JOHN KERRY'S KURTZ CHRONICLES, CON'T: AN INTRODUCTION AND THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. [Hugh Hewitt]

Last week John Kerry recanted the detailed and emotional story of his Christmas Eve, 1968 illegal mission into Cambodia that he has been telling for 30 years, most notably in a movie review of Apocalpse Now that he wrote for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979, in a statement on the floor of the Senate on March 27,1986, and in an AP story from 1992.

Faced with mounting evidence that this brazen fabrication was crumbling, Kerry spokesmen acknowledged that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, but hung tough on Kerry's having been across the border on several occasions in early 1969. Here is the statement released by the Kerry campaign mid-week:

"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.

"On December 24, 1968 Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire.

"It is an acknowledged fact that Swift Boat crews regularly operated along the Cambodian border from Ha Tien on the Gulf of Thailand to the rivers of the Mekong south and west of Saigon. Boats often received fire from enemy taking sanctuary across the border. Kerry's was not the only United States riverboat to respond and inadvertently or responsibly cross the border. In fact, it was this reality that lead President Nixon to later invade Cambodia itself in 1970."

The odd part of this statement is the "inadvertantly" adverb. Kerry's never stressed any accidental crossings of the Vietnam/Ca,bodia border. He's always been on secret though illegal missions, including one that he spoke of in June 2003 to Washington Post reporter Laura Blumenfeld in which he produced his magic hat:

"A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché 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.'

Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

Hard to square this telling with "inadvertant," and Kerry's favorite historian isn't using the "inadveratnt" defense either, and unlike the campaign statement, he's not pegging Kerry's crossings at one. Douglas Brinkley, whose reputation may end up taking a beating over what he included and chose to omit in his bio of Kerry, backs up the Kerry line that he ran secret missions into Cambodia. This is what Brinkley told Britain's The Telegraph:

"He said: 'Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.' The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

'He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off.'"

Now here's the problem: There is absolutely no evidence yet produced for the idea that John Kerry made three or four missions into Cambodian waters ferrying SEALs, Green Berets or CIA guys, or even one mission. None. In any ordinary campaign cycle in which Candidate A had been discovered to have been lying about a central episode in his life's narrative --the Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia adventure which Kerry said had been "seard, seared" into his consciousness-- the burden of proof would immediately move onto Candidate A's shoulders to document his other claims. While the media is beginning to notice Kerry's problems with his cross-border tales of daring-do, no reporter has yet asked --or been allowed to get close enough to ask-- for details on the magic hat mission or the three others Brinkley alludes to.

So I began a search of the vast archive of Vietnam War related materials for any sign of swift boat missions to Cambodia in January and February of 1969. I was inspired to do this by, of all people, lefty blogger Atrios, who made the lamest post in history when the story of Kerry's Kurtz Chronicles began to fall apart. Atrios snipped a few references to cross-border incursions by various U.S. forces in the years prior to Kerry's deployment, as though the evidence of some cross-border incursions by some U.S. forces was proof of John Kerry's exploits. (This passes for logic on the left, I guess.) Brinkley's assertions are being touted as proof by Peter Princple blogger Kevin Drum, who quickly forgave Kerry his wild exaggerations of 30 years and latched on to the hope that Kerry did make his magic hat mission, but Brinkley's credibility in this matter is already compromised and his sources are not publicly available for cross checking.

I did not want to end up missing obvious corroborating sources for Kerry's assertions and Brinkley's account, and I figured Atrios was just incompetent --there had to be some independent cover for Kerry's story, right? He wouldn't just make up cross border exploits full of SEALs, Green Berets and hatless CIA-men without some pretty good smoke to cover his exaggerations --like easily available evidence of many such missions being undertaken by other swift boats in early 1969, would he? That would be way too weird to have been missed even by a supine press crowd.

Still, the Stolen Valor syndrome is pretty widespread, and a lot of people have exaggerated their war time exploits, there is certainly a motive for Kerry to have done so, and now we know he already did so with regards to his Christmas Eve narrative. So, what does a few hours of research tell me about swift boats and the "ferrying" of SEALs, Green Berets, and CIA-men (hatless) into Cambodia? Only that there is nothing there to be found. Now, we know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and so we also know that the absence of any easily found account of swift boats ferrying SEALs, Green Berets, and CIA-men into Cambodia in January and February, 1969 doesn't mean that such missions didn't happen. But not one swift boat veteran has yet stepped forward to say that he was on such a mission --except John Kerry. Here's what John Kerry told the AP in 1992:

"'We were told, `Just go up there and do your patrol. Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it,' Kerry said. One of the missions, which Kerry, at the time, was ordered not to discuss, involved taking CIA operatives into Cambodia to search for enemy enclaves. 'I can remember wondering, `If you're going to go, what happens to you,' Kerry said."

