|Questions and Observations|
Oh yeah. because at every moment throughout the war they were exactly that close.
Give me a break. I could display photos that show them going solo, or far apart from each other.
Are you that easily swayed to believe the garbage those guys are slinging?
Posted by: BlogD at August 11, 2004 09:49 AM
It has nothing to do with every moment, slugger. It has to do with the fact it was Standard Operating Procedure to operate in groups. What that means is all the claims that John Kerry has made were observed by others in boats as close as you see them in the pictures.
That's because, as you might have now guessed, they worked very closely in groups.
So to pretend he was wandering around out there alone at those times or that the boats were so far apart they couldn't possibly have seen what was going on is, obviously, incorrect.
I know its a blow to your preconceived notions, but sometimes reality's a bitch.
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 09:56 AM
BlogD, these guys bunked together every night. They ate together. They talked about their operations. To act like no one except for the people actually on Kerry's swift boat knew what Kerry was doing is just foolishness.
Only one of the officers Kerry served with thinks he's fit for command.
If you want to play the "they weren't on the boat with him" game, then I'll ask you this: since no crewman was on board with Kerry for longer than 5 weeks, what makes you think that would give any more insight into Kerry's command than officers serving with him for the full 4 months Kerry was in country?
Oh, and one member of Kerry's crew, Stephen Gardner, is part of SBVT.
So, the burden is on you: prove that what the SBVT is saying is garbage.
Posted by: Steverino at August 11, 2004 09:58 AM
Uh, BlogD, you're ignoring a fundamental fact - Swift Boats usually sailed in groups of about six.
Posted by: Pietro at August 11, 2004 10:02 AM
Many of the sailors in "Unfit for Command" bunked
The only sailors supporting Kerry are his underlings.
Regardless what you think of the "Unfit for Command"
Posted by: George at August 11, 2004 10:04 AM
McQ- Read here.
Posted by: John Cole at August 11, 2004 10:04 AM
Thanks John ... linked.
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 10:15 AM
Hey, the New York Daily news says almost the exact
Posted by: George at August 11, 2004 10:39 AM
the lies are DEVASTATING.
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 11:23 AM
LOL. You're priceless, Dan.
From an electoral standpoint, this is a speed-bump. It probably won't even nudge the polls. Just a little strategic political gotcha stuff.
It's happened to every candidate of note, and it happens repeatedly to every President.
This, too, shall pass.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 11:29 AM
Jon, I agree with you in part. It will just be a speedbump. But with the election looking like a repeat of 2000, an ant's ass is enough to lose it so this might be more critical than you think.
I'm surrounded by faithful members of the Church of Michael 'Jesus' Moore and the rumbling from them is that they can't vote for Kerry and may not vote at all. Granted my sampling is less than a dozen so my margin of error is +/- 200%
Posted by: Sharp as a Marbl at August 11, 2004 12:34 PM
lying for 35 years about the supposedly central event in one's life is NOT a speedbump!
Lileks condemns kerry because kerry's lie undercuts the isuue that kerry has made the centerpiece of his campaign - hgis 4 months in veetnom.
but lileks understates the centrality of "the cambodia lie" in kerry's entire public life:
it is the very foundation of his anti-Pentagon politics,
it is square #1 of the entire Vietnam Syndrome which he was so central in forming/promulgating in the USA and which has been at the very center of the anti-war anti-veetnom anti-Pentagon movement since 1970.
i know: i was part of it from 1965-1985.
by exposing the cambodia tale as a lie it undermines Kerry as a messenger BUT IT ALSO UNDERMINES THE ANTI-VIETNAM ANTI-WAR ANTI-IRAQ WAR movement.
kerry and the anti-war movement is based on a lie.
kerry will not survive this lie becuase it undercuts his RAISON D'ETRE as a politician.
the seminal event in his life - according to kerry - was a complete and total fabrication.
this is devatating.
wake up! get with it!
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 12:55 PM
Ok, Dan. What do you say we give it a few weeks, and revisit whether John Kerry is still on the Democratic ticket?
Wanna wager, say, 50 bucks? My money is on Kerry being on the ticket.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 01:10 PM
I agree with Jon here. The Cambodia thing is a non-starter for 99% of the electorate (I suspect that 50% of the electorate couldn't locate cambodia on a map, let alone understand the significance of a US presence in the nation during the late '60's). We need to remember that we are actually engaged in this thing at a much higher level than the populace in general. Now, if Kerry was saying that we were invading Syria and Iran while fighting in Iraq then we might have an issue that the electorate in general might be concerned over. Cambodia in 1969 is just too far removed for anyone who isn't a political junkie.
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 11, 2004 01:34 PM
And they could have bought such a lie four years ago when it might have done some good.
