The Swift-Boating Of Joe McCarthy

An attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy?  I lack a subscription so I can't see where the argument goes [here we go!], but let me ask this of the author - Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

TO BE CLEAR - I am kidding a bit with my title.  I think Dems have done a wonderfully Orwellian job of promoting "Swift-boating" as synonymous with smearing.  I also think there are an abundance of legitimate questions raised by the Swift-boaters that Kerry could have addressed by releasing his war records and war diary.  Instead, he chose to talk up his own record and ignore the critics ands skeptics, and here we are and there he is.

However, if the McCarthy apologist can make a case, then any proper Dem would admit that McCarthy was "swift-boated".  Bah - why am I explaining?

FOR A GOOD CAUSE:  I am on a similar page with oilman T. Boone Pickens, who has this challenge for John Kerry - Kerry is to  provide his war record and diary; if Kerry can then prove a Swift Boat charge to be materially false, Pickens will give Kerry a million dollars; if Kerry cannot prove something to be false, then Kerry must donate a million dollars to the the Medal of Honor Foundation.

Hmm, IMHO this proposal gives Kerry too many reason to say no - just for starters, who will judge the evidence, and who thinks Kerry needs the money?

A much tougher offer for Kerry to refuse  - make the war records and diary public and Pickens will donate a million dollars to the charity of Kerry's choice.  I also want the paperwork backing Kerry's application for his first Purple Heart, but the Navy controls that.  And yes, I am being quite generous with Mr. Picken's money.

Once the records are public we will see where the chips fall.

TROUBLING, OR, I CATCH UP ON THE WEEKEND'S EVENTS:

The LA Times and Chicago Sun Times covered this - it looks as though Mr. Pickens is back-pedaling from his original proposal, which didn't say anything about the records or diary, or about Kerry risking his own cash.  Geez, talk is cheap.

Here is the LA Times:

Renewing a debate that raged through much of the 2004 presidential race, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Friday accepted Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove allegations by veterans who disparaged Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Kerry and his top aides said that failing to respond more quickly and aggressively to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had been a mistake, and they attributed the Democrat's narrow loss to President Bush, in part, to the attacks.

Kerry said Friday that he would no longer let such challenges go unanswered.

"I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word and that the so-called 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' lied," Kerry wrote to Pickens. "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. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

Pickens was one of the principal financial backers of television ads that alleged Kerry had lied about his war experiences, didn't deserve his medals and had betrayed soldiers with his vehement protests after the war. The Texas billionaire, a prominent supporter of Bush and other Republicans, made his $1-million challenge at a Nov. 6 dinner in Washington sponsored by the American Spectator magazine.

Kerry said in an interview that he only learned of Pickens' gambit this week, in an e-mail from a friend.

...

In his letter to Pickens, Kerry suggested that they hash the truth out in a public forum in either Dallas or Massachusetts. The four-term senator said he would have Pickens pay the $1 million to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, an organization that assists troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Friday afternoon, Pickens issued a letter of his own, saying he was "open" to Kerry's response but wanted more -- for Kerry to provide his Vietnam journal, his military records, and copies of movies and tapes made during his service.

Pickens also upped the ante: He challenged Kerry to risk his own $1 million, to be paid to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation, if Kerry "cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue."

Kerry had left on an overseas trip by the time the counterproposal was delivered. "It appears that Mr. Pickens is backing off his original challenge," responded Kerry aide David Wade. "Sen. Kerry took Mr. Pickens as a man of his word who, when he talks the talk, is willing to walk the walk."

Oh, well.  The original Pickens proposal was silly anyway - I take for granted that, amidst all the mud that was flying, Kerry can find some Swift charge that won't stick (I don't have their "Unfit For Command" in front of me but I don't remember it as being cautious and under-stated).  Of course, such a feat would hardly prove that Kerry is fully vindicated or the Swifties mostly wrong.

I also think the request for the records and diary is highly defensible - just how does Kerry propose to "prove" anything while hiding what may be contradictory evidence?  [OTOH, why should Pickens get all the records if Kerry is only obliged to rebut one specific Swift charge?  One might argue that Kerry is only obliged to provide all records relevant to the point he is arguing.]

However, challenging Kerry to put up his own cash does not seem to have been part of the original proposal.

MORE:  This link takes you to the Swift Boat ads; I am advised in comments that Pickens told Hannity that his bet referred to those ads.

