So to you, the men who served in the Navy, who stationed on carriers, battle ships, ... off the coast of VN did not really fight in that war?!!
Where did Kerry admit he lied? I think he said he may have gotten the dates wrong about Cambodia. As all Bush supporters know a person can be mistaken without lying. I'll repeat the same thing over and over: Pick a standard and stick to it.
here's o'neill's response, from Hannity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html O'NEILL: Alan, yes, they are, Alan. It's two different places, Alan. One place is along the Mekong River, right in the heart of the delta. The second place is on the west coast of Cambodia at a place called Ha Tien, where the boundary is right along that border. Where Kerry was in Christmas of 1968 was on this river, the Mekong River. We got about 40 or 50 miles from the border. That's as close as we ran. Later, Kerry went, and I went, to a place called Bernique's Creek — that was our nickname for it — at Ha Tien. That was a canal system that ran close to the border, but that wasn't at Christmas for Kerry. That was later for him. So it's two separate places, Alan, and the story is correct.
I have no problem believing Kerry was wrong about when he was in Cambodia. The Kerry campaign doesn't have a problem admitting that either. What I do have a problem with is people who claim that's a lie while they also try to claim that Bush didn't lie. Again: Bush said he was on the Varsity Rugby team in college. There wasn't one. Bush claimed that Iraq was close to having nukes from an IAEA report. No IAEA report claimed that. The Bush folks tried to say he was mistaken and sited a different IAEA report. That report didn't support the claim either. Then they came up with a third report. That report wasn't even existence when Bush made his initial claim. Bush claimed he didnt' have much contact with Chalabi. Chalabi was a guest of honor at white house events and attended meetings where Bush was present. You can say that Bush was only mistaken, but by those standards Kerry could easily be only mistaken as well.(his campaign already admitted it.) You can say Kerry was lying. But by those standards Bush was lying as well. Guess what? Either way Kerry comes out on top. Kerry hasn't talked about the Cambodia issue for over a decade. Bush has been talking about much of his 'embellishments' within the last 4 years. Some of Bush's 'embellishments' were used to justify a war which has killed hundreds of Americans, and still has thousands more at risk. Kerry's 'embellishment' only puts him in a different location. If both Bush and Kerry were just mistaken, Kerry comes out on top again. Kerry was mistake most recently a decade ago, and that mistake cost zero lives. Bush was mistaken while acting as commander and chief and that mistake costs thousands of lives. The argument is a lose/lose situation for Bush. The only way Bush even breaks even is if you apply different standards to the two candidates. But even then the bias becomes obvious, and Bush loses again.
Except we spend our time talking about Cambodia, instead of Iraq. Instead of Kerry defending Cambodia, he should be making Bush defend the points you brought up. With his record over the last three years, i find it kind of amazing that Bush is even in this race...
I agree we shouldn't be wasting our time talking about Cambodia. Kerry's campaign even admitted the error on Cambodia, but the other side keeps bringing it up. I do understand that it tosses important issues in the burner when this happens, but even if you examine the issue, it still doesn't look good for Bush.
it's just that the symantics are getting positively clintonian, or harkin-ian...on a boat in the south china sea is not the same thing as "in vietnam". sheesh...
some comments, via instapundit from some folks more qualified than I to judge whether service on the Gridley counts, in this context, as "in vietnam." I am no fan of John Kerry. Far from it. I know and have served with some of the Swift Vets who have undertaken the effort to get Kerry's embellishments of his Swift boat days and his later anti-war service made part of the public debate. They are straight talkers who have good reason to be offended by his behavior and by his misrepresentations. I trust them and support their efforts. On the other hand, I have no problem with the statement that Kerry served two tours in Vietnam - one while serving in the USS Gridley and one with the Swift boats. . . . Not every Viet Nam vet was a ground combat soldier and the war was not fought completely on land or on the rivers. On shore, off shore, in the air--- it was the same war and it was a team effort and it didn't matter where you were. The military awarded Vietnam Service and Vietnam Campaign medals for service ashore and In the waters adjacent to Vietnam. To take a contrary view is to diminish the dedicated and sometimes extremely dangerous service of a substantial number of sailors at sea who served well and honorably for months at a time during the war. They earned their Vietnam service and campaign medals. So cut Kerry some slack on this minor point. There are plenty of other - and much larger -targets of opportunity. Mark Tempest Captain, USNR (retired) Served off Vietnam in USS Pyro (AE-24) 1972 -- Vietnam-Marine era Tom Plank: Service off shore of Vietnam deserves credit and honor (and Kerry is due that). But to say that "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence." and not point out that one was serving on a ship in the waters off Vietnam is rank dishonesty. I spent a few days on a ship off the shore in Vietnam and spent months in the "rear" in Da Nang and in the "bush" southwest of Da Nang. There is a big difference between steaming off shore and even serving in the rear, where a trip to the PX or to downtown Da Nang might be an occasion for an ambush. I do not not cut Kerry slack on this. A out-right lie. If he had left out Vietnam, his statement would have been noble. All of us 50+ folks remember MLK's death and we were appalled, even before some of us went to Vietnam. -- Philip Carter, who served on the Gridley and maintains the history website: This is another example of Kerry writing for dramatic effect. It would have been more appropriate for him to say that he was in the South China Sea or the Gulf of Tonkin. We were on Northern SAR duty off of North Vietnam, standing by to rescue downed pilots. We did stop in Danang on the way to station, which spawned a whole other fantasy in TOUR OF DUTY. The book is replete with exaggerated references like this. While service in the Gulf had its dangers, it does not equate to a tour incountry even though GRIDLEY experienced combat and dead and wounded in the previous tour in 1967. Kerry was not onboard then, being in school on the West Coast.
Not because another bias dumb A. said so does not make it so. Why don't y'all go tell the men on board the USS Abraham Lincohn that they can't claim their service in Iraq. They weren't really in Iraq, were they? BTW, what the heck did Bush do there, NOT being in Iraq and all?
40-50 miles from the Cambodia border? Ahem, ... and how far was Bush from it ? ... maybe 10,000 miles or so.
I was at an event this weekend, and gave a speech to a friendly audience. I made a small joke about Kerry and his hat that I expected would get at least a chuckle from some folks. but, crickets. I’m consoled by the fact a few of the under-30s present had no idea who John Kerry was/is.
You expected a joke about what should have been a non issue 17 years ago would elicit a response? Let it go.