No, they went and hired by bribery over TWO HUNDRED Navy veterans to lie about John Kerry.
That's not just mean. That's not just wasteful of limited political campaign resources. It's not just bigoted, homophobic, war-mongering, anti-abortion, pro-Evangelical chimpanzee-loving, Kool-Aid drinking, Republican doubleplus ungood group-think!
It's stupid. And way too late.
Nobody is going to believe Viet Nam veterans! Lying baby-killing war-criminal drug-addicted flashback-delusional Agent-Orange-addled deranged demented minority impoverished scumbuckets too stupid to figure out how to avoid the (illegal!) draft and wound up "serving" in an undeclared war that EVERYBODY KNEW WAS WRONG AT THE TIME.
Nobody ever believed them before. Nobody believed them at the time, nobody has believed them in the Reagan era, and nobody is going to believe them now. It's too late. The Republican bribers moved too slow. It's over. Vietnam veterans have NO credibility about the war. Only academic historians, Hollywood celebrities, or protestors -- like Kerry himself -- have any standing in the court of public opinion to speak about that war.
So why would Republicans spend good money to bribe SVT to lie to us about ANYTHING? Unless the bribers were stupid.
Which they are.
Which, I guess, proves that...
Posted by: Pouncer at August 11, 2004 01:54 PM
Curt: Where it is a starter is in the military and the veteran communities. It isn't about where Cambodia is, its about a guy who's faked and fabricated a lot of stuff these folks have always considered to be pretty sacred.
That's where its impact will be felt ... in American Legion meetings and VFW halls, etc., this will be a story told and it will have an impact.
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 02:26 PM
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 11, 2004 02:47 PM
Posted by: George at August 11, 2004 02:48 PM
More is at stake than a lousy $50 BUCKS!
Glenn just posted a copy of the Boston Herald article penned by Kerry in which he asserts that he went into Cambodia AT LEAST FIVE TIMES!
This type of lying - this self-serving filthy lie-fest - should make Kerry unacceptable as a candidate for ANY public office, let alone the CIC!
These lies not only served to aggrandize Kerry, but they damaged the reputation of the USA, the Pentagon and the Presidency itself.
Kerry's lies - and the DOVISH anti-Pentagon spending policies Kerry built upon these lies - diminished the safety of Americans, our armed forces, and our ability to defend the free world.
Kerry is certainly UNFIT for any office and the sooner smug self-annointed "moderate/independent" jerks like you accept that fact and start hollering for huim to stpe down, the sooner he will step down - FOR THE GOOD OF THE DNC, AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE ELECTION, AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION.
If he lacks the courage to do that - and perhaps his lies prove that he does lack courage - maybe some BRAVE SENIOR DEMOCRATS - if there are any left - should demand he steps down.
Deceitful liars whose lies hurt the USA military, presidency, and have sullied the Congress have no place in public life!
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 03:01 PM
Dan: tell that to Clinton.
No, better yet, tell it to those who elected Clinton.
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 03:14 PM
the dems all said clinton's lies were just about sex.
a private matter.
are kerry's lies about sex?
I think they are much more serious.
The Kerry Lies served as the FOUNDATION his explanation for: decrying presidential power (AND SEEKING TO CURTAIL IT); for decrying the Pentagon (AND SEEKING TO DEFUND IT); screaming to the world - for 35 years - that the USA was an evil empire run amok that needed to curtailed.
Reagan slam dundked the left-ing here - and abroad. CLinton, and the DLC, resurrcted the DNC by wresting it away from the deluded lLeft - the Left of McGovern and Kerry.
Now Kerry has taken the DNC back to the Left.
And now - IT IS UNDENIABLE AND INCONTROVERTI(VBLE THAT KERRY LIED.
What makes it WORSE: THESE LIES WERE CENTRAL TO HIS LEFTIST PROGRAM.
It exposes Kerry, and it expose the LEft as the deluded cynical bastards they are.
Lying to advance themselves and their anti-American policies.
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 03:23 PM
Uh, actually, I voted for Clinton in '92.
Posted by: Dale Franks at August 11, 2004 03:40 PM
i voted for clinton twice and for gore. and for carter.
then reality intevened: the wall fell.
i became a libertarian hawk.
i supported the '91 war - and voted for clinton because he claimed to be more of a hawk than bush - who failed to dethrone saddam.
I believed in clinton and rubin until Bubba's Bubbles burst. and the bosnian inaction and the rwandan inaction and the failure to deal with UBL or saddam after khobar and somalia and the USSCole - and his brown-nosing of arafat - means to me that the clinton presidency MUST be considered a failure.
except for NAFTA and... what else did he do?!!?
now i am a dem who votes GOP.
