So were you REALLY in cambodia???

[dude1394]

hughhewitt

The focus on the Swift Boat story is not where it should be (though the KerrySpot is working hard to get it where it needs to be.) The first question is does the book Unfit for Command contain new and credible information, and if so, what aspects of John Kerry's qualifications to be president does that information inform? The super-charged debate on the ad and the first Purple Heart are exactly the wrong places to begin the investigation. Journalists ought to instead ask "What's new in the book that is susceptible of being proven true or false, leading to increases or decreases in the critics' or Kerry's credibility?"

Which means they should start with the "Christmas in Cambodia" section of the chapter of the book already available online.

Incredibly, many people with opinions on the ad, the swift boat critics of Kerry and the relevance of Kerry's service haven't even bothered to obtain the free chapter of Unfit for Command, available from HumanEventsOnline. As I discussed at length on air yesterday, the most revealing --and easily checked-out-- story in the available chapter concerns the accusation in the book that John Kerry has for a long time, including during his Senate career, claimed that he was sent illegally into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. The book quotes Kerry saying in the Senate on March 27, 1986:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and having the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared --seared-- in me."

The book also quotes Kerry telling the Boston Herald the same story:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Now some obvious things jump out here, including the fact that Nixon wasn't the president on Christmas Eve 1968, and that this tale doesn't show up in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty. The new book concludes that "[d]espite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry's statements are complete lies. Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War." If the book's conclusion is correct, and if it quotes Kerry correctly from the two sources, this is a major, major story, indicating that Kerry has lied in detail about a crucial part of his Vietnam biography. Such a sweeping -- indeed, almost pathological-- lie would undermine Kerry's credibility on all other aspects of his memories and recountings of his Vietnam experience. On the other hand, if the book's authors fabricated this section, the book's credibility is shot. One or the other is true: Someone is lying --either Kerry's critics or Kerry. And this should have been the lead today in many newspapers because the chapter was available yesterday.

I return to my point yesterday: This book's allegations should receive the same scrutiny as Michael Moore's and Terry McAuliffe's charges about George Bush being AWOL received. They have not yet received anything like that sort of examination; proof, I think, of a huge double-standard among the media elites in favor of John Kerry.

The next time John Kerry comes in range of a serious interview, he ought to be asked, in this order, these exact questions:

Have you ever claimed to have been in Cambodia during your Vietnam service?
When did you make that claim?
Did you make that claim in the Senate on March 27, 1986?
Were you sent to Cambodia?

If his story has not changed since 1986, the evidence of that story having been fabricated can then be truthed. If Kerry recants, the seasoned interviewer will ask questions about his motive for lying so forcefully and in such detail, especially in his capacity as a United States Senator, and what he measures the damage to his own credibility given that lie and the place from which it was delivered. But someone has to ask these questions. Will anyone? (Other than Roger L. Simon, who is on the same kick as I am. I mean someone with Kerry in a studio.)

Recall that when Tim Russert had Kerry on last, Kerry falsely stated that he had released all of his military and health records. Then Kerry stonewalled and then he finally allowed some papers to be released, but not all of them, and the press has let the matter drop. Before we even approach the more controversial allegations being made about Kerry --see Kevin McCullough's blog today for some interesting audio in this area-- let's establish some understandings about Kerry's credibility on Vietnam-era story telling. It isn't hard to do, and it could put this book on the remainder shelf very quickly if Kerry's been falsely maligned, or damage Kerry's believability beyond repair.

If you make up an illegal order to cross into Cambodia, after all, what else wouldn't you make up when it served your purpose? James gets it:

"So I don’t want to spend 9000 words on the Swift Boat vets right now. There are two tales here: the story, and how the story will be played in the dino media. I have nothing to add to the first and it’s too early to comment on the latter. This is not about Vietnam. This is about character, and this is about spin. Over the next week there’s going to be a lot of discussion in newsrooms about what this story means, and how the mainstream media’s handling of the charges will affect their image. They can tear the story down to the foundation and root for the truth, or they can hide behind he-said-they-said reportage. It’s their Waterloo. We’ll see."

