John Kerry and Vietnam

Great Debates
181

A few points:

Sam are you talking about an autobiography here? It may make a difference.

The ‘hour away’ = 30 miles is just your supposition. Moreover, reading the phrase ‘hour away’ I imagine it is used casually. It might denote a variety of things. Even considering that, I think 30 miles is at the upper limit of plausibility.

Consider if, as you claim, the border was heavily patrolled. In that case I would think an hour’s travel by boat would amount to less than 5 mi.

Is it a lie, though? Well, why would he bother? I just cannot see the leverage in alleging he was shot at from one side of a border rather than another.

I mean we know troops were in C, so what’s the difference? I think if there is an acknowledgment that formal operations began in 1970, it is certain those operations followed on a history of informal incursions. These things are never so neat.

How Kerry is Campaigning? It’s a tough game, I fully expect him to fight hard and aggressive. Whether there is substance or not, especially if there is substance why go on the back foot and allow this to become an issue by giving it life and debate.

If you expect this to become an issue, my guess is disappointment awaits. Trivial, inconsequential and ultimately indeterminable.

182

Factual responses to Swift Boat Veterans from John Kerry’s website.

Is there anything on this page that isn’t true?

Has Kerry said anything about his accusers that isn’t factual?

It needs to be reiterated that the majority of the Swiftie attacks are not factual challenges to Kerry’s service record anyway but merely subjective reactions to his anti-war actions after his service. Opinions about Kerry’s “betrayal” are not something which can be responded to factually.

The stuff about the medal incidents has decisively been debunked by the Navy and by Kerry’s crewmates.

If you want to hang your hat on Cambodia, go ahead. Prove he wasn’t there. But you won’t get any help from the Navy on that one.

As an interesting aside, I heard Col. David Hackworth on a radio show today and he just ripped the shit out of the Swifties. He called them “haters,” he called Kerry a “hero” and he just generally excoriated the whole group, especially the ring leaders who were the same guys who tried to smear John McCain in 2000.

If you don’t know who David Hackworth is, he is a heavyweight when it comes to military gravitas. He’s a veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam (where he spent five years before publicly condemning it as a “bad war”) among several other military actions. Hackworth is on record as the most decorated American soldier alive. Nobody has more military cred than this guy and he just blasted this Swift Boat group. Do you think he better be careful too?

Another interesting phone call on the same show was from a Vet who said he had been wounded twice in Cambodia around the same time Kerry says he was there but that he had received no Purple Hearts because he "wasn’t in Cambodia. There are a lot of guys who were in Cambodia who the military says weren’t there.

183

You guys really don’t see much of a difference? Maybe you don’t remember the context in which that story came out. Kerry has cited that story, in detail, on the floor of Congress. The whole point to the story is that he was in Cambodia. It is a pointless story if he wasn’t. I do not believe he was in Cambodia. That makes him someone who invents stories to puff himself up, and then uses those stories to manipulate policy. At best, it makes Kerry pretty creepy.

It would be another thing if we could just claim it was honest confusion - getting lost or believing are in Cambodia when you’re not. There was apparently no way for that to happen because the river entrys to Cambodia were blocked and covered in warning signs, and defended by an LST. All the men on that boat would know exactly where they were. If they weren’t in Cambodia, then Kerry has a major credibility problem.

184

Has Kerry said that those men were with him?

Two of his crewmates have declined to comment. I wonder why. Could they be reluctant to incriminate themselves?

Don’t put too much stock in those “blockades.” btw. US troops got around those plenty when they wanted to.

I also find it rather comic that the Swifties would feign such horror at the illegality of crossing the border.

Unless somebody can actually prove that Kerry was not in Cambodia then this really has no traction.

185

I’ve been to Cambodia and Vietnam, (recently). It doesn’t look like a well secured border, quite the contrary. Porous, with many opportunities for water crossings.

So I’m not buying the impenetrable thing without a cite. And frankly even with one I’d be sceptical. I think armed men in a war-boat would have no trouble making a night crossing, particularly if it was a regular thing for incursions to occur. It was. Boat is how people travel there. It adds up.

See, my point is not that I’m particularly convinced, either way. My points are as follows.

How much increment of ‘puff’ does Kerry get from being in Cambodia. We know he was in Vietnam, near C, shot at, wounded, awarded. These are all facts. So what’s the plus in having seen action across the border. It doesn’t add up to a hill of beans.

Secondly, there’s not enough to put his credibility in issue. The risk of rebound on the GOP if they focus on war records is too great. Compare that to how the evidence looks; there is a conjectured case that amongst all his legit war activities K was a few miles from where he says he was, one night 35 year ago.

Don’t Vote for Kerry, He Has Indifferent Grades in Indochinese Geography. There’s nothing in it Sam.

186

I think if it were a court of law it would be a slam dunk. All they have to do is put every commanding officer on the stand and ask them if Kerry was sent to Cambodia. They will all say he did not. Then they’ll ask his shipmates, and they’ll say he wasn’t. Then they’ll look at the boat logs, and see that the boat was nowhere near Cambodia.

But after seeing the responses here, I’m not so sure this story will get traction with the public. I used to read a lot about Vietnam, so the Cambodia border is a pretty bright dividing line for me. Going across it is a whole lot different than just being near it. Major battles of the anti-war movement were based on allegations of incursions into Cambodia. So saying you were there has a certain cachet in some circles. I can understand how Kerry might have morphed “patrolling near the border” into “sneaking behind Cambodian lines” when he was young, and the story just took on a life of its own and he couldn’t back away from it.

187

Or maybe he was really in Cambodia. Absent your imaginary trial (on what charges?), I guess we have no choice but to take him at his word. I see no reason to call him a liar without proof.

188

I suspect I know a *little * more about courts of law than you do Sam and the lack of slam-dunk is exactly the point. On the balance of probabilities I’d go with Kerry, depending on what his shipmates were to say under oath and the rest too.

I’m a little disappointed you don’t see fit to answer the questions of Diogenes and myself. Also that Diogenes seems to have the same reactions I do, only get it onscreen faster.

189

Sam, I have not found any contradiction in what you have posted about what Kerry has said. I don’t know how much speed the boat he was on had, but rivers have lots of bends and it can take a while to get some place even on a pleasure craft.

In 1967, Bertrand Russell organized an international war tribunal that was held in to parts. The first session took place in Stockholm, Sweden and the second session was in Roskilde, Denmark.

It was about the war crimes and atrocities that had taken place to that point in the war in Southeast Asia.

Here are a few excerpts from a report by a Cambodian:
http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/v1118kho.htm

KIM-ENG KHOUROUDETH
Report from Cambodia

<snip>

<snip>

For other reports from the International War Crimes Tribunal:

http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/v1tribun.htm

These accounts were published a year before the date that John Kerry said he was in Cambodia.

Even the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, later admitted that the American people were lied to about many aspects of the war. I don’t think I would be wrong in assuming that our early involvement in Cambodia was one of them.

190

So what, Sam. Finally, boiled down, so what?

Are you trying to suggest that someone who has spent the bulk of his adult life running for political office might be tainted with mendacity? That such men as these oftimes exaggerate their virtues? Am I expected to faint dead away as my golden idol is revealed to be tarnished?

No virgin is ever elected Queen of the Harlots, Sam. 'Struth, I would be more worried if fervent investigation revealed Kerry to be as pure and untainted as Adlai Stevenson. I want a politician, I am not interested in saints, I’m not sending Bertrand Russel to fight Mike Tyson.

Unless you can conjure up some darker motivation? Perhaps he was skulking under orders from Jane Fonda? Maybe scoring a couple keys of china white to sell back in Saigon? So he sexed up his war story, said he was in Cambodia when he was only maybe in Cambodia. Ever get drunk at a VFW, Sam?

Maybe he did it to get laid. Maybe he did it to put a little punch into his macho credibility, to impress the beer-belching ball scratching segment of the population. Maybe he did it for no other reason but because he, like a lot of men, wants to think of himself as a bad-ass.