GWBush inherited a nation in lousy shape: a lousy terror war, a lousy economy - three bubbles and widespread malfeasance - and GWBUSH has done VERY VERY WELL.
kerry would be worse than carter who was worser than clinton.
BTW: DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE DOUBT THAT IF PORTER GOSS HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN THE CAMBODIAN CHRISTMAS LIE THAT HE'D HAVE TO DROP OUT OF CONSIDERATION FOR DCI!?!?!?!?
WHY WOULD ANYONE WEANT TO HOLD THE CIC TO A LOWER STANDARD!?!??!
it doesn't make sense.... jon henke!
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 04:14 PM
It's been proven to my satisfaction that Kerry is a liar and a fraud.
Aside from the fact that I like to see the Kerry camp squirm a bit, this issue is a distractor at this point. We need to move onto real issues.
You want to get my attention? You won't do it with old college sports photos. Lets start asking both Bush and especially Kerry what their plans to deal with Iran are.
Posted by: shark at August 11, 2004 04:30 PM
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 04:38 PM
Priceless, Dan. So, I guess this means you don't want to take that bet?
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 04:43 PM
Jon Henke - YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 04:48 PM
If you don't like dissenting opinions, then you probably shouldn't read QandO. We might make you uncomfortable now and then, and that would really be a shame.
Go insulate yourself with people who agree with you, and by all mean, stop thinking. It's obviously far too painful.
Look, I appreciate you reading, and I don't mind disagreement, but calling me an asshole for disagreeing with you? Get real.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 04:53 PM
Jon - I called you an asshole because you keep bringing upo a $50 bet.
I disagree with your views, but only attack them with facts, not epithets.
Saying "let's Bet on it!" is assine, and juvenile AND PROVES NOTHING - except you are an asshole.
How about answering ONE POINT I raised: would you vote to confirm Goss as DCi if he had told the Kerry lie on the floor of the House?
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 05:07 PM
i disagreed with shark's point (above) without any epithets becuase he is not an asshole like jon henke.
jon : you debate as effectively as the kerry camp has on the SVBT charges - you change the subject, you go ad hoiminem, and you threaten.
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 05:09 PM
from powerline -
Via Little Green Footballs and Human Events Online here's the Kerry spin on Christmas in Cambodia:
Today, on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show’s co-host Brian Kilmeade:
JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.
KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.
JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What to make of this? It occurs to me that, in 1968, the difference between being in Cambodia and being near Cambodia was not insignificant. In fact, the whole point of Kerry's now retracted claim that he was in Cambodia (and the reason why his memory of being there might have been "seering") was to show that President Nixon was lying when he said that American combat forces were in Cambodia. Nixon wouldn't have been lying if Kerry had merely been near Cambodia. For purposes of the point Kerry was making on the Senate floor, if he wasn't actually in Cambodia he might just as well have been in Aspen.
This may be why Kerry is sticking to the story that later (on a date he can't remember) he was in Cambodia. And the fact that Nixon wasn't yet president in December 1968 may lend plausibility to Kerry's claim that, long after the fact, merely got the date wrong. But, if the statements of people like Kerry comrade Steve Gardner are true, I don't understand how Kerry could have made it to Cambodia at any time by boat.
Posted by deacon at 05:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 05:26 PM
Thanks for the tip, Dan. Of course, I'd point out that you've been reading my blog for a very long time. I don't recall reading anything of yours once.
Must be some reason. In any event, I've initiated nothing with you, and merely responded to being called a "smug self-annointed "moderate/independent" jerks".
So, let's not pretend I'm the asshole here.
Feel free to continue this conversation with yourself elsewhere. You're not longer disagreeing. You're being abusive. I see no value in that.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 05:32 PM
shark: Now's the perfect time for a distraction, politically speaking.
The time between conventions.
Keep Kerry covering up and off the issues until convention time and then the Repubs have the lead and the bit in their mouth to change this all over to the present and booya!, they define the rest of the run for the roses.
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 06:03 PM
more attacks jon henke. personal attacks.
how about answering the questions:
(1) AGREE OR DISAGREE: If Goss was caught in the same lie he would NOT be confirmed as DCI.
(2) If Goss would not be confirmed, then why do you think that this lie does not disqualify Kerry?
(3) If you answer that you feel it would be fine and proper for Goss would be confirmed - and that you believe that he would actually be confirmed anyhow, and that this lie would not make him a terrible choice for DCI - then this confirms you are a cynic - and not a centrist - because it would confirm that you firmly believe that "all politicians lie, so who cares." Is this TRUE OR FALSE?
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 06:03 PM
UPDATE: The Kerry Campaign is backpedaling now. Guess the memory wasn't that "searing" after all. "Near" Cambodia? Just modify the quote above, or this one, to reflect that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia, but "near" it, and see how that plays.