[Mavdog]

I don't see any contradictory facts to kerry's staement that he was sent into Cambodia. Where are they?

It is a FACT that American forces frequently went into Cambodia- without Cambodia's consent mind you- in this timeframe, Froma PBS series:

"In 1966, Cambodia continued its carefree festivities despite growing dangers within the country and along its borders.

Sihanouk had broken relations with America. His officers were becoming restless. They no longer received American military aid.

Sihanouk was also beginning to face trouble in the countryside, where small groups of Cambodia Communists, the Khmer Rouge, were recruiting some dis-contented peasants.

Sihanouk continued to juggle. In 1967, he invited Jacqueline Kennedy to Cambodia, hoping to draw America's attention to his dilemma. Sihanouk was concerned by the Vietnamese Communist buildup in the sanctuaries, and he feared a large-scale U.S. attack across his borders. As a counterbalance to this visit he denounced America's Vietnam policy.

NORODOM SIHANOUK, November 1967

It would be immoral to support, you know, your aggression, the aggression of the United States against the people of Vietnam. We want to have the right to continue to have the right to be united, to be free, and how could we deny to Vietnam the right to self-determination?

NARRATOR

Pursuing their enemy, American and South Vietnamese aircraft often attacked across the Cambodian border. Sihanouk criticized Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who was then trying to repair relations.

PRESS CONFERENCE, November 1967

SIHANOUK: There is a contradiction between the declaration of friendship and respect from Mr. Dean Rusk on one hand and on the other hand your

forces in South Vietnam continue to come into Cambodia and to kill..

INTERVIEWER: ...what is necessary...

SIHANOUK: ...our peasants and innocent peasants, innocent civilian servants.

NARRATOR

In 1969, newly elected President Nixon launched secret B-52 bombing raids over Cambodia against North Vietnamese and Vietcong sanctuaries driving them further into the country. Nixon neither informed Sihanouk, nor sought his approval for this escalation.

[Evilmav2]

The question isn't whether Americans were ever in Cambodia, the quesion is whether Kerry ever was (as he claimed), and thus whether he lied before the Senate in 1986...

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2
The question isn't whether Americans were ever in Cambodia, the quesion is whether Kerry ever was (as he claimed), and thus whether he lied before the Senate in 1986...

Exactly. I think it is a fairly well established fact that there were American forces in Cambodia at times during the Vietnam war. However what is not established is whether Joh Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 as he is purported to have claimed to be.

So Mavdog, please stick to the topic of whether John Kerry was in Cambodia and whether he claimed to have been in Cambodia.

[Mavdog]

All I see in the above is that Kerry's allusion to Nixon is wrong.

Where is any evidence or facts that say that Kerry is not accurate?

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


Where is any evidence or facts that say that Kerry is not accurate?

Read this, dog, , and when you're done, feel free to say these vets are all lying about Kerry and are probably the corrupt pawns of Texas oil millionaires- and if you do so, I won't hesitate to call you fool.

You don't personally know one damned thing about whether Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 or not, and I'll put my money down that the honorable vets who served with Kerry during his short stint know a helluva lot more about whether J. Forbes was in Cambodia than you, or some craphole of a Boston Globe writer, or some spoiled East coast college kid political staffers, or any jaded Dem political operatives do.

Go ahead and call them liars, dog. You know you want to...

[Mavdog]

OK, I've read the whole piece.

Liars? no, I don't see any facts they could be lying about, I certainly see vindictiveness. They don't know where he was Christmas '68 anymore than you or I. They sure want to suggest otherwise tho.

What is clear is that the writer does not like Kerry. Through suggestion and their own conclusions (such as the supposed prohibition on entering Cambodia when we all know such occured on a regular basis, Kerry must have "fanagled" the Purple Heart when they admit they really don't know) these people want to impose their view of that time in Vietnam. The term is revisionist history, and it serves no purpose in the election.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. As for Bush, he didn't go and that's not an issue to me. I know Kerry was there, he served, and he came home. He was given positive reviews by his superiors, and that should be the end of it. At least it is for those who wish to focus the campaign on the issues at hand, clearly these people see otherwiseand prefer personal attacks.

