Christmas Day 1968 - Cambodia - the hole gets deeper

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,166
Location
Connecticut, USA
JFKerry is digging a deeper hole!

Kerry disputes allegations on Cambodia

"Senator John F. Kerry is disputing an allegation made by a group of veterans opposed to his presidential candidacy that he never operated inside Cambodia during the Vietnam War."

Er, that is NOT the allegation. The allegation is that JFKerry was not in Cambodia on Christmans Day, 1968. The allegation is NOT that JFKerry was never in Cambodia.

"'During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia...' Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement. The statement did not say when the cross-border mission took place."

Executive summary:

1. JFKerry has a "seared" memory of operating missions in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968.

2. Swiftboat vets say that JFKerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968.

3. JFKerry "disputes" the Swiftvets statement.

4. JFKerry says he did cross into Cambodia, on an unspecified date.

That might be good enough for Dan Rather and fellow travelers, but it doesn't pass the laugh test. It would be easier to fess up, instead of sending out cheerleader Michael Kranish with this hopeless drivel.

[Hint - we don't care where you were on Christmas Day 1968. We do care about your honesty].
 
Its too bad that both liberals and conservatives have dig back 35 years ago into a young man's life (both Bush and Kerry) to dig up dirt having nothing to do with issues. And as far as character-I am concerned with a man's character today-not 35 years ago.
frown.gif
 
I have a little bit of a hard time believing that Kerry can recall what happened on a certain day 35 years ago, but there is still the possibility that there are certain memories that stick, and/or were rehashed over the years in his mind or with friends.

But the idea that the Swift Boat Veterans have an accurate recall and rebuttal for each of his personal memories simply defies credibility. If you don't believe that, let me pick a personally significant day, and then you tell me the details of the day that I pick.
 
I don't support Kerry. It goes way beyond whatever happened in Vietnam and Cambodia decades ago. There is his voting record in Congress (or lack of voting record) up until the most recent time. There is what he did AFTER he had served in combat in Vietnam-his testimony before Congress that can be questioned. The man jumps all over the place depending on whatever is the in way of thinking at the time. I cannot find any core beliefs that he seems to have always supported.

My guess is that once he was in office taxes would shortly thereafter go up sharply. There would be even more extreme judges nominated and some of the goof ball judges we have now are causing enough problems.

I respect George Bush but do not agree with him 100% on everything. And I would dearly like to vote Democratic but how can I vote for somebody like Kerry? George Bush may not be perfect but he is a better alternative to Kerry.
 
Another decade or so and Vietnam service won't be an issue. I credit anyone who served and don't blame anyone for legally trying to get out of either. Funny that the Dems are so gung-ho now but backed Clinton who DID dodge the draft. At least Bush served in some capacity, where in fact he had a decent chance at getting sent over. The hypocrisy is astounding, but hardly surprising.
 
In another decade or 2, most of those that served in Viet Nam or avoided service will be too old to cause much harm except the ones appointed as judges. On the other hand, if we don't continue the war on terrorism, the judges may be replaced with a caliphate.
 
quote:

Originally posted by JohnnyO:
Another decade or so and Vietnam service won't be an issue. I credit anyone who served and don't blame anyone for legally trying to get out of either. Funny that the Dems are so gung-ho now but backed Clinton who DID dodge the draft. At least Bush served in some capacity, where in fact he had a decent chance at getting sent over. The hypocrisy is astounding, but hardly surprising.

Bush didn't have a decent chance of getting sent to Vietnam. The F-102 was moved out of there before george was in one, I believe.
 
Maybe, just that my point is if I ever run for office and the liberal media asks "Where were you in '72?", I'll be forced to answer "Fifth grade".
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooManyWheels:
I have a little bit of a hard time believing that Kerry can recall what happened on a certain day 35 years ago, but there is still the possibility that there are certain memories that stick, and/or were rehashed over the years in his mind or with friends.

The point here is that Kerry keeps saying that the memories of Vietnam are 'SEARED into his mind.
Now a person may not remember everything that happened to the over the years,however,there ARE things that are so deeply engrained into our memory that we dont forget them.
This is essentially what Kerry keeps saying about HIS Vietnam memories.
I have a memory of an event that happened to me almost 20 years ago.
I can tell you the approximate time,the exact date and the day of the week the event happened.
I can also tell you the exact place and what color shirt I was wearing.I can even tell you what the sky looked like that night.
So,lets not say that Kerry or anyone else CANT remember what happened to them many years ago,it just isn't true.
Kerry keeps bringing up 'HIS' views of what happened in Vietnam but when several others that were there remember a different set of happenings,they are,according to you,'WRONG'.
I would tend to think that a 'GROUP' of people are more reliable in the telling of events than one person is,especially when that 'ONE' person is Kerry.
Once again,it is Kerry that keeps playing the 'I REMEMBER WHEN' card in the election.
 
quote:

Originally posted by pbm:

If Kerry had any character he would defend his 'most liberal' voting record in the Senate and not try to distance himself from it by painting himself as a moderate (which he is not).
Kerry claims that foreign leaders have told him they are hoping that he is elected. I don't believe that and think it is another Kerry lie.
I fear what a Kerry victory would do to our already liberal court system.
[/QUOTE]


Kerry,the most liberal of liberals in the US Senate,here's proof.


