Kerry Lied about 'Christmas in Cambodia'

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Something to chew on - I found this article from the Dallas Observer:



Sending gunboats up its rivers or troops into its jungles would have been an act of war and would have spread the fighting in Southeast Asia. There were, of course, covert operations that the government has since acknowledged--operations that sent American soldiers to illegally infiltrate Cambodia and other neighboring countries. The problem, SBVT contends, is that Kerry wasn't part of any of them.

"I was on that boat with him that Christmas, and we were not anywhere near Cambodia," says Steven Gardner, who served as Kerry's gunner's mate on PCF-44 (patrol craft fast) and who is now a member of SBVT. PCF-44 was based in Cam Ranh Bay, a good distance from the Cambodian border. "He didn't have the balls to do that and break international law, let alone do what we were supposed to half the time.

"You have to put yourself in perspective with this. To have taken our boat and gone up into Cambodian waters would have been suicidal for Mr. Kerry because they would have put him in prison so fast for breaking international law that it was unreal, because there were no black ops, nothing like that with our boats. We'd take our guys and drop them into VC territory, of course, but nothing like what you hear these guys talking garbage about."

Jim Wasser disagrees. He was a radarman who was second in command under Kerry on PCF-44 and is now affiliated with his campaign as part of Veterans for Kerry. Wasser, who now lives in Illinois, says that it would be unusual for an enlisted gunner's mate to specifically know the boat's position at any given time. "On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]. I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."


Steven Gardner says they were never anywhere near Cambodia. But since Gardner has "motives" let's reflect on Wasser. Wasser, is actually with the Kerry campaign, and is quoted in the article as saying:


Wasser: "On Christmas in 1968, we were close (to Cambodia). I don't know exactly where we were."


The fact that even Wasser won't support Kerry's version of the story is significant.


[edit on 10-8-2004 by Bleys]




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
the three crewmates, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner. They would be the only ones with actual knowledge about whether Kerry was ever in Cambodia.


Well... the above quote takes care of some of this that was requested.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
It is always good to spam ATS with spam from other forums

Not spam ... facts that show a pattern of Kerry deceit.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Kerry camp speechless!



The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification.


What explanation? He lied before Congress.

Link



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Personally, I have had enough of the Bush and Kerry military records. After all, we are talking about what these men were doing--or not doing--35 to 40 years ago.

Do we really care?? How many of us were so mature that we would now want to recall ad nauseum the exploits of our early adult life.
I would be more interested in seeing what Kerry has done in his years in the Senate. Perhaps he has contributed so little that he must resort to his early adult life.
Have the Kerry poeple come to the conclusion that Kerry's military record is one of the things they can base his campaign on??



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
www.nationalreview.com...
Another Steve Gardner interview.
He said Christmas in Cambodia was 'impossible'.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Do we really care??


Well, on the Bush team, perception is all there ever was, as to the competency & track record of their man. Now, perception is the only attack avenue open to them when confronted with Kerry; logical dispassionate comparative analysis of Kerry vs. Bush leaves their man coming up short.
So, be prepared for about 3 more months of this farcical & transparent smear politics of perception. The Blowback is going to be exceptionally enjoyable!



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Kerry camp speechless!

What explanation? He lied before Congress.


Before you jump to the conclusion that Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia, here is some more information to chew on. From the Washington Post, June 1, 2003.


And who is he, really?

A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attach everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."


John Kerry: Hunter, Dreamer, Realist

You will need to register with the Washington Post to read the article, and may have difficulty accessing it.

There is also evidence that the American military had already been making incursions into Cambodia before Christmas, 1968. This undermines the argument of the Swift Boat Veterans that an incursion into Cambodia would have been impossible. Since it was actually occurring, such an incursion was clearly not impossible. Newspaper archives from that time period are not available online, but Atrios at Eschaton presents the following from the New York Times.


New York Times:

12/13/67:

..Government sources acknowledged that the Administration was considering giving field commanders in South Vietnam authoriy for "hot pursuit" into the country."

...The present interpretation of the policy of self-defense generally bars hot pursuit, but in practice American commanders have engaged in it on occasion during the heat of battle."