If you can't argue positions just attack the person, a classic political tact. Taking the low road for sure. I'd condemn the same if it were done on Dubya's Natl Guard time.

Is it necessary to review each candidates service history? I'm confident in saying Dubya's supporters would say no, and this is the utmost in hypocrisy.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
OK, I've read the whole piece.

Liars? no, I don't see any facts they could be lying about, I certainly see vindictiveness. They don't know where he was Christmas '68 anymore than you or I. They sure want to suggest otherwise tho.

Did you really read the whole piece? If you did, you must have missed the following passages. And I would say that you might want to read them again before saying things like "they ["they" being the authors, presumably] don't know where he was Christmas '68 anymore than you or I"...

"At least three of the crewmen on Kerry's PCF 44 boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner- deny that they or their boat was ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book. Gardner, in particular, will never forget those days in late December when he was wounded on PCF 44, not in Cambodia, but many miles away in Vietnam."

"The Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty [Kerry's book]. Instead, Kerry replaces the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 "near the Cambodia border" in a town called Da Sec, some fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border."

If I read this correctly, three of the five crewmen on Kerry's boat say that they and Kerry were NEVER in Cambodia, and that furthermore, they were emphatically NOT in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. The other two crewman on Kerry's boat refuse comment, and that leaves only Kerry asserting before the US Senate and to the Boston Globe that he was illegally patrolling there on Christmas Eve 1968...

Only... J. Forbes said that before he said something else...

In his 2003, David Brinkley written biography "Tour of Duty", Kerry changed his story, and recalled that he spent that Christmas eve about 55 miles away from the Cambodian border and got shelled by a morter attack...

To say the least, this bizarre discrepancy between Kerry's documented personal accounts of specifics of his supposed illegal Cambodian incursion and those of the crewman who served under him is disturbing. That Kerry changed his account again recently is additionally troubling...

J. Forbes Kerry, where do your lies end? Where does the truth begin? What else have you lied about in the past; what are you lying about today; and just what will you lie about in the future to achieve your boundless dreams and vain ambitions?

Hopefully, in about four months time the answers to these questions will become moot and irrelevant, as Kerry is forced to go back to his jet-setting, Habsburgian lifestyle, with his presidential ambitions put paid to by an electorate that had seen the man as the dangerous, vain derelict and morally bankrupt charlatan that he is.

[Mavdog]

I'm sure that these guys know they were or were not in Cambodia from if they went through customs or saw the border signs (frankly, the same is true of Kerry as well). This was not a secure or obvious border, so they very well could have been in Cambodia, or "close" as the case may be. Big deal. Let's dwell on something that really isn't the point, can't be proven but in the hands of this bitter hate squad takes on its own life in an attempt to portray a person in the most negative light.

"Oh dear, he may be not be able to prove his innocence of these accusations" they hope Melvin the voter thinks. "He was in the service, he did go out on missions, he did command the boat that went out in dangerous waters where they received hostile fire."
"But I can't help but wonder" Melvin continues "as these other servicemen say that when they and he were out on a mission they maybe really didn't go all the way into Cambodia that specific evening as Kerry said"(even tho they could have on that night or even another). It's the hope of these assasins who use the pen to hurl arrows of negativity toward Kerry, for if they are successful folks like Melvin will never get to the point of reading about Kerry's positions or policies. They hope Melvin won't read about Dubya's either, for after their success of convincing Melvin to see kerry as someone who can't prove when he did what he says he did, even though the accusations don't progress to facts, he's finished.

Damn the issues, just put the opponent on the defensive about his character and we won't need to defend our record! Like the two Guinness brewers on the TV ad they scream "Brilliant!" and raise a toast to Haldeman and Colson.

It makes no real meaningful difference. and is an attempt to distract the voter.

