[Lerkfish]

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105529

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:

Continue Article


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." [Italics added.]

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." [Italics added.] 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.

[spacefreak]

I didn't see anything on that author's article that suggested this was Slate's official "take" on the topic.

Where's this dude's proof? All he does is just say "Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas". Furthermore, if Kerry was indeed in Cambodia that Christmas, why is his biographer (Brinkley) scrambling to revise the dates to state that is was the following February?

Sorry. Unlike King Kerry, you can't have it both ways

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I didn't see anything on that author's article that suggested this was Slate's official "tkae" on the topic.

Where's this dude's proof? All he does is just say "Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas".

Give the guy some credit. He's probably been searching the web all day looking for something. Anything.

[PacHead]

Some people are claiming this whole issue is "irrelevant" and nobody cares about it.

Then why are the leftists soiling their pants and attempting to repair the damage in every second thread ?

[Zimphire]

I'm waiting for Kerry to announce he is married to Morgan Fairchild.

That's the ticket!

[Timo]

Slate's account seems nuanced, balanced, and conflicted enough to represent the confusion of the real. Anti-Drudge, if you will.

And the responses to nuance? Uniformly shallow marketing hype and shrill "yeah my team" droning. That, my friends, is what we call intellectual bankrupcy.

Hmmm...which gets me thinking. Everyone knows GWB is trying to starve the Federal Government as a way to reduce it. I guess taking out all the nuance and substance in debates is another way to reduce the size and importance of debates...

[zigzag]

Hmm - I gave the Cambodia embellishment story initial credence, figuring it wasn't beyond any politician (or human, for that matter) to gild the lily. After all, if everyone who claims they were at Woodstock had really been there, it would've been a crowd of over 3 million.

Anyway, unless this article is a fabrication, it now seems that the Swift Boat guys are guilty of distortions that would make Michael Moore blush. They've contradicted the official records, themselves, and the nearest eyewitnesses on just about every count. Of course, there could always be more to the story, so I'm not ruling anything out, but it increasingly looks like much ado about nothing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So in other words, Johnson sent Kerry to Cambodia, and Democrats have been lying all these years about it being Nixon, and not themselves who expanded the war there.

In order to save Kerry’s ass from one lie, you have to come clean about having lied and placed blame incorrectly on Nixon all these years.

Which is it?

Hey Democrats- either way… you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So in other words, Johnson sent Kerry to Cambodia, and Democrats have been lying all these years about it being Nixon, and not themselves who expanded the war there.

In order to save Kerry’s ass from one lie, you have to come clean about having lied and placed blame incorrectly on Nixon all these years.

Which is it?

Hey Democrats- either way… you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do!

I don't know anyone who doesn't hold LBJ accountable - just the other day, in another thread, I pointed out to someone that Johnson used trumped-up information about the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext to escalate the war. Hell, because of the mess he had created, he didn't run for re-election.

As of Christmas 1968, Nixon was a few weeks short of being inaugurated, but during the campaign he had opposed going into Cambodia. Within a couple of months, he was secretly bombing Cambodia. A year later, he officially announced an invasion, one of the most controversial moments in the history of the war, and one reason that Nixon was vilified despite having inherited the war from the Democrats.

I'd like to see Kerry explain and/or clarify his statements, although if this article is any indication, there's not much to explain. We know that people were going into Cambodia and that the government was (and in some cases still is) denying it. Either way, if the worst he can be accused of is referring to Nixon instead of Johnson, it doesn't strike me as a big deal - he's probably done dumber things.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't know anyone who doesn't hold LBJ accountable - just the other day, in another thread, I pointed out to someone that Johnson used trumped-up information about the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext to escalate the war. Hell, because of the mess he had created, he didn't run for re-election.

No one holds Johnson accountable for US involvement in Cambodia, simply because he isn’t. By all reputable accounts, Nixon started with bombings of Cambodia in March and April 1969, and then troops there in May. The US wasn’t in Cambodia before that, and if Kerry was, he was conducting his own private illegal operation and has no room to blame Nixon for it in any case. That in itself would show that he has a failing of character if he personally invaded another country and fought and killed people there of his own accord.

Then again, since he floated another variant of his Cambodia story after the movie Apocalypse Now came out, maybe he was pretending to be Colonel Kurtz, and he was pretending he had his own private war.

I think it’s just silly all this re-writing of history just to support what is obviously a fabrication. Obviously Kerry simply embellished the fact that he was NEAR Cambodia. He added details as it suited him. It had to be Christmas, because that was to add the emotional impact of the date. (He obviously didn’t think through the timeline however with regards to Nixon/Johnson being in office)

Depending on when he was floating the embellishment, he was fighting the Khmer Rouge, because those details fit the story he needed to lambaste Nixon. At another time, he was fighting drunken South Vietnamese because for whatever reason it was fashionable for him to level a charge against our allies. What exactly South Vietnamese forces were doing in Cambodia celebrating Christmas with the Khmer Rouge (by the way, is either group necessarily Christian?) is anyone’s guess.

The whole thing is just silly. It’s an obvious embellishment, and the whole point of bringing it up isn’t even that it’s at all hard to refute, it just illustrates a bizarre habit of Kerry’s to make ridiculous claims, have the facts change arbitrarily, falsely accuse others in the process (the worst element), and yet INSIST that easily disproved lies are seared in his memory- which further undermines his being able to backpedal later when confronted with the inconsistencies. It’s just a bizzarro trait of Kerry’s.

