Kerry Lied about 'Christmas in Cambodia'

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
COOL HAND says


What about this quote from the Drudge article:


At least three of the five crewmen on Kerrys boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia.


Was that what you were looking for?


No, that is not what I was looking for. Please try to keep up with the discussion. I am well aware of what the Drudge article says. In my first post in this thread, I said


Finally, we are told that three of Kerry's crew deny they were ever in Cambodia. Why aren't we presented with affidavits, or at least quotes, from these crewmen? All we have is the word of John O'Neill, the lead author of the book, that these crewmen have made these denials.


So what I am looking for is actual quotes from these three crewmen, not just John O'Neill telling us what they said. Since John O'Neill has zero credibility in my book, I would like to see the contents of actual affidavits signed by these crewmen. So far, we haven't seen the affidavits. We haven't even seen evidence that these three crewmen signed affidavits relative to the Christmas in Cambodia story.

Sorry to be so skeptical, but if you bother to investigate John O'Neill, you will understand why I put no stock in his credibility.




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Today class, we will have a lesson called "Fun With Quotes"


on the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, Senator John Kerry said:
"Mr. President, 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 ....
"
Congressoinal Record - Senate(3rd column on page)


John Kerry wrote 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 killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."


Fun facts about this last quote: Nixon wasn't president until 1969. (How embarrassing)





[edit on 9-8-2004 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by donguillermo
The crew of the boats guarding the Cambodian border would have to be informed, otherwise they would not let Kerry cross the border.


So if there were boats near the border, why were they not used? Are you trying to tell us that it made more sense to send in a boat from further away to carry out that mission?


Again, please try to keep up with the discussion. From FlyerFan's copy and paste post.


At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing.


I don't have any knowledge of names for Navy boats. I would guess that a PBR boat and a gunboat are different types of boats than swift boats. The PB in PBR likely stands for patrol boat.




Why would we have others stepping forward? The plausible deniability argument applies to them too. Any individuals who had knowledge of a secret, illegal mission into Cambodia, and failed to report it, would be guilty of a court-martial offense themselves.

That has not stopped people before. Had this been an acutal incident then there would have been an actual investigation where they would be offered amnesty in exchange for testimony.


I don't see your logic here. If there had been a secret mission with command approval, why would there be an investigation? It was a secret mission, remember? Why would Naval Command investigate a mission which it deliberately kept secret?




He was at the end of the line for swift boat patrols, so there would have been no swift boat closer to Cambodia.


Before you said there were boats at the border, now you flip and say that he was at the end of the line. Were there boats there that he had to coordinate passage with or not?


Where is the flip flop? I stated that he was at the end of the line for swift boats. The quote above makes it clear that there were PBR boats between Sa Dec and the border, and gunboats guarding the border.


BTW I doubt that they would be running this mission at high speed, it would have given them away from the start.


Excuse me, I was talking about the 50 miles between Sa Dec and the Cambodian border. There would only be a need for silence and stealth after Kerry actually entered Cambodia.


[edit on 8/9/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Fun facts about this last quote: Nixon wasn't president until 1969. (How embarrassing)
[edit on 9-8-2004 by dbates]


Your link says:



His election in 1968 had climaxed a career unusual on two counts: his early success and his comeback after being defeated for President in 1960 and for Governor of California in 1962


(How embarrassing)

[edit on 9-8-2004 by curme]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Nixon.

elected in 1968.

inaugurated in January of 1969.

funny thing about spinning tales, actual facts will trip you up, eventually.

The Cambodia incursion was 1970.

Did John Kerry re-up for a 2nd "secret tour" of duty?



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Think about it. If Kerry is elected in 2004, what year will he become president? [size=+2]2005 So in this case, Nixon was elected in 1968, but was not president, and could not speak as president until January 1969 after he was sworn in as president.

So, as I stated...Nixon was not president until 1969. Still embarrassing for Kerry..


[edit on 9-8-2004 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
So, according to you dbates, this sentence would be wrong:

"President Bush once owned the Texas Rangers."

because Bush wasn't President then?

Are you saying Kerry should have said, "presidential hopeful Nixon" or "Nixon, who later became President"?

EDIT: Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the quotes say the same thing, just worded differently.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by curme]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It is possible, but doesn't seem likely that a someone other than the president would be making a radio address that could be heard in Vietnam on Christmas day. Why do the details seem fuzzy? I have shown you proof that Kerry said these things, but where's Kerry's proof that he was actually there.

moxyone made an excellent observation:

Originally posted by moxyone
funny thing about spinning tales, actual facts will trip you up, eventually.

Very, very true. This is one of the methods that police use to establish if a suspect is speaking the truth. Do his stories line up with what the facts show? Are certain facts out of place or just don't quite make sense?

I suggest that Kerry was never there and challenge anyone to show proof other than "Kerry said" that he was indeed in Cambodia. It cannot be done, so we must assume that Kerry is delusional, or a liar. That doesn't disqualify him from politics, it just establishes a base for who we are dealing with.