[Evilmav2]

I'm sure that these guys know they were or were not in Cambodia from if they went through customs or saw the border signs (frankly, the same is true of Kerry as well). This was not a secure or obvious border, so they very well could have been in Cambodia, or "close" as the case may be.

What the hell are you talking about Mavdog? Are you really trying to argue that the poor, ignorant crew members who served under Kerry would have no idea whether they were in Cambodia or not?

Kerry was stationed FIFTY-FIVE MILES from the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve 1968. Three of his five crewmen said they NEVER entered Cambodia, and the other two refused to comment. The one ingress to Cambodian waters available to DST 44 was blockaded by LST's and patrol boats specifically posted there to prevent US Naval patrols from violating those waters. Kerry implied that he was ORDERED to illegally violate these waters, and then spent a night being shot at by "drunken" South Vietnamese- an account and charge that has been vehemently denied by both his subordinates and superiors.

How in the Hell can you possibly make an argument that Kerry's crewmen might have accidentally not realized that they were in Cambodian waters because they didn't pass, "through customs" or see any, "border signs"? Cambodia was fifty-five miles away from their patrol area! One of Kerry's crewman was severely wounded in VIETNAM during the period Kerry told the Senate he was illegally in Cambodia!

If you are honestly arguing that you think Kerry's crewmen were stupid enough to not be able to realize that they passed a US Navy river blockade on route to sailing fifty-five miles away from their post, and then forget about being shot at by South Vietnamese drunks in Cambodia, I just don't know what to say...

You can minimize this matter to your heart's content Mavdog, but the fact remains, either Kerry lied (repeatedly) about this story, or else his subordinate crewmen and all of his commanding officers are lying about it now- and the Navy has covered it up, by destroying or falsifying all pertinant paperwork and records in order to erase any record of Kerry's illegal and life-shaping Cambodian adventure....

[Mavdog]

You can minimize this matter to your heart's content Mavdog, but the fact remains, either Kerry lied (repeatedly) about this story, or else his subordinate crewmen and all of his commanding officers are lying about it now (and the Navy has covered it up, by destroying or falsifying all pertinant paperwork and records in order to erase any record of Kerry's illegal and life-shaping Cambodian adventure).

I don't need to "minimize it" as it's truly insignifigant.

Your reliance that the US Navy "blockaded" the Cambodian border is weak as the US went into cambodia after the enemy without hesitation repeatedly. Often. It's not that they never went into cambodia, it's merely that you and these bittter men say it wasn't that day as Kerry has stated.

wow. certainly a disqualification for the office (yawn)

and now you have the audacity to accuse the Navy of being in on some conspiracy to "erase any record"....

[EricaLubarsky]

Next thing we will hear is that John McCain wasn't actually a POW.

[knowitall]

Hey Erica. I guess It's more comfortable with Bush. At least he talks with God.

[dude1394]

Kerry's senate speech stating he was in cambodia in '68.

cambodia

Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

[dude1394]

A reply from the swifties.

The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Kerry's senate speech stating he was in cambodia in '68.

cambodia

The issue of intentional deceit, outright lies, by the Nixon administration is the mesage. If he was or wasn't in Cambodia on X-mas eve '68 is insignifigant to the message. What is a fact is that US forces- which could have included Kerry- were clandestinely sent into Cambodia.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


Your reliance that the US Navy "blockaded" the Cambodian border is weak as the US went into cambodia after the enemy without hesitation repeatedly. Often. It's not that they never went into cambodia, it's merely that you and these bittter men say it wasn't that day as Kerry has stated.

Ha... You are cravenly dissembling again, mavdog. I am growing tired of this silly exchange, and your intellectually disingenuous arguments, but I will do my darndest to explain the charges levied against J. Forbes Kerry to you one more time...

