I see Thomas Lipscomb is
still hyping his non-existent Pulitzer "nomination." The first time, it can be excused as excessive puffery; the second time, you really have to call his honesty into question. What is simply inexcusable is that the conservative bloggers hyping Mr. Lipscomb know the
truth, and they just don't care.
Més que -- un blog 
10 comments:
You will never see a wingnut disputing this oft-repeated piece of self-promotion. Well, let's call it what it is, a lie.
Amazing that you will see them pick apart every syllable a mainstream journalist writes, but repeat such a whopper without question.
Are they just ignorant or inherently dishonest? You decide.
I'm very reticent about calling anyone a liar, especially if I don't know them. There's a big difference between making a statement that is deliberately or recklessly false, and just saying something that is wrong. As I mention above, the first time, I'm willing to accept that he just tried to exaggerate his resume; the second time shows a pattern. That anyone takes what he says at face value, while obfuscating something that clearly discredits him, is an indication that they don't care about the truth.
The pulitzer website only lists the
nominated FINALISTS, not all of the nominees.
http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html
Word Search
Use this form to search for a word or phrase within the Pulitzer Prize database of winners and nominated finalists.
A few words to Thomas Lipscomb on his latest piece:
Schachte says he personally led seven out of the eight skimmer missions he ran at Cam Ranh, and the one he didn't lead was not led by what Hibbard terms "a 'rookie' who knew nothing about the concept or tactics involved to command the skimmer." Schachte points out that if he had risked the lives of two enlisted men with a green officer on a difficult night mission like this he should have been reprimanded.
As Grant Hibbard assigned Kerry command of his own Swift Boat just two days after the mission, he seemed perfectly willing to “risk the lives” of at least five enlisted men by sending them into combat with a “green officer,” didn’t he?
Does Kerry claim that as a trainee he was placed in command over an experienced Swift boat commander with his own boat like Mike Voss?
Mike Voss was in charge of the accompanying Swift Boat, wasn’t he? How would that place Kerry in “command” over him? Or do you simply mean he was chosen over Voss? Your evidence for that is - ?
And what about Mike Voss's statement to Lisa Myers of NBC that "I'm pretty certain Schachte was there in the skimmer?"
What about including the entire quote?
“The skipper of another boat that night, Mike Voss, tells NBC, ‘I’m pretty cetain Schachte was there in the skimmer.’ But Voss won’t take sides on what actually happened, saying, ‘I don’t know what went on in the skimmer… I’m trying to stay neutral.’"
What about printing what Voss told Boston Globe at just about the same time:
"A potential key witness is Michael Voss, who skippered a swift boat that towed a Boston Whaler to a drop-off point at the time of the incident. But he said yesterday that he didn't remember whether Schachte went on the skimmer.
‘I am not certain who was on a skimmer on a certain night 36 years ago,’ said Voss, a Massachusetts resident .”
Boston Globe
Now they had made such a spectacular son et lumiere announcement of their once secret mission, Schachte decided to get out of there, back to Voss's supporting Swift boat, and home.
You mean all that rifle fire didn’t announce their mission?
Finally, Kerry in TOUR OF DUTY a la recherche... from his "journal" nine days after "whatever" happened in Na Trang Bay:
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."
Are you saying no one on the boat had been shot at before?
Kerry got back in the same time and same place, and filed no after action report. Neither did Mike Voss, despite an action as described by Kerry that certainly merited one and would have guaranteed him an automatic purple heart with no problems with either Hibbard or Schachte had he filed one. In fact, according to Hibbard, it would have been the only after action report filed on one of Schachte's skimmer missions which weren't as effective as he and Schachte had hoped. Schachte disagrees and is convinced there must have been "one or two."
Are you sure that Hibbard’s command would have been the one filing an after action report? Have you seen any paperwork at all for the skimmer missions? Do you think there was none? No message traffic? Why? Or have you really looked?
Truth and Unfit for Command
Kerry reported to Navy doctor Louis Letson the next morning after duty hours began at 8 AM. Schachte had told him, "No enemy action, no purple heart." Kerry's appeal to Hibbard brought the rejoinder "I have seen rose thorn injuries worse than that. No enemy action, no purple heart." Surely a doctor would be more understanding, not that it mattered. Only Kerry's direct commanders could approve the award.