[edit on 9-8-2004 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Ahem.

The salient point is that Kerry insinuates that he was part of Nixon's "illegal Cambodia incursion", an event that occurred well after Kerry had returned home.

As the record becomes clear, it is obvious that Kerry sought to become another "JFK"/ PT 109.

This effort was successful until he wrapped his Presidential aspirations around his short stint in Vietnam 35 years ago, instead of his most recent 2 decades in the US Senate.

Hillary must be silently cheering Kerry's incipient demise.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So, according to you dbates, this sentence would be wrong:

"President Bush once owned the Texas Rangers."

because Bush wasn't President then?

Are you saying Kerry should have said, "presidential hopeful Nixon" or "Nixon, who later became President"?




In a speech before the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience. Kerry told his colleagues he was on Navy duty in Cambodia at a time when President Richard M. Nixon lied to the public and said that there were no U.S. forces in that country. He even took enemy fire. In his words, "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."



Kerry, in no uncertain terms, is saying that he was in Cambodia at the same time President Nixon was lying to the American public about such incursions. If Nixon's policies and statement to the public had not yet happened - it seems clear that this man lied before Congress.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
moxyone says


Hillary must be silently cheering Kerry's incipient demise.


Are you suggesting that Hillary is secretly plotting the assassination of Senator Kerry, as she supposedly had Vince Foster and others assassinated? Or are you predicting Kerry's incipient political demise? I think you are a little premature in your political obituary. Kerry leads Bush among likely voters in four out of five polls conducted in August. Among registered voters, Kerry leads in seven out of eight polls.

PollingReport.com National Trial Heat Summary

In an electoral vote projection, based on the latest state polls, Kerry leads Bush 307-231.

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

Do you really think the Swift Boat Veterans are going to get any traction with public opinion? I doubt it. John McCain has denounced their ad as dishonest and dishonorable. The mainstream media coverage I have seen has absolutely savaged the Swift Boat Veterans. I saw an NBC News story over the weekend that blew one hole after another in the group's credibility. Of course, the story is getting huge play on Drudge. I would expect that other right-wing propaganda sources like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are also pushing the story. But the consumers of those news sources are going to vote for Bush anyway.

Meanwhile, the money trail reveals that the group is being financed by big-time Republican donors. One of them is a friend of Karl Rove. Did you ever hear of blowback? A lot of voters are going to be turned off by the sliming of the war record of a decorated Viet Nam Veteran, especially since the group has obvious connections to the Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Meanwhile, all the attention being given to Kerry's service record opens the door for the Democrats to bring up Bush's record of being AWOL and a deserter. This story has had some new developments lately, but the story is still radioactive for the mainstream media. The AWOL and deserter story doesn't rely on the memory of politically motivated veterans about events 35 years ago. The obscure codes and abbreviations used on Bush's Air National Guard records have been deciphered, and there is conclusive evidence that Bush was both AWOL and a deserter.

Kerry has already mentioned that Bush cannot account for his Air National Guard service. If Kerry and the Democrats start hammering the AWOL and deserter story, the mainstream media will be forced to cover it.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
What I find interesting is that the vilification of the swift boat sailors who dare come out against Kerry is begining. Funny how the media will take Kerry at his word about his Vietnam experience, but question integrity of the swift boat vets. Interesting that of all the vets on the boat, what like one will actually vote for him?


Actually, of the eleven men who served on the same boat with Kerry, ten of them support Kerry and will probably vote for him. Only one, Steven Gardner, is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for truth.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Are you suggesting that Hillary is secretly plotting the assassination of Senator Kerry, as she supposedly had Vince Foster and others assassinated?


From a political standpoint, maybe. It would set her up nicely for 2008. If Dems believe thier rhetoric that Bush is a total disaster for the next 4 years, then winning the White House would be all the more easier. Hillary is the consumate political shark. She is a smooth operator and understand power. She will loose no sleep if Kerry is taken apart. If she needs to nudge things in that direction, I don't think she would shrink from that for a second.

Did she kill or ordered Vince Foster Killed? No, If she had somone with an AX to grind would have taken her down by now. However, the report of her or an aide rooting around his office is very suspicious. Much like William Casey, Foster took alot of secrets to his grave.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Don, the bottom line is Kerry is really pushing his Vietnam service. There are questions about it. Are the questions politically motivated? You Bet! Same goes for the questions about Bushes Guard Service. Its political. If he has anything to hide, no worries, but there are alot of questions about inconsistencies in his stories, questions about the purple hearts etc.

Why are they trying to censor the publication of the book? I mean really to have the Lawyers for the DNC and Kerry go after them. If they had let it go, it may not have been as big of a deal as it is now being made to be. Will this effect the outcome? Maybe if the story has staying power (and it seems that it may) then Kerry will have to devote time and energy doing spin and damage controll instead of attacking Bush.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FredT
What I find interesting is that the vilification of the swift boat sailors who dare come out against Kerry is begining


Yes, it is interesting. Kerry has begun his shakedown of the veterans.

humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net...

www.conservativeunderground.com...


