THE SPINE NOVEMBER 23, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Senator John F. Kerry already has a Democratic opponent for his U.S. Senate seat. He is not from the party's right since there is barely anyone sitting in those seats in blue Massachusetts. Kerry's antagonist is Ed O'Reilly, a Gloucester lawyer who, according to the Wednesday Boston Globe, is targeting Kerry from the anti-Iraq war left. And, lo and behold, he wants to know the truth about Kerry's military record and has questions himself about the Swift Boat record and the Swift Boat ads. Besides, like a lot of the senator's tormentors, he is suspicious about whether Kerry is really against the war. Which is nuts. But, since Kerry at one pointed wanted to have it both ways, it is still a question among true believers. Like with Hillary.Kerry in the meantime has gone apoplectic. Or is it that he has been apoplectic ever since he lost Ohio? Actually, Kerry can't let go of his Swift Boat comrades who haven't toed his line and, for whatever reasons, have a different tale to tell. They have been encouraged by T. Boone Pickens, an old Texas oil billionaire and C.E.O. of Mesa Petroleum, who himself comes back to the Vietnam-Cambodia questions raised by Kerry's Navy underlings. A few weeks ago, Pickens (whom I'd known a long time ago and came to lunch once with New Republic editors) offered a million bucks to anyone who could prove the ads were false. Kerry hasn't mustered any additional evidence proving his side of the case -- I myself am agnostic on the matter, and it's too late to care much, anyhow -- but has gone bonkers about Pickens welching on his promise.The fact is that, aside from Pickens and Kerry, almost nobody ponders the matter these days. Maybe Teresa cares, and maybe she'll come with the proof. Then she'll have an additional $1 million. Compensation for something.
10 comments
Marty, the right-wing blogosphere was promoting Pickens' bet during the last couple of weeks. The fact that Pickens is welching on his promise and trying to change the terms of the bet is worth pushing back on. These guys have a way of creating their own stories, particularly on the internet, so Kerry's response isn't an example of going "bonkers", its an example of showing what a chickenshit Pickens is.
I'd agree that it's a little late to care about this sort of thing (and for the most part I don't), but the issue was re-ignited by Pickens and the conservative blogosphere, not Kerry.
- myzaguirre
November 23, 2007 at 7:46pm
myzaguirre hits it and I think that those of us who did not serve and did not face combat, cannot really imagine how Kerry - or any decorated vet - would feel about his bravery and combat activities being questioned.
- thejauntyboulevardier
November 23, 2007 at 10:46pm
Another entry in the Peretz grudge fest.
The Swift-Boaters are bunch of sad and pathetic losers.
Being "agnostic" about them means, essentially, that you tolerate such nonsense.
Then again, this is Marty Peretz.
One wouldn't expect anything useful from him
- vverma
November 23, 2007 at 11:40pm
Come on, Marty. ABC went to Vietnam and interviewed witnesses who disputed the Swift Boat Vets' accounts. The New York Times and the Washington Post did exhaustive reviews of the ads and found them to be at best misleading and at worst completely fabricated. Even the New York Sun published an article showing the dishonesty of Kerry's accusers. Nobody who served on Kerry's swift boat disputed his version of events. John McCain, who was campaigning for Bush at the time, condemned the ads. Neither of the co-authors of "Unfit for Command" had any firsthand knowledge of Kerry's service whatsoever. This is not even close. How can you be an agnostic on such charges? If you weren't a pal of this Pickens character, would you take such an ambivalent stance?
- rozenson
November 24, 2007 at 12:04am
I suspect that agnostic = didn't serve but now knows enough to openly disparage Kerry's conduct because on these very pages, he will be called a chicken hawk.
- thejauntyboulevardier
November 24, 2007 at 11:14am
Peretz, you're nuts.
- sleepyavl
November 24, 2007 at 12:42pm
Peretz, in style and cogency of arguments you resemble quite a bit Zell Miller, circa 2004 Republican Convention.
- sleepyavl
November 24, 2007 at 12:45pm
Yo Peretz, do you channel Karl Rove?
- sleepyavl
November 25, 2007 at 8:31am
"I myself am agnostic on the matter..."
Say it ain't so. Because it's a new low. And, really, how low can you go?
Have you duked it with Eric Alterman yet, tough guy?
- basman
November 25, 2007 at 9:51pm
basman, i"m your side when you bash Peretz.But, as I said other times, there is no reason why he should debate Eric Altermn. Alterman is batshit crazy. Debating him would be like debating David Irving or Noam Chomsky.
- sleepyavl
November 26, 2007 at 11:26am