Comments

[Neo]

T. Boone Pickens Responds to Letter From U.S. Senator John Kerry

When you [John Kerry] have done so, if you can then prove anything in the [Switft Boat Veterns] 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.

[Jane]

Kerry will announce on Thanksgiving Eve that he is declining to drag the country thru this debacle since we all know the republicans are bad and it's time to move on.

[Mark LaRochelle]

This link will allow you to read the Novak review:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/014/360baygp.asp

[Mark LaRochelle]

Lets try that again. Put this URL together on one line (no space):

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected
/Articles/000/000/014/360baygp.asp

[Other Tom]

Here's what I thought was the key part of T. Boone's response:

"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."

Kerry will never do it, and the squabble will disappear.

[clarice]

Yup. 1971-78 is the period of the Paris meetings and his discharge. The press carried Kerry's challenge--big. Not so much coverage about Pickens' response. So, it'll just sit there.
On the leftosphere, they're arguing that Pickens was so un-fa-ir that if Kerry found even a non-material error he should win.
Kerry's far better off letting the press continue to cover for him then he is responding.

[Porchlight]

Thanks for the link, Mark!

[jimmyk]

I'm sure everyone here will want to see, in case they missed it, Ann Coulter's http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=219>column on this.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I heard Stanton Evans interviewed by Dennis Miller a couple of weeks ago, and it will be a miracle if this book makes any kind of impact.

I expected the usual suspects at Semi-Daily Journal not to be able to handle the truth, but Miller is usually quite open minded when confronted something that challenges conventional wisdom. However, Evans got nowhere with him. Miller just couldn't grasp what Evans had done with the evidence.

Part of McCarthy's famous speech attacking George Marshall is available online, be advised it's long--it was published as a book. This is probably why McCarthy has such a bad reputation, he attacked an icon--and was mostly correct to do so, from what I've been able to research.

[PaulV]

Kerry backs down from Pickens million dollar challenge.

[Jane]

Where?

[PeterUK]

"Kerry is to provide his war record ".
It's not a record,it's a double album.

[JM Hanes]

TM: "A much tougher offer for Kerry to refuse - make the war records and diary public and Pickens will donate a million dollars to the charity of Kerry's choice."

I like it, but why let Kerry have the pickin's? Why not specify a cause dear to the hearts of his Massachusetts constituents (or Democrats or VIPs) and turn it into an offer the Senator will really be hard pressed (or too embarassed, if that's even possible) to refuse? Put up the evidence, and the Children's Hospital gets $1 million....

Just call me venal, but the idea that Kerry is still brooding over the Swift Boat sting is enormously gratifying!

[clarice]

Much the same thing did happen, Jane. Pickens jujitsued Kerry's offer to contribute his winnings to Wounded Veterans with a offer to make his contribution to the Medal of Honor Foundation. Kerry=those who fight get hurt; Pickens=those who show valor deserve honor.

[clarice]

I mean JMH..Sorry

[Dennis D]

Joe McCarthy was wrong. His list only had 77 names. Venona revealed the number was closer to 350..

[PeterUK]

"Have you ever been a Columnist"

[kim]

Ring Lardner, Jr. earned jail time for Contempt of Congress for responding to a request for the names of fellow travelers with the remark that he could do so, but would hate himself in the morning.
========================================

[PeterUK]

An interesting thing about socialists is that they want you to live in a socialist country,but they never go to live in one themselves.

[Other Tom]

TM, don't equate John O'Neill's book (which I think went over the top) with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which so far as I know spoke only through the ads they ran during the campaign. I don't think I could successfully defend everything O'Neill said, but I like my chances with the SwiftVets themselves.

[PeterUK]

VOTE GMAX Groundhog Day nearly over?

[JohnCA]

The info on the first Purple Heart may not be in John Kerry's records. According to the Naval Inspector General's staff their review of his records only contained the unsigned authorization for the medal and the award itself. These are the two documents that were on John Kerry's website.

It is interesting that in the public statements made by the three people who claim to have been in the boat with Kerry none confirm hostile fire. This includes two enlisted who supported Kerry. Since hostile fire is required for a Purple Heart award it seems that the first Purple Heart is very questionable.

