I happen to believe in the end, Bush-Cheney will come out on top. But lets not try and demean the political process. After all, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, its still good enough for todays politicians.
Posted on 08/06/2004 2:57:40 PM PDT by Steven W.
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 moe 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."
The "Christmas in Cambodia" story - if / as proven false - puts the lie to all that upon which Kerry has based his positioning etc. on over the past years; albeit his testimony before the Senate in 1970's, his rant against Reagan supporting the Butcher of Managua in the speech on the Senate floor in the 80's to his comments about Bush and lying or war today, everything, down to the utter core of his soul (whatever is there) is derived from these events. If / as proven wrong, every essence of his being and the statements or policies or positions he derives from such, literally crumble under the weight of the intellectual fraud on which this story is based.
GET A COPY OF THE SENATE TESTIMONY & KERRY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
Kerry's already been caught in several lies such as his ever changing story about the medal tossing event.
"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?"
Call me a cynic, but what I think concerns journalists is saving Kerry's campaign from becoming a disaster for him and a monumental humiliation to the Democrats.
Reminds me of the get out the vote commercial with the people all standing around saying: do something!
Well, these two quotes should be easy to research. Can't anyone research them?
Then it is just a matter of finding out if he really was there or not.
Does he really think that there are going to be discussions about that in the newsrooms. I doubt it.
An earlier release of the book "Unfit For Command", would have had a more damaging effect on the Kerry campaign. This is mostly information that was already in the public domain and is far too late in the anti-Kerry opposition gameplan to have a serious effect on the outcome of the election.
Btw. Even though its been 30 years since Watergate, whenever the name Richard Nixon is mentioned in todays political environment, people don't think of a great statesman. They think of someone who broke the law and walked on prosecution and jail time.
Call it lies, call it distortions, call it whatever you like. Most Americans have moved on and aren't interested in revisiting stories from the Vietnam War era. Kerry's record post-Vietnam and his 19 years in the US Senate should be made an issue of.
I'm sorry but this is not fair and balanced and, therefore, the ultra-left wing neocommunist media will not touch it. The NYT, IIRC, maintained absolute secrecy on all classified and secret matters regarding Nam and would be unable to comment on whether traitor John had ever been in Cambodia.
VAN SUSTEREN: Michael, did he cooperate at all with this or participate or sit down for interviews?
MICHAEL KRANISH, KERRY BIOGRAPHER: Well, sure. We did a series last year. It was a seven part series that ran 14 pages in the newspaper and he sat down for about ten hours of interviews for this series.
The book was written during the time when he was still running for the nomination right at the height of the Super Tuesday primaries and so forth, so our material for interviews was from the series.
To go back to your question you asked Nina, you know, he's also a skeptic of government. So, you ask why does he go, some people say flip- flop, other people would say why does he question things the way that he does?
A very short anecdote, he was in Vietnam and he was in Cambodia as part of a mission. I don't know if he intended to go but that's where he was but the government that was running the war knew that troops were in Cambodia but Nixon, President Nixon at the time was telling the American public, "We're not in Cambodia."
So, from a very early time, John Kerry is skeptical of government and he came back to protest the war that he participated in, so this is where some of this inner belief comes from. He does -- he did serve but he also questioned.
Was he lost?
by the way, Nixon was not President at the time, I am told.
Personally, I think he was ticked off because he was told to go home.
Christmas Eve 1968 Johnson was in office, not Nixon
That's the point. Kerry was lying if you believe what John O'Neill wrote in his book. Nixon wasn't in office and Kerry was never in Cambodia. Just trying to find a primary source to prove it.
WOW!! Christmas in Cambodia story!! This story is a centipede it has so many legs!!
Golly....Nixon didn't take office until Jan.20th,1969.
...hmmmmm "I'll take " kerrys Fabricated Lies Told to Try to Become President for $1000. Alex"......
Kerry was known to get lost while commanding his boat. It is possible he wandered into Cambodia :)
In politics, perception is reality and right now the Kerry campaign, with help from the partisan media cohorts faction of the liberal establishment, are spinning things just right. After the GOP convention, things might be different. Let's hope so.
And.... welcome to FR!
Any DC Freepers who can get to the Library of Congress and find the Congressional Record volume for that date. It's not online ( 95 and on ).
I think journalist and the so called "Mainstream Media" are doing everything they can to get Kerry elected and will go to any means to cover up for him.
Should be on micro-fiche at your local library... or available from inter-library loan.
Ping for the Truth!
