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.

You're confusing Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" story with his new, improved "January or February in Cambodia" story. That's what Kerry wants us to do. We shouldn't let him:

I'm repeating this from my post on another thread:

There is absolutely no evidence Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia. Even Kerry has admitted that. He was 55 miles away from the border at Sa Dec.

There is some evidence in the February after-action reports that PCF 94 (likely Kerry's boat at that time) was based at Ha Tien in mid-February. There is also evidence that PCF 94 patrolled the Rach Giang Thanh, NEAR the border with Cambodia, at that time.

You can see the Rach Giang Thanh on this map. The Cambodian border is in purple. Note that the Rach Giang Thanh doesn't cross Cambodia until the town of Giang Thanh, where it significantly narrows. Note also that there aren't many major tributaries of the Rach Giang Thanh that cross into Cambodia.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the after-action reports to indicate that PCF 94 had orders to enter Cambodia in February. From the coordinates listed in the reports, I can tell that PCF 94 or 50's patrols stretched up to the town of Giang Thanh (near VS 563639), near the Cambodian border. On February 13, PCF 94 noted some "tax" extortion action at the first "S" curve in the Rach Giang Thanh (VS 518565) near the Cambodian border and the town of Ap Tra Pho), involving a chase of a V.C., but according to the after-action report, the chase stopped at the "boarder". There also were SEAL insertions by "M/T RAIDERS" on February 13 and 14 and extractions by PCF's on February 13.

Read Kerry stooge Meehan's statement carefully: he never said Kerry's formal Navy chain of command ordered him into Cambodia:

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

In other words, Kerry's defense is he was near Cambodia, and at one time crossed into Cambodia -- not on orders of any of the Swift Boat Veterans, but on orders of Special Forces. So Kerry was not following orders before he was following orders when he went on his Cambodian excursion.

Although it often sounds like Lanny Davis has been doing nothing but screaming, Kerry's strategy has been to try to meander the Kerry's stories back to what was published in the after-action reports (some of which were written by Kerry) and award citations. (I think we saw that Rassman has been coached to do this, which has made it look like he was flip-floping a little.) Then, the Kerry camp will point to the after-action reports as proof the Swift Vets were lying. Lanny Davis has been trying to do this in between screams.

The problem is that Kerry's stories have been so inconsistent that meandering back to the after-action reports makes him look like Flipper to anyone who is watching.

Why would a CIA agent give hanoi john his hat?
It does not make logical sense. And since it was a covert mission he sure wouldn't be carrying an extra one with him...
See also, from www.lileks.com:

Okay, now we get down to the Hat of Cambodia; politics follow. Bale if you wish, and we'll see you tomorrow. Or Monday. I hope it's the latter, because I really want to spend tomorrow night watching grainy black and white noir.

Still here? Okay. Switching to rambling unedited nut-coot mode . . . there.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed a shipmate of John Kerry’s on his show today; the transcript is here. Why this happens on a radio show and not in the Washington Post is a question I’ll let you decide. It’s not like these guys live in the Fortress of Solitude, accessible only by messages relayed by carrier pigeon.

It has to do with Christmas in Cambodia – the only aspect of the SwiftVets story I care to comment on, for reasons I think I stated before. If Kerry’s story is a lie, it’s significant, but not because we have a gotcha moment – gee, a politician reworked the truth to his advantage, big surprise. This is much larger than that. This is like Bush insisting that he flew an intercept mission with the Texas Air National Guard to repel Soviet bombers based in Cuba, and later stating that this event was “seared in his memory – seared” because it taught him the necessity of standing up against evil governments, such as the ones we face today. In other words, it would not only be a lie, but one that eroded the political persona he was relying upon in the election. Kerry has made Vietnam central to his campaign. If he’s making crap up, it matters. But the story of the CIA agent he ferried into the Heart of Darkness gives the gotcha a curious twist; as lawyers say on TV courtroom dramas, it goes to state of mind. What sort of man bedecked with genuine decorations feels compelled to manufacture a story like this one?

Via Ed and the PowerLine, this from the WaPo:

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.

He smiled and aimed his finger: "Pow."

They use this story to note that Kerry has dusted off the Secret Mission anecdote after dropping it in the bio. What struck me was the calculation here: an aide hints. Secret Compartment. The Intrepid Reporter Perseveres. Reluctantly, Kerry opens the briefcase, and explains the Origins of the Hat to the reporter. (You wonder if the Close Associate mentioned the Secret Compartment more than once. Ask him about it yet? No? Ask again, he’ll show you. He usually does.)

“He carries the black attaché everywhere.” He does? Anyone recall any shots of Kerry with the black attaché? Again, it sounds like something the reporter was told, not something the reporter observed. But here’s an interesting twist. Oh, perhaps it’s a matter of grammar and nothing more. The candidates for the of Democratic nomination filled out questionnaires, and one of the questions was “prized possessions.” Said Kerry:

"My lucky charms: My wedding band, dog tags and lucky hat from Vietnam and the Bible my friend Max Cleland gave me."

When I read this version, I saw the reply in a different light:

Kerry saw combat in Vietnam as a Navy gunboat captain sailing up rivers ringed with danger, came home a decorated veteran and joined the anti-war movement. He named his "lucky charms" as his most prized possession — his wedding ring, his dog tags and his camouflaged "lucky hat" from Vietnam — as well as a Bible given to him by fellow Vietnam veteran Max Cleland.

His ring, his tags, his hat. This does not mean that the hat doesn’t have a CIA backstory. But it could mean that this was, indeed, his hat. Hence his attachment to it. I have an old KSTP cap that hangs in my closet to this day from my old stint on the station, but I’m not going to tell anyone that Stanley Hubbard gave it to me as we were driving to fix the Maplewood transformer at 3 AM.

If the secret illegal mission was the origin of the Lucky Hat, it’s a new revelation.

Again, I’m just speculating. Who knows. But the talismans of life are usually the items we’re dealt by chance or choice, items which gather significance by their banality, ordinary nature, and the fact that they were ours during a time that seared – seared! Itself into our memory. I’ve saved some keys. A T-shirt or two. My press badges, of course. If I’d served four harrowing months in Vietnam I surely would have kept my hat. Having just spent weeks sorting the detritus of my own banal existence, and finding myself gobsmacked over an item squirreled away 20 years ago, I can testify to the power of ordinary objects. I can even see why one would keep the hat close. I think it would be rather odd to carry it around all the time; I mean, my dad was in a war for four years, not four months, and his medals and memorabilia sat undisturbed in a drawer, because that was then and this was Fargo. But there’s nowt as queer as folk.

But. But. How did this work, exactly? Did the CIA agent take off his hat as he was hopping off the boat to wade into the jungle? Here, take this, think of me. Or here you go, pal, you lost your hat back there, take mine, I have another. Square this with the narrative: Kerry was bitter as he bobbed in Cambodia, shot at from all sides – so he takes this hat, this extra hat, this spook lid back to barracks, and now it replaces his own hat as the object that spells luck. That sums up his experience. That brings it all back. Not the hat he wore on the boat in combat, but the hat he got from a spook on an illegal mission – that’s the good luck object, that’s the prized possession.

Work for you?

Maybe; again, I'm just running fiction-writer debugging scripts. If I wrote a novel with a Vietnam vet, I'd use the CIA-hat detail as a sign the character probably spent the war filing reports in San Diego.

There are ads running right now in our market, Bush ads; they say that Kerry voted to cut the CIA budget after the first WTC attack. Perhaps someone thought that these ads could be blunted by suggesting that Kerry was Felix Leiter’s right-hand man. A simple humble hat that truly had personal meaning got a narrative upgrade.

Poor hat.

At least we know this: if Kerry wins, Gary Trudeau already has the floating presidential symbol he uses to cover his inability to draw actual people. If he dared. Which he won’t. Or can't. I think the former is cover for the latter. Does it matter? BUSH WAS AWOL! Oh look, the "Daily Show" is on. He's so smart! He must be. Just look at that suit.

>>>>>>>

www.HughHewitt.com
PING!

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt,
or read his WorldNetDaily articles,
or his commentary at the Weekly Standard,
then this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)

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.