Those statements contain an awful lack of detail for something “Seared” into Kerry’s memory. Especially since the few claims made can be shown as false such as:

“No signs telling you that you’ve crossed into Cambodia.” - Except according to the swift Vets, there were concrete pillars, wire, and patrol boats at the border crossing. All somewhat hard to miss.

“Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces” Except that Navy seals NEVER used the loud swift boats for covert insertions. They had their own boats. Other groups used helecopters, since they were faster, and not limited to the waterways.

If Kerry’s own supporters can’t get their stories to match, it doesn’t bode well for Kerry.

Posted by: Brian at August 18, 2004 07:27 AM

This is a target rich thread.

a. Kerry lied about the turning point of his life.
b. Why doesn’t he release the records?
c. Kranish, Kerry’s stooge at the Globe, wrote this article.
D. None of these vets back up Kerry’s lies.
E. If they were secret missions, shouldn’t Kerry not be talking about them?

Posted by: jones at August 18, 2004 07:52 AM

Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968? IMPOSSIBLE! He was in Thailand smokin’ Falling Rain with MommaSan-taClaus!

Uhhh. His crew members say he was 50 miles from the Cambodian border. Of course, we’re discounting his ability to Trilocate.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 18, 2004 09:20 AM

At least this stuff is finally finding its way into the mainstream media. Perhaps now there will be some sort of press coverage and some (gasp!) questions for our War Hero candidate.

If the guy just came out and said something like: “I told a tall tale about Cambodia, but I’m releasing my records so you can vett the rest of my c.v. in Viet Nam and my attendance at the Intel Committee”, he’d have a shot at coming out ahead in all of this. Given what a spineless, blowhard fop this guy has been, that ain’t likely to happen.

Posted by: TL at August 18, 2004 09:54 AM

There is an easy way to resolve this. Just give us the names of the crewmen that were on the boat. Was there more than one boat on the mission? Probably so. Who was on that boat?

Posted by: Johnboy at August 18, 2004 10:23 AM

A. Kerry thought he was in Cambodia.
B. His crew puts Kerry’s boat 50 miles away.
By deduction:
They were both right and the navigator was correct not trusting Kerry’s navigation skills. ;-)

Posted by: sbw at August 18, 2004 10:28 AM

What is also very interesting about this is the way this item is seeping into the big media. It’s like watching something embryonic develop in an incubator.

The blogosphere (Man I hate that word) has been relentless. Talk radio has been very focused on this issue as well.

the attempts by the big three networks to ignore this have bought Kerry some time but if the pressure stays on then at some point the big three with have to make a “me or thee” decision and they will likely sell Kerry out.

That’s a good thing.

if we can influence the media, there’s hope for a better democracy.

thanks, then, to the fine people who host this site!!!

Posted by: skip at August 18, 2004 12:12 PM

Rest assured that, as I type, Michael Krannish of the Boston Globe has focused his “laser like” mind in a frantic search thru dusty, yellowed records for the name of John Kerry’s Vietnamese hairdresser. If she was called out to Cambodia for a “covert trim”, it most certainly would have been entered in the appointment book.

Posted by: ET at August 18, 2004 12:52 PM

why Kranish, though. This is the second time he’s stepped up to refute allegations. he’s just the wrong guy for the job.

Posted by: skip at August 18, 2004 01:00 PM

I question the political astuteness of challenging the Swift Vets’s assertions like this at this time. AFAIK, Kerry is supposed to be taking the next 3 weeks “off” from the campaign, and I assumed one of the reasons was to give the news cycle a chance to move on, leaving the SV allegations buried. Seems to me that putting out a public denial like this is the surest way to make sure the story keeps getting oxygen put into it, thereby increasing the chances the mainstream media will pick up on it.

Posted by: tagryn at August 18, 2004 01:56 PM

The one common thread that still seems to be there throughout is the fact that Sen. Kerry has embellished these stories for his political and personal benefit. This may work if all that you are doing is bragging about your exploits down at the local Moose Lodge, VFW or American Legion, but not when you are running for President.

On the one hand, his supporters say that none of this really matters because it happened over 30 years ago. On the other hand, Sen. Kerry himself is constantly reminding us all of his 4 month stint in combat while an O-2 (Lt. j.g.) as qualifications for his seeking the Presidency. Either it is relevant or it is not, but one can not have it both ways.

Finally, almost all the vets I’ve known who served and survived in combat rarely if ever talk about their experiences except to other vets who did likewise. You can not fake it with these guys as they can quickly tell if you are blowing smoke. With over 200 former vets who served in the same unit or command with Kerry now coming down hard on him, somthing tells me we are seeing more smoke about his war years.

I understand that the mainstream media is finally doing their homework on this one and assigning reporters to check out the facts in the book. The Swift Boat Vets seem not to be concerned and welcome the investigation by the media. The Democrats want to stop everything now and have offered a truce with the Republicans if only they will pull the ads. Problem is, the Swift Vets do not answer to or work for the RNC or the Bush Reelection campaign. The MoveOn.org reprisal ad has come up way short and is so full of inuendo and falsehoods to make it relatively lightweight in comparison.

I think this one is getting a life of its own. The more reporters are poring over old maps of SE Asia and tracking down 60+ year old former Ops Officers for questions, the less they are focusing on the Democratic message. Not really helpful just before the RNC and during the last few weeks of the campaign.

