posted on August 27, 2004 08:55:40 AM new
Even as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth continue their campaign, yet another lie comes to light! Bush must bewishing he'd disavowed their mudslinging a long time ago...
Kerry critic told Nixon he was in Cambodia
'71 tape at odds with veteran's recent denial of being in country
Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 11:20 AM EDT (1520 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of the men who helped put Democrat John Kerry on the defensive over his military record during the Vietnam War is answering questions about his own service during that conflict.
During an Oval Office conversation in 1971, John O'Neill tells President Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swift boat during the war -- a claim that is at odds with O'Neill's recent statements that he wasn't in the country.
"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.
In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia."
Chad Clanton, a spokesman for Kerry, said the tape "is just the latest in a long line of lies and false statements from a group trying to smear John Kerry's military service. Again, they're being proven liars with their own words. It's time for President Bush to stand up and specifically condemn this smear."
O'Neill has emerged as a leading figure in the attacks on Kerry's war record. He is co-author of "Unfit for Command," which accuses Kerry of exaggerating his military record in Vietnam. O'Neill is also a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that has aired two television commercials harshly critical of the Democratic presidential nominee.
O'Neill served in Vietnam from 1969-70 and took command of Kerry's swift boat after the future Massachusetts senator returned home from the war.
In the book, O'Neill wrote that Kerry's accounts of having been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 "are complete lies."
He wrote that "Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there." O'Neill added that the Navy positioned its own craft along the border area to make sure no American vessels strayed across the border from Vietnam.
In an interview this week on ABC's "This Week," O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
During his AP interview, O'Neill criticized Kerry for making claims, including in the Senate, that he was in Cambodia as part of a secret war authorized by Nixon.
Said O'Neill: "I don't think I ever stated in the Senate that I was on an illegal expedition to Cambodia, or wrote article after article, or wrote 51 different things" like Kerry.
Kerry has defended his war record, though his campaign has acknowledged that he may not have crossed into Cambodia on December 24, 1968, as he previously has stated.
"They were in a firefight, so that's why it sticks out in his mind. They were on the border. There were no clear markings of which side of the border they were on, so it's uncertain," said campaign spokesman Michael Meehan.
Meehan said Kerry recalls being in Cambodia at some point during his Vietnam service. "He specifically remembers being in Cambodia giving Special [Operations] guys a ride well into Cambodia."
For his part, Kerry has accused the swift boat group of being a "front group" that is doing Bush's dirty work.
The Bush campaign denies any involvement with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
posted on August 27, 2004 09:06:10 AM new
Sorry....wrong. kerry has already admitted he wasn't in Cambodia...like he said he was...when Nixon wasn't president yet.
O'Neill commanded kerry's boat AFTER kerry used his scratches to get sent home.
posted on August 27, 2004 09:23:33 AM new
taken from USNews.com
[b[This month the Kerry Campaign abandoned one claim that John Kerry had made for years about his Vietnam War service[/b] and put another into question.
The claim that has been dropped: that Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmastime in 1968.
In a 1979 review of the movie Apocalypse Now in the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 5 miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our Vietnamese allies."
In a 1986 speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. . . . I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me."
In a 1992 interview with States News Service, Kerry claimed, "On Christmas Eve of 1968, I was on a gunboat in a firefight that wasn't supposed to be taking place." That year he also told the Associated Press, "Everybody was over there [in Cambodia]. Nobody thought twice about it."
These are vivid statements full of colorful detail-South Vietnamese soldiers shooting off guns to celebrate Christmas. But, as Emily Litella used to say on Saturday Night Live, "Never mind."
Historian Douglas Brinkley's bestselling Tour of Duty, based partly on Kerry's wartime journals, places Kerry on Christmas 1968 in Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia. On August 11, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said Kerry's boat was "in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia" on Christmas Eve. That's far from an endorsement of Kerry's oft-told stories.
"He was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," Brinkley told London's Daily Telegraph last week. But he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. . . .
[skipped text]
The Kerry camp has provided no documentation of Kerry's missions to Cambodia; Meehan says that's not surprising because the missions were secret. Perhaps.
But none of Kerry's boat mates, most of whom support him, corroborate his story, and the one boat mate who opposes him flatly denies it.
Retired Adm. Roy Hoffman, commander of the swift boats during Kerry's four months in Vietnam, insists that no swift boats went into Cambodia. Hoffman is, to be sure, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which opposes Kerry and sponsored the anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command. But there is nothing on the record except Kerry's word to prove him wrong.