[Other Tom]

JohnCA, without going back to look at all the various comments, I seem to recall that some of them later said that "maybe" they took some fire. Technically, it might not even be necessary that they did--I think the language is along the lines of "while engaged with the enemy," so that even if everyone agreed that the enemy never opened fire, and that the wound was from friendly fire (I think there can be no serious dispute on the latter point), a lawyer like Kerry could probably claim entitlement to the award. What the ham-handed sap just never seemed to grasp, and all of his colleagues did, was that under those circumstances--well, it's just not done, old chap. Just not done.

[Elroy Jetson]

JM Hanes said:

"Just call me venal, but the idea that Kerry is still brooding over the Swift Boat sting is enormously gratifying!"

I'm with you, JM. I hope he keeps whining. It's hysterical to see an overgrown wimp cry. He makes John Edwards look masculine.

[fishbane]

I'm with you, JM. I hope he keeps whining. It's hysterical to see an overgrown wimp cry. He makes John Edwards look masculine.

Wait, so now accepting a challenge to someone who has been sullying your name, and offering to make the outcome in public is being a wimp?

Personally, I think it is pretty darn weasel-faced to make a big, bold challenge and then when called on it, redefine the terms.

So far, the dialog sounds a bit like:

"I tell you that that man has the clap, and pay him a million bucks if I can be shown to be wrong."
"OK, you're on."
"....Um. But only if he gives me a list of everyone he's ever slept with, pictures to prove it, and signs a waiver so that I can talk to his doctor about all of his medical history."

[kim]

Did Kerry expect to prove anything without records? Did you expect him to? Why?
======================================

[kim]

Show us the Pix.
===============

[fishbane]

Did Kerry expect to prove anything without records? Did you expect him to? Why?

If you can't tell the difference between providing evidence about a particular claim and disclosure of absolutely everything even potentially vaguely related to a range of claims, I hope for your sake you're never involved in a deposition without a really good lawyer.

[JM Hanes]

Sorry fishbane, but it sounds a lot more like a guy saying that if you'll actually ante up a million dollars, he'll prove he didn't have the clap at 5:00 pm on January 17th, 1967. Would it really take a million bucks to get you to clear your own name if you could do it? Would you just put up with the sliming unless somebody paid you to redeem yourself? Apparently, even the presidency itself was not incentive enough for Kerry to come forward with his putative proof positive that the swifties got at least one detail wrong.

[fishbane]

JM, your interpretation fails on a number of points.

- Kerry didn't initiate the offer, but accepted it once made. The offer was presumably made to enhance the trustworthiness of the person who made it - that's the usual reason people do this (but who knows - maybe Mr. Pickens is a gambler). Retroactively moving the goalposts doesn't help that much, unless he's a seriously ballsy gambler and is doubling down with his reputation.

- I can't speak for Kerry, of course, but one reasonable interpretation is in this very thread - he made a campaign mistake by not dealing with it sooner, lost, and the importance of the issue fell by the wayside. Now someone who successfully outflanked him is bringing it up again at a time when a zero-sum game is on, and one can assume Pickens might just offer his services to someone on the other team. People do learn from mistakes.

- You're still assuming that Pickens is asking for one detail; he isn't, as even our host here notes. He moved the goalposts. See my comment about a deposition above - when your opponent gives you an easy win, you take it, and don't give them the option to dig around looking for more to attack with. (I'm not suggesting with that example that there is anything legally actionable - just using an analogy.)

There's more where that came from, but I think I'm actually starting to get tired (I hate insomnia), and want to grab whatever sleep I can.

[Jane]

I wonder what Kerry apologists are so scared of.

Oh yeah, losing the bet.

[fishbane]

Oh yeah, losing the bet.

I also can't speak for "Kerry apologists", whatever those are, Jane - I didn't and don't like the man - but I'm not afraid of anything relating to him. If the guy lied, let the chips fall where they may.

That doesn't change the fact that Pickens is being a weasel here, and that people are desperate to spin this as somehow a problem for Kerry. He's being the stand-up guy in this matter. If you disagree, please respond to what I wrote above substantively.

(Still can't sleep.)

[kim]

fb, I'd like to see you get anywhere in a deposition with no records. Kerry seems to think the record is complete; Pickens doubts it. I asked before, who are the seconds? Obviously, neither you nor I should be.

And we know Pickens is a gambler; a better one than Kerry. Kerry thought he could call Pickens's bluff, but had to bluff to do it. Pickens has now called him. Let's see the cards.

