Connections between Bush and Swift Vets

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well he's bleeding plenty now -- what with him being on his period and all.

 

I'm done...

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Mike, there's nothing that say Secretary of Navy under Heyland's signature. It says Admiral, US Navy and Commander in Chief of US Pacific Fleet. Admittally, I know nothing about chain of command, but on the second page, the signature of secretaryo f navy looks a lot different than the first one.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, there's nothing that say Secretary of Navy under Heyland's signature. It says Admiral, US Navy and Commander in Chief of US Pacific Fleet. Admittally, I know nothing about chain of command, but on the second page, the signature of secretaryo f navy looks a lot different than the first one.

Kerry has had the citation re-done three seperate times.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

BTW, according to a Fox News report by Major Garrett, the Kerry campaign is recognizing that his first Purple Heart might be from an unintentional self-inflicted wound.

I checked and the response from the Kerry campaign is "Anything is possible"

 

Kerry's own journal entry about the incident states that no enemy fire was present.

 

It would be quite the coup if it were true.

 

The claim is that there's a journal entry from nine days after the first Purple Heart talking about how they hadn't been fired upon yet.

 

So, apparently, this is ANOTHER thing Kerry had wrong and those "lying" SVBT had correct.

 

"Anything is Possible"

 

Strange how that went from "maybe" to "yes it happened like that".

 

True. Kerry won't run on his Senate record. He chose to run on his 4 month tour of duty.

 

I'm sure the "tour of duty" thing is easily backed up in the primary debates, speeches, and such. And it's not a myth to rationalize this. Not at all.

 

Using a piece by SID BLUMENTHAL --- the same guy who criticized Bush Sr's war record? Nice try. I'll ignore it, as it's by Blumenthal.

 

"As for the Dems growing spines, kudos to them. If only they'd work on the whole "attack the message and not the messenger" thing, they'd be peachy."

 

Practice what you preach.

 

And investigating something isn't exactly the strongest record for a 19 year career.

 

It's all about interest group ratings! Yaay! (and distorting voting records)

 

If he mentions Iran/Contra, he'll be laughed out of the building as the rest of the Senate will set the record straight.

 

BCCI? If he thinks a soul gives a shit, he can feel free.

 

Yeah, trying to bust a corrupt bank that have accounts owned by terrorists (Abu Nidal), tyrants (Saddam Hussein) and drug lords is nothing.

 

Not to mention the fact that he ended up going against quite a few people, especially when the investigation went into Clark Clifford's links. (Clifford being a Democrat and all)

 

I'm a gamer. I have plenty of problems with Joe.

 

Not to mention the time he was caught in that crackhouse.

 

Oh, that was the Dad from ALF. Nevermind

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, according to a Fox News report by Major Garrett, the Kerry campaign is recognizing that his first Purple Heart might be from an unintentional self-inflicted wound.

I checked and the response from the Kerry campaign is "Anything is possible"

Of course, was this even REMOTELY possible, oh, for the past 30 years?

 

He didn't seem able to acknowledge it --- until SVBT made points he could no longer refute.

Kerry's own journal entry about the incident states that no enemy fire was present.

It would be quite the coup if it were true.

 

The claim is that there's a journal entry from nine days after the first Purple Heart talking about how they hadn't been fired upon yet.

Of course, if it was an outright lie, somebody would have released some journals to disprove it.

 

But he has not.

I'm just saying...

So, apparently, this is ANOTHER thing Kerry had wrong and those "lying" SVBT had correct.

"Anything is Possible"

 

Strange how that went from "maybe" to "yes it happened like that".

Funny how it went from ridiculous charge to possibility, no?

True. Kerry won't run on his Senate record. He chose to run on his 4 month tour of duty.

I'm sure the "tour of duty" thing is easily backed up in the primary debates, speeches, and such. And it's not a myth to rationalize this. Not at all.

They are CHANGING "Tour of Duty" (the whole Christmas in Cambodia story is being moved to a later date --- with still no evidence).

 

He ran on his military record. He made a decision. It's hardly unfair to question it. Besides, HE had no problem criticizing Bush's record. He was quite open about it.

 

And, yes, if you'd like --- I do have links to it.

Using a piece by SID BLUMENTHAL --- the same guy who criticized Bush Sr's war record? Nice try. I'll ignore it, as it's by Blumenthal.

"As for the Dems growing spines, kudos to them. If only they'd work on the whole "attack the message and not the messenger" thing, they'd be peachy."

 

Practice what you preach.

I'm not subscribing to salon.com to read it. He has a LONG track record of being a TOTAL toadie to the Democrats. If you wish to provide it, have a blast.

And investigating something isn't exactly the strongest record for a 19 year career.

 

It's all about interest group ratings! Yaay! (and distorting voting records)

What's been distorted? He doesn't exactly have a firm record to even mention.

If he mentions Iran/Contra, he'll be laughed out of the building as the rest of the Senate will set the record straight.

BCCI? If he thinks a soul gives a shit, he can feel free.

Yeah, trying to bust a corrupt bank that have accounts owned by terrorists (Abu Nidal), tyrants (Saddam Hussein) and drug lords is nothing.

If he wishes to run on it, he can feel free. It won't do him any good, but he can try.

Not to mention the fact that he ended up going against quite a few people, especially when the investigation went into Clark Clifford's links. (Clifford being a Democrat and all)

And who's decided to not run on that? Why, Kerry. Why? Because he has a WEAK record for 19 years.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EXACT PHRASE --- it's not even partisan, it's personal.

 

You don't seem to mesh up here.

Exactly. I don't like him because he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat, I don't like him and would even take another Republican over him. That's what I mean. IOW, it goes beyond typical "He's Republican, GRR!!!"

 

That's what I mean by "it's not even partisan, it's personal." Partisan dislike would be simply me being against him because he's got a ® next to his name.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Especially since Bush has never made his service an issue and never insulted vets.

 

True. Kerry won't run on his Senate record. He chose to run on his 4 month tour of duty.

And this means what exactly?

 

Bush ran on 9/11. Does that mean it's okay for MoveOn to make accusations saying that Bush dropped the ball in that?

 

You know if Bush had a better Vietnam record, he'd swing it around in the air, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

Especially since Bush has never made his service an issue and never insulted vets.

 

True. Kerry won't run on his Senate record. He chose to run on his 4 month tour of duty.

And this means what exactly?

 

Bush ran on 9/11. Does that mean it's okay for MoveOn to make accusations saying that Bush dropped the ball in that?

They have done that. For months. I guess you missed it.

You know if Bush had a better Vietnam record, he'd swing it around in the air, too.

Well, ironically, there isn't a group coming out claiming Bush lied about his record.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, I might be nuts --- but doesn't THIS kind of look like the DNC, Moveon.org, etc. are working together again.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Quote something already. I'm not going to read a bunch of PR gobbeldygook and then try and figure out what you were specifically referring to.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They have done that. For months. I guess you missed it.

And that's totally justified, right? Because that's what Bush has been focusing his campaign on for some time.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quote something already. I'm not going to read a bunch of PR gobbeldygook and then try and figure out what you were specifically referring to.

The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.

Really --- not THAT hard to figure out.

And that's totally justified, right? Because that's what Bush has been focusing his campaign on for some time.

Absolutely. They get 60 people under affidavit saying that this was solely his fault --- they can knock themselves out.

 

Bush has never said his actions were perfect during 9/11 or leading into 9/11. I'm not exactly sure what they're supposed to criticize.

 

The War on Iraq? Kerry said he'd approve sending troops there knowing what we know now. Finding bin Laden? Well, if Kerry provides a way to quickly get hard intel on the ground to infiltrate Al Qaeda, more power to him.

 

In case you've missed it --- they've incessantly bitched about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

 

Kerry is just pissy because, for a rarity, a 527 attacked him.

 

Again, he's like Red Sox owner John Henry.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Absolutely. They get 60 people under affidavit saying that this was solely his fault --- they can knock themselves out.

I don't remember any law that says you need 60 people under affadavit to run a political ad.

 

Bush has never said his actions were perfect during 9/11 or leading into 9/11. I'm not exactly sure what they're supposed to criticize.

I think there's been criticism, which you probably don't agree with, that he could have done better in the hours, days, and months that followed.

 

In case you've missed it --- they've incessantly bitched about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Right. And that's been the focus of Bush's campaign. Perhaps you don't understand what I've been saying. You're saying that Kerry's only facing all this because he made such a big fat stinkin' deal of his service on the campaign. And I'm saying, Bush has made just as big a deal about security. Hence the ads.

