Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "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 being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, also talked about his experience during a speech on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986.
"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," Kerry said.
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.
I do, but I am just plain tuckered out after having fought the revolution all day! :funnyfacefreeandfun1 said:For 30 years Kerry used his story of being in Cambodia on X-mas as an indictment against the US Government. I can't believe nobody finds this story even more damning than his medals.
gop_jeff said:Kerry has been caught in a flat out lie. And may we remind the jury that the GOP wouldn't even be talking about Vietnam if Kerry would just STHU about it. But now that he has brought it up, he has shown himself to be lying about the Cambodia story. That makes me wonder how much of the rest of his Vietnam experiences he has embellished - or lied about.
Hugh Hewitt shockingly leaves me off the list of big lefty bloggers who've failed to comment on the Kerry-Cambodia story (see, e.g., here) even though I'm a regular guest on his show! Well speaking for myself, all Hugh's darkest fears are true -- I haven't commented yet because I've been busy all day on a conference call with Josh Marshall, Mary Beth Cahill, The New York Times editorial board, some dudes from the NEA, and Muqtada al-Sadr trying to figure out what our talking points are going to be.
Seriously, in my experience these damaging-looking allegations have a way of turning out not to be true, a fact that never seems to get as much coverage as the initial allegation. But it certainly looks bad from here, and I haven't seen a good explanation yet, perhaps because there isn't one. It's a little hard to see what could possibly be the motive for a Kerry lie on this front, which makes it plausible that there's a reasonable explanation, but also a little freaky if there does turn out to be one. Personally, I've never maintained that John Kerry had a George Washington-esque level of honesty (see, e.g., my article about how Kerry is basically lying about his trade policy) so my world won't be shaken to the core if this turns out to be a fib.
But how sure are we, really, that Kerry wasn't on a covert, illegal cross-border action in Cambodia and that fact isn't reflected in the official record because it was covert and illegal? Or are people who know their 'Nam history well (i.e., not me) quite certain that there were no such actions during the relevant time period?
UPDATE: Already my friend Tom Lang is casting some doubt on these allegations over at Campaign Desk.
Avatar4321 said:That was obviously a lie when he said it. after all Nixon was president yet when the Nixon administration supposedly ordered Kerry into Cambodia.
gop_jeff said:The silence of the Kerry apologists on this topic is deafening - and telling.
But how sure are we, really, that Kerry wasn't on a covert, illegal cross-border action in Cambodia and that fact isn't reflected in the official record because it was covert and illegal? Or are people who know their 'Nam history well (i.e., not me) quite certain that there were no such actions during the relevant time period?
freeandfun1 said:If he were on a covert, illegal, blah, blah, blah, I am sure it would have been classified and therefore, Kerry talking about it would be a breach of his oath.
And if it were "illegal" then he should have stood up and refused to follow and UNLAWFUL (illegal = unlawful for you libs) order.
Either way, it is telling about his character.