12/12/67:

...a plan to this effect, allowing for follow-up by American forces, was "under active consideration..." ..."the decision to move into Cambodia was all but made."

11/16/68:

Since last July Cambodia has been holding eleven American crewmen from an Army river supply vessel that strayed inadvertently into Cambodian territory.

...Cambodia has finally recognized the two-sided nature of the border incidents and has asked the International Control Commission to investigate the Communist incursions that provoked allied attacks across the border."

1/22/68:

Cambodia said today that equipment was abandoned on the battlefield by the "American-South Vietnamese" force that, Cambodia maintains, crossed into her territory Thursday....

...He said that the abandoned items included red scarves worn by paratroop commandos, a United States officer's helmet, weapons, and radio sets.

Cambodia regularly charged that forces attacked targets, military and civilian, in their territory throughout this time period. I'll leave it to contemporary scholars to unravel the truth/lack of truth of those claims. But, it's quite clear that at this time the US was in possession of quite a bit of intelligence about North Vietnamese troop positions and strongholds in Cambodia which would have been difficult to derive without some cross-border surveillance.


atrios.blogspot.com...

The last paragraph is commentary by Atrios.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Don- I personally do not have any doubt that special ops were making incursions into Cambodia, Laos, etc. So let's just take that off the table right now.

It's also not the issue here. The question is and remains - was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas in '68?

It sure doesn't look like it.

Kerry's crewmates won't confirm his story. In fact, I noted in my earlier post that Wasserman says he thinks they may have been near Cambodia but not in it. Is Wasserman credible or not?

His testimony in the 80s clearly says that this incursion happened during the Nixon administration. But we know that's impossible since there was no Nixon administration in '68.

His own campaign staffers denied that he was ever in Cambodia and referred reporters to his memoirs. Once confronted with the Congressional record and Boston Globe interview they said they would attempt to "come up with an explanation."

You tell me - was he there or not?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Here is the latest clarification by the Kerry campaign. Looks like Kerry's previous statements are inoperative.


But 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 recorded 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.


Kerry's Latest Flip-Flop, Cambodia -- Did He Lie to the U.S. Senate?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Don- I personally do not have any doubt that special ops were making incursions into Cambodia, Laos, etc. So let's just take that off the table right now.

It's also not the issue here.


Actually, it is an issue, because Gardner and other Swift Boat Veterans have argued that such Cambodian incursions were impossible. If you stipulate that such incursions were occurring in 1968, then the credibility of the Swift Boat Veterans is undermined.


The question is and remains - was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas in '68?

It sure doesn't look like it.


Based on the latest clarification from the Kerry campaign, it looks like you are right. See my previous post.


Kerry's crewmates won't confirm his story. In fact, I noted in my earlier post that Wasserman says he thinks they may have been near Cambodia but not in it. Is Wasserman credible or not?


Please note that the original Drudge story named three crewmates who denied the Christmas in Cambodia story. So far, we have evidence of a denial only from Gardner. I think you mean Wasser, not Wasserman. Please note that Wasser does not deny the story. He says he had no access to navigational charts, and did not know where they were. Wasser was second in command, so it is clear that Gardner also did not know where they were.


His testimony in the 80s clearly says that this incursion happened during the Nixon administration. But we know that's impossible since there was no Nixon administration in '68.


Yes, that does damage Kerry's credibility. But, on the other hand, don't you agree that Kerry obviously knew that Nixon was not President in 1968? If he was deliberately lying about Christmas in Cambodia, don't you think he would have gotten the detail about who was President right?


His own campaign staffers denied that he was ever in Cambodia and referred reporters to his memoirs. Once confronted with the Congressional record and Boston Globe interview they said they would attempt to "come up with an explanation."


His own campaign staffers got caught with their pants down and were not up to speed on the story. A clarification has now been issued. See my previous post.


You tell me - was he there or not?


I really don't know, and neither do you. Based on the latest clarification, I would say probably not. I find it interesting that you didn't comment on the Washington Post story where Kerry alluded to a secret CIA mission to Cambodia. He made this comment over a year ago, in a context having nothing to do with the Christmas in Cambodia story. I think a witness can be self-corroborating when he makes comments at a different time and in a different context.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Don

Thanks for posting the link to the clarification story. And no, I did not realize he had aluded to a secret CIA mission to Cambodia. Would you happen to have the link?