No, it's the Pix. Let's see all the Pix. Can you do anything about that, Slumbering One?
=================================

[kim]

Ooh, I see I should call you the Dreaming One, not the Slumbering One.
==========================

[kim]

"disclosure of absolutely everything even potentially related vaguely to a range of claims". Hyperbole does not become you, not here, not in deposition. Kerry's records, military and personal, are critical to a settling of the bet, which includes military and personal matters.

Try winning without evidence. Not in my deposition, you don't.
=========================

[Rick Ballard]

Magic Hat controls the "best evidence" concerning his fantastic exploits in Vietnam (including self-directed film of reenactments of his adventures - starring himself, of course). If he chooses to assert that particular elements of the Swift Vets version of events are false, then the best evidence regarding those assertions is required as proof.

It was Magic Hat who stumbled and bumbled his way into the limelight (once more), not Boone Pickens. Magic Hat made another spurious claim concerning his self-fantasy and Pickens tossed it back in his lap.

Let Magic Hat produce his voluminous journals, detailing Walter Mitty in action during his entire four glorious months as hero/Hun plus the actual government record of his stupendous service.

After all, he's the one stupid enough to restart a lost fight.

[kim]

Stand-up guy, my ass. He wouldn't release records before, he won't release them now. That's not standing up, that's lying down, emphasis on the 'lying'.
=====================

[kim]

Hey Rick, will JEG let the force be with him?
===========================================

[Jane]

I don't think Pickens is changing the terms - altho his request for documentation may be a bit premature. How else is Kerry going to prove something is a lie? Perhaps he should have simply called it "best evidence".

[fishbane]

Kim and Rick are ignoring that a particular claim was made my Pickens - that Pickens would offer a set amount of money for any disproof of the claims he and his operatives made. Now, he's weaseling on those words. These are facts - scroll up and read the original post.

A man of his word would of course require proof of that, which Kerry offered, "beyond a reasonable doubt". As I said, let the chips fall where they may. But if you're proving you don't have the clap, you don't also have to prove you don't have gout.

Again, it would be interesting for folks to actually, you know, respond to the points made rather than taking cheap shots. But I know I have high standards.

One more thing:

After all, he's the one stupid enough to restart a lost fight.

Hypothetical question: if someone starts taunting you four years after you, they and basically everyone else agrees that they humiliated you, who, exactly, is restarting the fight?

[GMax]

Kerry is losing the PR war, one person's contention to the contrary notwithstanding.

And its the morning of the 2nd to the last day in the voting competition so please click through and send her through in style!

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote JMax!

[fishbane]

I don't think Pickens is changing the terms - altho his request for documentation may be a bit premature. How else is Kerry going to prove something is a lie? Perhaps he should have simply called it "best evidence".

None of this is really in the legal realm, but there is clearly a difference between asking for proof that one claim is false and that all available evidence supports a false claim to any of them. Lest you think this is parsing, consider that Pickens is (a) very wealthy, (b) obviously motivated, (c) very likely advised by extremely competent people, (d) fully capable of understanding what he was offering, unless you'd like to offer up evidence that he's somehow a political rube.

To start weaseling now just seems to demonstrate that he's backing down - he won't stand behind his Big Man bluster, because hoping it will go away might work out better than looking like a fool.

[PeterUK]

It is obvious that there is something malodourous in Kerry's history,else he would be trumpeting the contents abroad for the delectation of the adoring masses.Even excluding his personal predilection for fantasy,he is a politician,none of the breed can eschew the limelight.No there is a turd in the record which the good Senator dare not let see the light of day.

Anyone know the penalty for a serving officer treating with the enemy during war time?

[Jane]

I'm not sure what "parsing" has to do with the fact that Pickens is wealthy.

I get your point, but like Pickens I am opposed to Kerry once again weasling out of something. After all, "the truth" is objective.

[PeterUK]

"But I know I have high standards."

But you are a Kerry flack.sure;y that is an oxymoron?

[boris]

To start weaseling now ...

It simply is not weaseling to define the terms of the challenge. The initial statement was simply the basic offer and clearly would require establishing ground rules. Who gets to define those rules?

Pickens.

Perhaps JFK was suckered by the delusion that he or some "independent" authority would set those rules. Fine, but that makes JFK the "sucker", not Pickens a weasel.

[Rick Ballard]

"Hey Rick, will JEG let the force be with him?"

He's the best example I've seen of a bootlicker hacking himself to death with his own short sword. I understand the desire of an acolyte to gain admittance to the inner circle but leveling a charge of heresy without contemplating that it apllies equally to the acolyte's professed canons isn't an approved method.