No "bitter men" are calling into question the day that Kerry had his Cambodian adventure. No, no, no... The big, ugly fact is, that three of J. Forbe's five subordinate crewmen said they were damned well never in Cambodia (the other two refuse to comment), and thus provide evidence (via sworn affadavit) that J. F. Kerry lied to the Boston Globe and to the United States Senate when he regaled those august bodies with his varying accounts of his boat being shot at while spending a "Christmas in Cambodia". This indictment of Kerry is further damningly strengthened by the fact that every one of Kerry's living, superior officers have emphatically stated that he was never, ever in Cambodia, and that assertion is further corroborated by the records of the US Navy.

As I said before, you can minimize this matter to your hearts' content, but that is not going to magically wish away the fact that Kerry is a damned, purblind lying fool who will hopefully be broken, flayed and cast off into a bitter, decadent, Habsburgian exile this November, after accounts like those contained in the above linked material, help to expose this derelict shyster as the charlatan that he is to the American electorate...

[dude1394]

"Habsburgian exile"... I tried but could not figure this one out em??

[Evilmav2]

The Habsburgs were a decadent, in-bred family of central European dynasts who held sway over large parts of Europe as Holy Roman Emperors from about 1278 until the end of the First World War. Although Austria was the ancestral seat of the Habsburgs, these dynasts were able to marry into the ruling families of much of Europe, and in this way territories as widely diverse as Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, parts of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, as well as the Dutch counties and most significantly Spain (including Spain's New World holdings), were held under the sway of the Habsburgs during their their glory days in the 15th and 16th centuries. HRE Charles the V and Phillip II of Spain are the most historically significant of Habsburg rulers, although the assasination of Habsburg ArchDuke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was pretty darned significant as it triggered, "the guns of August", igniting the disastrous conflagration that was the First World War...

I referred above to J. Forbes Kerry as being, "Habsburgian", principally because he possesses the long, horse face that in-bred Habsburg progeny were notorious for, and also because he lives a decadent lifestyle that I find quite evocative of the old Habsburgs of the Danube (I think Kerry and his "Stepmoney" Theresa Heinz would have fit in quite well, socializing with spoiled, foolish, blind Habsburg aristocrats, flitting around between their well-staffed estates, being alternately bored and delighted by their lives of privilege and tired leisure)...

[Drbio]

Genius Evil....pure genius.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

Ha... You are cravenly dissembling again, mavdog. I am growing tired of this silly exchange, and your intellectually disingenuous arguments, but I will do my darndest to explain the charges levied against J. Forbes Kerry to you one more time...

No "bitter men" are calling into question the day that Kerry had his Cambodian adventure. No, no, no... The big, ugly fact is, that three of J. Forbe's five subordinate crewmen said they were damned well never in Cambodia (the other two refuse to comment), and thus provide evidence (via sworn affadavit) that J. F. Kerry lied to the Boston Globe and to the United States Senate when he regaled those august bodies with his varying accounts of his boat being shot at while spending a "Christmas in Cambodia". This indictment of Kerry is further damningly strengthened by the fact that every one of Kerry's living, superior officers have emphatically stated that he was never, ever in Cambodia, and that assertion is further corroborated by the records of the US Navy.

yes evil, US forces didn't go into Cambodia (wink, wink). The officers deny that the forces were in Cambodia (wink, wink). There are no records of these forces ever going into Cambodia (wink, wink).

As I said before, you can minimize this matter to your hearts' content, but that is not going to magically wish away the fact that Kerry is a damned, purblind lying fool who will hopefully be broken, flayed and cast off into a bitter, decadent, Habsburgian exile this November, after accounts like those contained in the above linked material, help to expose this derelict shyster as the charlatan that he is to the American electorate...

Let's just sit back and watch to see just how minimal or how meaningful this whole sorid attempt to discredit the military record of John Kerry resonates with the voters.

My bet is the more the rightists push, the more the middle will reject their bitterness and negativism, especially as their self interested motivation is exposed. You see, these are the servicemen who still look at the anti-war movement as the reason their goal of a military victory in Nam was denied. They're still seeking vindication.

They won't find it here.

[Drbio]

*Yawn*

like shooting fish in a barrel eh Evil?

