Want to win a million for proving something?

[Abdul Alhazred]

But you're not up to the Randi Challenge?

Here's a perfect opportunity:

Kerry vows to disprove Swift boat claims (AP via Yahoo)

BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record [*], said Friday he has personally accepted a Texas oilman's offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

...

Beat Kerry to the punch and the million is yours.

[*] Not exactly what happened, but let that pass.

 

[Upchurch]

That is awesome. Good for him.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

That is awesome. Good for him.

Wanna bet it'll end in court?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Lie #1 : "I served with John Kerry".

No ... you ... didn't.

DEL SANDUSKY, VIETNAM VETERAN: I was with John Kerry. I was the leading petty officer and the helmsman on PCF-94. I served with John Kerry. Those men did not serve with John Kerry. We were all in the same war at the same time, possibly, but I could say the same thing --- "I served with General Westmoreland." Their ad is a pack of lies. They're shooting their selves in the foot.

I claim my $1,000,000.

I, too, bet that it ends up in court --- and Kerry wins.

 

[Admiral]

I'd bet that it doesn't end up in court.

I think they're liars, don't get me wrong. I just highly doubt it will ever get to court, and doubt even more that Kerry would win.

I could be getting myself set up to be embarrassed, though.

 

[BPSCG]

What is the purpose of any of this?

Is Kerry running for president again?
Does Pickens believe it's important to make Kerry "put up or shut up"?

Lordie...

New York Times. March 24, 2068: "Kerry Maintains Vietnam Record Accurate - Denies Allegations of Torture"

(Below the fold: "Men Walk on Mars")

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I heard one of the co-authors of Unfit for Command on Coast to Coast a while back. Jerome Corsi is quite the kook.

 

[jimtron]

What is the purpose of any of this?

For Kerry?

1) Winning a million bucks.
2) Vindication.
3) To support the Paralyzed Vets of America. (From the article linked in the OP: "Kerry said he would donate any proceeds to the Paralyzed Veterans of America.")

You might ask T. Boone Pickens why he would bring this issue up again.

Hey, it's on Wikipedia already: Swift_Boat_challenge^WP

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Of course Kerry is running again -- for senator of Massachusetts. I don't think that's the point, though.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'd bet that it doesn't end up in court.

I'd seriously offer to take you, except that, to my embarrassment, my PayPal account doesn't work.

Kerry is right, the loons won't admit it, Kerry will want to prove that they're liars, it'll end up in court, and Kerry will win. 'Cos they're liars. And the Paralysed Veterans Of America will end up $1,000,000 better off, minus the lawyers' fees.

 

[Cleon]

And the Paralysed Veterans Of America will end up $1,000,000 better off, minus the lawyers' fees.

So the PVA will wind up $2,000,000 in debt?

 

[geni]

Eh quite a few cases where this kind of prizes have ended up in court.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So the PVA will wind up $2,000,000 in debt?

I'm not sure ... in the UK, where I live, it's the usual practise that the loser pays the legal costs of both sides. That's part of being the loser.

Is it different on your side of the pond?

 

[Ziggurat]

Kerry is right, the loons won't admit it, Kerry will want to prove that they're liars, it'll end up in court, and Kerry will win. 'Cos they're liars.

If it's really so clear cut what a court verdict on the issue would be, why didn't Kerry sue for slander?

 

[jimtron]

If it's really so clear cut what a court verdict on the issue would be, why didn't Kerry sue for slander?

I don't know, I can't speak for Kerry. Ziggurat, do you think the Swift Boat Vets claims against Kerry were accurate, or not? Fair? Do you think all of their claims were true? Some?

eta: A simpler question: would you agree that at least "a single charge" made by the SBVFT against Kerry is false?

 

[Spindrift]

Pickens is already moving the goal posts.

Supposedly he said if Kerry could find one lie he'd give him $1 M.

Now that Kerry called his bluff, Pickens wants more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21842764/

Pickens said he would not consider giving Kerry the reward unless Kerry surrenders copies of his wartime journals, as well as movies he shot while on patrol and his complete military records for 1971 to 1978. Pickens said such documentation, which the group has previously sought, would be needed to disprove its ads.

He went from just one lie to now wanting to see everything Kerry has.

Gee, he sounds like the typical JREF challenge applicant.

 

[jimtron]

Interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth#Truth_of_allegations

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

As I understand it, to win the million it's not necessary to prove it's all lies or establish that John Kerry isn't a traitor.

Just prove that one "single charge" is not true.

If Kerry follows through, I expect he will have to go to court to collect. And of course it's the principle not the money, so he can spend over a million making his detractors look stupid and then donate the million to charity.

It could be a deterrent against future "Swift Boaters".



ETA: Looks like maybe that's not enough. We'll see.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know, I can't speak for Kerry. Ziggurat, do you think the Swift Boat Vets claims against Kerry were accurate, or not? Fair? Do you think all of their claims were true? Some?

Many of them were undoubtedly true. But then, many of them weren't about what happened in Vietnam, but about what Kerry did after he got back. That seems to have gone down the memory hole.

As for fair, well, that's pretty subjective, isn't it? If it's false, it's enough that it's false, and if it's true, in what sense does its fairness even matter?

eta: A simpler question: would you agree that at least "a single charge" made by the SBVFT against Kerry is false?

I've not looked into every single charge made by the SBVFTs, so I couldn't say. There aren't any accusations about Kerry which I know are false, though. The errors which are certain are rather tangiential (such as how long exactly they served with Kerry), and akin to Kerry saying Nixon was president on Christmas 1968 when he was supposedly in Cambodia. Nixon was not president then, but that's not really the issue.

Kerry has been secretive with evidence he has which might shed light on these topics (including both his military records, which he has not released to the public, and the diary which he provided his biographer access to). If Kerry is correct on these issues of contention, he's doing a remarkably poor job at convincing those not inclined to take his word for it.

 

[jimtron]

We don't need to go over every charge, we just need to determine if at least one charge is false (that's what the challenge says). As far as Kerry being secretive: first of all:

In May 2005, he began signing the Standard Form 180, giving reporters access to his full Navy record personnel and medical records -- something he refused to do during the campaign. - from here.

Second of all, why does Kerry have to make everything public? That's not necessary to disprove at least one of the SBVFT claims. They attacked Kerry, they should provide the evidence. I'm confident that Kerry can prove at least one allegation is false without turning over his journals and home movies (or whatever it was Pickens asked for).

As for the veracity of the SBVFT claims, this is from the NYT:

Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.
"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."
Mr. Hayes broke with the group, ending a 35-year friendship with Mr. Franke, and voted for Mr. Kerry. He has provided a long interview to Mr. Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Mr. Kerry received the Bronze Star.