He was wise to run like a Rabbett but there is no hiding at Climate Audit.

Dr. Loehle's paper is an extraordinarily elegant example of pointing at the Emperor's sagging butt and snickering. All while maintaining the straightest of faces.

F,

It is Magic Hat who won't let go. He's a very petty man - well, person, anyway.

[fishbane]

Peter:

It is obvious that there is something malodourous in Kerry's history

In many civilized nations we don't place the weight of defense on the defendant. We also respect privacy. Hell, Bush didn't release a pile of records either - it was more politically expedient to point to the Rather thing than to talk about his actual record.

Jane: get your point, but like Pickens I am opposed to Kerry once again weasling out of something. After all, "the truth" is objective.

What is he weaseling out of? An offer was made. It was accepted. The terms were changed. [...] I don't think anything has happened next. It could change, but the weaseling is currently on the other foot, to horribly mix metaphors.

Boris: It simply is not weaseling to define the terms of the challenge. The initial statement was simply the basic offer and clearly would require establishing ground rules. Who gets to define those rules?

Ah, OK. So, hypothetically, if I call you [something odious, pick your favorite - a pedophile, a philanderer, French, not-a-draft-dodger-but-not-heroic, whatever gets your goat], loudly, and in public, and than later dared you to deny any of my charges with a cash reward, you would of of course course be fine with me changing the terms after the challenge/response phase?

Perhaps JFK was suckered by the delusion that he or some "independent" authority would set those rules. Fine, but that makes JFK the "sucker", not Pickens a weasel.

You're clearly referencing something, but for the life of me, I have no idea what, so I can't respond to that.

[Sue]

To start weaseling now just seems to demonstrate that he's backing down - he won't stand behind his Big Man bluster, because hoping it will go away might work out better than looking like a fool.

It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. T. Boone didn't pony up the money for the vets whether he wins or loses his bet.

How is Kerry going to prove the lie if he doesn't release documentation to back it up? It certainly won't fly using the same evidence he used in 04.

[Sue]

In many civilized nations we don't place the weight of defense on the defendant. We also respect privacy. Hell, Bush didn't release a pile of records either - it was more politically expedient to point to the Rather thing than to talk about his actual record.

What records did Bush not release? He signed the 180 and allowed all of his records to be released, to the public, not just to a friendly newspaper in Boston.

[PeterUK]

"In many civilized nations we don't place the weight of defense on the defendant. We also respect privacy."

I know,we gave you a lot of your law,check out the names of the Founders.

But as for placing the weight of defence,John F.Kerry didn't give those of his comrades who he foully traduced any chance of a a defence,he simply smeared them.

[PeterUK]

"Perhaps JFK was suckered by the delusion that he or some "independent" authority would set those rules. Fine, but that makes JFK the "sucker", not Pickens a weasel.

You're clearly referencing something, but for the life of me, I have no idea what, so I can't respond to that."

They why bother?

[kim]

Bush did not sign a 180. He ordered that all his records be released, a stronger effect than simply signing the 180, as we have seen.
===================================

[kim]

"We don't put the weight of defense on the defendent". I think I'd like to see you in deposition. You have extraordinarily fuzzy thinking.
===================================

[Sue]

Kim,

Okay. I thought he signed it. So, are there still records that haven't been released belonging to Bush?

[clarice]

Pickens asked for exactly what the plaintiff would have to produce in a civil case.

[GMax]

Then why bother?

I would have posted the same thing but see its already been broached.

And I will say again, Kerry is losing again in the PR battle. He does not want to remind everyone what his record comprises.

[kim]

Do you not understand, fishbane, that Kerry did restart this? He once again called the Swifties despicable and claimed that now he had the evidence that he didn't have in '04. Well, Pickens is apparently from Missouri; he asked to be shown.

And you think that is weaseling? Kerry is weaseling, and if you don't see it, you are a biased political hack.
=========================================

[GMax]

Then why bother?

I would have posted the same thing but see its already been broached.

And I will say again, Kerry is losing again in the PR battle. He does not want to remind everyone what his record comprises.

[GMax]

Then why bother?

I would have posted the same thing but see its already been broached.

And I will say again, Kerry is losing again in the PR battle. He does not want to remind everyone what his record comprises.

