john kerry and cambodia

[WalterMitty]

john kerry has recently denied being in cambodia.  but on march 27, 1986, he had a different story to tell on the senate floor:

" "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. "

dont expect the media to cover this story (but on the bright side, im sure looking forward to another puffpiece about elizabeth edward's weight struggles)

[MODU]

If I read the story correctly, he's correcting his statement about being in Cambodia during Christmas.  He's now saying it was January.  However, no matter what day he was "in" there, there would be documentation recording troop movements, even in secret missions across the boarder.  It would be easily to verify this, if someone just petitions the Pentagon to release mission records.  

Funny this is though, hardly anyone who currently supporting Kerry as his "band of brothers" has come out and say "oh yeah, we were there too."  Hmmmm

[WalterMitty]

and kerry doesnt own an suv either.

haha.  he has no shame.

[MODU]

For you, Walter.  I think you might enjoy this article (and site):

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002203.php

[minionofmidas]

So? He actually was in Cambodia before he was not in Cambodia. What's the big deal, though?

[MODU]

I think its a sign of his credibility.  If he can't be honest about himself and his life, how can we trust him to be honest with our country and our lives?

Now true, we all tend to embellish on our stories over time, but like they say, when you tell a lie long enough, you start believing it.  

[JNB]

 

 Outside of the orbit of talk radio, no one gives a damn if he was in Cambodia or not.

[lidaker]

And why in the hell would he lie about being in Cambodia?

[MODU]

JNB,

Does it hurt to be informed?  

lidaker,

We don't know if he is or not.  However, if he is, he probably did it to make himself sound more important, especially considering how short of a stay he had in theatre as well as his anti-war movement following his return.

[JNB]

 MODU, it is a mountain out of a molehill issue, and Bush was wise to distance himself from the Swift Boat Vets, very wise because this could very easily backfire, especially when no matter how one cuts it, Kerry was in Vietnam, and Bush wasnt, and I am sure Bush does not want to bring that contrast any more out in the open.

[MODU]

That's what is so great about being an arm-chair politician as we all are.  We can look at these things and examine them in ways the candidates can't . . . at least not publicly.

[ijohn57s]

The only reason Vietnam is an issue in the first place is because Kerry made in an issue. That means that anything involved is an issue, thanks to Kerry.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The simple fact of the matter is that Kerry has repeatedly changed his stories about what, if we are to believe his acceptance speech, is the central element for electing him President, i.e. his Viet Nam experience.

First he made allegations about atrocities in Viet Nam, which he has subsequently backed away from (the allegations were made in testimony on the record before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971).

Second, his story about 'throwing' his medals, or was it robbons, or was it someone else's medals or ribbons, has constantly changed over the years.

Third, his story about being in Cambodia is flatly preposterous.  Now it is changing too, although Kerry earlier stated on the floor of the Senate that it was "seared" in his memory.

Fourth, the video of Kerry's exploits in Viet Nam were recently "enhanced" with added shots of bullets hitting the water that were NOT filmed in Viet Nam at the time Kerry was there.

Fifth, the duration of Kerry's tour of service in Viet Nam was one of the shortest on record for one neither killed not seriously injured.

In conclusion, Kerry has a serious credibility problem.

P.S. - Apparently Kerry is trying to float two new versions of his allegation of spending Christmas in Cambodia.

In the first version, he is changing the time to January, 1968.

In the second version, he was "near" (more than fifty miles away) from Cambodia.

Waiting to see which story he goes with now.

Or, will there be yet another story?

[Blue Rectangle]

The only reason Vietnam is an issue in the first place is because Kerry made in an issue. That means that anything involved is an issue, thanks to Kerry.

P.S. - Apparently Kerry is trying to float two new versions of his allegation of spending Christmas in Cambodia.

Yes.  Kerry made this and issue is keeping this an issue, not Bush (not even Bush surrogates).  Kerry cannot simultaneously call the charges unfounded/irrelevant and issue detailed rebuttals.  I’m not sure that anyone in the Bush camp thought that these charges were a good thing, but now that Kerry is bungling this, maybe it will help.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'll bet Bush can't remember where he was most weekend nights in his 20's because he was high off his ass.  

And if you think I'm trolling...my statement has about as much relevance to this campaign as what you all are blabbering about Cambodia.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'll bet Bush can't remember where he was most weekend nights in his 20's because he was high off his ass.  

And if you think I'm trolling...my statement has about as much relevance to this campaign as what you all are blabbering about Cambodia.

Either you don't understand or are deliberately trying to change the subject.