Taking off my Republican cloak for a minute, and putting on a strictly political one:

Do you think the damage control by the campaign is adequate in this case? Right or wrong, this may open a Pandoras box, with all aspect of his service and accounts being called into question. As we both know, being in the right is not always enough. Being percieved as in the right is everything.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
And who is he, really?
A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attach everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."


Don, I reread this passage and was struck by something. This is basically the plot line from Apocolypse Now?



[edit on 12-8-2004 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Kerry's whole Vietnam tour was little more than a checkbox to be filled in his pursuit of politics. However, he probably benefitted from going and earned an interesting view on what warfare is.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
hughhewitt.com...
One last Gardiner interview

So ... when Kerry get's caught in a whopper of a lie and he flip flops,
it's 'clarification'? (so much for being so sure of the incident that it
was seared into his memory)


He wasn't there even though he testified that he was and that he was
absolutely sure of it. As the title of the thread stated.... Kerry lied
about 'Christmas in Cambodia'. Diehards can call it 'clarification' now,
but the rest of us will call it what it is ... caught in another lie.

Looks like case closed.




[edit on 8/12/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

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




OH my GAWD!!!! Is this about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black since the Kernal was booted to the curb or
WHAT!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
They say some got Homo Sapien tail..........congrats on finding the pic of your great grand daddy!


Let's get this straight: You're defending a debater who went to another board and campaigned for support to help Brownshirt this discussion here!?!?!?!

Following that logic, I guess you cheered Cheney channeling through Bush in their 9/11 commission testimony?!?!?


This thread lost all relevance after one considers what part of the world Kerry was in & where Bush was.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
They say some got Homo Sapien tail..........congrats on finding the pic of your great grand daddy!


Let's get this straight: You're defending a debater who went to another board and campaigned for support to help Brownshirt this discussion here!?!?!?!

Following that logic, I guess you cheered Cheney channeling through Bush in their 9/11 commission testimony?!?!?


This thread lost all relevance after one considers what part of the world Kerry was in & where Bush was.



I wouldn't expect anything less than this petty little post from you. I would expect that you do your share of recruiting as well, but then, I would expect just about anything from you seeing that you defend ANYONE who has the same radical leftist views as you do, no matter how far they lean...even fall over....


Nice post...try to keep the personal attacks out of it though, eh? Very childish.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
AR: We've had enough back & forth for you to know an "attack" from a chide, so stop...you've not caught the Vapors!


(note: to not be teased about being a Neanderthal, with the opinions you have, would be tremendously less likely without the avatar & sig!
I got on Natas for having a turd as his...just TOOO obvious! )

I've no need to recruit; people either review my posts & counter or add & champion the point.

Again, do you defend this "debater" for trying to derail this conversation via actively recruiting at another site known for radical Right perspectives? He was outed & caught red handed.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
AR: We've had enough back & forth for you to know an "attack" from a chide, so stop...you've not caught the Vapors!


(note: to not be teased about being a Neanderthal, with the opinions you have, would be tremendously less likely without the avatar & sig!
I got on Natas for having a turd as his...just TOOO obvious! )

I've no need to recruit; people either review my posts & counter or add & champion the point.

Again, do you defend this "debater" for trying to derail this conversation via actively recruiting at another site known for radical Right perspectives? He was outed & caught red handed.



I know you well enough to know that nothing that comes out of you is posted with anything but spite and hate. Had you seen the post that PROMPTED me to put up such an avatar you would know why it is there...but then you wouldn't think of checking that out, now would you...


I find no need to defend anyone here that can speak for themselves, just as I do not ask for anyone's help in defending me. I also find no problem with anyone of any side inviting anyone to this site. You, however, look at everything as a conspiracy of the right out to get you "good old liberals". Of course, you have no problem ganging up on one individual yourselves...but GOD FORBID two or more from the dissenting opinion gather forces against your clap trap...you bring out both barrels...


Get over yourself...you aren't that good....




[edit on 12-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]





new topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join