[kim]

Sue, the left claims there are unreleased Bush documents. The military admits the possibility, but has made a best effort to find all records. If it were to be shown that any were deliberately witheld, courts martial would be the response. There is no such accountability for Kerry and his records.
======================

[Jane]

What is he weaseling out of? An offer was made. It was accepted. The terms were changed

What terms were changed?

[kim]

I think you are missing something, fishbane. Most observers recognize that the truth of all of these claims is difficult to obtain with information presently available. So how would you settle the bet without more information? And what is not germane about Kerry's records? They are contemporaneous and specific? Did Kerry claim to be able to rebut the Swifties with old information? No, he claimed new stuff. It is not weaseling to ask about that new stuff. It is weaseling to refuse to show it.

Weasel, weasel, weasel. Kerry and you, too.
===========================================

[kim]

What Kerry has just snapped to, I think, is that Pickens is dragging him into court.
=============================================

[kim]

Kerry is going to have to justify his smear. It has been recently updated. A new clock is tolling.
===========================================

[kim]

I suspect Kerry has broken a written contract. He replied, in writing, to the challenge.

Note. I wouldn't allege this in deposition; I'm guessing.
=============================

[kim]

A renewed libel, based on a claim of new information. Where did you go, fishbane?
==========================================

[kim]

This sort of egregiously damaging behaviour needs punishment. Is Mass a community property state?
=========================================

[Rick Ballard]

"Where did you go, fishbane?"

To sleep, perchance to dream....

"WE'RE going through!" The Commander's voice was like thin ice breaking. He wore his full-dress uniform, with the heavily braided white cap pulled down rakishly over one cold gray eye. "We can't make it, sir. It's spoiling for a hurricane, if you ask me." "I'm not asking you, Lieutenant Berg," said the Commander. "Throw on the power lights! Rev her up to 8500! We're going through!" The pounding of the cylinders increased: ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. The Commander stared at the ice forming on the pilot window. He walked over and twisted a row of complicated dials. "Switch on No. 8 auxiliary!" he shouted. "Switch on No. 8 auxiliary!" repeated Lieutenant Berg. "Full strength in No. 3 turret!" shouted the Commander. "Full strength in No. 3 turret!" The crew, bending to their various tasks in the huge, hurtling eight-engined Navy hydroplane, looked at each other and grinned. "The Old Man'll get us through," they said to one another. "The Old Man ain't afraid of hell!" . . .

[boris]

you would of of course course be fine with me changing the terms after the challenge/response phase?

Apparently you believe that the terms for the challenge were complete within the offer, or that someone other than Pickens would set those terms.

Since that was my entire point small wonder you completely missed it.

You probably have purchased a lot of timeshare vacation condos and spend a lot of time in Branson because the one time only offers were just too good to be true.

[royf]

President Bush authorized the release of all his service records. There were at least 2 news organizations which established teams to comb over those records the AP and The New York Times, not to mention all the democratic political operatives and individual members of the press (say Dan Rather).

The fact is George Bush served honorable and fulfilled his Military obligations.

Did John Kerry come under the same scrutiny? no way. He was shielded by the press to the extent that he never released 99.9% of his service record. Even his public record of saying he had witnessed and participated in war crimes was for the most part just mentioned in passing and never in the light of what he actually said.

Why because he was lying then and he is lying now and the MSM knows it.

[Other Tom]

"...there is clearly a difference between asking for proof that one claim is false and that all available evidence supports a false claim to any of them."

Try as I might, I simply cannot understand what that sentence means.

Kerry re-started the fight. He did so roughly ten days ago when he gave an interview to a Boston-area paper in which he said that he hadn't ruled out the possibility of running for president again, and said that if he did he had "dossiers" (his word, and a strange one) about all the claims made by SwiftVets, and he would come out swinging at them.

The publication of that interview on Lucianne.com and other websites unleashed a firestorm of commentary, including that of T. Boone Pickens, who offered to pay $1 Million to anyone who could prove a SwiftVet claim was false.

Now Kerry says, "OK, I'll do it," and Pickens says "I won't accept proof from you unless you'll let me check your proof against the records you're withholding."

Pickens's offer was to "anyone." Anyone other than Kerry could still take Pickens up on it. The only person who's withholding evidence is Kerry.

[PeterUK]

""The Old Man'll get us through," they said to one another. "The Old Man ain't afraid of hell!" . . ."

In the case of John F.Kerry,"THe Old Man of the Twee".

[clarice]

So logical,OT, I wonder how the press cn miss it.