John Kerry is basing his campaign upon his four months service in Viet Nam.  Bush is NOT basing his campaign upon what he did in his twenties.

So far, in a number of areas, previously cited, Kerry's allegations about his Viet Nam experiences have proven to be false, and others are under examination.

If Kerry would run his campaign on his Senate record, then his Viet Nam experiences (real or imaginary) would be of limited relevance.

However, Kerry is studiously avoiding his Senate record, with good reason.

[AuH2O]

Exactly. In fact, I recall Republicans being very, very excited to debate Kerry's Senate record. Full of flops and anti-defense votes and tax increases... extreme left record (not to the left of Kennedy though).

And I imagine we will start to hear more about it at some point, when "the issues" become more front and center. That's Kerry's biggest liability... an unaccomplished, leftist, 2 decade stint in the Washington establishment.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The fact is that Kerry volunteered to fight in Vietnam.  He's just trying to establish a prima facie case that he is willing to get tough on our enemies when need be, and willing to sacrifice for his country.  On this point, the details of what he did in Vietman, or what Bush or anyone else did during that time period, are irrelevant.

Whether or not he was dishonest in the details of his service is a different point entirely.   Does the bravery of Kerry's service depend on whether or not he was in Cambodia?  Kerry is using Vietman to demonstrate that he is courageous, not that he is honest.

Also, the people in the swiftboard ad claim that Kerry's time in Vietnam makes him "unfit for command"....would they believe he was more fit for command if he didn't mention his Vietnam service during the campaign?

[CARLHAYDEN]

So now we have yet another approach defense of Kerry's adventures in southeast asia.

According to this approach we shouldn't look at "...the details of what he did..."

Also, the questions about whether Kerry actually spent christmas in cambodia in  1968 as he alledged is not simply whether he was lying, but wheather he really believes that story.

Although its nice to see NickG tacity admitting that Kerry is less than honest about his adventures in southeast asia, I'm more concerned with whether Kerry is delusional than with his 'dishonesty' or 'courage' (or lack thereof).

[Citizen James]

I've seen the claim that he was as part of the congressional record (though the site was a rabid partisan one, the photocopy reads like the congressional record would), where is the claim that he wasn't?  Just curious.

From what I understand, operation SEALORD included patroling the Cambodian border in an attempt to intradict Viet-Cong supply lines.

I know that there is a lot of misinformation, rumors, innuendo, and outright lies on the net - so I'm curious as to a factual, reliable, non-partisan source for him having said otherwise, or of strong evidence from a relaible source otherwise.

[CARLHAYDEN]

James, if you had read my earliest posting on this thread, you would see that there has been a considerable tendency by Kerry to be less than honest about his experience in Viet Nam (I gave specific examples).

If you look at the record, you will see exactly what I mean.  Any good search engine will take you to a number of sites which quote the lengthy testimony of Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971.

Similiarly his allegations about medal/ribbon throwing is thoroughy documented.

With respect to the Kerry in Cambodia , the liberal media refuses to examine the issue because they have a pretty good idea of the result.

Please email the liberal media and ask them to stop covering up this matter.

[Citizen James]

James, if you had read my earliest posting on this thread, you would see that there has been a considerable tendency by Kerry to be less than honest about his experience in Viet Nam (I gave specific examples).

If you look at the record, you will see exactly what I mean.  Any good search engine will take you to a number of sites which quote the lengthy testimony of Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971.

Similiarly his allegations about medal/ribbon throwing is thoroughy documented.

With respect to the Kerry in Cambodia , the liberal media refuses to examine the issue because they have a pretty good idea of the result.

Please email the liberal media and ask them to stop covering up this matter.

I know there are a lot of rumors out there.  Rumors about Bush include claims he was AWOL, and that he used cocaine.    I dismiss these rumors as unsubstantiated because I have seen no serious evidence of them being true.   If a rumor of something being found several places on the net were the only criteria for veracity, both of those would easily pass.  

According to Fox News, an orginization not exactly known for it's liberalism, the group 'swift boat veterains for truth' has made assertions that he was not in Cambodia but that said claims have not been independently checked.

I suspect that various news orginizations are trying looking in to this, but the claims I have seen in this thread are that he has personally backpeddled on the claim and I wanted to see independent confirmation to see if such claims possessed validity.

If he was in Cambodia, and made comments about it 18 years ago which weren't particularly controversial I don't see how it is remarkably newsworthy.  If he has contradicted himself, I want to see the evidence to back up said contradiction.