Sure, other politicians also have bizarre traits, embellish the facts and outright lie, but Kerry is particularly curious in how brash and insistent he his is in his lies, and how stupid he expects everyone else to be not to notice.

I don’t really see the point in jumping through logic hoops to deny that he’s been lying about being in Cambodia for 30+ years. (Well, actually I do- absolute desperate partisanship.) Once again, (as is the pattern with all Kerry scandals) he has only himself to blame for making this an issue. He told his lies VERY publicly, over the course of several decades, and was using them not only to falsify his own record, but to level false-charges against others.

Now after doing that, he expects not to have his statements examined, and everyone to just go “Ah well. Here’s a guy who leveled unfounded charges against other troops in Vietnam and claimed that was the gospel truth, yet he lies about his own involvement in the war in order to level false-charges. Just take his word for the parts of his stories that are convenient for him, and excuse the obvious lies that aren't! And by all means, don’t question why someone who would make a history of floating blatant falsehoods about the US military shouldn’t be trusted as commander-in chief.”

Sorry, no sale.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No one holds Johnson accountable for US involvement in Cambodia, simply because he isn’t. By all reputable accounts, Nixon started with bombings of Cambodia in March and April 1969, and then troops there in May. The US wasn’t in Cambodia before that, and if Kerry was, he was conducting his own private illegal operation and has no room to blame Nixon for it in any case.

Well, if you say so. I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea that we were conducting intelligence and other missions in Cambodia at that time. It would seem a normal thing to do before bombing the place, being secretive about it appears to have been normal as well, and we have people saying they were there. Kerry seems to have been working the border, as O'Neill later claims to have done (while also using the words "in Cambodia"). But if you feel that you're knowledgeable enough to dismiss the idea, suit yourself.

I think it’s just silly all this re-writing of history just to support what is obviously a fabrication.

[snip]

Sorry, no sale.

Sounds like you've made up your mind. As you've said before, you don't need any further information. My advice is for you to vote for Bush.

I'm going to see what develops. As we've learned with both Kerry and the Swift Boat group, every week brings new and different things to light.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[B]Well, if you say so. I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea that we were conducting intelligence and other missions in Cambodia at that time. It would seem a normal thing to do before bombing the place, being secretive about it appears to have been normal as well, and we have people saying they were there. Kerry seems to have been working the border, as O'Neill later claims to have done (while also using the words "in Cambodia"). But if you feel that you're knowledgeable enough to dismiss the idea, suit yourself.

Wow, you are reaching. Even Kerry himself has dropped the ridiculous pretense when confronted with the goofiness of it, now insisting it was January 1969. So why are you sticking with it, when even he isn’t? (Partisan against-all-odds desperation as I suspect?)

Sounds like you've made up your mind. As you've said before, you don't need any further information. My advice is for you to vote for Bush.

I'm going to see what develops. As we've learned with both Kerry and the Swift Boat group, every week brings new and different things to light.

LOL! Are you still waiting to see ‘what develops’ as to men landing on the moon? "No wait, let's wait and see!" Maybe if you wait long enough... it never happened! Or maybe it'll develop that Kerry was on the moon before anyone else? You never know! History is known to just change, because a political party tells a lie enough times!(IE: Keep recounting ‘til you get the result you wanted. )

Too funny! Sorry, but there's no further 'developing' history unless you're trying to re-write it, as the Kerry side indeed has tried to do. But hey, keep twisting into pretzels trying to defend a lie even Kerry himself is no longer sticking with.

By the way, the swift boat group isn't to blame for Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia fairytale being an issue. Kerry made the claim publicly in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and now wants everyone to look the other way in the 2000's.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Wow, you are reaching. Even Kerry himself has dropped the ridiculous pretense when confronted with the goofiness of it, now insisting it was January 1969.

I wasn't aware that Kerry had issued a statement to that effect - do you have a link?

If so, it would indicate that the Christmas stories were embellishments, which as I've already noted in this very thread, I had already figured. However, if I've learned anything, it's that it can be dangerous to draw conclusions prematurely. In light of what's been revealed about the Swift Boat group, I'm surprised that you haven't learned the same lesson.

So why are you sticking with it, when even he isn’t? (Partisan against-all-odds desperation as I suspect?)

Yes, that's it.

LOL! Are you still waiting to see ‘what develops’ as to men landing on the moon? "No wait, let's wait and see!" Maybe if you wait long enough... it never happened! Or maybe it'll develop that Kerry was on the moon before anyone else? You never know! History is known to just change, because a political party tells a lie enough times!(IE: Keep recounting ‘til you get the result you wanted. )

Too funny! Sorry, but there's no further 'developing' history unless you're trying to re-write it, as the Kerry side indeed has tried to do. But hey, keep twisting into pretzels trying to defend a lie even Kerry himself is no longer sticking with.

I guess you're right. I take it that you now concede that there's not much point in waiting any longer for the discovery of caches of WMDs in Iraq.

By the way, the swift boat group isn't to blame for Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia fairytale being an issue. Kerry made the claim publicly in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and now wants everyone to look the other way in the 2000's.

Yes, if Kerry made false statements, then he would be responsible for them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I guess you're right. I take it that you now concede that there's not much point in waiting any longer for the discovery of caches of WMDs in Iraq.

Tell you what, let's revisit that issue in 35 years.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I guess you're right. I take it that you now concede that there's not much point in waiting any longer for the discovery of caches of WMDs in Iraq.

Ouch!