[PeterUK]

Same way fishbait came to miss it.

[Sue]

who offered to pay $1 Million to anyone who could prove a SwiftVet claim was false.

Just to kind of clean this up a bit, Mr. Pickens said anyone who could prove anything from an ad that the SwiftVet's ran was a lie, he would pay $1,000,000.

I don't remember all of the ads. Is there somewhere you can see them? Maybe their website?

[clarice]

What the simple minded on the left mean-is that if he can prove one teensy, immaterial fact was misstated, he wins. In other words, more proof that they think like kindergarteners. Kerry essentially accused the Swift Vets of defamation--and persuaded his friends that was so. He never sued for it when he could have tested this proposition in court.
After the Statute of Limitations passed, he renewed his whine to sympathetic head noddings.
Pickens said , not so , and I'll pay you if I'm wrong.
Kerry said he'd take him up on it.
It's put up or shut up time.

[Sue]

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Ads>Here are the ads from their website.

[Topsecretk9]

After the Statute of Limitations passed, he renewed his whine to sympathetic head noddings.
Pickens said , not so , and I'll pay you if I'm wrong.
Kerry said he'd take him up on it.
It's put up or shut up time.

Sorry if this has been pointed out, but like Jonah Glodberg pointed out Kerry's long, long time on the med records/ mill records (What? Is he using a enormous pen? Is the form Massive?), um if Kerry's got the goods why doesn't he rush them out or why did he take Picken's offer and now sit on it?

Why didn't or doesn't he release his "dossiers" pronto?

He's such a doofus. I bet his staff bought a case of aspirin after he open his mouth about it.

[Sue]

Mr. Kerry is going to have a hard time proving anything that was in the ads was a lie. Most of it is public record. And the rest is opinions.

[Other Tom]

I don't think Pickens limited it to the ads, but on the other hand I don't know of any claims the SwiftVets made other than in their ads. Here is the way Clarice described his challenge (in her recent American Thinker piece):

"T. Boone Pickens responded to John F. Kerry's latest whining about his having been 'swiftboated' by offering a million dollars to anyone who could prove wrong anything the Swiftboat Veterans charged about Kerry."

The other day I pointed out the distinction between the SwiftVet organization and John O'Neill's book. Offhand, I can't think of anything in a SwiftVet ad that Kerry could prove was a lie. I know one guy said, "Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," which I believe is true, but I don't know how either side is going to prove or disprove it. But the burden is on Kerry.

[Jane]

I don't think Pickens limited it to the ads

He was on Hannity last nite and specifically said it was limited to the ads.

[cathyf]

...and said that if he did he had "dossiers" (his word, and a strange one) about all the claims made by SwiftVets, and he would come out swinging at them.

Does anyone have the exact wording that Kerry used? The first time that I came across the report of what Kerry said I wondered if he had been misquoted, or the quote mangled. Because I interpreted Kerry to be saying that he had assembled "dossiers" on the swift boat veterans (you know, who is an alcoholic, who beats his wife, whose kid was arrested for dealing pot...) and if he ran for president again he was going to use those "dossiers" to blackmail the swift boat veterans into keeping quiet about Kerry's lies about his military record.

I'm really wondering if Kerry has simply become unhinged. I mean I would think that his children, wife, staffers, etc. would act to prevent him from making a fool of himself in public, but maybe they are incapable. After all, a senator is not a position of trivial power, and he has a LOT of money. Both of those things can be used to fend off people who might only have his best interests in mind.

[TM]

From OT;

TM, don't equate John O'Neill's book (which I think went over the top) with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which so far as I know spoke only through the ads they ran during the campaign. I don't think I could successfully defend everything O'Neill said, but I like my chances with the SwiftVets themselves.

I see in subsequent comments that Pickens is limiting himself to the ads, which is smart.

As to Fishbane's point, I broadly agree - if Kerry made up his mind to prove the Swifties were wrong/lying about one incident (let's say, Bay Hap and the Silver Star / 3rd Purple Heart) then it would be fair for Pickens to insist on any contemporaneous info Kerry had *on that topic*, but that would hardly oblige Kerry to hand over the full, unredacted war diary, which surely covers many other topics as well.

As to whether Pickens is weaseling or simply clarifying - lacking a tape of the Am Spec dinner, who knows just what he said? However, his basic thrust - Kerry wins if he can prove one Swift claim to be wrong - was not well designed.

