If you were active during the 80's then you recall John Kerry as one of the most vitriolic enemies of Ronald Reagan, particularly when it came to his (Kerry's) support of Daniel Ortega. This speech was during the height of the debate on the floor of the Senate. It's not just Vietnam that's at issue here - IT IS THE ESSENTIAL BEING OF JOHN KERRY that is being called into question here ... if the reason he supports the Butcher of Managua or calls the POTUS a liar and promises people in this election that he'll tell the truth because of his EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM WHEN HE WAS SENT TO CAMBODIA BY A POTUS WHO LIED - that is the crux of everything Kerry has ever stood for and has been proven demonstrably & obviously FALSE & CONCOCTED - Nixon didn't become president until 1969. Thus the whole basis of Kerry's being is VOID and NULL. The rationale for his very existence is completely undermined, no matter what the debate of this day might be.
The Kerry-in-Cambodia-on-Christmas-Eve-1968 story gets stranger.
Here's the relevant section from the Boston Globe's biography of Kerry:
"On Christmas Eve of 1968, as Kerry's fifty-foot aluminum craft floated in the waters off Cambodia, he was about to get firsthand experience with the free-fire policy that he would come to despise."
"The United States believed that the Vietcong would follow a Christmastime truce, and Kerry was expecting a quiet holiday observance. But the truce was only three minutes old when mortar fire suddenly exploded around Kerry and his five-man crew."
"'Where is the enemy?' a crewmate shouted."
"'Open fire; let's take 'em,' Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. In the distance, an elderly man in the cross fire was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Vietcong manning a machine-gun nest. Wasser said he opened fire with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped in the water, presumably dead. With a clear path to the enemy, the fusillade from Kerry's navy boat, backed by a pair of other small vessels, silenced the machine-gun nest."
"When it was over, the Vietcong were dead, wounded, or on the run. A civilian apparently was killed, and two South Vietnamese allies who had alerted Kerry's crew to the enemy were either wounded or killed."
"On the same night, when some South Vietnamese allies launched several rounds into the river to celebrate the holiday, Kerry and his crew had come within a half-inch of being killed by 'friendly fire.'"
"To top it off, Kerry said later he had gone inside Cambodia, despite President Nixon's assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled." [pp.83-84].
My post from earlier today, at 12:30 PM --apologies for the broken permalinks, so you'll have to scroll down-- argues that if the authors of Unfit for Command are correct in reporting that Kerry has spoken of his illegal incursion into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 on the floor of the Senate in 1986, and in an interview with the Boston Herald --and elsewhere?-- then John Kerry has a huge, huge credibility problem. You don't "misremember" heading into Cambodia, or get a detail wrong about who was president during your service, but it is tempting to make up the drama you need to add credibility to your political positions.
The Boston Globe's account seems to suggest that others on the boat have agreed that a Christmas Eve firefight occured. Do they agree it happened in Cambodia, and if so, what's that do to their credibility in the war of words among warriors underway right now? The venom directed at Kerry's critics among the swift boat veterans, including Ann Lewis and Donna Brazille on Crossfire today calling these men "liars"-- tells me that the Kerry campaiogn is deeply worried about this attack on the central theme of Kerry's campaign. Well, if he lied about being sent to Cambodia, Kerry's narrative is in trouble. It will remain true that he saved a man's life, but that day's undeiable courage does not validate or protect Kerry's record then or since. A powerful demonstration of obvious falsehood on a key claim is a major blow to Kerry.
WQhich is why the focus ought to be on the Cambodia story, over and over again. Did Kerry make that claim? Did he do so in the Senate as part of a political argument about Nicaragua? If so, what's that tell us about his willingness to invent personal history to serve his political ambition?
JustOneMinute is relentless on other aspects of the story, and I hope he'll turn his attention to this one as well. Anyone got a Congressional Record from March 27, 1986? Let's see if we can proof the assertion made in Unfit for Command about Kerry's speech in 1986.
This isn't about my perception and my understanding of historical events. However, its about the perception and understanding of the American voter, specifically, the undecided voters who are influenced by current events up until and including election day. To most Americans, Vietnam is an event that occured a long long time ago. Attacking John Kerry's war record in Vietnam is counterproductive, at this point.
>>>If you were active during the 80's ....
I moved heaven and earth to get Reagan elected in 1976, 1980 and 1984. Nuff said.