LOL. Too funny, FlyersFan. So you are posting on Conservative Underground. I noticed you copied and pasted a long copy and paste post there into this thread. It is always good to spam ATS with spam from other forums. I also noticed this in your posts in the other forum.


Good stuff all! I'll be using it.
If anyone wants to help me out here it would be great -
www.abovetopsecret.com...


LOL. So you are recruiting posters from Conservative Underground to come over here and pollute ATS with their right-wing hate and slime. Great!!


The chickiepoo with the Hillary in sunglasses avatar
(near the end of the thread) gets me! UGH!
Talk about frightening avatar!



I want facts to make her cyber head explode!


Gee, Flyersfan, are you talking about me? How about if I start posting at Conservative Underground and make the heads of your colleagues over there explode? How long would it take for me to be banned? About five minutes?



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
FredT says


Why are they trying to censor the publication of the book? I mean really to have the Lawyers for the DNC and Kerry go after them. If they had let it go, it may not have been as big of a deal as it is now being made to be.


Are they trying to censor publication of the book? I must have missed that news. Do you have a link? The only thing I had heard is that the Democrats are sending out letters to TV stations stating that, in their opinion, the anti-Kerry ad is libel. That is not censorship, they are just exercising their free speech rights.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Gee, Flyersfan, are you talking about me? How about if I start posting at Conservative Underground and make the heads of your colleagues over there explode? How long would it take for me to be banned? About five minutes?


Yes, I am talking about you. I'd love to see you try to explode some
heads over there. Polite liberals are welcome. I haven't seen too many
people be banned. If you were to speak like you do here, I doubt
you'd be banned. I'm not in charge there, so I can't make promises,
but I highly doubt you'd be banned. Go ahead and give it a try.
Take that (yikes) avatar with ya'. That will get some attention


Honestly ... I hate Hillary. I never thought there would be a liberal
I hate more, but John Kerry has gone past Hillary. She's can do the job.
(president) He's a buffoon. Your avatar is the spookiest thing I have
seen here. Spooooooooooooooooooooky!



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
So you are recruiting posters from Conservative Underground to come over here and pollute ATS with their right-wing hate and slime. Great!!


Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, no hate. Just some facts to help
enlighten the poor socialists who have polluted the
democratic party. Bring the democratic party back to being
full of true democrats instead of the neo-socialists that
it is full of now.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Don, the bottom line is Kerry is really pushing his Vietnam service.


- I don't buy that Fred. I think Kerry has spiked the usual 'soft on defense' tack from the republicans and they have responded as we see.


There are questions about it.


- Sure, that seems to me to fine but when groups of men are put up to comment (as with the swift boat guys) I have more time for the men of Kerrys boat who stand (bar 1) to a man with him than the others in view of Kerry's 'hate figure' status with some vets due to his previous public war testimonies. Especially as retractions and apologies are now being made.


Are the questions politically motivated? You Bet! Same goes for the questions about Bushes Guard Service. Its political. If he has anything to hide, no worries, but there are alot of questions about inconsistencies in his stories, questions about the purple hearts etc.


- Yeah no doubt a lot is yet to come out.

So far I see a lot of comment and question about Kerry (who, let us remind ourselves was actually there) being answered.....

.....and on the Bush side of the equation? Large amounts of excuse and double-talk and lost records and the guy spent his time (and even that is questionable) not in Vietnam but in continental USA in the champagne squadron!


Why are they trying to censor the publication of the book? I mean really to have the Lawyers for the DNC and Kerry go after them. If they had let it go, it may not have been as big of a deal as it is now being made to be. Will this effect the outcome? Maybe if the story has staying power (and it seems that it may) then Kerry will have to devote time and energy doing spin and damage controll instead of attacking Bush.


- IMO this is a total damned if you do, damned if you don't, scenario. Had Kerry sat tight the line would have been all about how he did nothing so the book etc must be true.

Politics is a dirty business at the best of times but this election IMO is set to descend right to the very bottom of the sewer because Bush is desperate not to go out like pa.

I think it will be counter-productive and to no avail and he will be out though.

I don't see 50% sitting this one out and IMO Bush has brought it all on himself. He talked in 2000 of governing for all to heal the divisions and yet has led this most partisan of administrations. He will regret that, I think.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
FredT says
Are they trying to censor publication of the book? I must have missed that news. Do you have a link? The only thing I had heard is that the Democrats are sending out letters to TV stations stating that, in their opinion, the anti-Kerry ad is libel. That is not censorship, they are just exercising their free speech rights.


I was under the impression that the ad is in part of the advertising campaign for the book. If this is incorrect, I apologise for the error. However, this still smacks of censorship. The threating letter from the DNC and Kerry, seems to make objections to some of the content, but not all. And quite frankly I would need more proof than a letter before killing the add.

I do have a question about the book. How long has it been in the works? Was it done before or after Kerry started running for office?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join