That said, it should be easy enough for Pickens to turn this into a win - Kerry took the hook, now reel him in.

[boris]

it would be fair for Pickens to insist on any contemporaneous info Kerry had *on that topic*

Without access to the whole thing how would one accept what Kerry provided was "any [and all] contemporaneous info" ?

Kerry is holding all his cards close to the vest. He should not have the option of limited disclosure to mislead. No cards or all cards.

[Porchlight]

I'm really wondering if Kerry has simply become unhinged. I mean I would think that his children, wife, staffers, etc. would act to prevent him from making a fool of himself in public, but maybe they are incapable.

Cathy, I think he's always been this way. When we were talking about this a couple of weeks ago, I went back and re-read Newsweek's special issue dissecting the 2004 campaign. It was clear that even then, Kerry's people couldn't keep him from regularly making a fool of himself. There were all kinds of gloomy reports from the campaign about how staffers, and even his wife and family, tried but failed to steer him away from cringe-inducing behavior. And then he would pout and ask "why don't they like me?"

[cathyf]

...Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which so far as I know spoke only through the ads they ran during the campaign.

What about the May 4, 2004, SBVT press conference? I watched the whole thing, back in the day, and there are quite substantive charges made there. It goes on for some 1 hour 21 minutes, and includes veterans making very specific charges. I doubt that the sum total of the SBVT ads adds up to more than a couple of minutes. If Pickens is really saying that the bet only applies to the ads and not to the press conference, then I'll accuse him of welshing on the bet.

But anyway, I said at the beginning that the form of the bet was stupid and to the extent that it changes the subject, something that bolsters Kerry. The strongest SBVT point was that Kerry lying about his military record in 2003 and 2004 ought to preclude him from the presidency. Any one substantive lie in a major campaign theme is unpresidential, so the claim that Kerry telling the truth about one thing of the multitudes that he was accused of lying about somehow fully rehabilitates him as presidential is, well, pathetic. Some of us have objected that Kerry supporters will pick on some irrelevancy, prove that it was mistaken, and then claim that Picken's payment of the $1 million proves that the SBVT were liars. That's not the problem. The problem is that Kerry may very well be able to prove that one of the substantive charges against him is false. That is not unlikely at all -- since Kerry has successfully hidden his military records, he may indeed be unjustly accused of something which those records would clear up. The problem (for him) with defending himself against one charge by selective release of records is that it draws attention to all of the charges, and also to the fact that he is selectively releasing records and hiding the rest. By creating a contest, Pickens has allowed Kerry a highly artificial venue to deal with the charges. We've already had the high-pitched accusation that expecting Kerry to tell the truth in this contest is unsporting. And I'm sorry, but setting this up as a contest has invited that accusation.

What I predict will happen is that Kerry will release some highly selected bits of documentation which prove him innocent of some more-or-less substantive charge made by one or more swifties. His partisans will go into full braying sportsfan mode, which is quite fair since Pickens is the one who set it up as a sporting event. They will demand the $1 million, and with the help of their fellow media partisans, will push the meme that Kerry has been totally exhonorated. If Pickens refuses to pay up, then they will harp that PickensAndTheSwifties are all liars, and here's the proof. If Pickens does pay up, then that will be touted as Pickens proved the Swifties were lying when he paid up. And that outcome will be totally Pickens' fault, because he is the one who defined the rules of the game such that one false SBVT claim exhonorates Kerry.

[Larry]

This isn't only 3 years old. O'Neill has challenged Cary for 25+ years to rebut his claims. I don't need to research who did what in Vietnam. Treating with the enemy while a member of US armed forces, lying to congress about war crimes and attendance at meetings where assassination of public officials was seriously discussed are all well documented in public records. Maybe he's a blowhard about his combat service, maybe not. That's a minor quibble compared to his vile, despicable treason after his return home.

[PeterUK]

Actually,the money won't matter to Pickens,but Kerry is back on "Groundhog Day" again,he is defending his record of over thirty years ago,hardly flattering for a politician who is wont to hold forth on contemporary issues.This will simply mark him up as yesterday's man.

[r m flanagan]

Maybe he's a blowhard about his combat service, maybe not. That's a minor quibble compared to his vile, despicable treason after his return home.

Could be. Maybe Pickens should now change his offer and say he's willing to pay a million dollars if Kerry can prove he wasn't a vile despicable traitor when he returned home. BTW was Boone ever in combat?

[boris]

O'Neill was