Kerry reroutes Idaho river at taxpayers' expense

I received the following e-mail regarding Kerry:

I couldn’t find a link anywhere. Does anyone have any information supporting or debunking this claim?


Man, it’s like playing telephone. Kerry’s wife has a lodge at Sun Valley, and the landscapers applied for a pipeline to water the lawn. They were turned down, and they got the water from the Ketchum waterworks instead.

This distortion of fact is almost certainly derived from a March 6 piece by conservative NY Time columnist David Brooks:

This column is skewered here. It’s going to be a long, muddy slog till November, folks.

Thank you both. This is exactly what I expected considering the source of my e-mail, but I couldn’t find anything.

This is just like the bogus story in 2000 in which Al Gore supposedly ordered the release of billions of gallons of river water in New Hampshire so that he could get a photo op of him canoeing down a river. Turns out that the Army Core of Engineers was planning on releasing the water anyway, but the “liberal” press corp did not let the facts get in the way of a misleading story. The more things change… :frowning:

Well, yeah, but what about Kerry’s plan to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages?

Any idea what the merit badge would look like?

I’ve seen a lot of Kerry bashing just because he has a lot of money. Do Republicans really want to go there this time around?

Besides, Bush was born with his money. Kerry married his honestly.

Dr. J

It might have been skewered in the sense of someone ridiculing it, but it certainly wasn’t debunked. The only thing the skewer said about the river was that he’d never heard of it.

Don’t know what you are suggesting; surely you don’t subscribed to the fairy tale that a river was diverted at state expense? There is ample evidence to the contrary.

I don’t fear for the Big Wood River. Those guys up there have been dealing in water rights forever. I’m just surprised by the article cited that Len Harlig was willing to offer the compromise of diversion on the grounds of blocking further diversion.

The water in that area comes from wells. The wells draw from the aquifer. The aquifer is fed by the rivers. One way or the other the water is coming from the same source. Since you’re going to get it from the same place you might as well not screw up the scenery and pony up for the pipes to connect to city water. Which is what the Kerrys decided to do.

As put in the article, a real tempest in a tea pot. Of course, it is election season…

Where in the quote you provided does David Brooks claim that it was sought to be done at state expense?

But still he did raise a ruckus by stirring the fire with his penis so to speak.

I pride myself in oinking louder than most Capitalist pigs, but Senetor Kerry’s arrogant belief that because he is by-proxy-rich he is entitled to pull a hundred times more water from the disappearing fossil water aquifer in thiristy Idaho than his plebian neighbors nearby, strikes me as a bit aristocratic.

Senator Kerry, ever the doting husband, did so to please Madame Kerry, who finds it most picturesque to have acres and acres of green grass growing in the desert sands in order to have a proper setting for a weathered, but quaint, five-hundred-year-old barn she had dismantleed and moved from England to Idaho a few years back.

Oh well, as they say,* noblesse oblige*. (irony)

But still I wonder…do you really think that Kerry called the Secrect Service man who ran in to him the other day while he was snowboarding, a “son-of-a-bitch”? Do you think that the Secret Service man ran in to Kerry on purpose? Do you think that the son-of-a-bitch apologized to Kerry, or that Kerry apoligized to the son-of-a-bitch?

I sent an email to the Kerry Campaign asking for details about this episode but somehow I think that we the public will never know.

HUH? Perhaps you’ve been reading here recently?

Kerry’s not a “blue-blood”, noblesse oblige doesn’t exactly apply. Is he rich? Yes. But then so is George Bush, and he’s certainly New England ‘aristocracy’.

No idea about this “son-of-a-bitch” thing. Perhaps you should provide a cite? With a floating-point score even.

I feel low,** lambchops**, ashamed that you don’t trust poor Milum. (sigh)

Ok, lambchops, get your kicks, here’s your “cite”. Take your pick - Matt Drudge,
Hugh Hewitt, or the New York Times. Personally I don’t trust the New York Times, but hey, they were on the scene, so what the heck…

Look lambchops, this is no big deal. The big deal is that Kerry doesn’t like to admit his falls and failures, but he too is human and prone to err, so the only option he has left is to fabricate and to outright lie. Too bad for you people that don’t like Bush.

Name me a politician that likes admitting falls and failures! Anyway, since when is honesty etc the “big deal”? In this thread, and in your earlier post, the gist seemed to be that “Kerry is rich, aloof and disconnected from the average American”. Dragging in stuff about falling over and swearing at people would appear to subtract from your argument, not add to it.

Cheers for the cite, and for the record I dislike both Bush and Kerry.