I’m still drawing a blank here. In what part of Vietnam was GWB valiantly fighting the plague of Communism on that day?
Keep on being fascinated. Until you answer Scot’s questions (or at least number three), I’ll be more fascinated by the fact that many conservatives think a deserter is a better wartime leader than a former war hero.
Oh, so you admit that you have flip-flopped!
(For myself, I’m not. My views have broadened and deepened, but not fundamentally altered. Except that I know longer think the magnificent upper rack of Ms. Whats-her-face is the Meaning of Life.)
Time is not kind to Eternal Truths.
Well, ITR champion someone who spoke before the senate to claim a point of history (American troops in Cambodia) and falsely strenuously asserted that he himself was in Cambodia being fired at by Cambodians, Khmer Rouge, and Vietnamese on the one Christmas he had in country has to be examined. The Christmas story was further reinfored when he reported to the Boston Herald that the firing Vietnamese were South Vietnamese and drunk celebrating Christmas.
Its now been admitted that Kerry wasn’t there at Christmas. In addition,in his journal, he’s 50 some odd miles away dreaming of a traditional Christmas.
I’ve spent one Christmas in a foreign country back in 1975. Nobody was shooting at me. I know exactly where I was on Christmas. The serious implication for me is that either Kerry had or has a serious drug problem (which he has ascribed to many of his comrades in arms), or he deliberately lied to the American people to support his view. What excuse would you ascribe to him?
Now you could say it was a harmless lie. To me it was deliberate and suggests an unstable character. the last time I know of when he repeated the story was 1986 , so we can’t just blame this on youthful indiscretion.
This is a slur, or at best a ridiculous interpretation of the ‘facts.’
We can, however, blame you for 1) starting a slew of pointless anti-Kerry threads, 2) 1986 is indeed the most recent time I know of, so who gives a fuck?, 3) Hack Opal!
So what is your interpretation of the facts Marley23?
That’s quite some hedge.
He first said it in the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979, “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.”
He said it again to 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 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.” (Note that the shooters had by then expanded to include Vietnamese generally, plus Khmer Rouge and Cambodians — which may be a bit redundant.)
Two weeks ago, his campaign, through spokesman Michael Meehan, released a statement, saying, “On December 24, 1968 Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory.” No longer was it five miles; it was now on the border.
But his biographer, historian Douglas Brinkley, quoting from his journal, wrote on page 219 of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War:
Brinkley places Kerry a full hour from the border, and then safely back at his base in Sa Dec, 50 miles away, by evening. Here are maps of the region. You can judge for yourself. Here are bearings to help you find your way.
But it’s your third question that makes answering the other two moot. Since it has no objective answer, you can say, no matter what opinions are offered, “Don’t phase me none.” So, honestly, what’s the point of asking the other two except to get someone else to do your homework for you?
So let me get this straight. Lying about where you were on a particular date during the Vietnam era means you have “unstable character”. If so, then wouldn’t Shrub’s character have disintegrated into a pile of rubble by now?
The central facts that Kerry reported to Congress about American soldiers and South Vietnamese allies commiting atrocities in Vietnam are true, as shown in about fifty threads we’ve had on the subject over the years. Maybe he was wrong about certain items or certain dates. I seriously doubt that you could tell me exactly where you were for every single day of your life. And guess what. Being in a war zone for several years and getting your ass shot is an extremely tense and stressful experience and can cause a lot of unpleasant effects including memory problems.
Lets summarize the Vietnam experience of our two candidates.
Kerry: Could easily have gotten out of serving in Vietnam. Chose not to. Served with honor. Won three purple hearts. Chose to risk his life to save a fellow soldier. Upon returning to the United States, fought hard to end the war.
Shrub: Used daddy’s connection to jump to the front of the list for entrance into a rich-boy unit which he knew would not involve being in a combat zone. Was supposed to serve for three years, but only served for two. To this day, continues to lie about whether he showed up at the Alabama base.
So explain to me which one showed stronger character.
That’s where he was the night of Christmas Eve, yes. And, amazingly enough, in letters home he only mentioned the good, not the fact that he’d been in a firefight that morning, and had noted in his diary “the ridiculous waste of being shot at by your own allies.” Or is his diary only valid when it makes Kerry look bad? (Note: I’m relying on a secondary source for what Kerry said in his diary, since I don’t have a copy of the book myself; that seems valid, since the other side is doing the same.)
My personal guess is that he was near the border on the morning of Christmas Eve, and conflated that in his memory with another time that he was actually across the border. After checking his diary, he may have amended that.