The following article can be found at http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm

The Washington Times

National Journal, the non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine that covers Washington politics and policy, issued its congressional vote ratings for 2003 last week. Not surprisingly, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is increasingly looking like a cinch to be his party's presidential nominee, found himself in familiar territory. Once again, Mr. Kerry has staked out the far-left fringe on the National Journal's liberal-conservative continuum.
On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.
Each year, National Journal selects dozens of key votes (62 for the Senate in 2003) and divides them among three categories of issues: economic, social and foreign policy. On economic votes, Mr. Kerry tied with six other Democrats to claim the highest ranking of 93. It was the third year in a row that Mr. Kerry established himself among the select, small group whose members were cumulatively ranked as the most liberal in the Senate on economic matters.
Because Mr. Kerry spent much of last year campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, he did not cast enough official votes to obtain a specific ranking in the social and foreign-policy categories. (Suffice to say that the votes that he did cast were sufficiently to the left that his composite score still placed him at the top of the liberal scale.) Moreover, in 16 of the social and foreign-policy votes that Mr. Kerry missed, he announced his position on the issue. And according to tabulations by CQ Weekly (another non-ideological journal covering Congress), Mr. Kerry's publicly announced position was identical to the vote cast by Mr. Kennedy on 14 of those occasions, or 88 percent of the time. It should also be noted that during 10 years of Mr. Kerry's Senate career, including 2002, not a single senator was ranked more liberal than Mr. Kerry on social-issue votes. In addition, regarding CQ's separate survey of "key votes" in 2003 on which Mr. Kerry either cast a vote or publicly announced his position, it was identical to Mr. Kennedy's vote 100 percent of the time.
When questioned at Sunday's Democratic debate in New York City about reclaiming his distinction as the most liberal U.S. senator in 2003, Mr. Kerry called it "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." He asserted that "labels are so silly in American politics." But Mr. Kerry often indulges in ascribing "right-wing" or "far-right" labels to President Bush. For example, on what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th birthday, Mr. Kerry accused the president of "threatening civil rights on behalf of right-wing ideologues." Apparently, Mr. Kerry doesn't have anything against labels. He just doesn't like the "liberal" label.
In fact, the recent analyses of 2003 votes by National Journal and CQ Weekly clearly confirm what Mr. Kerry has spent two decades doing in the Senate — and that is establishing himself as one of that body's most liberal members. If Mr. Kerry doesn't like the votes selected by National Journal and CQ Weekly, perhaps he should look at the vote ratings compiled by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the premier, self-styled liberal organization in America. Based on the 20 votes each year that it considers to be the most important to liberals, ADA assigns a "liberal quotient" to each member of Congress. Mr. Kerry's career "liberal quotient" is a solid 92 percent. That ranks him higher than Mr. Kennedy (90 percent), establishing Mr. Kerry irrefutably as the "liberal senator from Massachusetts." No wonder Mr. Kerry is running as fast as he can from the liberal record he has spent 20 years compiling. It is a record this page will be meticulously reviewing as the campaign moves forward.
 
August 16, 2004
WHY ARE THE MEDIA AND THE BUSH CAMPAIGN IGNORING THE SINGLE ISSUE THAT CAN SINK THE KERRY/EDWARDS CAMPAIGN?

The most salient fact about Kerry’s military career, that is the center piece of his campaign, is that two thirds of his comrades hate him.

This is the issue that can determine the outcome of this election; if we can get the word out. But this is proving to be exceedingly difficult. For example, hundreds of Vietnam Veterans demonstrated outside the Fleet Center on the last two days of the Democratic National Convention including massing in front of Kerry’s Beacon Hill mansion face to face with State Police Swat Teams and Secret Service Agents.