Hugh also notes the following re Drudge coverage of Globe fiasco:
If I was Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish, I'd sue Drudge for libel. Drudge slammed Kranish today, stating flatly that "BOSTON GLOBE 'REPORTER' COMMISSIONED TO WRITE CAMPAIGN BOOK FORWARD -- WHILE COVERING KERRY." Boston Globe editor Martin Baron put out a statement today stating that "[i]t is completely untrue that Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication. Earlier this summer, Mr. Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry...to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. When Public Affairs subsequently struck anagreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended." I believe Baron though I have been highly critical of him over the years, and appreciate how harmful the Drudge accusation is to the reputation of a reporter. I was ready to spend part of a show blasting the Globe and Kranish when we checked with Kranish and quickly got the real story. If I could do it, why didn't Drudge?
Kranish is undoubtedly a public figure, so the libel standard would be knowing or reckless disregard for the truth, but the damage done to his repuation via this Drudge hit is huge --notice that Drudge used quotation marks around the word "reporter"-- and probably impossible to ever fully repair. Millions of people will think he was in the tank for Kerry in his writing of the swift boat stories and will never get the correction, and the test for libel is damage done to reputation in the community. Drudge would be well-advised to apologize immediately and profusely for his indefensible error.
Have you read Chapter 3 of O'Neill's book, which is available on the web thru Human Events? There was an LCU and other boats stationed in the river near the Cambodian border to prevent anyone from accidentally crossing over into Cambodia. And that's just for starters.
From the book, Chap 3:
"During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.
You miss the point - you don't need to prove whether Kerry was there, all you need to do is prove (a) Nixon was not President in 1968 (DUH) and (b) Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate as he did fighting Reagan in the 1980's and providing the details of his "story" (thus disproving itself)
How do you know what is in the book? I have read only Chapter 3 and discovered plenty of new facts and information. If the rest of the book contains similar revelations, it will have a major effect. The best time for its release was after the Dems chose him as their candidate.
John Kerry - the precursor to Lynndie England.
Go away troll
Kerry has not denied any of the things the Swift Boat Vets have said as far as I can tell. Kerry has just sent his attack dogs out. Seems Kerry could clear this up with a simple denial and release of records.
Doesn't this clear up the confusion?
Hugh researching this story further ... hopefully he'll be able to get Senate speech. He's approaching this as a lawyer which is the right way because this particular story of Kerry's undermines all his positions and posturing over the years - if shown to be a falsehood then it's the straw which breaks the camel's back & then all the other stories he's made or concocted will fall assuredly.
I happen to believe in the end, Bush-Cheney will come out on top. But lets not try and demean the political process. After all, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, its still good enough for todays politicians.
If you were active during the 80's then you recall John Kerry as one of the most vitriolic enemies of Ronald Reagan, particularly when it came to his (Kerry's) support of Daniel Ortega. This speech was during the height of the debate on the floor of the Senate. It's not just Vietnam that's at issue here - IT IS THE ESSENTIAL BEING OF JOHN KERRY that is being called into question here ... if the reason he supports the Butcher of Managua or calls the POTUS a liar and promises people in this election that he'll tell the truth because of his EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM WHEN HE WAS SENT TO CAMBODIA BY A POTUS WHO LIED - that is the crux of everything Kerry has ever stood for and has been proven demonstrably & obviously FALSE & CONCOCTED - Nixon didn't become president until 1969. Thus the whole basis of Kerry's being is VOID and NULL. The rationale for his very existence is completely undermined, no matter what the debate of this day might be.
The Kerry-in-Cambodia-on-Christmas-Eve-1968 story gets stranger.
Here's the relevant section from the Boston Globe's biography of Kerry:
"On Christmas Eve of 1968, as Kerry's fifty-foot aluminum craft floated in the waters off Cambodia, he was about to get firsthand experience with the free-fire policy that he would come to despise."
"The United States believed that the Vietcong would follow a Christmastime truce, and Kerry was expecting a quiet holiday observance. But the truce was only three minutes old when mortar fire suddenly exploded around Kerry and his five-man crew."
"'Where is the enemy?' a crewmate shouted."
"'Open fire; let's take 'em,' Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. In the distance, an elderly man in the cross fire was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Vietcong manning a machine-gun nest. Wasser said he opened fire with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped in the water, presumably dead. With a clear path to the enemy, the fusillade from Kerry's navy boat, backed by a pair of other small vessels, silenced the machine-gun nest."
"When it was over, the Vietcong were dead, wounded, or on the run. A civilian apparently was killed, and two South Vietnamese allies who had alerted Kerry's crew to the enemy were either wounded or killed."
"On the same night, when some South Vietnamese allies launched several rounds into the river to celebrate the holiday, Kerry and his crew had come within a half-inch of being killed by 'friendly fire.'"
"To top it off, Kerry said later he had gone inside Cambodia, despite President Nixon's assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled." [pp.83-84].