From a navy history page: Naval history

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From this account, it would appear that we did have boats in Cambodia in December of 1968.   This does not establish whether or not Kerry was on one of those boats, but it is clearly plausable unless someone has evidence to the contrary.  (and I think the media will be investigating in hopes of getting some sort of a scoop - or is fox considered 'liberal media' as well in your opinion?)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

So now we have yet another approach defense of Kerry's adventures in southeast asia.

According to this approach we shouldn't look at "...the details of what he did..."

Also, the questions about whether Kerry actually spent christmas in cambodia in  1968 as he alledged is not simply whether he was lying, but wheather he really believes that story.

Although its nice to see NickG tacity admitting that Kerry is less than honest about his adventures in southeast asia, I'm more concerned with whether Kerry is delusional than with his 'dishonesty' or 'courage' (or lack thereof).

I have no idea whether Kerry is being honest or not about each detail of his service...clearly there are conflicting reports, and none of the parties are particularly neutral arbiters.  

I'm just saying that just because Kerry has made his courage and sacrifice for his country a theme of his campaign, that doesn't make every detail of his time in Vietnam a relevant campaign issue.  

Kerry is trying to establish the basic credentials for a commander in chief.   I think he's done that merely by volunteering to serve.  I assume he took his boat where he was commanded to take it: on which particular days he happened to recieve enemy fire is purely coincidental.  

[MODU]

I'm just saying that just because Kerry has made his courage and sacrifice for his country a theme of his campaign, that doesn't make every detail of his time in Vietnam a relevant campaign issue.  

Kerry is trying to establish the basic credentials for a commander in chief.  

Sure it does, since that is all he is campaigning on outside of the A.B.B. platform.  What are the Republicans suppose to do?  Sit down and spin their thumbs around waiting for him to come up with some detailed plans for what he'd like to do if he were to be elected?  They'd be waiting till Nov 1st at the current rate Kerry's going.  

Since Kerry has wrapped himself in his limitted (and suspicious) VN experience, while keeping silent on his anti-VN years or his lousy years in Congress, his 4 months in theatre are fair game.

[CARLHAYDEN]

James, if you had read my earliest posting on this thread, you would see that there has been a considerable tendency by Kerry to be less than honest about his experience in Viet Nam (I gave specific examples).

If you look at the record, you will see exactly what I mean.  Any good search engine will take you to a number of sites which quote the lengthy testimony of Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971.

Similiarly his allegations about medal/ribbon throwing is thoroughy documented.

With respect to the Kerry in Cambodia , the liberal media refuses to examine the issue because they have a pretty good idea of the result.

Please email the liberal media and ask them to stop covering up this matter.

I know there are a lot of rumors out there.  Rumors about Bush include claims he was AWOL, and that he used cocaine.    I dismiss these rumors as unsubstantiated because I have seen no serious evidence of them being true.   If a rumor of something being found several places on the net were the only criteria for veracity, both of those would easily pass.  

According to Fox News, an orginization not exactly known for it's liberalism, the group 'swift boat veterains for truth' has made assertions that he was not in Cambodia but that said claims have not been independently checked.

I suspect that various news orginizations are trying looking in to this, but the claims I have seen in this thread are that he has personally backpeddled on the claim and I wanted to see independent confirmation to see if such claims possessed validity.

If he was in Cambodia, and made comments about it 18 years ago which weren't particularly controversial I don't see how it is remarkably newsworthy.  If he has contradicted himself, I want to see the evidence to back up said contradiction.

From a navy history page: Naval history

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From this account, it would appear that we did have boats in Cambodia in December of 1968.   This does not establish whether or not Kerry was on one of those boats, but it is clearly plausable unless someone has evidence to the contrary.  (and I think the media will be investigating in hopes of getting some sort of a scoop - or is fox considered 'liberal media' as well in your opinion?)

James, once again we have an example of the liberal technique of "change the subject." I NEVER said a single thing about "rumors" of Kerry being AWOL or using drugs (YOU brought those allegations up).

I gave specific examples of other statements made by Kerry about his Viet Nam experiences which he has subsequently backed away from, and which are contrary to established fact.

His own biographer, David Brinkley, has stated that it would have been impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968.

Stop tossing red herrings into the mix, and lets look as specific points.

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, as he has gone on the record as alledging?

Seems a pretty simple question to me.

Why all the obfuscation by the Kerry backers on this matter?

If you believe that Kerry WAS in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, then simply say so!

If you don't believe he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, they say so!!

Stop the name calling, and deal with the issue at hand!!!