But unless you can come up with a motivation darker than these, I gotta ask you again. So what, Sam?

191

Not everyone is wearing Bush-tinted glasses such as yours, Sam.

192

I suggest we all just wait and see what the reaction is to this. But consider this:

If Bush had gone around telling everyone about the time he heroically saved his plane after a mid-air collision, and he used that story in testimony in support of, say, aviation regulation, and he told the story constantly as an example of what a quick-thinking guy he was and therefore qualified to be president, and then you found out that the story was completely made up, I think you’d have a problem with it.

And if somehow as part of the story Bush accused his government of war crimes, you might be a little more than annoyed.

But I can see that not everyone feels that way. So we’ll just have to see which way the story breaks.

Can we all agree that Kerry should release the rest of his military documents? You guys hammered on Bush pretty good to force him to release all his Guard transcripts. He exercised his standard form 180, making them all available. Kerry is refusing to do so.

193

  1. We have not found out that Kerry’s story is “all made up.”

  2. The US did commit war crimes during the Vietnam War, including illegal excursions into Cambodia.

  3. Kerry’s records have been released.

  4. Any covert excursions into Cambodia would not be detaiked in his records anyway.

194

I wasn’t addressing whether the story was accurate. I was explaining why it mattered. A couple of people made statements along the lines of , even if it’s true, it’s not a big deal. I was trying to explain why it was a big deal to some. But like I said, I could be wrong. It was, after all, 35 years ago.

No question. And the U.S. did go into Cambodia. The question is whether Kerry made up his own Cambodia story to pad his resume.

No, they haven’t. There are gaps all through it. including missing documents that would help prove Kerry’s case if he would release them. A standard form 180 authorizes the government to release all records mentioning kerry upon request. Bush signed one. Kerry won’t.

Why won’t his men back him up? (maybe some still will) And if it was a ‘black’ operation, what was Kerry doing telling the world about it almost immediately after he returned from the war? In this day and age when we’re getting ready to lynch whoever leaked Valerie Plame’s ID (and I’ll join the mob), does Kerry get a complete pass for disclosing that?

195

The war is over, man.

By the time Kerry started talking about Cambodia it was already common knowledge. There were no security issues.

As far as those black ops missions go, some vets talk about them some don’t. It’s a matter of personal choice. No one’s going to get prosecuted for talking about 35 year old missions but some guys still feel honor bound not to yak about them.

We had a governor up here in Minnesota (as I guess that’s down here for you) who was a Navy Seal and clams to have been on a number of covert missions in “Southeast Asia,” but to this day won’t say where he was or what he did because he claims he took an oath never to talk about them as long as he was alive.

I should also say that this particular governor sometimes gave the very distinct impression of being completely full of shit (he was once quoted as telling some hunter advocacy group, "if you haven’t hunted man, you haven’t hunted). He really was a Navy Seal, though, and he really was in SE Asia during Nam.

Anyway, I digress. My point is that talking about US incursions into Cambodia can hardly be classified as giving away any state secrets.

Which of Kerry’s records are missing and how would they clear anything up about Cambodia?

As for his men backing him up. we don’t know that any of them were even with him on that particular mission or that they would have necessarily known where they were. We also have two who have refused to comment, so what are we going to do, issue subpoenas?

As it stands, there is no way to prove anything one way or the other and no pressing reason to compell witnesses or subpoena records. This is simply not an important enough issue to spend time, money and resources investigating. The allegations have made their way to the public already and people will make up their minds regardless.

I think you may be underestimating how anti-Bush the the anti-Bush voters are. This Cambodia thing simply is not going to be compelling enough to make anyone change their mind and vote for Bush. At the very worst it shows Kerry to be a liar, but then Bush is a liar too, so it’s a wash.

196

Sam I applaud you for your original researches into Kerry’s record of speeches before Congress, Newspaper Reports and his Biography. A particularly fine find regarding his peregrinations on Christmas eve.