You have your timing backward here. Remember that Hibbard originally claimed Kerry showed him the shrapnel that had been removed from his arm?
Boston Globe
And by the way, Hibbard’s rose thorn injury “rejoinder” actually came 36 years after the fact.
Boston Globe
Kerry lay down on Letson's examination table and told Letson: "We were involved in a fire fight and we received fire from shore." One of the four or five men hanging around the dispensary out of Kerry's sight lowered his head and began to wag an emphatic "no" and stifle a laugh. Letson found ¼ inch fragment sticking out of Kerry's upper arm. It looked like wire about the diameter of a toothpick, he pulled it out with his forceps and flipped it with a tiny "klink" into a steel basin held by his Hospitalman, Jesus Carreon, to the applause of the appreciative audience. Letson was so amused he took a photo of Carreon holding the basin with the ½ inch fragment barely visible in the bottom of it.
First, consider that this is a story from a doctor who – if he actually treated Kerry - is unethical enough to betray doctor-patient confidentiality. I’m sure you realize that such a disclosure requires at least the written consent of the patient, and not even the release of Kerry’s sick bay report will negate that requirement – this is of course on top of any other requirements the Navy might impose.
Second, consider that not a single person backs up Letson’s account. Remember, he claimed it was Kerry’s “crewmen” who accompanied him? Of course Runyon and Zaladonis did no such thing. Was it the crewmen from PCF 60? Why would they accompany him? Why haven’t any of them come forward if so?
Third, consider how Letson has changed his story:
Now he says he took a picture. Where is it? Where was it two years ago?
Kerry’s crewmen now become the “four or five guys hanging around” the dispensary.
Letson first made the preposterous claim in writing that the crewmen told him Kerry had fired a mortar from the skimmer. Once the impossibility of that was pointed out to him, he changed his story to the SBVT-friendly “grenade launcher” version.
WND
If he simply overheard the crewmen, how could he have overheard something so ludicrous?
Why didn’t we hear this hilarious story two years ago? Maybe he could tell us if Robert Hildreth was ridiculed by the corpsman who pulled out a little shrapnel a few weeks later and sent him straight back to duty, and if the other guys made fun of his Purple Heart?
Fifth, Letson claims the mysterious “crewmen” said Kerry told them he would be “the next JFK from Massachussetts” (WND link above). How come nobody else remembers him making such a boast? Certainly not his own crewmen. Who else would he have told? The guys on the Swift Boat towing the skimmer … guys he had only just met? Remember, he’d only been in country two weeks at that point. Again, how come nobody else remembers?
Letson says he slapped a bandaid on the wound. When he looked back in a few minutes later, Carreon was winding layers of gauze over the bandaid achieving quite a dramatic effect. Why? According to Letson "Carreon said Kerry was afraid the bandaid would come off." Tedd Peck was dying to see "the purple heart wound" but Kerry wouldn't show it to him.
Ah, a new little embellishment from Letson. In his written statement (linked above) he only mentions a bandaid, and he sticks to that story for quite awhile. Then it comes out that Kerry had a bandage, so, well, you’ll forgive the skepticism.
Oh, and speaking of being low on the ethics scale…this is a man who has no compunction about putting words in the mouth of a dead man.
And about the wound. Of course Grant Hibbard can’t tell us enough times what Kerry’s wound looked like, so obviously Kerry was showing it to some people - and hey, isn’t Peck claiming to have been there when Kerry showed it to Hibbard?
In transit, Kerry was now in possession of his medical records file jacket including the form Carreon had filed out. And he apparently found someone to pay what he obviously thought was proper attention to what most people at Cam Ranh had regarded as an unintentionally self-inflicted wound by an improperly fired M-79 grenade launcher, if not a bad joke about a delusional rookie officer. The timing of the first purple heart request tells all.
Well, no it doesn’t actually. Pure speculation on your part. Is this now an opinion piece?
