BOSTON— 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.
In a letter to Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry’s race against President Bush, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote: “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.”
Kerry, a Navy veteran and former prosecutor, said he was willing to present his case directly to Pickens and would donate any proceeds to the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
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.
This is the part that caught my eye (emphasis mine):
First in the book “Unfit for Command,” and then in a series of television commercials, the Kerry critics challenged the circumstances for his military awards, accused him of doctoring reports and argued he never traveled into Cambodia as claimed.
While fellow veterans and reporters disproved many of the group’s claims at the time, Kerry refused to air ads responding to the criticism, and even his own response was muted for fear of legitimizing his critics’ attacks. The senator conceded after losing to Bush, the Republican incumbent, that his lackluster response likely cost him the election.
Ever since, Kerry has worked to lay the criticisms to rest.
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.
Me: I never immersed myself in Swiftboat minutiae but were many of the allegations really “disproved” at the time? Which ones? How many is “many”? And does that mean the AP agrees the allegations remaining were true? Which ones were those? I wouldn’t be shocked if Pickens gets stuck having to pony up, but I don’t think that’ll settle the issue.
Also, what does it mean to begin signing a form two years ago? Is it an enormous pen? A massive form? Why isn’t he done signing yet?
Update: From the unexpected analogy department, a reader writes:
Jonah:
The “many” factor, in that Swift Boat thing, reminds me of Martin Luther’s 95
Theses. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church did not condemn ALL of the
theses, simply because “many” of them were true. But it is hard to find a
reference that will succinctly state which of the theses were more or less
orthodox. Instead, there is a tendency towards partisanship one way or the other.