[LRB]

Sounds to me that there is a good deal of facts supporting that John Kerry intentionally lied to gain political advantage. I see no facts whatsoever to support that he was telling the truth. Is there some outside possibility that Kerry was telling the truth? Sure, just as there is the possibility that Elvis Presley is still alive.

[Male30Dan]

Hello???

Elvis is alive!!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I'm sure that these guys know they were or were not in Cambodia from if they went through customs or saw the border signs (frankly, the same is true of Kerry as well). This was not a secure or obvious border, so they very well could have been in Cambodia, or "close" as the case may be. Big deal. Let's dwell on something that really isn't the point, can't be proven but in the hands of this bitter hate squad takes on its own life in an attempt to portray a person in the most negative light.

"Oh dear, he may be not be able to prove his innocence of these accusations" they hope Melvin the voter thinks. "He was in the service, he did go out on missions, he did command the boat that went out in dangerous waters where they received hostile fire."
"But I can't help but wonder" Melvin continues "as these other servicemen say that when they and he were out on a mission they maybe really didn't go all the way into Cambodia that specific evening as Kerry said"(even tho they could have on that night or even another). It's the hope of these assasins who use the pen to hurl arrows of negativity toward Kerry, for if they are successful folks like Melvin will never get to the point of reading about Kerry's positions or policies. They hope Melvin won't read about Dubya's either, for after their success of convincing Melvin to see kerry as someone who can't prove when he did what he says he did, even though the accusations don't progress to facts, he's finished.

Damn the issues, just put the opponent on the defensive about his character and we won't need to defend our record! Like the two Guinness brewers on the TV ad they scream "Brilliant!" and raise a toast to Haldeman and Colson.

It makes no real meaningful difference. and is an attempt to distract the voter.

This is hilarious because it was Kerry's choice to make vietnam the focal point of his resume for president.

[Drbio]

And it will be Kerrys insistence on making his Vietnam record his foundation that will cause him to fall. Well, that and his general lack of a backbone, ignorance, and reliance on foreign dignitaries.

[LRB]

Maybe Kerry can get Elvis to make a campaign stop with him. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[madape]

Today, on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:

JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.

KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.

JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.

[Drbio]

Flippity floppity

[LRB]

Originally posted by: madape
Today, on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:

JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.

KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.

JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.

When and where did he recant his original statement about Cambodia? Guess Kerry's memory is so poor that he can't remember. Maybe Kerry nearly recanted his story at some point but he can't remember when or even where. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

What gets me is that Kerry has been caught redhanded lying and still won't fess up.

[kg_veteran]

There is no question that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the author of "Unfit for Command" are politically motivated. They want John Kerry to lose. Of course they are biased. Just like Michael Moore was politically motivated and biased when he put his "documentary" together and offered it up for public consumption. All of that is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Attacking the Swift Boat Veterans as "disliking" or "hating" John Kerry is just as irrelevant as attacking Michael Moore for "disliking" or "hating" George Bush. Dislike or hatred is irrelevant.

What IS relevant, is whether Bush and Kerry, respectively, can offer an explanation for the accusations brought against them.

In Bush's case, not only has his campaign come forward with facts to refute Moore's claims, the 9/11 Commission and other bipartisan groups have done the same, saying that Moore's claims are unfounded and untrue.

In Kerry's case, he has hired lawyers to try and shut the TV stations up so that they won't air the ads created by the Swift Boat Veterans. He has whined about the negative "attack" tactics of the Swift Boat Veterans, and his campaign has argued that his Vietnam record should be irrelevant to what is going on today. I'd agree with that, except for one thing. UL is exactly right: John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. Among trial lawyers, we call that "opening the door" to evidence that otherwise would not be admissible. He's MADE his Vietnam service relevant, from that goofy salute at the beginning of his convention speech to rolling his "Band of Brothers" with him out onto the stage to playing that video that had far more about his Vietnam days than it did about his Senatorial career.

He's the one who picked the topic. He can't complain NOW when people want to talk about it. You can't have it both ways.