[Guest MikeSC]

Absolutely. They get 60 people under affidavit saying that this was solely his fault --- they can knock themselves out.

I don't remember any law that says you need 60 people under affadavit to run a political ad.

Makes them a bit more believable. After all, unless you're the President and it's only about sex, lying on an affidavit is pretty heavily frowned upon.

Bush has never said his actions were perfect during 9/11 or leading into 9/11. I'm not exactly sure what they're supposed to criticize.

I think there's been criticism, which you probably don't agree with, that he could have done better in the hours, days, and months that followed.

And, just in case you missed it, it's been mentioned.

 

A lot.

 

Did you miss F 9/11?

In case you've missed it --- they've incessantly bitched about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Right. And that's been the focus of Bush's campaign. Perhaps you don't understand what I've been saying. You're saying that Kerry's only facing all this because he made such a big fat stinkin' deal of his service on the campaign. And I'm saying, Bush has made just as big a deal about security. Hence the ads.

Just checking --- there is a POINT to this, right? I never advocated silencing all of the "Bush knew..." ads --- hell, I say air more of them as they only serve to help the President.

-=Mike

...Again, John Kerry is the John Henry of politics...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Makes them a bit more believable. After all, unless you're the President and it's only about sex, lying on an affidavit is pretty heavily frowned upon.

Makes this a little weird, doesn't it?

 

Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

 

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

 

I wonder what the penalties for lying on an affidavit are?

 

Just checking --- there is a POINT to this, right? I never advocated silencing all of the "Bush knew..." ads

Oh? Funny. I seem to remember otherwise.

[Guest MikeSC]

Makes them a bit more believable. After all, unless you're the President and it's only about sex, lying on an affidavit is pretty heavily frowned upon.

Makes this a little weird, doesn't it?

 

Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

 

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

 

I wonder what the penalties for lying on an affidavit are?

 

Perhaps you should provide a little evidence that he's, you know, LYING.

Just checking --- there is a POINT to this, right? I never advocated silencing all of the "Bush knew..." ads

Oh? Funny. I seem to remember otherwise.

I thought they were bullshit and tasteless --- but the phrase "ban them" never appeared from me.

 

Thine memory is tres faulty.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry.

(...)

A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

[Guest MikeSC]

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry.

(...)

A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Still haven't proven a lie.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry.

(...)

A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Still haven't proven a lie.

-=Mike

One possible explanation

 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...NYT02/408200706

 

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

 

The unintentionally amusing part of this is the filler where these articles mention what Kerry's initials really are. Those writers would be screwed if John Kerry called himself "John Forbes Kerry".

 

As a good will offering, i'm willing to accept that John O'Neill, Navy veteran, somehow didn't know that, instead of thinking there's something more sinister at hand.

 

and I will file the following under "Coincidence":

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...n_bush_ads_dc_4

 

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign has been providing legal advice to the group that has accused Democrat John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record, informed sources said on Tuesday.

 

We'll see where this goes.

[Guest MikeSC]

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry.

(...)

A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Still haven't proven a lie.

-=Mike

One possible explanation

 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...NYT02/408200706

 

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

 

The unintentionally amusing part of this is the filler where these articles mention what Kerry's initials really are. Those writers would be screwed if John Kerry called himself "John Forbes Kerry".

 

As a good will offering, i'm willing to accept that John O'Neill, Navy veteran, somehow didn't know that, instead of thinking there's something more sinister at hand.

 

and I will file the following under "Coincidence":

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...n_bush_ads_dc_4

 

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign has been providing legal advice to the group that has accused Democrat John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record, informed sources said on Tuesday.

 

We'll see where this goes.

What? A prominent lawyer is REPRESENTING these people?

 

OH MY GOD! WE'RE DEAD! DEAD!

 

Hmm, William Bennett represented BOTH Tucker Carlson AND Bill Clinton. Thus, using your logic, TUCKER CARLSON SUPPORTED BILL CLINTON!!!

 

AIEEEE!

 

Just checking --- do you write for mediamatters.org?

-=Mike

...Who's awaiting proof that somebody besides Kerry wrote the reports --- you know, like ONE OF THE GUYS WHO SUPPORT HIM! Maybe one of THEM wrote one...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

What? A prominent lawyer is REPRESENTING these people?

 

OH MY GOD! WE'RE DEAD! DEAD!

Well, a prominent lawyer who was working for the Bush campaign.