"Everybody was over there" seems to imply that all the swift boats were crossing the border, right? Well, do your own search and send me your results, but here's what I found.

Cross border missions were underway in early 1969, led by the "Studies and Observations Group" ("SOG"). Here is the best short history of SOG's operations in Cambodia, which were code-named "Salem House":

Concurrent with the Prairie Fire operations were the SOG’s missions in northeastern Cambodia. These operations, originally named “Daniel Boone,” were later redesignated “Salem House.” These missions provided intelligence on North Vietnamese and Viet Cong bases located in Cambodia. Another objective of the Salem House operations was to determine the level of Cambodian Government support for the NVA and Viet Cong. 13

The Salem House operations had a number of restrictions that affected their activities in Cambodia. Many of the restrictions were modified or withdrawn and new restrictions imposed; the pattern of change in the restrictions presents an interesting picture of the war’s development in Cambodia. In May 1967, the Salem House missions were subject to the following restrictions: Only reconnaissance teams were to be committed into Cambodia and the teams could not exceed an overall strength of 12 men, to include not more than three U.S. advisers. Teams were not to engage in combat except to avoid capture. They did have permission to have contact with civilians. No more than three reconnaissance teams could be committed on operations in Cambodia at any one time. The teams could conduct no more than ten missions in any 30-day period. 14

By October 1967, SOG’s teams had permission to infiltrate the entire Cambodian border area to a depth of 20 kilometers. However, their helicopters were only permitted ten kilometers inside Cambodia. In December, the DOD, with the Department of State’s concurrence, approved the use of Forward Air Controllers (FACs) to support SOG operations. The FACs had authorization to make two flights in support of each Salem House mission.

In October 1968, SOG teams received permission to emplace self-destructing land mines in Cambodia. The following December, the depth of penetration into northern Cambodia was extended to 30 kilometers; however, the 20-kilometer limit remained in effect for central and southern Cambodia. The final adjustment in Salem House operations made in 1970 during the incursion into Cambodia permitted reconnaissance teams to operate 200 meters west of the Mekong River (an average distance of 185 kilometers west of the South Vietnamese border). However, the SOG reconnaissance teams never ventured that far west, due to the lift and range limitations of their UH-1F helicopters. Thus from the initiation of SOG’s Cambodian operations in 1967 until 1970, there was a progressive expansion of the zones of operation and OPS-35 patrols within Cambodia. The enlargement of the areas of operation and the increasing number of Salem House missions, gives an indication of how seriously the Johnson and Nixon Administrations viewed the NVA’s use of Cambodian base areas. It was also indicative of the U.S. military’s growing awareness of the role of the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN) and its deleterious effect on the war in South Vietnam. 15

From 1967 through April 1972, OPS-35 conducted 1,398 reconnaissance missions, 38 platoon-sized patrols, and 12 multi-platoon operations in Cambodia. During the same period, it captured 24 prisoners of war. 16"

This account, a pretty comprehensive one, does not seem to provide for the possibility swift boat transportation, indicating instead that helicopters were used for insertions of special forces, and that these flights were tightly controlled. (A couple of pictures of helicporter bases connected with these operations can be seen here.) First person accounts of participation in these cross-border operations are full of details about helicopter insertions and rescues but are silent on swift boat details.

My inability to locate any account of swift boat support for covert missions across the Cambidan border doesn't preclude such support having occured, of course, but it raises many questions given the ease with which it is possible to verify helicopter support for these then-secret and now widely-discussed missions. Add to those questions the answers I got from John O'Neill to questions on this particular subject when I interviewed him Friday. O'Neill denied ever having been sent into Cambodia when he commanded a swift boat, and asserted that no swift boat commander other than John Kerry has ever claimed to participate in such missions.

Last week Drudge reported that Douglas Brinkley was preparing a New Yorker story on Kerry's exploits. Tom McGuire of JustOneMinute doubts whether such an article will appear. I hope he's wrong because now my curiosity is fully engaged: On what is brinkley relying? Did John Kerry really do these Kurtz-like runs into the heart of darkness, or did he just record such things in his journals as stored treasures against the day that he'd authorize a biography to use them? Or did he hatch this stuff post Apocalypse Now viewing? Is the magic hat real, or just about the single most damning piece of evidence since the glove-that-did-not-fit-which-led-to-must-acquit?

There's no down-side to the Bush campaign at this point in pushing the story along because Kerry's pratfall on Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia-in-1968 provides blanket immunity to anyone asking tough questions about the rest of the story. Kevin Drum has warned all of us interested in the Kurtz Chronicles that we are displaying "deep unseriousness" about the election by participating in this "smear," and warns darkly that "[i]t will be remembered." Heh. As though anyone can look bad after Kerry's "seared, seared" oration.

The really, really interesting question will follow only if Kerry is exposed has having embroidered this part of his narrative as well. If that's the case, one can only imagine the summersaults ahead among the lefty bloggers.

And that's where the John Kerry's Kurtz Chronicles stand as of August 15, 2004 at 2:00 PM, Pacific. Readers with any observations that will either add to the argument that Kerry couldn't have undertaken these missions or which would support his having done so are invited to send them to me at hhewitt@hughhewitt.com. I will make them available to the newpapers via this website, though at this point I doubt they would cover an extensive photo shoot of Kerry proving he couldn't have been across the Cambodian border. On the other hand, corroborating evidence is sure to get picked up.

Let me try that post again...

Thanks, VBR! I've seen other macro views. Here is a terrific macro I just found. What I want (picky, picky) is a micro that clearly identifies the name of the (left-hand) river in question in the post 20 12-mile scale zoom-in. I want to nail this thing to stay nailed. Can't do that with a macro view.

ON C-SPAN NOW....KERRY-O'NEILL 1971 DEBATE !!!

Saw it a few months ago. For all his ill-fitting attire O'Neill had his factual ducks in a row and was a fine debater. Audience sympathy seemed to be evenly divided. To give him credit, Dick Cavett was clearly on Kerry's side, but he wanted a fair debate (the absolute best part was when he had to break it off to put in a plug for Clairol Hair Care products, hee! hee! the look on his face...). Trivial, I'll admit, but I was struck by the difference in style between the two men. It was O'Neill's crew-cut Johnny Unitas versus Kerry's blow-dried Joe Namath. I found myself wishing it had been O'Neill who had gone into politics.

just watched it again.

O'Neill then and now is the better man.

Kerry was then and remains to be a slimey, wicked weird looking, pompous, self-serving doofus. He still employs the same "oratory" tricks ("let me also say...") to try and gains time to think...when the audience laughed at something stinging O'Neill said, he flushed and stuttered...let's see more of that in the debates.

He is nasty.

Getting closer...

Check this out

Question, gentlemen: The river on the right is labeled "Mekong." What is the name of the river to its left? These two both branch off at the same point north of the border.

Now, the anti-Americans don't think much of the CIA, but do we really believe that the CIA honchos in this area would have selected a newly arrived Yalie (remember Slaon Coffin) to run a secret mission? They would have known he was running around the country side with a movie camera doing self-promotional work. His superiors would not have been supportive. And, there were a bunch of other boat captains around who were loyal who should have been selected first.

It was clear even back then that Gigilo John shouldn't be trusted. Would the CIA really have used him for anything unless there was no one else available?

Thankyou, those are very nice links. The satelite shot, except for the clouds, is especially impressive. The map in post 29 shows me just what I want to see. It's probably on a 3-mile square scale, but I can tie that up later. What I really need to know is the name of the river on the left. If its name is not "Mekong," (like the river on the river is called) then the Kerry campaign statement about the Mekong paralleling the border is provably false.

"Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border"

Sa Dec is on the Mekong river just South and West of Saigon and the river does run North from Sa Dec to the border. There is a small run of the river that seems to run with the VN / Cambodia border. See this map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/vietnam_pol92.jpg

I studied this for a time and have come to the conclusion that there is a VN / Cambodia border with a Mekong river between them North of Sa Dec.

"There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed . . .

Well, this should be a piece of cake to clear up. Just identify the other two boats and get their crews to support or refute the statement.

this is an excellent catch by Hugh regarding his use of the word "inadvertent" since his missions were supposedly secret and ordered. Brinkley should just step away and quietly, behind the scenes, acknowledge to friends and comrades that Kerry is a liar so as to save what little is left of his own credibility. It's not worth trying to help Kerry perpetuate these lies because they're already admitted the key recantation of Kerry's 30 years and the remainder seem absurd on the face.

It would be interesting to learn if his crew will also testify that they participated in these missions in Cambodia.

Reportedly, three have already been asked and their response was something like, "Cambodia? Us?"

The other two have refused to be interviewed on the subject.

He's always been on secret though illegal missions, including one that he spoke of in June 2003 to Washington Post reporter Laura Blumenfeld in which he produced his magic hat:
"A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché 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.'
Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly...

This seems like a good subject for one of your cartoons - don't you think, Linda?

Right. There is info to that effect in Unfit for Command. However, it is in context related to Kerry's Xmas Eve story. All of Kerry's superiors have stated uncategorically that they nnever heard of or authorized any missions to Cambodia.

I can see the movie poster: "A Conspiracy So Vast! A Rightwing So Powerful!" "We were playing cards - suddenly a guy thrust a card at me - it was the Queen of Diamonds, only it had this ugly woman's photo on it - and the next thing I knew, I was in Cambodia, shooting and pillaging!"

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.