No reasonable explanation has yet been offered for the grant of Kerry's first purple heart. Tedd Peck dissolves into laughter recalling a dispirited Schachte heading into the officers' club for a drink the day after the mission muttering that Kerry was threatening "to write his Congressman if he didn't get his purple heart," knowing the bales of quadruplicate paperwork that would ensue.
I’ll bet he does dissolve into laughter. He’s managed in the past to change just about every date you’ve just cited in your article.
Or didn’t you know he’s claimed the PH event actually took place on November 25, with a repeat on December 2? And that far from claiming to be present when Kerry supposedly approached Hibbard for a PH, he said he heard about both incidents second hand:
SBVT
A real joker, that guy.
On seeing Admiral Schachte, resplendent in his dress blues, gold braid and decorations, Kerry broke out in a broad grin and pointing his finger said: "BATMAN.". <
How could he know?
Now now, it’s not good journalism to exaggerate like that. Schachte never said Kerry pointed at him. You could look it up.
How could he know his boat’s call sign? Gee, that’s a toughie.
-----------------------------------
And Tom, if you want to be taken seriously, you’ve gotta stop that silly bit about being “nominated” for a Pulitzer. People are starting to make fun of you on the Internet.
liontooth.com said:The pulitzer website only lists the nominated FINALISTS, not all of the nominees.
-----------------------------------
Actually, you aren't a nominee unless you are a nominated finalist.
Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided.
Terminology
There were over 1400 journalism entries in 2004 - the year before Lipscomb entered. See the "History" page at the Pulitzer site.
Actually, you aren't a nominee unless you are a nominated finalist
According to the Pulitzer website's
How to Submit an Entry for a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism
http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/newjbbn.pdf
Juries of distinguished journalists are appointed in each category. They are asked to submit three nominations to The Pulitzer Prize Board.
The Pulitzer Board is charged with the responsibility and authority under the will of Joseph Pulitzer to select, accept, substitute or reject the nominations of the jurors.
Was Libscomb selected by the jurors but then rejected by the Pulitzer Board?
Has Libscomb commented on this?
Was Libscomb selected by the jurors but then rejected by the Pulitzer Board?
Has Libscomb commented on this?
Actually, for future reference it's "Lipscomb". Indeed, he has not stated that he was originally a nominee, only to have his name stricken by the nefarious Pulitzer Board. If that had, indeed, happened, it would have almost certainly been a cause celebre for the Right, the "investigative journalist" whose hard-hitting pieces on John Kerry earned him a nomination by his peers, only to have it rejected by the lefty objectively pro-terrorist elitists.
Needless to say, Lipscomb has not claimed that happened....
The nominating and judging process is entirely secret. It is impossible for anyone to know whether he or she has been nominated until the public announcement is made:
Both the jury nominations and the awards voted by the board are held in strict confidence until the announcement of the prizes, which takes place about a week after the meeting in the World Room. . . .. The announcement includes the name of the winner in each category as well as the names of the other two finalists. The three finalists in each category are the only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees.
History
So there is no way Lipscomb could possibly know if he was ever nominated but rejected.
By the way, Carlton Sherwood is also guilty of resume-padding by calling himself a Pulitzer Prize "winner." When more than three people worked on a project, the award goes to the newspaper, not the reporter.
In journalism, if more than three individuals are cited in an entry, any prize goes to the newspaper.
The 1980 award went to Gannett News Service, not Carlton Sherwood.
The nominating and judging process is entirely secret. It is impossible for anyone to know whether he or she has been nominated until the public announcement is made:
Both the jury nominations and the awards voted by the board are held in strict confidence until the announcement of the prizes, which takes place about a week after the meeting in the World Room. . . .. The announcement includes the name of the winner in each category as well as the names of the other two finalists. The three finalists in each category are the only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees.
History
So there is no way Lipscomb could possibly know if he was ever nominated but rejected.
By the way, Carlton Sherwood also appears to be guilty of resume-padding by calling himself a Pulitzer Prize "winner." When more than three people worked on a project, the award goes to the newspaper, not the reporter:
In journalism, if more than three individuals are cited in an entry, any prize goes to the newspaper.
The 1980 award went to Gannett News Service, not Carlton Sherwood:
Then it's quite a pattern of exaggeration. He planted the story himself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359446/posts
Post a Comment