Skip to comments.Sen. John Kerry's SWIFT meltdown: Hugh Hewitt on why Dem's campaign, lib pundits are floundering
Posted on 08/11/2004 2:31:04 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Kerry's SWIFT meltdown
Posted: August 11, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Hugh Hewitt
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
At this writing, the Kerry campaign has not yet responded to the media meltdown that is occurring around John Kerry's four decades of stories built on his secret, illegal missions into Cambodia during the four months he skippered a SWIFT boat.
It is impossible to stonewall a story that broke out of the blogosphere and into the major media on Monday night and Tuesday morning, so eventually John Kerry is going to have to stand by his wildly implausible tales of cross-border excellent adventures, or he's going to have to apologize for inventing personal history.
Here are the facts. Not long after returning from Vietnam, John Kerry began telling people he had been sent into Cambodia on an illegal patrol on Christmas Eve 1968. He repeated that story on the floor of the Senate in 1986, to an AP reporter in 1992, and as recently as June 2003 was regaling a Washington Post reporter with a story of how he had ferried a CIA man secretly into Cambodia, and how he'd kept the man's hat as a reminder of that journey.
The Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia story has already been completely shredded by the SWIFT boat vet critics of Kerry, and it is hard to imagine how Kerry is going to defend the CIA man who was never there, given independent testimony from Navy vets that the SWIFT boats never went into Cambodian waters. If Kerry was sent on a secret drop-off mission, he's going to have to come up with some proof, especially with the Christmas Eve narrative now so discredited.
The blogosphere pushed this story forward, with an early flare going up at KerryHaters on May 21, and then a gang tackle of the facts by Instapundit, RogerLSimon, JustOneMinute, Powerline, CaptainsQuarters and, of course, me.
We teed it up after the publisher of "Unfit for Command" released a sample chapter from the new book which brought the Cambodian myth to light. I spent all day Thursday, Friday and Monday on the story on my radio program, and Monday night Carl Cameron ran with a story on "Special Report" with Brit Hume, followed by an "O'Reilly Factor" segment with Steve Gardener, a SWIFT boat vet who served on Kerry's boat. Gardener denied ever having been to Cambodia. The Kerry campaign first denied that Kerry had ever claimed to have been in Cambodia, and then recanted upon being shown the 1986 Congressional record, promising to get back to Fox News with an explanation.
No explanation has shown up more than 12 hours later. In the interim, the New York Post has run a story, as has the London Telegraph, and the Washington Times' editors have produced a powerful editorial on the subject.
Why all the attention? Simply put, if John Kerry can be conclusively demonstrated to have lied about aspects of his Vietnam service, the media has to ask what else has he been lying about. The voters have to ask if he can be trusted. In short: Free fall.
The lefty bloggers and talking heads are stunned into silence, and have gotten no help from the Kerry people. It's hard to spin a story that hasn't been spun by the campaign since Kerry could elect to go in completely different directions. If he hangs tough on the Christmas Eve and CIA man stories, his allies will know to hang tough as well. But they can't do that without a clear signal, because if Kerry comes out and apologizes for a tall tale, the commentators are cut off at the knees.
A nasty dilemma. Perhaps the lefty pundits should try sticking with the truth: It looks very bad for Kerry. It looks like he's been lying and padding his Vietnam resume for decades and that the elite media was so in love with the story they didn't bother to check it out. It looks like Kerry's selective release of his military and health records was smoke, and that the big-time journalists at the New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post fell for it.
Now we get to see if there's any pride left in the newsroom. Do any of these writers, reporters and producers resent getting played by Kerry? If so, payback will be stiff. Too early to tell whether Bush-hatred trumps anger at getting suckered. More to follow ...
Request: Will someone start a thread with Kerry's Lies? We have the Cambodia story, the "pulled Rasmussen out of the river" story, the DNC acceptance speech about the woman who had lost her health insurance story, and on and on and on. Can someone put together a concise and succinct list with references for all of us to distribute to the sheeple? I would love to but simply don't have the time. (I did send my money to the Swifties, W, and the RNC.)
Oh, just "corrected a mistake," simple as that. Not a word about the house of cards built on a fairytale by John Kerry (to advance his personal ambition), however. Not a peep. You hear?
As an Interoggator, I'd be asking sKerry, "Sooooo, were you lying THEN or lying NOW?"
Who was Rassman? An Army Green Beret.
Why was he on one of the boats? I assume that Kerry was his transport to and from a particular location for about 5 days. Boats carry all varieties of spec ops even today. BUT...I want the hear the answer from Rassman, and I want such a basic question asked by BillO.
How did Rassman get there? I'm guessing it was a HQ coordinated op due to the duration being for more than a one-time drop off. It's possible that Rassman was just working in the area, and he and Kerry were playing cowboy.
When did Rassman first meet Kerry? Be interesting if it was pre-Vietnam, wouldn't it?
Where did Rassman first meet Kerry? Same as above.
What did they do together? What was the mission assignment.
Who else was involved with Rassman at the time? Be nice to have them comment on why he was on Kerry's boat and on how reliable he was.
What is the possibility that Rassman was one of an ongoing series of Kerry bodyguards, since Kerry was a member of the aristocracy, and connected to the Kennedys.
Would he have been hand-picked for that job?
.... Kerry opening his briefcase and removing a green camouflage hat (THE PROP) which he calls "My good luck hat,...." "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a secret mission in Cambodia.".......
Aw, man! I just don't see what you find wrong with "THE PROP"!
I've carried around a 35 year old cap in my various briefcases for years, 'cause I like to have something heavy to carry that takes up all the room in my case. Man, the cap was just way more important than his medals, 'cause he threw them away!
That's our JOB! haha. I trust politicians in general about as much as I trust my freedloading relatives!
Richard Nixon, President, January 20th, 1969 to August 1974.
One cannot expect too much from a Dimocrat Senator, and nothing at all from one [or two] from Massachusetts. ;)
It sounds better to the pablum lapping, running-dog DIMS that the villian is the evil Nixon, not the war-mongering, JFK-killing, LBJ.
Details, details, pesky little details!
You would think in something as important as a national election he would at LEAST lie in accordance with history!
( I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice that little *cough* discrepancy)
You have nailed it, absolutely. The left operates on a full time war footing. They want power for their operative ideology, which is socialism. These are people who have no scruples, little, if any belief in God, and do not subscribe to morals, ethics, or the golden rule. Like their communist brothers, they believe that any means justifies any end.
The media will forget this story or any other story, if they can't spin it back on us. They are ideologues without mercy or scruples. Don't expect them to suddenly become honest reporters. Ain't gonna happen.
It certainly does, of that there is no doubt.
Revealing, isn't it, that the "news media" acts like that big dumb literary character who said "Duh ... which way did he go ... George? ... Which way did he go"?
Same reason it offends McCain so much. They have bad consciences from the war years. The people who don't want to talk about what Kerry did in 1969 are the people who don't want to talk about what they did in 1969.
My analogy of the press yesterday went, "They are like a dog that shits on your rug. You drag the bastard back over to the offending turd, pissing all of the way, then rub their nose in it. Only THEN can they learn the errors of their ways."
My father bitched about the libtard press back in the 60's so who knows how far back their stupidity goes.
We'll see.... so far the media's loyalty to Kerry has carried the day over their obligation as journalists to tell the story. Whether the candidate elects to make a clean breast of his past with the American people is a personal decision only he can make and it should not be decided by what serves him politically but by what's the right thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.