--------
Funny how even kerry's own 'boat mates' didn't go there. Maybe he is lying...maybe he just doesn't remember...but for sure he could open up ALL his military records and disprove, according to him, everything these Swift Boat Vets are saying.
But has he to settle this once and for all? NO!! will he? Probably not...
posted on August 27, 2004 09:44:44 AM new
bunni - I have to run off to a luncheon but O'Neill said he was NEAR the boarder....later....again - O'Neill took command of kerrys swift boat AFTER kerry left.
kerry's spokespeople are just trying to soften the blow that the facts have proven...even though his was SEARED in kerry's mind....his OWN boat mates have said differently. His own commanders have said he was not there. His own book [taken from his own diary] says he was not there when he claimed he was. The ones who were on HIS same boat have denied it.
kerry's own campaign have said the date was incorrect.
geeze....what does it take for kerry supporters to be able to handle the truth?
Don't know how to make that any clearer.
And as Fred mentioned....there are boat logs that would prove where kerry's boat was and when.
O'Neil took command of kerry's boat. They weren't on the same boat together. So where O'Neil was when kerry was back in the states...isn't of any importance because kerry wasn't there then....he was state side.
posted on August 27, 2004 11:46:05 AM new
I couldn't have said it better myself.
----------------
It's Kerry's antiwar record they resent
It was John Kerry, not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who picked this fight.
Kerry was the one who made his long-ago stint in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for president. He's the one whose running mate urges voters to take Kerry's measure by spending "three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago." He's the one whose campaign ads dwell on his combat heroics. He's the one who has repeatedly played the Vietnam card against critics and opponents. And he's the one who challenged anyone "who wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam to bring it on."
So the Swifties brought it on. Their scorching attack on his wartime record is so effective precisely because they, like Kerry, were there. They too went to Vietnam when so many other young men didn't. They too fought and bled for their country. If his wartime experience lends him a certain moral authority, it does no less for them.
That doesn't mean their version of the facts is closer to the truth than his. There are conflicting eyewitness recollections, and, as The Washington Post says, "both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors." Kerry certainly wouldn't be the first soldier to have embellished his war stories; the Swift Boat vets wouldn't be the first whose passions have altered their memories. Of course, if Kerry really wants to silence the debate about his medals, he can authorize the government to release all his military records.
But that won't silence the Swifties. Because their real beef with him is not about what he did in Vietnam. It's about what he did when he came home.
On April 22, 1971, Kerry went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to indict the American war effort in Vietnam for horrendous war crimes. These were "not isolated incidents," he testified, "but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
He offered no evidence. Instead he trumpeted the charges of the "Winter Soldier Investigation," an antiwar gathering a few months earlier at which men claiming to be Vietnam veterans -- many were later exposed as frauds -- described the atrocities they had allegedly committed.
"They told stories," Kerry said, "that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
That is what thousands of Vietnam veterans, not to mention countless other vets, have never forgiven or forgotten. Bob Dole, whose right arm was crippled in World War II, suggested on Sunday that Kerry apologize to the 2.5 million veterans he defamed. Kerry's words -- which drew immense media coverage at the time -- helped poison public attitudes about Vietnam veterans and the cause they had fought in. Even worse, they gave encouragement to the enemy.
"The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," says Paul Galanti, who appears in the second -- and far more devastating -- Swift Boat Veterans ad, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington." Galanti has good reason to remember Kerry's testimony. He first learned of it in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," where he spent nearly seven years as a POW.
Kerry has never taken back his terrible slur against his fellow soldiers -- men he now calls his "band of brothers." The most he has been willing to say is that his words "were a little bit over the top" and that he could perhaps "have phrased things more artfully." He certainly doesn't regret the propaganda coup he handed the Viet Cong: "I'm proud that I stood up," Kerry told NBC in April. "I don't want anybody to think twice about it."
And therein lies the central hypocrisy of the Kerry candidacy.
He came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn. He lent respectability to those who demanded that America cut and run, that it abandon a beleaguered ally, that it drop "the mystical war against communism." Yet now he insists that he would be a tough and vigilant commander-in-chief, one who would never disrespect allies, one in whose hands the security of the United States would be safe.
Even after 33 years, Kerry's 1971 testimony, and his refusal to either repudiate or corroborate it, remains unsettling -- and relevant. For the Swift Boat vets, this fight may be personal. But all of us have a stake in its outcome.