Posted by: steve at August 18, 2004 02:08 PM

Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner — who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry’s candidacy …

Wait a minute! I thought there wasn’t anyone in the boat that was against him.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at August 18, 2004 02:56 PM

The only thing for that seems certain for me is that the truth will be sacrificed for party lines, whether you were sharing a boat or not.

And the ‘independence’ of the SBV’s seems pretty shallow too.

In that respect its such a non issue.

Posted by: symptomless at August 18, 2004 06:15 PM

I love how “Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan” can provide such an authoritative answer on the question of whether there was paperwork for such missions!

Posted by: Bostonian at August 18, 2004 06:17 PM

Rich Blinne,
You’re right to notice that. Gardner is the exception. A moderately enterprising reporter could discover this, if he wanted t o.

I think there were also a couple other guys who don’t want any part of this at all, and have not said anything on either side. Could be wrong about that, though.

I highly recommend the swiftvets web site by the way.

Posted by: Bostonian at August 18, 2004 06:27 PM

Good take on it, Bostonian. Being a Hospital Corpsman and in-Country at the same time, I also realize that a lot of what is being bandied (or band-aided) about is just so much fluff, not because some of these things happened, but I never discussed my experiences with anyone including my wife for 15 years after I came back. Most guys that were actually there and experienced war at its worst don’t have a lot to say about it. If you weren’t there you can’t in any way understand.

I’d like to think that Senator Kerry would be open and frank and admit that the things he told Congress were lies. Admitting that would go a long way towards healing my open wounds. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 18, 2004 06:50 PM

Feel like I’m piling on, but… Just from the extract provided, we have the following score:

Meehan: Kerry was in Cambodia sometime
Wasser: We didn’t go
Gardner: Hell no, we didn’t go
Medieros: I didn’t go either

So it’s 3-1, including two guys who support Kerry. So, please tell me why the headline is “Kerry disputes allegations on Cambodia” rather than “Kerry supporters contradict Kerry’s Cambodia stories”?

Posted by: submandave at August 18, 2004 06:52 PM

Symptomless,

Kerry, like most Demoncrats, has multiple “Truths”. It depends on what day it happens to be.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 18, 2004 07:15 PM

Symptomless.

You know why this is an issue.

a. Kerry is running on being in Vietnam. That and that only.

b. Cambodia was the turning point in his life. The scales fell off right then and there. Searing, searing. But it is a lie. Does the man have any substance?

c. The left loves to call Bush a liar, and question his honorable service. Now look who’s lying.

Too bad Kerry didn’t stick to issues (chuckle).

Posted by: jones at August 18, 2004 07:17 PM

This report of Kerry’s own journal tells about his first Purple Heart. I saw the report on today’s Instapundit blog. Their is a story there about one of Kerry’s strongest supporters, Sen. Tom Harkin.

The problem is that Tom Harkin has already been proven to be a liar about his own Vietnam service.

This is One Proven Liar shielding another one.

It is ALL IN THEIR OWN WORDS!!! John Kerry’s and Tom Harkin’s.

Read it for yourself.

August 18th, 2004 ….. Kerry and Harkin’s own words

This tells the story. Read it NOW.

In his own words, John Kerry says that his First Combat Award was a given out for a boat ride that took place a week BEFORE he ever heard a shot fired in Combat.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 18, 2004 07:43 PM

The only defense for Kerry is actual third party documentation compiled at the source to support his claims. This should be easy enough to round up and submit.

Relying on specific extracts in Fit Reps and the “official” commendation in the award citation is not sufficient. I have seen more than my share of fit reps that weren’t worth the paper they were written on. As for the commendation for the award of the event, it is often written by an unknown petty officer in the rear Admin sections who know that certain phrases, words and descriptions are mandatory if anyone hopes for a recommended award to get passed by higher headquarters. They may take the after action reports and maybe some eyewitness accounts if available, but they then turn out the “approved” format and style including required verbage to get it approved. Any 3rd Class Yeoman petty officer worth his or her salt should be able to accomplish that. And yes, it is often embellished in the end. My experiences are such that the senior Admin chief did not want any officers, especially J.O.’s messing with their system.

Hence I take any demonstrative defense based upon citing Adm Zumwalt’s signature as the final say or that this is from “official Navy correspondence” all in stride and assume the person making those accusations does not know how shakey the foundation they may be about relying on these documents.

The investigative reporters need to access the actual daily ops reports, casualty reports and after action reports to get closer to the truth. Checking time in and time out of patrol, fuel logs and checkpoints passed can give one a pretty good idea of where units may have been at any given time.

I could be wrong about all of this, but it’s pretty much based upon over 30 years experience.

Posted by: steve at August 18, 2004 08:00 PM

Separately, according to Meehan’s statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces.

I may be wrong but arent the missions of special operations forces during vietnam still classified….I’m pretty sure SEAL missions are from some stuff I read…and if said mission did happen, and said mission is still classified…wouldnt Kerry and those putting this out for the general media be in criminal violation of of national security matters?

But then I would expect nothing less from from a politcal party and their supporters who minimize Sandy Bergers theft of classified material from the national archives…

Posted by: terlizzi999 at August 18, 2004 11:08 PM