Want to win a million for proving something?

Why does Kerry have to make everything public?
Click to expand...

He doesn't, but this time he's calling attention to the whole business again by taking the challenge.

Why does he have to act like a criminal defendant? It's not like he's running for president. :p
 
jimtron said:
As far as Kerry being secretive: first of all:
Click to expand...

"began to sign"... what an odd way to phrase it.

The thing about that form 180 Kerry filled out (which you can see here) is that it only releases the documents to the reporters specified. I could be wrong, but I don't think the documents themselves have been made public in full by those reporters or by Kerry.

Second of all, why does Kerry have to make everything public?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to do anything. But people don't have to believe him either.

That's not necessary to disprove at least one of the SBVFT claims.
Click to expand...

It may not be, sure. Of course, how satisfying a victory is it really to be able to say that only one charge was wrong? Kerry hardly needs the money, Pickens can stand to lose it, and if Kerry wins after a long fight on only one claim, Pickens will probably just say that's the only one Kerry can disprove. Perhaps not fair, but nobody said politics was.
 
He doesn't, but this time he's calling attention to the whole business again by taking the challenge.
Click to expand...
Well, Perkins didn't have to issue the challenge--I guess he wanted to call attention to the whole business again as well. And I don't blame Kerry for wanting to correct the record. People like John McCain and one of the SBVFT agree that the claims made against Kerry were dishonest.
 
Ziggurat said:
"began to sign"... what an odd way to phrase it.

The thing about that form 180 Kerry filled out (which you can see here) is that it only releases the documents to the reporters specified. I could be wrong, but I don't think the documents themselves have been made public in full by those reporters or by Kerry.



He doesn't have to do anything. But people don't have to believe him either.



It may not be, sure. Of course, how satisfying a victory is it really to be able to say that only one charge was wrong? Kerry hardly needs the money, Pickens can stand to lose it, and if Kerry wins after a long fight on only one claim, Pickens will probably just say that's the only one Kerry can disprove. Perhaps not fair, but nobody said politics was.
Click to expand...

The main issue, in my view: is it possible to prove that at least one claim s false? I say yes. Ziggurat, do you agree or disagree? I don't really see the relevance of nitpicking about how much info Kerry is divulging, as long as he proves at least one claim is bogus.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the cliche around here goes. As far as I know, the SBVFT claims (at least one of them) don't hold up well to evidence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
jimtron said:
The main issue, in my view: is it possible to prove that at least one claim s false? I say yes. Ziggurat, do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I suspect it can't be proven in a legal setting. It seems like too much of it comes down to he said, he said.

I don't really see the relevance of nitpicking about how much info Kerry is divulging, as long as he proves at least one claim is bogus.
Click to expand...

That depends very much upon what Kerry is trying to do. If he just wants to claim the money, one claim is enough. But as I said, Kerry doesn't need the money. I think this is about more than the money. I think Kerry wants everyone to conclude that all the SBVFT claims about his service are wrong, and if that's the case, then proving one claim wrong isn't quite going to cut it.
 
Spindrift said:
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/



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

Gee, he sounds like the typical JREF challenge applicant.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a Troofer!

Troofer: Show me just one witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and I'll concede.
Gravy: Well, here are six hundred thirty-two thousand pages of original testimony from 118 people....
Troofer: But I need to see their birth certificates and school attendance records.
T.A.M.: Well, here I have affidavits from 118 sixth grade teachers and 118 Birth Registrars....
Troofer: But it was an inside job! It's obvious. You can't show me one scientist who says that fire could have weakened those towers in that way.
R.Mackey: Ahem!
Troofer: Government Shill! Lies! It was an inside job!
 
I suspect it can't be proven in a legal setting. It seems like too much of it comes down to he said, he said.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure that at least one of the SBVFT is demonstrably false. Now if you're talking about the legal aspects of Pickens' challenge; that might be a different story, because unlike the JREF Challenge, I don't think both parties get to agree on what a positive outcome would be. AFAIK Pickens didn't go into detail about his challenge.

But as I said, Kerry doesn't need the money. I think this is about more than the money.
Click to expand...
Me too. I'll bet a higher priority for Kerry is unsmearing himself from the "dishonest" smear campaign perpetrated by the SBVFT. Anyhow, we already established that Kerry isn't going to keep the money if he wins the challenge.