[dude1394]

HUGH HEWITT: "An interesting juxtaposition: Scot Peterson's lie to Amber Frey about being in Paris, and John Kerry's lies to the Senate about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. Peterson's lie has practically guaranteed his conviction as whatever small bit of credibility he possessed is now destroyed. John Kerry, on the other hand, got a pass this morning from the Washington Post and the New York Times even though his campaign yesterday recanted a central detail of Kerry's Vietnam narrative that he has been peddling for three decades."

Go figure.

[Mavdog]

Kerrys being in Cambodia or not being in Cambodia is not the point of what he was saying.

The fact is he was correct in what his message was.

[dude1394]

Which message was this, that all of his fellow soldiers raped, killed and murdered at will?

[Mavdog]

The statement that you refer to never had a connotation of "all". If you actually believe that there were no atrocities in the Vietnam War, or that there were no civilians who fell victim to American fire when they posed no risk, that there was NO human rights violations (including instances of rape) you do not have a firm grasp on reality. You would be incorrect. There were.

The Nixon Administration lied to the American public on the war, on the issue of troops in Cambodia. Guess you missed that part.

[dude1394]

JANUARY -- NOT CHRISTMAS -- KERRY IN CAMBODIA

**Exclusive**

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."

John O’Neil’s, author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND, comments on the “clarification:”

“John Kerry describes Christmas Eve in Cambodia as a critical turning point in his life. We now know that his story is completely false. My question is how many people do you know have invented a turning point, one that is seared in his memory? While it makes sense for John Kerry to come clean about the Cambodia story, it is one of several tales that the Kerry campaign will have to face and clarify.”

“By claiming we were engaged in a war crime and crossing international borders, John Kerry damaged the credibility of all the commanding officers above him and insulted the sailors who served with him,” said John O’Neill, member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

[dude1394]

Oh I'm starting to get it. So it would be ok for another politician to make up a whopper on the senate floor to embellish his story for about 30 years. Something like..

"I was at the berlin wall dodging bullets from the communists so that I could expose the horror of the communist system and the murderous government that I saw shooting citizens".

Then 30 years later while running for president and being shown to be a "serial liar" (of course after calling the very people who called me out on it, dishonorable, lying scum) it's oh I really wasn't there and no one was shooting at me, but my message was correct.

You betcha baby. No wonder the dems like kerry so much, he's sorta just like that other democrat president..

[Mavdog]

Let's see, he a) was on a gunboat, b) did get shot at by vietnamese, c) could have been shot at by Khmer Rouge or Cambodians, d) the president of the United States did falsely tell the American public that no troops were in Cambodia.

yeah, what a "whopper."

O'Neill seems to be under the mistaken belief that the US Armed Forces didn't commit a "war crime" by "crossing International borders." They did cross the Cambodian border, that is a fact.

Of course using your same logic, as he is mistaken on this point everything else he says is worthless, right?

[dude1394]

Lets' see.
He wasn't in a gunboat in cambodia. He wasn't getting shot at by our allies while it was being "seared, seared in his mind" and the the president he made up his fib about being in cambodia wasn't even president at the time.

Sure was a dramatic "story" that he was able to tell on the senate floor.

So now we know that the swifties (so far) are honest and kerry is not. I wonder what else is the truth in their book, can't wait to read it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Lets' see.
He wasn't in a gunboat in cambodia. He wasn't getting shot at by our allies while it was being "seared, seared in his mind" and the the president he made up his fib about being in cambodia wasn't even president at the time.

"Allies"? The Cambodians were supposedly neutral.
Nixon became Pres in January '69, less than a month after this time, and American forces were allowed to cross the border in Feb '69. what a "whopper" of a time difference.

Sure was a dramatic "story" that he was able to tell on the senate floor.

So now we know that the swifties (so far) are honest and kerry is not. I wonder what else is the truth in their book, can't wait to read it.

no, we don't. we know the purported Dr. who says he treated kerry didn't.

These are some very, very bitter men who seem to stop at nothing to harm Kerry.