Or he did what any normal human being can often do: conflated two memories which occurred around the same time into a single story. That doesn’t require a serious drug problem.
Or, 17-18 years after the fact, he had confused some details. If you assume it was deliberate, it might look bad to you, but it requires that you make that assumption. It’s the standard “Kerry’s a liar; I know this because of this lie; I know that he was lying in that case because Kerry’s a liar; repeat.”
In general, is it an accepted fact or a disputed issue whether there were American troops in Cambodia at all? I have no idea, this is an honest question.
Well, sure, of course. Bush may be ten times the liar that Kerry is. But it is naive than to believe that what you have in a US presidential election is one liar versus one paragon of virtue. 
I mean, these people lie for a living. That’s what a campaign promise is. Each side just tries to tell the more convincing lies. Consider Bush’s romantic notion of a compassionate conservative — and he turned out to be neither.
I assume you mean of this issue, not the facts in your post, because I don’t think there were any. My interpretation is that he may well have been in Cambodia; I doubt there will ever be solid proof there one way or the other. He may have his dates confuse. You fail to note that he identifies Nixon as President in the Senate speech, and Nixon was not President in December 1968. This would be a pointless lie, so I lean toward it being a mistake. If he’s misremembering the President, I wouldn’t be shocked if he had a wrong date or some other detail. Can you explain now how you’ve managed to pretend this is important?
If the best one can do when defending the character of John Kerry is stacking him up against George Bush, then we have a serious problem. I’ve already written off the next four years.
It wasn’t 100% clear that he was actually referring to Nixon as the president in 68.
No, you’re unable to understand why this is such a big deal to some people.
Remember what happened when we invaded Cambodia? I don’t firsthand, but I remember reading about this one little incident at Kent State, and numerous riots and protests elsewhere. So what Kerry is saying is that we had actually invaded Cambodia years before, otherwise how could we have been there, and since he went where he was ordered he’s still being the war protester and sticking it to the government by claiming that he was ordered to go somewhere both off-limits and controversial. There’s also the the “Gasp You were in Cambodia?!?!” gambit, because for some reason people think that Cambodia was worse than anywhere else, otherwise why would we have had to invade it?
It’s somewhat akin to me going into a bar and regaling people with my war stories in which I singlehandedly took down an entire Iraqi platoon barehanded and won the Medal, when in fact I wasn’t even on the ground in Iraq at any time. It’s story inflation. The story is somehow more “dangerous” than reality.
It doesn’t bother me as much as some, but this stuff could all be avoided if Kerry weren’t such a world-class embellisher about stuff.
At this point, I don’t give a damn if he spent Christmas of 1968 having tea with Chairman Mao dressed as Glenda the Good. Whether he was participating in a little bit of hyperbole is just plain not important. There are a series of mistruths that do affect my decision though…
“I will protect and defend the constitution”
“I am a uniter not a divider”
“US Should humbly empower other countries, not dictate”
There was the time he said he fought for a patient’s bill of rights in Texas and would do the same for the country.
I didn’t vote for the Bush, but each of these statements led me to believe that he was a moderate and that the country would be ok. when Gore didn’t win. These don’t even get into the lies after he was elected. I am even willing to give him the benifit of the doubt and say they were fuck-ups in inteligence. Frankly, that even scares me more.
Oh, like embellishing justifications for going to war.
Suppose it’s proven to be a 100 percent bald-faced purposeful lie that Kerry was in Cambodia.
For those who care how their candidates spent the Vietnam years, surely Kerry is still light-years ahead, isn’t he? Does anybody on Earth feel this somehow puts the two candidates at the same level on the Vietnam issue?
It’s funny; I heard the exact same charge over and over again about the last Democratic nominee for President. Hell, I even repeated that charge. Turns out, it was mostly a crock of shit meme produced by the opposing political machine in that race, and that I was full of shit when I helped spread it.
It’s interesting that it’s the same old political machine that’s hoping to benefit from the same old forced perception about their new opponent. Only this time the US press, while just as lazy and opportunistic as last time, aren’t quite so tame and/or gullible. But I’m sure Karl Rove is heartened that there are at least still some individuals who can keep being fooled.
You guys are mixing apples and oranges here. I’m not talking about Bush, in fact, I’m not offering Bush any support at all. We’re talking about John Kerry and his claims.
What I’m pointing out is that if Kerry wins this may turn out to be a case of “Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss”, and I’m steeling myself for that occurrence.