If there has ever been a presidential candidate who released more records than did Kerry I'd sure like to know.
Click to expand...
Yes. The onus shouldn't be on him to release more records; only enough information to prove allegations false. Look, we can't hold everyone to the high standard of transparency we've seen with the Bush Administration.
 
jimtron said:
Well, Perkins didn't have to issue the challenge--I guess he wanted to call attention to the whole business again as well. And I don't blame Kerry for wanting to correct the record. People like John McCain and one of the SBVFT agree that the claims made against Kerry were dishonest.
Click to expand...

True as far as it goes, but Perkins' challenge didn't get much publicity until Kerry took him up on it.

And John McCain agreeing proves nothing.

Why did Kerry make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign in the first place? To win a few cheap debating points against "AWOL" Bush when nobody cared? Being a "draft dodger" didn't hurt Clinton, did it?
 
Last edited:
Abdul Alhazred said:
True as far as it goes, but Perkins' challenge didn't get much publicity until Kerry took him up on it.

And John McCain agreeing proves nothing.

Why did Kerry make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign in the first place? To win a few cheap debating points against "AWOL" Bush when nobody cared? Being a "draft dodger" didn't hurt Clinton, did it?
Click to expand...

When did Kerry make his Vietnam service the centerpiece? I'm pretty sure the Swift Boaters did that.

And it's T. Boone Pickens, not Perkins.
 
It seems relevant and reasonable to me, in a campaign during war time, to emphasize his service, and yes, contrast that with his opponent who avoided it. And no, avoiding the draft didn't hurt Clinton or Bush.

And John McCain agreeing proves nothing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but it is notable considering McCain is a member of the other political party, and a vet of the same war.

And it's T. Boone Pickens, not Perkins.
Click to expand...
My mistake.
 
IIRC, there were far uglier things said about Kerry than that he confabulated his war stories. Stuff that was claimed about what he did after he was out of the army and a big deal in the "anti-war" movement.

But for military types, confabulating war stories is seen as the ultimate disrespect.
 
Take a wealthy financier, some hacks to write, and vets still pissed about winter soldier and willing to lie to get back at kerry. The result would be the swift boat veterans for truth.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
IIRC, there were far uglier things said about Kerry than that he confabulated his war stories. Stuff that was claimed about what he did after he was out of the army and a big deal in the "anti-war" movement.

But for military types, confabulating war stories is seen as the ultimate disrespect.
Click to expand...

No, the ultimate disrepsect is conciously lying about ones service or about having served at all.

Another disrespect is mixing up which branch someone serves in.
 
jimtron said:
Could you name one of the more egregious war story confabulations that Kerry made, that is backed up by evidence?
Click to expand...

You're missing my point entirely.

The point is that as accusations go, the Swift Boat claims are small potatoes compared with -- for example -- the story that Kerry was a liaison between "anti-war" movement and the North Vietnamese government.

That was one of many accusation of outright treason, which saying "he lied about Christmas in Cambodia" is not.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Why did Kerry make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign in the first place? To win a few cheap debating points against "AWOL" Bush when nobody cared? Being a "draft dodger" didn't hurt Clinton, did it?
Click to expand...

Because the GOP was going to make the 2004 presidential election all about how the Democrats are spineless weenies no matter who the Democratic candidate was or how badly the war in Iraq was going. Kerry had served in Vietnam and picked up some medals, so he decided to bring that issue up first.

Rove decided on hammering him on his service with a bunch of trumped up charges, and the conservatively biased media went along with it by reporting the accusations for weeks before they bothered to tell anyone that there was nothing to them.
 
Random said:
... Rove ...
Click to expand...

Oh yes.

I forgot about the all powerful Svengali KKKarl Rove.

He "made" Kerry make speeches about his war service.

And anyone who says otherwise is a ...

Blah.


You are a True Believer™. No point in further discussion.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Oh yes.

I forgot about the all powerful Svengali KKKarl Rove.

He "made" Kerry make speeches about his war service.

And anyone who says otherwise is a ...

Blah.


You are a True Believer™. No point in further discussion.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Rove is an incompetant hack. The only reason why he was able to win elections is his willingness to do things that other people would find revolting.

As for him making Kerry make speeches, who ever said that?

Think back to 2004, the war in Iraq was not going well, but it was still fairly popular and was not at the point where the majority thought it was hopeless. It was still a major point of the Bush campaign. It was fairly obvious to anyone who was paying attention that the key to defeating a democratic candidate was calling him soft on terror over and over again. The actual candidate made no difference to the Bush reelection plan.

So, Kerry decided to get ahead of the curve and stress his military service. Rove needed a response, and the strategy of attacking a candidates main asset had worked for him in the past, so out come the swifties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom