Kerry, Cambodia, Nicaragua and the War on Global Terrorism

mattdono ^ | August 17, 2004 | Me

[mattdono]

On the campaign trail, at the Democrat National Convention, and in just about every interview John Kerry has ever given, we are told that John Kerry was shaped by his experiences in Vietnam and what he learned as a Lt. Junior Grade gives him the military experience necessary to be commander-in-chief. If we put aside the somewhat incredulous belief that his leadership experience --all 4 months and 11 days of it-- in Vietnam has given him the military prowess and leadership ability to be commander-in-chief, we are left with a stark truth: indeed, John Kerry was shaped by what he experienced in Vietnam.

Of course, this shouldn't comes a great surprise, because 1) most war vets (of any war) are shaped by what they experienced during war and 2) because humans are, essentially, a collection of their experience. We react to life and its decision points based largely upon our accumulated knowledge and past experience.

Nothing new here. Every knows this as the natural course of things.

This is why I think that John Kerry's Cambodia "mission" and, more importantly, his recollection of it, is precisely WHY he is not fit to be the Commander-in-Chief.

Ok. How?

Look closely at the most stark (and well-documented) example of what John Kerry said about the Cambodia incident:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is 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, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that conflict.

That has been the quotes floating around the media (albeit not the mainstream media), but that isn't the whole quote. Kerry added a few more words that actually paint a picture of how bankrupt and hollow Kerry really is. Kerry continued:

Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harms way. The danger here is our support for the Contras. Everyone knows the Contras are our Contras. We have a proprietary interest in the in the Contras. So with that proprietary interest we will raise the stakes, and then will come the commitment of our prestige and worse our pride, our pride. How many battles do we have to fight for pride? (page 6422)

The Congressional record shows that Kerry tells his story (on the Senate floor, no less), about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, being shot at by the Khmer Rouge, realizing that Nixon was lying to the American people and the U.S. soldiers, how he became disillusioned, and all of this was "seared -seared-" into his memory. Liberals have been beating about each of these individual points, but have completely missed why this statement on the Senate floor was really important.

And, for argument's sake, we 1) put aside that fact that Nixon wasn't even President in 1968 (or even the corrected date Kerry of January of 1969 [at least until Jan 20, 1969]), 2) put aside that fact that the Khmer Rouge didn't come into power and start shooting at anyone (including Americans) until 1972, 3) allow Kerry to choose his characterization of his own memory (perhaps his memory wasn't actually "seared -seared-" into his memory but, rather, "etched"), and 4) excuse John Kerry for not remembering the that he may have had some of the facts wrong on an incident that happened many years before. Considering all of that, what are you left with?

You are left with a United States Senator, standing on the floor of the United States Senate be less-than-dishonest about his war experiences and using that supposed experience to be an expert commentator on the current goings-on in 1986.

So, why would he make these remarks on the Senate floor? Why would he exaggerate his experience and paint a picture of his Cambodia experience that, at minimum, has deep factual flaws?.

He was arguing about the situation in Nicaragua.

In the late 80s, Nicaragua's government (the Marxist-Communist Sandinistas) and dictator (Daniel Ortega) were fighting the freedom fighters known as the Contras. John Kerry is using this story to thwart our support of the pro-US Contras. Interestingly, if you continue to read whole passage from the record, Kerry seems to be showing support (though cautious support) for the Contras. He cites his Cambodia experience as a reason to not get involved too heavily with the Contras. In fact, by citing this experience and his "cautious" comments, he is really arguing against support the Contras. A position that Kerry was quite open about only 1 year before. Frankly put, John Kerry's real support for the Contras was quite different.

In 1985, John Kerry (and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin) traveled to meet with Daniel Ortega. The trip was very controversial, of course, because it was in direct opposition to the U.S. government's opposition to the Communist Sandinista government.

John Kerry and Daniel Ortega in 1985

This gesture is no small matter...then or now.

When John Kerry was quoting his Cambodia experience in 1986 as a reason to be cautious of (or measure) our relationship with the Contras, he was speaking, in effect, on behalf of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas Essentially, was arguing against helping the freedom fighters (anti-communist forces). He was saying that helping the anti-communist forces was wrong, just like it was wrong to have been involved in "secret wars" in Cambodia.

So, when you look at this situation, in context, even if some of the facts can be disputed to some degree, he is still on the wrong side of the issue and, more importantly, on the wrong side of history. He was on the side of pro-communist forces. He stood against the forces of freedom. He stood against the liberation of the Nicaraguan people.

Why would we think that he won't harbor these same cautious concerns now?

He won't even address his support for the Sandinista government in the 80s. Alas, no reporter will even ask him about this incident, even though the "Christmas in Cambodia" comments are directly related to Kerry supporting and arguing on behalf of "not getting involved" in the spread of Communism?

So, what does this all mean?

Here's a logical continuum and results of John Kerry's position, though varied, on fighting for freedom throughout his life...

Instance 1 - Vietnam
Parties Involved: North Vietnamese/Viet Cong/Khmer Rouge vs. South Vietnamese/U.S.
Kerry in 1968/69: South Vietnamese and U.S. Forces
Kerry in 1971-73: Well, let's say anti-South Vietnamese/U.S. Forces (perhaps not pro-North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, but very close)

Instance 2 - Nicaragua
Parties Involved: USSR/Sandinistas vs. Contras/U.S.
Kerry in 1985: pro-Sandinista
Kerry in 1986: pro-Sandinista (and cites his Vietnam/Cambodia experience)

Instance 3 - Gulf War I
Parties Involved: Iraq/Saddam Hussein vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 1991: anti-U.S./Coalition Force retaliation

Instance 4 - War in Afghanistan
Parties Involved: Al Qaeda/Taliban vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry 2001: pro-U.S./Coalition Forces

Instance 5 - Gulf War II/War in Iraq
Parties Involved: Iraq/Saddam Hussein vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2002: pro-U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2003: well, to be fair, anti-funding for U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2004: again, to be fair, anti-funding for U.S./Coalition Forces and U.S. administration misused authority

Instance 6 - War on Terror
Parties Involved: Global Terrorism vs. U.S./Western World
PENDING

So, in only 1 instance (War in Afghanistan) has John Kerry outrightly, undeniably supported our right as a nation (or the right of another nation) to fight for freedom (and even Afghanistan could be argued because Afghanistan was part of the $87 Billion that Kerry voted against). So, even if you include Afghanistan, outright, and you believe that John Kerry is really serious about the war on terror and has the will to "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice", he has shown that 4 out of 6 major conflicts in the last 35 years, he is on the wrong side of history. Not just sort of wrong. There is no nuance to this; he's wrong, bigtime.

Then, take the fact that we don't have to "think" that George W. Bush will "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice"; we already know it. The guy has been doing it since he got up from his chair after the much-bemoaned 7 minutes in that Florida classroom. There is no disputing that. We KNOW that Bush will be fighting terrorism, tooth and nail, regardless of what political pressure (either internal or external) he experiences.

We simply can not afford to be on the wrong side of history in our current fight against global terrorists. It can't be said enough that, literally, our way of life depends on us, not beating back, but beating down terrorism.

So, the liberals can parse words, make insinuations about funding, and accuse highly decorated vets of lying, but it doesn't change the fact that John Kerry is who he is, he said what he said, and has been on the wrong side of history his entire adult life.

[mattdono]

Ping...Jon, maybe some rumination in the Stein-brain and some additional research can break this into the WashTimes?

[mattdono]

Not competing with your analysis anytime soon, but throwing it out there for review.

[Spok]

"all 4 months and 11 days of it-- in Vietnam"

Since the tour in Vietnam was a year, will Kerry serve only 1/3 of his term if he's elected?

[cwb]

Nice analysis. It unfortunately appears that when it comes to US interests and security, Kerry is on the wrong side...all the time. Whether it's direct interventon (Vietnam/Gulf War) or peripheral interventon and support (Nicaragua), Kerry doesn't seem to think anything is worth fighting for. This is a man who said communism wasn't a threat and that the war on terror was an exaggeration. I even think it's safe to say that his most recent vote in support, was nothing but political oppurtunism. The man is a danger to this country.

[Iam1ru1-2]

" remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is 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, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that conflict."

---

In this statement alone there are many lies:

He was not in Cambodia. Even if he was, it wasn't on Christmas of 1968. No Swift Boats were in Cambodia at any time. President Nixon was not in office on Christmas Day 1968. The Khmer Rouge were not a force to be reckoned with until 1972. He stated that the vietnamese and Cambodians were celebrating Christmas, but Vietnamese and Cambodians are Budhists or Hindus. They would not be celebrating Christmas.

This should tell everyone that this person, John F. Kerry is a habitual liar, and will say anything to sell his viewpoint even knowing that these lies will be found out in the future. He only thinks about the present moment and cares less about the consequences of his lies. That is why he chose a law-suit lawyer as his running mate. They are two peas in a pod. They only think of themselves and no one else. NO ONE ELSE!

[Iam1ru1-2]

"all 4 months and 11 days of it-- in Vietnam"

.......and 1+ months of that 4 month tour was spent in orientation before becoming a Swift Boat Officer. So combat wise, he only spent 3 months in combat situations in Vietnam.....the ONLY SWIFT BOAT Sailor who did NOT serve his entire tour of duty in Vietnam.

[backhoe]

-so people, please understand why arabs hate us and why liberals exist before bashing them. cause everyone makes sense through their own perspective and self-accomplishment

 

[mattdono]

True. I alluded to most of these points in the context of makring the larger point.

If I had to describe Kerry in 1 word: unprincipled.

[Iam1ru1-2]

"but, instead the usa is the defender of its own democracy and its own survival by squashing competition. now thats unfair. but before yall have your say i wanna say that i'm a nationalist conservative and i feel that my have heart may be sold a level lower than satan. i will fight and die to preserve this american dream for my children no matter how many other people around the world hate us. am i heartless? are we?"

First of all, the U.S.A (Capitalized) is not a democracy. It is a "Republic". Second, Germany, Japan, Phillipines, Poland, France, Spain, Portugal and all the other nations that we liberated from tyranny DO NOT HAVE THE U.S. "democracy" you claim we forced on them. No other nation has the rights and privileges that we have. What is a nationalist conservative? Is this the same as a RINO? If you are willing to "fight and die for this American dream for YOUR children, why do you want to deprive it for OTHER CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD? Me thinks you have been infected with the disease that is spreading rampantly among liberal demonrats and it's called foot in mouth disease.

[ravingnutter]

Speaking of Contras...I found another Kerry lie in my research this morning...

On Kerry's campaign website, the Bay State's junior senator claims he deserves credit for "holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal." In speeches and interviews, he goes even further -- alleging that he "blew the whistle" on my "illegal activities" in support of the Nicaraguan Contras. It's great fodder for the political left and hard-core radicals. It might even leave Ivy League professors panting. There is only one problem: It's not true.

John Kerry wasn't even on the so-called bipartisan congressional committee that spent months investigating the so-called Iran-Contra affair. He never asked me, or any of us involved in supporting the Nicaraguan democratic resistance, a single question. At no time did he question me or anyone else I worked with about our efforts to rescue Americans from dungeons in Beirut. He says he held me accountable? How? When? Where?

Perhaps one of the eager newshounds panting after Kerry will ask him. And maybe Kerry -- or more likely someone on his extensive campaign staff -- will produce some convoluted answers. They may even cite some subcommittee hearings that Kerry held months after the close of the official investigation. His little witch hunt eventually did publish a report that was so incredibly biased as to give the word "slander" an inadequate definition.

< snip >

More likely, the masters of the mainstream media salivating over Kerry will give him yet another free pass on these questions -- like so many others. Unlike President Bush, who has now laid bare his entire record of military service, Kerry has apparently never had to do so. This leads inevitably to the kind of confused hyperbole in the articles attached to the Kerry campaign website.

Kerry and his cronies in the Democratic Party have made Vietnam an issue in this campaign. They have slandered Bush for his service during the war. Until Kerry truthfully answers the questions above -- and a whole lot more about his actions during the war -- many of us are going to wonder what the middle initial "F" in John F. Kerry stands for. Is it "Fiction"? Or is it simply "False"?

Source

[Steven W.]

You are very correct, only two slight additions I would make:

Parties Involved: North Vietnamese/Viet Cong/Khmer Rouge vs. South Vietnamese/U.S. - add Russia & China to the other side.

Parties Involved: USSR/Sandinistas vs. Contras/U.S. - add Cuba

[Chieftain]

Tired of this guy's endless commie connections? Help the Swifties launch their Truth Torpedoes!

Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

[BushisTheMan]

Someone should ask Kerry:

What if you are President and you want out of a difficult situaion?

What does it take 3 of to leave with your tail tucked? Not purple hearts, but what?

[CT]

Has anyone else made the connection between John Kerry of the 1970's as a budding Michael Moore?

Consider: Like Moore, Kerry is into ego-driven documentaries. Exaggeration, distortion, and outright whoppers are the 'canvas' on which they do their best work. A fondness for Ho Chi Minh, and the once-ravishing Hanoi Jane (Fonda). And despite stories that have more holes than a moth-eaten black Chappaqua pantsuit, when caught in the lie, they'll be the first to say you're attacking their patriotism.

Who knows, the next thing Kerry will tell us is he was Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[ntnychik]

Ping

[christie]

As Kerry said,

Bring It On!

[MeekOneGOP]

As Grampa Dave says: "Christmas, 1968: Kerry with his Swift Boat Crew
in Scambodia. Kerry is wearing his CIA hat that came from Richard Nixon
a month before Nixon was sworn in as President."

[okie01]

(i also think it is the liberals job to bitch at conservatives- if everyone thought like us there would be even more of an american empire).

Good heavens! Where are you getting this empire crap from?

And, to be kind, in the liberals' mind, their job is not "to not to bitch at conservatives". It is "to rule". They'd rather we conservatives just shut up and go away.

And just what is a "nationalist conservative" anyway? Are you a dues-paying member of the Buchanan Jugend, or something?