And most of the media ignored us, even FOX. What’s up with that? The following links describe our experiences those nights and include a few pictures I took of the situation:

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/report_from_the.html

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/report_from_the_1.html

http://pep.typepad.com/photos/viet_vets_at_the_dnc/index.html

This issue will have no impact on the 30% of the electorate, who hate Bush and often America, but it will keep some Bush haters from voting and it will flip enough of the undecided to totally preclude a Kerry victory. Ninety percent of the electorate has made up its mind already and they split evenly. We only have to tilt a few undecideds our way and encourage a few to stay home and George W. Bush will win!

For example, I recently asked a Viet Vet buddy if he knew any Viet Vets who liked Kerry and he thought for a moment. He then said “I know two guys who hate Bush, but they can’t stand Kerry either.”

Everyone who wants to win the war on Terrorism must ask this question of every waffling voter they know:

IF TWO THIRDS OF JOHN KERRY’S FELLOW VETERANS HATE HIM, HOW COULD HE EVER EFFECTIVELY DEFEND AMERICA AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

You will undoubtedly be answered with objections to the validity, morality or win-ability of the Vietnam War along with assertions that Kerry’s opposition was the right thing to do. Tell them that most Vietnam veterans believe the Vietnam War was the Right War at the Right Time for the Right Reasons and it was worth it!

President John F. Kennedy decided to stop the locust swarm-like advance of Communism in Southeast Asia for morally right and geopolitically correct reasons. He made this important decision in the bipartisan tradition of Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. President Lyndon B. Johnson loyally continued and expanded that noble effort to contain Communism.

Contain Communism? Modern Americans are prone to laugh at such a goal because they are totally ignorant of the bloody history of Communism because the Left liberal controlled Media-Academic Complex has done its best to erase it from our collective memory.

Here is the truth about Communism;

1 – From its inception by Karl Marx and its codification by Lenin, Communism was committed to unlimited violence to gain power and merciless unpredictable terror to keep it. The structure and brutality of the Soviet regime was purely the product of the fevered brain of Vladimir Ilych Lenin loosely guided by Karl Marx and totally driven by the Will to Power and a complete disdain for humanity. Communist theory was never more than window dressing and marketing to justify their grip on power. Lenin developed sophisticated propaganda tools – including hosts of American professors, artists and writers - as an instrument to totally destroy individual human rights.

2 – When it came to murder, however, Lenin was a piker compared to Stalin. Lenin was responsible for a mere few million deaths while Stalin obliterated scores of millions of thinking, feeling human beings, usually for no good reason. Soviet and Chinese Communism were the instruments of the destruction of more lives of men, women and children than all other human built agents of death in human history put together. Please note that this includes the European holocaust of the Nazis and the Asian holocaust of Imperial Japan.

Can there be any doubt that Kennedy and Johnson did the right thing in implementing Truman and Eisenhower’s containment strategy? Can there be any doubt that Nixon was also correct to continue that bipartisan policy? Now I will explain how this policy was, in part, actually very successful.

So what are the results of the American political failure to win that war even in the face of the great success on the ground brought about by our patriotic young soldiers and our superb military establishment? After we pulled out so ignominiously – I remember crying angrily as I watched those helicopters evacuating from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon – over two million Cambodians were murdered by the Communist Khmer Rouge and another million were murdered by the Communist Vietnamese.

This clearly puts the lie to any claim of heroism on the part of anti war protestors under the leadership of John Kerry, Jane Fonda and their cohorts. There is no doubt in my mind that those people have the blood of countless millions of innocent Southeast Asians on their hands. Today these same Left Wing America haters are poised with the help of another generation of Academic hate-mongering “intellectuals” to condemn more millions of middle easterners this time.

Something no one else in the media will tell you is that the near destruction of the Communist Vietnamese military infrastructure and their economy and the eventual defeat of the Khmer Rouge bought enough time for Thailand to successfully deal with its indigenous Communist insurgency. This saved hundreds of millions of citizens of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia from the murderous ravages of the greatest evil of the Twentieth Century. President Johnson was correct in his famous DOMINO THEORY speech and I know that, in his grave, he regrets the failure in Vietnam and Cambodia but he must take great comfort in saving the rest of Southeast Asia. My generation of veterans can at least go to our graves with that satisfaction for all our hard work, blood and grief.

In conclusion, you should vote for John Kerry if you don’t care about defeating the Terrorists. But if you think Islamist Terrorists are a threat to our way of life then you must vote for George W. Bush.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
I don't support Kerry. It goes way beyond whatever happened in Vietnam and Cambodia decades ago. There is his voting record in Congress (or lack of voting record) up until the most recent time. There is what he did AFTER he had served in combat in Vietnam-his testimony before Congress that can be questioned. The man jumps all over the place depending on whatever is the in way of thinking at the time. I cannot find any core beliefs that he seems to have always supported.

