Pickens throws the gaunlet down

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.

I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.

Typical around here. BDS is a very severe disease, and it seems to be widespread.



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.

I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.

Typical around here. BDS is a very severe disease, and it seems to be widespread.

The only Bush derangement syndrome is the pro-Bush type, and while severe, it's less and less widespread. Your denial of the facts against your ideology is just sad.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.

I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.

Fern

Yeah, amazing isn't it?

TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.

I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.

I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.

And a typical misrepresentation of what I said. If you cared a whit about what people said on your misbehavior, you'd start with sticking to the accurate facts, for example.

But here's a hint for a guideline:

If someone starts a thread, "Bush sexual indiscretions embarrass the presidency, proving Republicans are the sex scandal party", you might want to mention Clinton's affair.

If someone starts a thread, "Bush policies allow torture of detainees", a response of "but Clinton had an affair" is not helpful.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.

I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.

And a typical misrepresentation of what I said. If you cared a whit about what people said on your misbehavior, you'd start with sticking to the accurate facts, for example.

But here's a hint for a guideline:

If someone starts a thread, "Bush sexual indiscretions embarrass the presidency, proving Republicans are the sex scandal party", you might want to mention Clinton's affair.

If someone starts a thread, "Bush policies allow torture of detainees", a response of "but Clinton had an affair" is not helpful.

To boot, and the most glaring contradiction in relevance :

Bush is the current president, and will have a lot of impact (negative mostly) on the upcoming election.

Clinton has been out of office for many a year now. His victories and defeats, faults and strengths, have little relevance or impact to current issues and events.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.

Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.
"I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased."

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I posted a wapo article or a wapo interview? LMFAO.

So my source is bush and i'm interpreting the source and you have a problem with this? You don't think very clearly. This isn't about burdens of proof this is about weighing of proof. You've provided nothing so far. But you also won't admit you were full of it from the start.

Instead of coming across as a credible and intelligent debater, you come across as a desperate attorney clinging to anything to uphold a clearly losing position. I don't need more "words" from you I want evidence. If you don't have it, then case dismissed.

So your article wasn't from the WaPo. It just happened to be at the washingtonpost.com?

Hahaha. Yeah. LMFAO too.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.

Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.
"I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased."
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.

I know nuance and timelines confuse the BDS idiots in here, but check really, really hard and you just might figure it out.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.

I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.

And a typical misrepresentation of what I said. If you cared a whit about what people said on your misbehavior, you'd start with sticking to the accurate facts, for example.

But here's a hint for a guideline:

If someone starts a thread, "Bush sexual indiscretions embarrass the presidency, proving Republicans are the sex scandal party", you might want to mention Clinton's affair.

If someone starts a thread, "Bush policies allow torture of detainees", a response of "but Clinton had an affair" is not helpful.
Psshhh. Facts. It's become glaringly obvious you don't give a shit about the actual facts. It appears facts can be molded to whatever you want them to be in your book. We've seen that plainly already with your dishonesty in this thread.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.

I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.

Fern

Yeah, amazing isn't it?

TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.

Pickens didn't 'welch" on the offer. The offer has been made in a letter:

U.S. Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Building
Third Floor
Washington DC 20510

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
Waddya know? No "welch" at all. The offer still stands. Kerry merely has to provide the proof.

Any word from Kerry yet on this matter?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
U.S. Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Building
Third Floor
Washington DC 20510

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
Waddya know? No "welch" at all. The offer still stands. Kerry merely has to provide the proof.

Any word from Kerry yet on this matter?
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.

Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.
"I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased."
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.

:roll:

Do you actually believe yourself? Or do you know what you say is a lie, and just say it to 'deny at all costs'. Either way, you're a joke.

 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.

I know nuance and timelines confuse the BDS idiots in here, but check really, really hard and you just might figure it out.


So... you didn't read it when you claimed to have read it, even though you say you never claimed to have read it, but then you claimed to have read it before it was released but after you claim you never claimed to have read it. But, despite having supposedly read it, you still can't demonstrate any knowledge of the book :)???

that's not nuance, that's just bullshit.


Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken




So your article wasn't from the WaPo. It just happened to be at the washingtonpost.com?

Hahaha. Yeah. LMFAO too.

I didn't say it wasn't from wapo, I said it was an interview and that the source was GWB himself. And if you bothered reading that interview, you'd see somebody offering rather clumsy explanations about him not going to vietnam. However, it's nowhere near the level of you and your own inability to keep a straight story on the Plame Book.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
The conditions that Kerry must surrender his journal, movies, and open his military record were added after the fact. Pickens doesn't even know what allegation(s) Kerry will dispute yet.

EDIT: Also, why is Pickens asking for Kerry's miltary records from 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Impeach this man's credibility, somebody.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

`This is what I saw that day'

By William B. Rood

Chicago Tribune

August 22, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats--including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43--that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.

The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

Instructions from Kerry

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire--the usual rockets and automatic weapons--Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Congratulatory message

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Error in citation

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago--not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we charged the riverbank, Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun tub atop our boat, and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his back yard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.

Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.

How does the second sentence logically follow from the first?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.
Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.

I know nuance and timelines confuse the BDS idiots in here, but check really, really hard and you just might figure it out.


So... you didn't read it when you claimed to have read it, even though you say you never claimed to have read it, but then you claimed to have read it before it was released but after you claim you never claimed to have read it. But, despite having supposedly read it, you still can't demonstrate any knowledge of the book :)???
The record is there in black and white. Your attempt to imply otherwise holds no water.

that's not nuance, that's just bullshit.
Seeing as you appear to be intimately familiar with bullshit...

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So your article wasn't from the WaPo. It just happened to be at the washingtonpost.com?

Hahaha. Yeah. LMFAO too.

I didn't say it wasn't from wapo, I said it was an interview and that the source was GWB himself. And if you bothered reading that interview, you'd see somebody offering rather clumsy explanations about him not going to vietnam. However, it's nowhere near the level of you and your own inability to keep a straight story on the Plame Book.
And if I posted the same interview from say, rushlimbaugh.com, YOU would be calling BS on the source. You've done it already in this thread. So speaking of bullshit, apparently you don't like to be served the very same kind you consistently dish out. Shows what a duplicitous tool you are.

Be sure to keep a wary eye out too. There may be, gasp, some bi-sexual men looking at you.

:roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.
Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?
Changing the rules? Pickens said that Kerry would have to disprove "even a single charge" by the Swiftboaters. What were the Swiftboater's charges? And how can Kerry disprove those charges? Why, he can provide his military records, as requested. That should put any questions to bed for sure. Surely John Kerry, Vietnam war hero, has nothing to hide?