The last post described John Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia in Dec '68. Kerry himself has not responded to these accusations by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (gee-wonder why?). However, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign recently stated that Kerry's claim about it was a mistaken memory - that he was really on or near the border of Cambodia (though he was really 50 miles away) & that it was in Jan '69 that he went in to Cambodia on a secret mission. This is all b.s. from the Kerry Campaign. The Jan '69 "spy mission" is totally undocumented. Three of Kerry's crewmates deny they were in Cambodia & Kerry's commander denies it.
But Kerry would have you believe this new found refreshed memory is gospel. But gee - Kerry himself said that his stay in Cambodia in Dec '68 was "seared-seared-in me." It was THE turning point in his mind about the wrongness of the war. So who do we believe - Kerry with the seared-seared memory of Dec '68 or Kerry spokesmen who say it was in Jan '69? And recall that Kerry claims that in Dec '68 he heard President Nixon denying that the U.S. was in Cambodia, even though Johnson was President at the time. And Kerry claimed that in Dec' 68 while in Cambodia he could hear the Cambodian Khmer Rouge shooting nearby, although the Khmer Rouge didn't get involved until 1972. Kerry stinks as a liar. But all this leads us to his next, just recently exposed lie - his first Purple Heart.
2 Dec 68: John Kerry claims he was wounded that night from shrapnel during a firefight. He claims this was "the most frightening night" of his 'Nam experience. Yet Kerry also stated that "it was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat." So which was it? The details of what happened are too long to relate here. However, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth disputes that there was a firefight - a few Sampans were seen on the beach & the Navy crew fired at them. There was no return fire. Kerry, it is claimed fired a grenade launcher too close & he was hit by the shrapnel - so it was self-inflicted & hardly enemy action. The "wound" required a band-aid. He said/she said stuff, right? Hardly - a witness has been found who has contradicted Kerry's claim of action that night. That witness is - ta-da - John Kerry!
Douglas Brinkley's book, "Tour of Duty" is the Kerry approved biography of Kerry. Brinkley used Kerry's journals written in 'Nam for the book. Brinkley notes that the following journal entry was written when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire. Here is the significant excerpt from "Tour of Duty", using Brinkley's access to Kerry's journals: "They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook,
'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"
Kerry in his own journal, at least 9 days after the alleged "wound" incident states he had not yet been shot at in the war. So his own journal disavows his own story of the combat & Purple Heart incident on 2 Dec which he claims was both "the most frightening night" & "half-assed action." This clown needs serious mental health care.
Along this same line, Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa this week bashed Cheny for talking tough about Kerry's ability to wage a war on terror & said, "When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil." Ah - the stings of the self-righteous. This is the same Harkin who years earlier when running for the Senate claimed he saw action as a Navy combat fighter pilot in Vietnam. It turns out that was a blatant lie! He was a Navy pilot stationed in Japan. He never saw combat in 'Nam! Another filthy lying Democrat. Starting to see a pattern with these Democrats, hmm?