My post from earlier today, at 12:30 PM --apologies for the broken permalinks, so you'll have to scroll down-- argues that if the authors of Unfit for Command are correct in reporting that Kerry has spoken of his illegal incursion into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 on the floor of the Senate in 1986, and in an interview with the Boston Herald --and elsewhere?-- then John Kerry has a huge, huge credibility problem. You don't "misremember" heading into Cambodia, or get a detail wrong about who was president during your service, but it is tempting to make up the drama you need to add credibility to your political positions.
The Boston Globe's account seems to suggest that others on the boat have agreed that a Christmas Eve firefight occured. Do they agree it happened in Cambodia, and if so, what's that do to their credibility in the war of words among warriors underway right now? The venom directed at Kerry's critics among the swift boat veterans, including Ann Lewis and Donna Brazille on Crossfire today calling these men "liars"-- tells me that the Kerry campaiogn is deeply worried about this attack on the central theme of Kerry's campaign. Well, if he lied about being sent to Cambodia, Kerry's narrative is in trouble. It will remain true that he saved a man's life, but that day's undeiable courage does not validate or protect Kerry's record then or since. A powerful demonstration of obvious falsehood on a key claim is a major blow to Kerry.
WQhich is why the focus ought to be on the Cambodia story, over and over again. Did Kerry make that claim? Did he do so in the Senate as part of a political argument about Nicaragua? If so, what's that tell us about his willingness to invent personal history to serve his political ambition?
JustOneMinute is relentless on other aspects of the story, and I hope he'll turn his attention to this one as well. Anyone got a Congressional Record from March 27, 1986? Let's see if we can proof the assertion made in Unfit for Command about Kerry's speech in 1986.
I haven't read the book, but if it contained new revelations about John Kerry that cast him in a negative light, we would have heard about it by now. At this stage of the general election campaign, most folks will be perceiving all this anti-Kerry rhetoric, as a last ditch effort to help defeat John Kerry. And you know what, they'd be right.
Guess I have some studying to do on Monday.
This isn't about my perception and my understanding of historical events. However, its about the perception and understanding of the American voter, specifically, the undecided voters who are influenced by current events up until and including election day. To most Americans, Vietnam is an event that occured a long long time ago. Attacking John Kerry's war record in Vietnam is counterproductive, at this point.
>>>If you were active during the 80's ....
I moved heaven and earth to get Reagan elected in 1976, 1980 and 1984. Nuff said.
Letters
Humanitarian aid to Nicaraguan Contras: President Reagan, 6422 [27MR]
Remarks by, on
Central America: International Security and Development Cooperation Act (S.J. Res. 283), 6308 [26MR], 6421-6423 [27MR]
Nicaragua: Military assistance to Contras (S.J. Res. 283), 6308 [26MR], 6421-6423 [27MR]
It looks like pages 6421-6423 are the best bet. I can't get to a Federal Depository Library any time soon. If someone is interested in pursuing this, you can look up the library closest to you at Locate Federal Depository Libraries by State or Area Code
Access: The Library of Congress has recently released the Record the 43rd Congress, 1873-75. The Daily Digest is not included.
There are separate indexes for the House and Senate for each session.
You may also access the full text through Congressional Universe, beginning with the 99th Congress (1985). Other access points are Thomas (1989+) or GPO Access (1995+).
The Library of Congress has recently released the Record the 43rd Congress, 1873-75. The Daily Digest is not included.
Read chapter 3. It contains new revelations. Since the book has not been released yet, how do you know what's in it? They have moved the release date up. If you wait a few days, you may be surprised.
At this stage of the general election campaign, most folks will be perceiving all this anti-Kerry rhetoric, as a last ditch effort to help defeat John Kerry. And you know what, they'd be right.
The timing couldn't be better. If you have a vulnerable candidate running in the Dem primary, you don't expose him until after he wins the nomination. The public at large doesn't start focussing on the candidates until after the conventions and Labor day. There will be plenty of anti-Bush as well as anti-Kerry rhetoric. The Dems dropped the DWI revelation on Bush 2 weeks before the election. In many cases, you withhold the most damaging stuff until late in the race to prevent the other guy from responding or spinning it. Timing is everything.
That's a matter of perception. I think you're hoping for a miracle that will set the Kerry campaign way, way, way back. While I'd love to see that happen, I don't believe that will happen. Hoping for the best for our President is fine, but don't lose your connection with reality. After all, do you really think John Kerry would have run for POTUS, if he thought his military and political record would have undermined his chances of getting elected? Personally, I think not so.
And personally, I think Bush-Cheney will be victorious in the end, no matter what Kerry-Edwards does.
Bush has Ohio.
Gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November.
Kerry may as well just pull out.
Oh, and Cleveland Browns Quarterback Bernie Kosar is stumping for Bush. Wonder if he's mentioned Theresa Steeler Heinz is from Pittsburgh yet.
Ohio, Kosar and BUSH. Nice trifecta!
You're still not getting it - it's not Vietnam ... this has effectively exposed his inner being as devoid of anything substantive or real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.