[url]It was John Kerry, not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who picked this fight.
Kerry was the one who made his long-ago stint in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for president. He's the one whose running mate urges voters to take Kerry's measure by spending "three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago." He's the one whose campaign ads dwell on his combat heroics. He's the one who has repeatedly played the Vietnam card against critics and opponents. And he's the one who challenged anyone "who wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam to bring it on."
So the Swifties brought it on. Their scorching attack on his wartime record is so effective precisely because they, like Kerry, were there. They too went to Vietnam when so many other young men didn't. They too fought and bled for their country. If his wartime experience lends him a certain moral authority, it does no less for them.
That doesn't mean their version of the facts is closer to the truth than his. There are conflicting eyewitness recollections, and, as The Washington Post says, "both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors." Kerry certainly wouldn't be the first soldier to have embellished his war stories; the Swift Boat vets wouldn't be the first whose passions have altered their memories. Of course, if Kerry really wants to silence the debate about his medals, he can authorize the government to release all his military records.
But that won't silence the Swifties. Because their real beef with him is not about what he did in Vietnam. It's about what he did when he came home.
On April 22, 1971, Kerry went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to indict the American war effort in Vietnam for horrendous war crimes. These were "not isolated incidents," he testified, "but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
He offered no evidence. Instead he trumpeted the charges of the "Winter Soldier Investigation," an antiwar gathering a few months earlier at which men claiming to be Vietnam veterans -- many were later exposed as frauds -- described the atrocities they had allegedly committed.
"They told stories," Kerry said, "that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
That is what thousands of Vietnam veterans, not to mention countless other vets, have never forgiven or forgotten. Bob Dole, whose right arm was crippled in World War II, suggested on Sunday that Kerry apologize to the 2.5 million veterans he defamed. Kerry's words -- which drew immense media coverage at the time -- helped poison public attitudes about Vietnam veterans and the cause they had fought in. Even worse, they gave encouragement to the enemy.
"The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," says Paul Galanti, who appears in the second -- and far more devastating -- Swift Boat Veterans ad, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington." Galanti has good reason to remember Kerry's testimony. He first learned of it in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," where he spent nearly seven years as a POW.
Kerry has never taken back his terrible slur against his fellow soldiers -- men he now calls his "band of brothers." The most he has been willing to say is that his words "were a little bit over the top" and that he could perhaps "have phrased things more artfully." He certainly doesn't regret the propaganda coup he handed the Viet Cong: "I'm proud that I stood up," Kerry told NBC in April. "I don't want anybody to think twice about it."
And therein lies the central hypocrisy of the Kerry candidacy.
He came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn. He lent respectability to those who demanded that America cut and run, that it abandon a beleaguered ally, that it drop "the mystical war against communism." Yet now he insists that he would be a tough and vigilant commander-in-chief, one who would never disrespect allies, one in whose hands the security of the United States would be safe.
Even after 33 years, Kerry's 1971 testimony, and his refusal to either repudiate or corroborate it, remains unsettling -- and relevant. For the Swift Boat vets, this fight may be personal. But all of us have a stake in its outcome.[/url] Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
posted on August 27, 2004 12:22:56 PM new
Gee, where were these wonderful Swift Boat liars when Bush flys onto an Aircraft carrier and says that he can do because he used to fly jets in the NG ?
Why aren't they running ads about his desertion and other problems with his military record ?
posted on August 27, 2004 03:22:14 PM new
The truth and fact are problems, but Reamond manages to do a broken field run around them to arrive at the surmise of his beliefs. Maybe we shouldn't bother Reamond with the cold hard facts, like Dubya's Honorable Discharge. After all, Reamond's opinion surmounts reality or convention. All bow to the all-knowing Reamond, we are un-worthy!
posted on August 27, 2004 03:42:58 PM newWhy aren't they running ads about his desertion and other problems with his military record ?
Because they know that Pres Bush honorably served and completed his military duty. It's only you lie loving Clinton libs that refuse to accept the facts.
------------
This is beyond the comprehension level of most of you libs, but read it anyway. Changes are you WILL learn something.
Bush Guard Service, The True Story
Written by Gordon Bloyer
Thursday, August 26, 2004
This is the only place that you will get the full and true story of President Bush’s Air National Guard service. There are no UNANSWERED questions. There are no missing records. He did not miss any meetings. The truth is known. You can find everything in this article, in other publications but none of the others are complete. You have to put them all together to get the full story. It is a shame that our national "objective" media refuse to do their job and put the whole story together.
[v]First, in answer to the charge that Bush was AWOL or missed meetings, George Bush was NEVER assigned to the Alabama Guard. This is a myth promoted by the "objective" media.[/b] Here is what really happened. Here is what the head of the Alabama Guard said.
Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance. This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.
This was reported in the Chicago Sun-Times and has never been picked up by any other news organization. Turnipseed then also added.
For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.
For the liberals reading this, go back and read it again. You see, Bush did NOT miss any meetings. The whole argument is nonsense. He got permission from his commanding officer to go to Alabama and attend meetings as a courtesy so he could attend when he could. Another part of this attack is that no one saw Bush at the meetings he did attend. It was reported that Turnipseed never saw Bush. Read what was reported about that.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say that not only did he remember Bush in Alabama, but that it was Turnipseed himself that introduced the two. Oops. And really...the media is completely asleep at the switch on this one. How many people that you saw a few times do you remember from 30 years ago?
Why didn’t fellow pilots see Bush in Alabama? The planes being flown by the Alabama Guard were not the same as the F102 that Bush was trained on. Why would pilots see him if he was not flying? That is why Lt. Col. Calhoun came forward to say that was Bush was in his office for study and drill time. Remember he was not assigned to the unit, he did NOT have to be there.
The following is from a letter by Col. William Campenni Ret. published in the Washington Times.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2 1/2 years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
Here is some information that the "objective" media avoids telling you. John Kerry joined the Navy Reserve, he did not JOIN the Navy. The Reserve was just like the National Guard. Kerry did NOT know he would be sent to Vietnam.
George Bush joined the Guard for a SIX-year term. If you are drafted, you only have to serve TWO years. Bush probably did not need to pull strings to get into a jet fighter unit. Jets required a greater time commitment than normal Guard postings. Pilots from the unit that he joined were being sent to Vietnam. All the publications that have researched this have concluded that there is NO evidence that he used any influence to get into the Guard. The liberal publications will say that there is no evidence, but it is still suspicious. That is a good journalistic standard? So, do you get it, Bush joined a unit that at the time was serving in Vietnam.
The following is research from aerospaceweb.org ........
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush's squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn't seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969. The F-102 was instead returned to its primary role of providing air defense for the United States. In addition, the mission of Ellington AFB, where Bush was stationed, was also changing from air defense alert to training all F-102 pilots in the US for Air National Guard duty. Lt. Bush remained in the ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972. ... By this time, the 147th Fighter Wing was also beginning to transition from the F-102 to the F-101F, an updated version of the F-101B used primarily for air defense patrols. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam was nearing its end and the US was withdrawing its forces from the theater. Air Force personnel returning to the US created a glut of active-duty pilots, and there were not enough aircraft available to accommodate all of the qualified USAF and ANG pilots. Since USAF personnel had priority for the billets available, many of the Air National Guard pilots whose enlistments were nearly complete requested early release. The ANG was eager to fulfill these requests because there was not enough time to retrain F-102 pilots to operate new aircraft before their enlistments were up anyway. Bush was one of those forced out by the transition, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant in October 1973, eight months before his six-year enlistment was complete. Bush had approximately 600 flight hours by the time he completed his military service.
The folks at aerospaceweb concluded.........
While Bush did not see combat in Vietnam, it is also obvious he was not seeking a way to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam. At the time he was training to be an F102 pilot, ANG units and that aircraft type were based in Vietnam.
In conclusion, there is no evidence Bush got special treatment to join the Guard. He did NOT miss any meetings, he was not assigned to the Alabama Guard. The reason the so called "objective" media holds on to this myth is that it lets them keep asking, where was Bush? The issue of his being grounded is also answered because he would no longer be flying since his plane was obsolete and he did not have enough Guard time left to train in a new jet. You don’t need to report for a physical if you are not flying. Duh!
Kerry joined the Navy Reserve and did not expect to go to Vietnam. When Kerry did go to Vietnam the swift boats were not during river patrols. They were doing coastal patrols and were not in much danger. That is when he volunteered to join the Swiftee’s. The assignment of those boats was changed after he was accepted for the duty. Surprise, he got action and the rest is disputed history.
The information in this article was published in "George Magazine", "New York Times", "Washington Times", "Chicago Sun-Times", "Washington Post" and aerospaceweb.org.