My guess is that once he was in office taxes would shortly thereafter go up sharply. There would be even more extreme judges nominated and some of the goof ball judges we have now are causing enough problems.

I respect George Bush but do not agree with him 100% on everything. And I would dearly like to vote Democratic but how can I vote for somebody like Kerry? George Bush may not be perfect but he is a better alternative to Kerry.


Exactly my thoughts.
 
quote:

Kerry keeps bringing up 'HIS' views of what happened in Vietnam but when several others that were there remember a different set of happenings,they are,according to you,'WRONG'.

They are judged as "wrong" because it seems highly unlikely that there would be a whole group of people who have ALL of the following characteristics:

1. Were in the same service and command as Kerry, at the same time and place
2. Have equally vivid memories OF THE EXACT SAME EVENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO KERRY
3. Not only know, but don't like/trust Kerry
4. Have power and media access

The chances of finding such a group of people (not one, but a whole group) seems roughly equivalent to finding the infinite number of monkeys who could type out the perfect novel.

It's a **** OF A COINCIDENCE isn't it?

[ August 18, 2004, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
Good point TMW,

Although I am blessed with a highly detailed audio/visual memory (some fractions of images from the crib even) ..memory itself is a chemical-electrolytic suspension. Your mind doesn't really retain all the data intact ..but patches up lost data bits with what makes sense.

How many of you have watched a movie and allegedly know a given piece of dialog ..but when you see the rerun ...the theme of the dialog is essentially identical ..but the content is different?

If an event is sequenced 2+ x = 8 ..your mind will inject the "6" to allow it to make sense. It may very well have been an additional 3 + 3 or some other combination that is supported by the surrounding intact givens that the mind has to work with.

That is, even if everyone of those people have vivid memories of those given days ....it's doubtful that all of them could even begin to agree on more than a few aspects of the event.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Al:
Its too bad that both liberals and conservatives have dig back 35 years ago into a young man's life (both Bush and Kerry) to dig up dirt having nothing to do with issues. And as far as character-I am concerned with a man's character today-not 35 years ago.
frown.gif


Al: If Kerry had any character he would defend his 'most liberal' voting record in the Senate and not try to distance himself from it by painting himself as a moderate (which he is not).
Kerry claims that foreign leaders have told him they are hoping that he is elected. I don't believe that and think it is another Kerry lie.
I fear what a Kerry victory would do to our already liberal court system.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooManyWheels:
I have a little bit of a hard time believing that Kerry can recall what happened on a certain day 35 years ago

I kind of agree, but when you have "seared memories" on Christmas Day 1968 that is a hard sell. JFKerry has too much invested into the Cambodia story for it to be in the same category as forgetting to pay a parking ticket 36 years ago.

As far as the character issue, JFKerry would be best advised to come clean, say he made a mistake, and show some CHARACTER in 2004. Sending out his cheerleader, Michael Kranish, with this lame story is pretty sad.

Maybe we should start a poll here. Let's try to predict how long Dan Rather will continue to ignore the Swiftvets. (still busy looking for that first disenfranchised Florida voter?).

I read a transcript of a Fox show, maybe "Brit Hume?". Fred Barnes said he wanted to interview a few of the Swiftvets. Basically he got immediate interviews. There is nobody from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC looking to interview any of the vets.

Investigative journalism at ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC, sure
rolleyes.gif
 
fresh off the press...

quote:

Military Documents Contradict Kerry Critic

WASHINGTON - A Vietnam veteran who claims Sen. John Kerry lied about being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire himself during the same skirmish, according to the man's own medal citation, a newspaper reported.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement and that Thurlow's citation said he also was under attack, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the Vietnam War. Thurlow swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained by the Post under the Freedom of Information Act, include references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

The records said Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire," which Thurlow ignored in providing immediate assistance to the disabled boat and its crew.

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who have aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry's war record.

Kerry has described how his boat came under fire from the river banks after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. Swift boat. Kerry and members of his crew say the firing continued as Kerry leaned over to fish out Rassmann, who was blown overboard in another explosion.

Thurlow described Kerry's Bronze Star citation as "totally fabricated," saying "I never heard a shot."

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry with Kerry for his anti-war activities after his return to the United States, especially his claim that U.S. troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow told the Post that he got the award for helping to rescue the boat that was mined.

"This casts doubt on anybody's awards," he said. "It is sickening and disgusting."

He said he believed his own award would be "fraudulent" if it was based on coming under enemy fire.

"We weren't under fire," he insisted, speculating that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he would not authorize release of his military records because he feared the Kerry campaign would discredit him.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

AP: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...1&u=/ap/20040819/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_war_critic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom