Kerry in Cambodia....
Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND: "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 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." John O’Neil’s, author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND, comments on the “clarification:”“John Kerry describes Christmas Eve in Cambodia as a critical turning point in his life. We now know that his story is completely false. My question is how many people do you know have invented a turning point, one that is seared in his memory? While it makes sense for John Kerry to come clean about the Cambodia story, it is one of several tales that the Kerry campaign will have to face and clarify.”“By claiming we were engaged in a war crime and crossing international borders, John Kerry damaged the credibility of all the commanding officers above him and insulted the sailors who served with him,” said John O’Neill, member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”
(from The Drudge Report)
Could you please pass the Nixon papers........
More Swift Boat Bullshit.
posted by Shelly @ 5:37 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Chimpanzee...
How many of the Not-So-Swift Vets actually served on the same boat or even with Kerry? You get a bunch of old jaded Republican vets and pay them some cash and you can pretty much train them to say anything. I imagine they would jump through hoops and spin plates as well.
Since Kerry isn't running for President, why exactly would you need to see his 180? And as for Bush, please... it's never been proven that CBS FALSIFIED the records from Bush's superior officer. But, hey.. atleast Bush was kinda serving his country, unlike most of his administration who skipped out on military duty.
Oh, and if you are stupid enough to believe that American soldiers never committed any atrocities during Vietnam, make your way over to Google and type in My Lai Massacre. Or was that a fabrication of the 70's leftist MSM as well?
" The left loves a liar."
Bush lied about the intelligence reports prior to the invasion of Iraq, to this day connects Saddam with 9/11, says the world is safer then before said invasion, and says that "we" don't torture...but says he'll veto anything with McCain's amendment in it.
My point: Republicans/conservatives/neocons love to love a liar who wants to destroy the United States' standing in the world.
As for these "decorated vets"...who are they, what are their names, where are they from, and just what is their political affiliation?
Kerry and vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, Eddie, why even bring it up?
Still none of you have offered any evidence that Kerry is telling the truth, and if memory serves me right, about six of people cited in John O'Neil's book served on the boat with Kerry. Anyone care to go look it up? I don't.
Shelly, if you're going to accuse someone of BS, back it up.
I want to see Kerry's record because he's still a senator, and as a lying traitorous hack, I want him thrown out of office, whether he's running for president or not.
Nobody's saying American soldiers didn't do bad things during Vietnam, what we're saying is that it wasn't the defining characteristic of our tenure there. Stuff happens in every war. The point is that Kerry lied to Congress about it. Who do you believe? one man who won't even release his records to clear up the matter, or a hundred and fifty men who have a different story with full transparency? I know you like Kerry and all, but when you can't even come up with any evidence to support him, you might want to do a little re-evaluation.
BTW, you do know Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda, right?
Read "Tour of Duty", Douglas Brinkley's hagiography of Kerry's Vietnam service, which makes no mention of the Christmas in Cambodia story. It is obvious that Kerry was lying; for one thing, Nixon wasn't even the president in 1968 (he was the President-elect).
As for the supposed "revelation" that US troops were in Cambodia despite Nixon's denials (in 1970, not 1968 ), this has been common knowledge since May 1970. Read any history of Vietnam and you will discover that this is not news.
I want to see Kerry's record because he's still a senator, and as a lying traitorous hack, I want him thrown out of office, whether he's running for president or not.
So you admit that you are a lying traitorous hack?
BTW, you do know Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda, right?
Yeah, I've heard his uncle's nephew's brother's third cousin twice removed had once played jello Twister with some guy that once shared a piss in a cave with UBL. True story! They are sooooo connected...at the hip even!
It wasn't a piss Drew...what I heard was that he lit his cigarette....even less intimate.
you know what I meant. Do you have any arguments or evidence to support your cliams, or are you just going to keep making yourself look childish?
Just as an interesting note, "his uncle's nephew's brother" could be the origial person...if not, that person's third cousin twice removed could also be the original subject's step brother or perhaps step father (or the equivalent female).
You know the few dicks on the hill in Washington that started this war, couldn't muster up the balls to join the military...just like Rush and O'reilly...just a bunch of wanna-bes. But for the "right" to demean Kerry's military service and other democrats that actually served is just disgracefull.
Rush says one more thing about John Kerry's dishonorable service I think he should have to get GI issues and a one way ticket to Iraq.
Rush can't serve. He got an exemption because of his anal cysts.
That's not a joke.
Thanks Mike M for figuring that out. Where were you when I needed to cheat off someone on my SAT's?
There is nothing magical about serving in the armed forces that gives a person more or less credibility as an honest person. Kerry, for example could clear up the whole thing if he'd sign Form 180. A hundred and fifty plus people who Kerry served under or next to say he's not trustworthy. That's not insignificant. A person running for president better be trustworthy, or I don't care what his positions, I'm not going to vote for him, and I hope nobody else would either.
As before, there is nothing magical about military service or lack therof that gives or deny's a person's ability or legitimacy in raising questions and investigating someone else's record. To say otherwise is like saying if you haven't been a corporate CEO then you have no right to question the record of Enron's officials.
And before you spill the "bush lied therefore why did you vote for him" nonsense, let me beat you to the answer...
All evidence put forward by Bush's critics has been examined, cross examined, analyzed ad nauseum by myself and many others and found to be outright untrue at worst, inconclusive at best...therefore, I have no reason to believe he is less than trustworthy...perfect, no, but a liar he is not.
Kerry, on the other hand has substantial evidence against him, as well as one (among many) indisputable lies: For instance, his testimony before the Senate that he was in Cambodia on or about Christmas 1968 on Nixon's orders. This is by definition a lie because Nixon was not yet president. Secondly, there are many witnesses that say niether they nor he was ever there, let alone during the time specified. There has not been any evidence to the contrary presented: Therefore the only conclusion that can be drawn is either "need more information" (Form 180), or "Kerry lied".
That is the relevant question, and distractions by attacking people like Bush, Cheney, and Rush is irrelevant to the discussion of Kerry's record. Comprende?
Similarly, all references to Kerry's service is irrelevant to any discussion of Bush's service. Take ANY high school level critical thinking class (literature, statistics, etc), and you will learn how to differentiate between unrelated sets of information. (assuming of course, you're not talking about a government school, then all bets are off, but that's an unrelated issue ;)
Mike,
I didn't bring up Kerry and Vietnam. That was one of your conservative cohorts that brought that up.
Suggestion: Read ALL the comments before you accuse someone of something, please. Thank you.
As far as you wanting Kerry thrown out of office for being "a lying traitorous hack", AWOL Bush and 5 deferment Cheney should be thrown out also for being lying traitorous hacks.
Wow, you've really lost it, haven't you? Kerry in Cambodia is the original subject of this post. My "Why bring it up" question was about Iraq...you brought up Iraq, which was irrelevant to this discussion, as is Bush/Cheney's service record. I could have been more clear in my original question though.
A person running for president better be trustworthy, or I don't care what his positions, I'm not going to vote for him, and I hope nobody else would either.
Thanks. Couldn't have put it better. This is exactly why Bush SHOULDN'T be in office.
He isn't trustworthy, and the majority of Americans concurr.
Mike,
Once again, you should read all the comments posted.
My statement was in reply to a previous comment about "The left loves a liar." The point I was trying to make was that the right also loves a liar.
If anyone has "lost it" that would be you. Too much cool aid? You seem to forget how many times at other blogs you have wandered away from the original post.
There is a simple solution to this. If you think I or someone else has commented on something that you feel was not in the original post, don't respond. I would not think less of you, there are just some things that are not worth responding to.
For the most part, I do enjoy our bantar back and forth. You have, in the past, made some valid points that have made me stop and think. I'm not saying that I agree with you on them, but I do think about them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay, so we both mis read things. You're right, I do tend to drift off topic at times, but I've been trying to do that less and less whenever I catch myself.
In your case, however, an appropriate response to the statement (refering to Kerry) about loving a liar, would be to talk about Kerry, not change the subject and start talking about Bush. That's what I objected to.
Your original comment was nothing more useful than saying "So do you"
I don't like distraction by irrelevant arguments or "But he does it too", and have been working to eliminate those methods from my own writing when I catch them. Sometimes I will cite unrelated examples of principle, but I will ususally if not always tie the two things together and explain why I believe the example is relevant.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment
<< Home