But then I think I’m discussing with Sam in good faith and he neglects to answer elementary questions about the content of the book. Perhaps there are other passages that clarify K’s whereabouts on the fated eve? Perhaps the passage in question is reflective of facts established earlier?

I get to thinking; has Sam read the book?

Suspicions surface; has Sam instead uncritically reproduced the agitprop of known partisans? Answers please?

197

Be happy to. To research the book, I went to Amazon.com, and used their ‘find in the book’ feature on “Tour of Duty”. Damned handy tool that is, by the way. Then I did a global search for ‘Cambodia’. I look at every passage in the book that mentioned cambodia - most were later chapters where Kerry talked about the war being illegal. There is NO mention I could find in the entire book of any sort of Kerry mission into Cambodia. That whole part of his Vietnam narrative seems to have vanished. Despite the fact that he tells all sorts of stories about being in Cambodia. For instance, he pulled a boony hat out of his briefcase and said he’d be carrying it for 30 years as a good luck charm, and it was given to him by a CIA agent while Kerry was ferrying him into Cambodia. You might remember that - it was only a few months ago, during the primaries.

That story is also not in his biography.

198

Holy crap, what was with all the typos and grammatical errors in my last message? I must be on drugs.

By the way, you’re free to go and do the same thing at Amazon. Look for whatever evidence you can. I’m actually eager to hear evidence in favor of Kerry’s Cambodia missions. To me, this whole story is like working on a puzzle. It looks like some pieces may fit in certain places, but the overall picture is not visible yet. I’d cut Kerry a lot of slack on his Cambodia missions, by the way, if we could find hard evidence of even one of them. Because then embellishing another or conflating a couple of missions would be no big deal.

I still have a suspicion that some of the swift vets are just a bunch of furious hotheads, and that describes some of the 254. But of the core group of actual swift boat skippers who actually served with Kerry, they so far seem pretty solid to me. The crap about O’Neill being a Republican stooge is laughable. O’Neill is a life-long Democrat who voted for Hubert Humphrey and says he would have voted for John Edwards had he been picked. This is a guy who finished first in his law school, clerked for the Supreme Court, and founded a 32 person law practice. He’s not a lightweight or an uneducated hothead. Between them, these guys have a pile of medals, too. That’s what I keep coming back to - this is a large group of people - too large to be a bunch of Republican dirty tricksters. They’re not some anonymous bunch hiding behind a front or something - they’re standing up and putting their names and considerable reputations on the line over this. Their ranks go all the way up to rear admiral. This is a serious bunch of people.

And all of their charges aside, just the fact that so many of Kerry’s fellow officers would think so little of him should give one pause, especially when the candidate himself says that he should be judged by his Vietnam service. I’m familiar with the slime tactics on both sides of the fence, and this one just doesn’t have that vibe. These guys may be wrong. They may be misremembering what happened. Maybe their hatred of him for his testimony in which he said that his comrades murdered people and raped them and killed their children has them so twisted up inside that 35 -years later they’ve convinced themselves that things happened in a certain way.

But I’m pretty sure these guys are sincere, and are not just members of the Republican smear machine.

And I think the Kerry camp should be careful about slinging mud at them, which is what they appear to be doing. Because John O’Neill is pretty capable of fighting back, and trashing these decorated veterans might blow back on Kerry just like these guys’ attack on Kerry could still blow back on Bush. People are pretty protective of their veterans these days.

199

O’Neill never served with John Kerry in any capacity. He did not take over command until Kerry had left.

The fact that Kerry left the story out of his book is completely meaningless.

200

Actually, it’s you who underestimate how “non-anti-Bush” the undecided voters are. No one expects the hard core partisans to switch sides. This is all about the few undecideds that are out there.

Having said that, I do agree with you on the merits of thiss whole Vietnman issue. It makes for great campaign fodder, but I’d hope that we here on this board would be talking more about what Kerry’s Senate record shows and what his policies as president would be. I for one will not be basing my voting decision one bit on what Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam 35 years ago. Just as I won’t be basing my decision about Bush on what he did in National Guard.