 

Hmm, William Bennett represented BOTH Tucker Carlson AND Bill Clinton. Thus, using your logic, TUCKER CARLSON SUPPORTED BILL CLINTON!!!

 

The Bennett who represented Clinton and Carlson was Bob Bennett.

 

Here's Bob:

 

Here's Bill:

 

I don't think they're brothers.

 

Just so you know.

 

(Bill Bennett did write 'Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals')

 

Just checking --- do you write for mediamatters.org?

 

Have I done anything to suggest I would be employed?

 

Anyways, Mediamatters is mostly transcripts. I'd think there wouldn't be too many people working on the writing part of the pages.

 

Who's awaiting proof that somebody besides Kerry wrote the reports --- you know, like ONE OF THE GUYS WHO SUPPORT HIM! Maybe one of THEM wrote one

 

So, Kerry's supposed to prove his innocence? interesting concept there. The legal system should steal it.

[Guest MikeSC]

What? A prominent lawyer is REPRESENTING these people?

 

OH MY GOD! WE'RE DEAD! DEAD!

Well, a prominent lawyer who was working for the Bush campaign.

And lawyers NEVER have multiple clients.

 

Not EVER.

 

You know, John O'Neill did discuss this on Hannity & Colmes tonight.

Just checking --- do you write for mediamatters.org?

 

Have I done anything to suggest I would be employed?

 

Anyways, Mediamatters is mostly transcripts. I'd think there wouldn't be too many people working on the writing part of the pages.

Damn you for ignoring my cheap shot. Bastard.

 

You should read them. Hilariously conspiratorial. Nice to see that David Brock is part of such a high-quality outfit as that.

 

MRC.org bitches about actual news shows. Media Matters bitches about OPINION shows and the like.

Who's awaiting proof that somebody besides Kerry wrote the reports --- you know, like ONE OF THE GUYS WHO SUPPORT HIM! Maybe one of THEM wrote one

So, Kerry's supposed to prove his innocence? interesting concept there. The legal system should steal it.

We have people who have signed affidavits saying this was the case. We had his commanding officer saying it was the case.

 

We only have Kerry --- who's not exactly showing himself to be a paragon of truth (or, hell, much of a proponent of free speech) --- claiming otherwise.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

As a good will offering, i'm willing to accept that John O'Neill, Navy veteran, somehow didn't know that, instead of thinking there's something more sinister at hand.

That's just rich. Also, appearantly Thurlow never read the citation of his own Bronze Star and wonder why it mentioned enemy fire.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Weird that nobody checked Slate lately, I guess, since this article is two days old, but it's been relevant in these discussions lately so here we go:

 

Holiday in Cambodia

The "Christmas Eve" attack on Kerry is cheap and almost certainly wrong.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2004, at 4:04 PM PT

 

It is a twisted state of affairs that George W. Bush's most avid surrogates are trying to make this election turn on the question of whether Lt. John Kerry was or was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968.

 

Having pretty much failed at their efforts to disprove the official U.S. Navy account of Kerry's valor in battle as skipper of a "Swift boat" patrolling the Mekong Delta, the veterans against Kerry have moved to discredit his more obscure claim—made a few times over the years, in interviews and Senate floor speeches—that, on Dec. 24, he took CIA or special ops forces across the border into Cambodia, even while Washington claimed no American troops were there.

 

Kerry first told this story publicly in an article published in the Boston Herald on Oct. 14, 1979, before he was a senator:

 

    I remember Christmas Eve of 1968, five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas.

 

He elaborated the tale on March 27, 1986, during a Senate debate over whether to aid the Nicaraguan contras:

 

    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.

 

A more intriguing reference—now known as "the famous good-luck-hat story"—was made in a Washington Post profile, by Laura Blumenfeld, published on June 1, 2003:

 

    There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attache everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

 

    "Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

 

    The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

 

    "My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

 

But now some anti-Kerry veterans are saying he was never in Cambodia. John O'Neill, who has been dogging Kerry more than 30 years, told Matt Drudge that the senator's Christmas-in-Cambodia stories "are complete lies." As evidence, he cites Kerry's own wartime diary, as quoted in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. That book—according to Drudge's account of it—places Kerry in Sa Dec, 50 miles away from Cambodia, on Christmas Eve, and seemingly at peace. "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head," Kerry wrote in his diary that night, "and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real."

 

That passage is on Page 219 of Brinkley's book. But O'Neill, Drudge, and the other sneerers choose to ignore the 10 preceding pages—the opening pages of a chapter called "Death in the Delta." On Christmas Eve 1968, Brinkley writes, Kerry and his crew:

 

    headed their Swift north by the Cho Chien River to its junction with the My Tho only miles from the Cambodian border. … Kerry began reading up on Cambodia's history in a book he had borrowed from the floating barracks in An Thoi. … He even read about a 1959 Pentagon study titled "Psychological Observations: Cambodia," which … state[d] that Cambodians "cannot be counted on to act in any positive way for the benefit of U.S. aims and policies."

 

Brinkley also quotes from Kerry's diary: "It was early morning, not yet light. Ours was the only movement on the river, patrolling near the Cambodian line." Brinkley continues: "At a bend just as they were approaching the Cambodian border, two [u.S. river-patrol boats] met the Swift." Then, again from Kerry's diary: "Suddenly, there is an explosion and a mortar lands on the bank near all three boats." The next few pages detail a ferocious firefight, one part of which involved (as his diary noted) "the ridiculous waste of being shot at by your own allies."

 

Only a few hours later, in the evening, did Kerry's boat reach the stationing area of Sa Dec. "The night for once is comforting," Kerry wrote in his diary, "and you take a Coke and some peanut butter and jelly and go up on the roof of the cabin with your tape recorder and sit for a while, quietly watching flares float silently through the sky and flashes announce disquieting intent somewhere in the distance." It is in this context that Kerry then wrote, in a letter to home, about "visions of sugarplums" and thinking of "snow and roast chestnuts."

 

So let's review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry's Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he'd never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—"near the Cambodian line," as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia.

 

It is certain that by this time, the United States had long been making secret incursions across the border. This is from Page 24 of William Shawcross' 1979 book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia:

 

    Since May 1967, when the U.S. Military Command in Saigon became concerned at the way the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were evading American "search and destroy" and air attacks in Vietnam by making more use of bases in Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. Special Forces had been running special, highly classified missions into the two countries. Their code name was Daniel Boone.

 

The Daniel Boone teams entered Cambodia all along its 500-mile frontier with South Vietnam from the lonely, craggy, impenetrable mountain forests in the north, down to the well-populated and thickly reeded waterways along the Mekong River.

 

We know that Kerry's boat and two others were in those reeds on Christmas Eve '68.

 

The Cambodian special forces' incursions—which were conducted without the knowledge, much less approval, of Congress—were escalating around that time. Just over a month later, on Feb. 9, 1969, Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, requested a B-52 bombing attack on a Communist camp inside Cambodia. (Richard Nixon, the new president, approved the plan on March 17; the first strikes of Operation Breakfast—the secret bombing of Cambodia—started the next day.) Shawcross writes that special forces were always sent across the border to survey the area for targets just before an air operation.

 

Did Kerry cross the border or just go up to it? We may never know for sure. Not much paperwork exists for covert operations (officially, U.S. forces weren't in Cambodia). Nor is it likely that a canny Swift-boat skipper (and Kerry was nothing if not canny) would jot down thoughts about such covert operations in a diary on a boat that might be captured by the enemy.

 

The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a "black" mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn't been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of.

 

But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

As a good will offering, i'm willing to accept that John O'Neill, Navy veteran, somehow didn't know that, instead of thinking there's something more sinister at hand.

That's just rich. Also, appearantly Thurlow never read the citation of his own Bronze Star and wonder why it mentioned enemy fire.

"Read? I ain't got time to read" - Larry Thurlow, Predator, 1987

 

(quote may be slightly inaccurate)

 

And lawyers NEVER have multiple clients.

 

Not EVER.

 

Well, we'll see where this goes.

 

Damn you for ignoring my cheap shot. Bastard.

 

*bites thumb at you*

 

You should read them. Hilariously conspiratorial. Nice to see that David Brock is part of such a high-quality outfit as that.

 

I check in on them from time to time.

 

MRC.org bitches about actual news shows. Media Matters bitches about OPINION shows and the like.

 

Well, i'm pretty sure on my quick check that there's stuff mentioning some news shows.

 

They should use "Why don't you just call Fidel?" as a slogan though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Weird that nobody checked Slate lately, I guess, since this article is two days old, but it's been relevant in these discussions lately so here we go:

 

Holiday in Cambodia

The "Christmas Eve" attack on Kerry is cheap and almost certainly wrong.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2004, at 4:04 PM PT

 

It is a twisted state of affairs that George W. Bush's most avid surrogates are trying to make this election turn on the question of whether Lt. John Kerry was or was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968.

 

Having pretty much failed at their efforts to disprove the official U.S. Navy account of Kerry's valor in battle as skipper of a "Swift boat" patrolling the Mekong Delta, the veterans against Kerry have moved to discredit his more obscure claim—made a few times over the years, in interviews and Senate floor speeches—that, on Dec. 24, he took CIA or special ops forces across the border into Cambodia, even while Washington claimed no American troops were there.

 

Kerry first told this story publicly in an article published in the Boston Herald on Oct. 14, 1979, before he was a senator:

 

    I remember Christmas Eve of 1968, five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas.

 

He elaborated the tale on March 27, 1986, during a Senate debate over whether to aid the Nicaraguan contras:

 

    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.

 

A more intriguing reference—now known as "the famous good-luck-hat story"—was made in a Washington Post profile, by Laura Blumenfeld, published on June 1, 2003:

 

    There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attache everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

 

    "Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

 

    The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

 

    "My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

 

But now some anti-Kerry veterans are saying he was never in Cambodia. John O'Neill, who has been dogging Kerry more than 30 years, told Matt Drudge that the senator's Christmas-in-Cambodia stories "are complete lies." As evidence, he cites Kerry's own wartime diary, as quoted in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. That book—according to Drudge's account of it—places Kerry in Sa Dec, 50 miles away from Cambodia, on Christmas Eve, and seemingly at peace. "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head," Kerry wrote in his diary that night, "and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real."

 

That passage is on Page 219 of Brinkley's book. But O'Neill, Drudge, and the other sneerers choose to ignore the 10 preceding pages—the opening pages of a chapter called "Death in the Delta." On Christmas Eve 1968, Brinkley writes, Kerry and his crew:

 

    headed their Swift north by the Cho Chien River to its junction with the My Tho only miles from the Cambodian border. … Kerry began reading up on Cambodia's history in a book he had borrowed from the floating barracks in An Thoi. … He even read about a 1959 Pentagon study titled "Psychological Observations: Cambodia," which … state[d] that Cambodians "cannot be counted on to act in any positive way for the benefit of U.S. aims and policies."

 

Brinkley also quotes from Kerry's diary: "It was early morning, not yet light. Ours was the only movement on the river, patrolling near the Cambodian line." Brinkley continues: "At a bend just as they were approaching the Cambodian border, two [u.S. river-patrol boats] met the Swift." Then, again from Kerry's diary: "Suddenly, there is an explosion and a mortar lands on the bank near all three boats." The next few pages detail a ferocious firefight, one part of which involved (as his diary noted) "the ridiculous waste of being shot at by your own allies."

 

Only a few hours later, in the evening, did Kerry's boat reach the stationing area of Sa Dec. "The night for once is comforting," Kerry wrote in his diary, "and you take a Coke and some peanut butter and jelly and go up on the roof of the cabin with your tape recorder and sit for a while, quietly watching flares float silently through the sky and flashes announce disquieting intent somewhere in the distance." It is in this context that Kerry then wrote, in a letter to home, about "visions of sugarplums" and thinking of "snow and roast chestnuts."

 

So let's review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry's Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he'd never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—"near the Cambodian line," as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia.

 

It is certain that by this time, the United States had long been making secret incursions across the border. This is from Page 24 of William Shawcross' 1979 book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia:

 

    Since May 1967, when the U.S. Military Command in Saigon became concerned at the way the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were evading American "search and destroy" and air attacks in Vietnam by making more use of bases in Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. Special Forces had been running special, highly classified missions into the two countries. Their code name was Daniel Boone.

 

The Daniel Boone teams entered Cambodia all along its 500-mile frontier with South Vietnam from the lonely, craggy, impenetrable mountain forests in the north, down to the well-populated and thickly reeded waterways along the Mekong River.

 

We know that Kerry's boat and two others were in those reeds on Christmas Eve '68.

 

The Cambodian special forces' incursions—which were conducted without the knowledge, much less approval, of Congress—were escalating around that time. Just over a month later, on Feb. 9, 1969, Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, requested a B-52 bombing attack on a Communist camp inside Cambodia. (Richard Nixon, the new president, approved the plan on March 17; the first strikes of Operation Breakfast—the secret bombing of Cambodia—started the next day.) Shawcross writes that special forces were always sent across the border to survey the area for targets just before an air operation.

 

Did Kerry cross the border or just go up to it? We may never know for sure. Not much paperwork exists for covert operations (officially, U.S. forces weren't in Cambodia). Nor is it likely that a canny Swift-boat skipper (and Kerry was nothing if not canny) would jot down thoughts about such covert operations in a diary on a boat that might be captured by the enemy.

 

The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a "black" mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn't been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of.

 

But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.

You seem to be missing one little thing --- Kerry's WORDS and ACTIONS conflict.

 

Why would Kerry's personal journals not mention Cambodia (considering that they did include fictitious meetings and arguments with military officials)? Why does NOBODY remember him being there? I suppose the press has done the work to actually SEE if LBJ gave a speech outlining US/Cambodia policy at that point in time.

 

And, oddly enough, the men on the boats who patrolled the border have said that no swift boats crossed the border on the Mekong Delta during December/January --- which was the precise claim of the SVBT.

 

It's a little sad that the press doesn't ask Kerry for a LITTLE proof for his charges. I mean, lord, Bush didn't get the benefit of the doubt with his Nat'l Guard records.

 

We know, for a fact, that Kerry was in Sa Dec. His COMMANDING OFFICER states he was there --- and unless you have a little more than Kerry's word (hardly accurate) to counter-act though, have a blast.

 

Can they explain WHAT evidence "indicates" he was on a "black" mission? His own C.O did not think that highly of him --- I doubt HE'D highly recommend him. He was a junior officer --- hardly the top option for such missions. He piloted swift boats --- which weren't USED IN CAMBODIA. He was there for four months --- hardly enough time to be considered for missions of the type.

 

To give you a hint, just because slate SAYS it's the case --- but NOTHING else corroborates --- then it's probably NOT the case.

 

And it's hilarious that you are taking slate's assumptions as the gospel --- but 60+ men with signed affidavits, considering that Kerry's own biographer says he wasn't there during Christmad, etc just isn't enough for you.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And lawyers NEVER have multiple clients.

 

Not EVER.

 

Well, we'll see where this goes.

You might want to look up Robert Bauer --- you know, the lawyer the Kerry campaign shares with ACT.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mike, it even said at the end nothing was proven. But you're just putting your fingers in your ears at this point and shouting "AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT" and it's becoming pretty pointless to discuss the matter any further. Any questions such as "Why would Kerry sign these documents with a name that's not his own?" or "Why does the guy talking about the lack of enemy gunfire have an award for that scene himself and why hasn't he investigated that?" is met with "AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT."

 

If these guys had a list of which of their people saw which events it would be the first step to gaining credibility. But in the meantime, I've got a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Becuase if you'll keep downing these guys' shit, I might as well make an attempt to get some cash out of the gullibility.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, it even said at the end nothing was proven. But you're just putting your fingers in your ears at this point and shouting "AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT" and it's becoming pretty pointless to discuss the matter any further. Any questions such as "Why would Kerry sign these documents with a name that's not his own?" or "Why does the guy talking about the lack of enemy gunfire have an award for that scene himself and why hasn't he investigated that?" is met with "AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT."

 

If these guys had a list of which of their people saw which events it would be the first step to gaining credibility. But in the meantime, I've got a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Becuase if you'll keep downing these guys' shit, I might as well make an attempt to get some cash out of the gullibility.

No, it said he DID go to Cambodia and provides absolutely ZERO evidence for it. The Swift Boat Vets said that in Christmas, he did not in Cambodia.

 

And, you're arguing something KERRY had since admitted. This isn't even a question at this point. It's a statement of fact: Kerry. Was. Not. In. Cambodia. In. 1968.

 

You keep referring to them as liars --- when the ONLY person who has had to change his story --- more than once, mind you --- is Kerry.

 

Kerry claimed he was in Cambodia. They were the first, apparently, to actually ask if this were true. His fault for mentioning it ad nauseum.

 

Read the book. He actually discusses the award.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

jesus christ, will this swift boat shit ever go away? It is almost getting to the point of, "I don't care who is telling the truth, both sides STFU about it already"