MORE: Reader Brian Berry emails:
Would we want him as DCI? Would he get confirmed? NO WAY!
We should not hold Kerry - who is running for CIC - to a lower standard.
posted at 02:29 PM by Glenn Reynolds
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 06:06 PM
Sheesh, at least JadeGold was amusing.
Posted by: Steverino at August 11, 2004 06:29 PM
sounds like a personal attack, steverino.
can anyone one defending kerry - or claiming that his Cambodia Lies ahouldn't be a big deal - provide a fact that supports their view?
like: he didn't lie.
his lies should destroy his campaign, if it does not then i argue something is very wrong with the body politic - specifically the left side of that body - which doesn't seem to care that their most recent president - clinton - lied.
or that hillary SOMEHOW made a fortune in commodity futures.
or that teddy kennedy committed vehicular homicide.
or that byrd was a kkk leader in a branch that committed lynchings.
or that kerry is a liar whose lies were deliberately told to advance his career and to damage the US military. and that he told them more than once to the US SENATE.
tell me: why doesn't this stuff matter to the Left?
or to the "cynical center"?
Posted by: dan at August 11, 2004 07:05 PM
To answer your question: it depends on the relevance of the lie to the position. If you think we're going to find a person who has held office for many years, and cannot be credibly accused of lying, you haven't been paying attention.
And, for the love of god, quit it with the ALL CAPS. It's annoying as hell.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 07:25 PM
Even if all of you are right, the record of George W. Bush is so bad, Kerry would be a welcome change.
We can't go on with the Bush failed policies. He has failed internationally (Afganistan was never finished, needs $100 billion badly to get the job done), and he has failed at home economically.
Throw him out.
Posted by: Tony Martin at August 11, 2004 09:13 PM
When I look at the differences between the two major party candidates up for election I see the following. Internationally Kerry has said we need to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for the time being, same as Bush. They disagree on strategy and implementation but not on the founding principle that the war was the right thing to do. Domestically, the Bush adminstration had given me more of my money back, it is proposing to partially privatize social security, which allows me to rely on myself and not the government. Kerry has said that he will repeal tax cuts, which means he wants more of my money, he is in favor of an even larger medicare drug program than the one the Bush administration and congress passed last year (I was against the Bush plan as well) and he is against privatizing social security, which means the program will continue to fall apart without a huge increase in FICA.
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 11, 2004 10:25 PM
George: you should give people credit when you quote them - otherwose it is plagiarism.
Posted by: dan at August 12, 2004 05:24 PM
John Kerry conceded (via Johnson) that what Stephen Gardner has said about them not being in Cambodia is true. So maybe the SBVT guys aren't lying through their teeth afterall, eh?
Since the Kerry campaign has basically admitted that the Cambodia story was just that - a story - perhaps they should lessen their dispicability and stop the smear campaign against Gardner.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at August 13, 2004 04:26 PM
Geeze, no matter where I go, it looks like the same conversation with different players.
This is nothing but a distraction. I see Bush is calling Kerry's service "honorable", because to do otherwise would be hypocritical.
This is going to be another close election. All but 10% of the voters have already made up their minds -- this is why you will see no "bounce" come out of either convention. Neither candidate is especially "exciting", and both have serious liabilities. Voters on both sides will hold their nose going into the polls, and this election will be decided by the party that manages to turn out the most of their voters.
People can argue for the next three months on the military service of a candidate thirty years ago and there will never be anyone changing their mind. Most voters are concerned with today and tomorrow.
Posted by: Political Pulpit at August 14, 2004 04:35 PM
Jon, Pulpit, etc.
You're quite wrong to think this isn't significant. A candidate who predicates his run for the Presidency on his service in Vietnam has been dishonest about that very service. Has lied about it for political purposes throughout his career. Has attempted to influence America's foreign policy by lying about his own actions in Vietnam...note that 1986 statement before Congress was made expressly to influence our policy concerning Nicaragua.
People care about these things. Character matters to the American voter even more than policies do.
The noisy anti-war ABB crowd makes up only a minor percentage of the electorate. Don't let their shouting fool you.
Posted by: Syl at August 15, 2004 01:28 PM
One man volunteered to serve, and saw combat. The other supported the war before and after, but when he filled out the sheet of paper that asked if he would be willing to go to vietnam, he marked no. That is a fact and it is blatant hypocrisy, that is why George W. Bush has to go. He has zero credibility with half the population and 80% of the world. The President is our spokesman to the world, GW's distant and recent history show him to be unprincipled.
Bush has no successes to stand on so he must attack Kerry's perceived failings. Iraq is a mess, Doctors without borders has left Afganistan after 20 years, and we are down 1 million jobs since the man took office. How can this be a confusing choice for anyone?
Posted by: Lee at August 15, 2004 02:38 PM