can't be ruled out if Pickens was in fact quickly informed about Kerry's remarks.
My understanding is that Kerry signed a full privacy release in 2005, so what more is he supposed to do?
Jer
Last I heard, Jer
November 18, 2007 - 21:11 ET by RJKerry had not made ALL of his records available.
For one example, do you know what kind of a discharge he got?
Also, transferring from one unit to another during a tour of duty doesn't make it TWO tours.
....Plus he has not made all
November 18, 2007 - 21:14 ET by bigtimer....Plus he has not made all of his medical records available during his service...like he said he would on Russert if memory serves me right.
Honorable Discharge from
November 18, 2007 - 21:40 ET by JerHonorable Discharge from U.S. Naval Reserve 16 Feb 1978
Got a link for that?
November 18, 2007 - 21:45 ET by RJNo offense, but I'd like to see a link with irrefutable proof.
Also, check out this link on the subject. Or this. They raise some interesting questions.
RJ
November 18, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Jerhttp://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/hondisres.pdf
Will be back later, Jer
Have to pass on that link, jer
November 18, 2007 - 22:07 ET by RJIt requires that I create a folder to view it. A search on findlaw.com brings up a homepage that says "find a lawyer find answers."
It's a .pdf file, RJ...have
November 18, 2007 - 22:12 ET by JerIt's a .pdf file, RJ...have to go for awhile.
Later, Jer
I realize it's a pdf file
November 18, 2007 - 22:24 ET by RJbut why does it require me to create a folder in order to view it?
How about if you just c&p the appropriate sections?
RJ...I'm a pathetic cut &
November 18, 2007 - 23:44 ET by JerRJ...I'm a pathetic cut & paster [I need somebody like stratman to tutor me], and my computer has been so sluggish for the past few hours that I think it may drive me nuts, but I'll try. In the meantime, here is a link with info about alternative methods for opening .pdf files:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Hl1/Help/DG_10014666
BTW, that link of yours was to a blank NB page???
And, returned in time to see Patriots complete their utter demolition of Bills. What's going on? Has all of New England's water supply been laced with steroids. The whole region has become an athletic behemoth.
Jer
lol, jer, it was pathetic, wasn't it?
November 18, 2007 - 23:53 ET by RJThis time, I don't think it was the Pats being so good as the Bills being so bad. The Pats really tried to keep the score down, but the Bills just kept handing touchdowns to them.
I can usually just open pdf files, but this one wants me to create a folder first. In any event, I have to go and will have to look at both your and my links later.
P.S. Jer
November 18, 2007 - 23:57 ET by RJThere may be something worth checking regarding your suspicion of steroids in the water.
In today's Courant, there was an article about a Connecticut resident, Patrick Arnold, who is supposedly "one of the most influential chemists in the world of bodybuilding suppliments and performance enhancing drugs."
I've even noticed enhanced
November 19, 2007 - 00:12 ET by JerI've even noticed enhanced peformance with respect to your cognitive powers lately, RJ...I may demand the implementation of drug testing at NB. You guys on the right have enough advantages already.
By the way, when you have a chance, will you give me a short course on the emoticon symbols...sarcasm, etc.?
Thanks, Jer
Jer, I'm pretty sure steroids don't enhance "cognative powers"
November 19, 2007 - 10:51 ET by RJOn the other hand, perhaps your belated awareness of my impressive cognative powers is a result of your own brain-stimulating drug program? ;^)
(Seriously, there is some worry brewing about students taking drugs before tests that supposedly enhance their mental abilities.)
And, other than a smile, a wink, and a frown, I have no idea of the meanings of emoticons.
RJ...Find me those
November 19, 2007 - 11:09 ET by JerRJ...Find me those drugs...those youngsters don't need them. It's us AARP folks who could use some brain food.
I wanted you to show me the symbols for the smile, wink, and frown. Please?
Jer
No problem, RJ, I'll
November 18, 2007 - 23:58 ET by JerNo problem, RJ, I'll practice c & p in the meantime.
Jer
NB Goes Go Cuckoo For Kerry Accepting Pickens Challenge
November 19, 2007 - 00:41 ET by BlindSightPredictible.
Pickens promptly moves goalposts, by demanding proof not that anything the Swiftboat Veterans charged about Kerry was wrong, but that Kerry first provide a big, bottomless information dump (including information that Kerry cannot personally possess or control - [copies of all movies and tapes made during your service]). NS skates past this - predictible.
If it turns out Kerry refuses to produce the information Pickens has requested, do you think media will report it?
Certainly, now that this has Media Frenzy written all over it.
Pres. George Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, November 13, 2007: Climate change is a serious problem, and humans are contributing to it. We are at a critical moment. Addressing this global challenge requires substantial global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And we are committed to doing our part.
http://useu.usmissio...