I just saw Brinkley on Hardball the other night stating as fact that Kerry went there on 4 different occasions.

Stealthy,

So what was Brinkley’s answer when Chris Matthews asked him why he didn’t include those four occasions in “Tour of Duty”?

Swiftboat Ad #3 is out. Steve Gardner tells the camera that there were no secret missions to Cambodia. Kampaign Kerry will have to get one of his crewman to say Gardners lying -- or come up with a story that the trip consisted of a secret crew, perhaps just Kerry and VC the combat dog manning the tiller.

He didn't know where he was, what day it was and who the president was. Am I the only one who thinks he could have been stoned out of his mind when all this was fried, er.. seared into his memory.

Did anyone notice that Brinkley was sweating on HardBall more than Kerry was at the democratic convention. And well he should. His credibility is so tarnished at this point that anything he has to say needs to be viewed very skeptically.

Moreover, apparently Brinkly has foolishly concluded that correcting the record on behalf of Kerry can recapture credibility for himself. In the process of hitting the panic button Brinkley doesn't realize that the only hope he had for salvaging his own credibility was to stay out of this mess that Kerry brought upon himself. He wrote a book based upon Kerry's journals, Kerry edited the book. For him to now start trying to change the record established in the book is absurd. Mr. Brinkley needs to understand the difference between a journalist/historian and a defense counsel. The more he behaves like the latter the more certain everyone is that he is simply a lackey for John Kerry.

Jim,

Do you suppose that Mr. Brinkley's credibility might also be undermined by the cover of his book in which he shows the image of Kerry in a helmet and flak jacket from the staged “reenactment” home movie? The only genuine images I've seen (besides the protest scenes and the testilying before the Senate) of Kerry during that period are him receiving a medal (also on the cover) or lounging on his swift boat. Why more than one photo when the other is clearly ficticious?

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question I asked Stealthy. If Brinkley is *now* stating that Kerry went into Cambodia on 3-4 missions, then he needs to provide a satisfactory explanation of why these were (apparently) not included in his book on Kerry. Seems to me that would be far more relevant in a book purportedly about Kerry’s 4 months, 12 days, 35 years ago in Vietnam than images from a staged “reenactment” home movie.

Saw on the news a clip of Kerry at townhall meeting in Minn. today. He said all the guys who were on the boat with him "absolutely document what I've said" "i'm telling the God's honest truth about what happened over there" OOPS, didn't the Steve Gardiner Ad come out today? Wasn't he on the boat w/Kerry longer than the rest of the "band"

If the mainstream media would do their job then everyone would realize that Kerry lies as often as Clinton. Of course that didn't stop Clinton from being elected twice. Personally I think Kerry was a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the enemy while he was in the Navy Reserve. That is the story that needs to be presented to the public. I hope the Swifties are willing to undertake that, because I think that might be sufficient to defeat Kerry. He is proud of his antiwar activities after he left active service. I would like to see how he twists the story about the group he led, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, voting on assassinating pro-war Senators. Kerry has been on both sides of most issues. He could even say he was for the Viet Nam war before he was against it! As far as I can tell the only positions he has consistently taken are for higher taxes, and for support of communist dictators, particularly his good buddies in North Viet Nam.

Ya know, I could give a rat's ass what a guy did or didn't do, or what he could remember he did, 30+ years ago. I want to know what the guy will do NOW, what he thinks NOW, and what he'd like to do TOMORROW. Move on. This is infantile and irrelevant -- just as irrelevant as Bush's service and his actions 30+ years ago. Let's talk about the last 4 years and the next 4 years since those are the years that actually matter...

Marv:

This is a perfect example of believing what you hear, and not realizing the truth. As most everything the Swifties have been saying Gardner is a bold faced liar. Although he is the ONLY Swifty who actually served under Kerry, he was NOT on his boat for ANY of the medals. He has been caught in multiple story inconsistencies, like the rest of them.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001

When O'Neil was busted in the ultimate lie through the NIxon tapes, anyone with an objective mind would recognize that their book is pure fiction. The resot of you, are going to believe what you want to believe and nothing will change your mind anyway!

Flash

Jeff, that's really the only defense Kerry has, isn't it? People who are reduced to not "giving a rat's ass" that they are supporting a man whose entire career is built on artifice.

Flash, I was a tank crewman. Like tanks, swiftboats operated in teams. I knew VERY intimately what every other guy in my company of 14 tanks did, even if I wasn't in their tank. If you were to tell me that I didn't know >exactly< what the commander of a different tank was like, I'd say you were nuts, and I'd be right, and I wasn't in combat. You think a bunch of sailors whose lives depended on decisions by commanders of the 3-5 other boats they operated with didn't know as much as I did about the other guys in my company? If so, don't.

Flash, O'Neil wasn't "busted". He "admitted" going into Cambodia during the famous Cambodia Incursion, which occurred a very long time after Senator Kerry was back in the US.

"When O'Neil was busted in the ultimate lie through the NIxon tapes,"

Whoah, there, Flash. There was no "ultimate lie". It was an out-of-context, off-the-cuff remark made on a tape of a casual conversation. We don't know the context of O'Neill's remark, and, more importantly, we don't know the background.

My hunch: that O'Neill knew EXACTLY what he'd told Nixon, and is waiting for all of you Dems to climb on this supposed "lie" like it's a life raft in a sea of floundering Kerry - and then, at or around the convention, he and a group of his crewmen will provide documentary evidence that clears up his involvement one way or the other. The life raft will evaporate, and Kerry will continue the thrashing and flailing process.

"anyone with an objective mind would recognize that their book is pure fiction."

Jeeeez, Flash - you guys ARE getting desperate. OK, I'll play the game. Let's say, just for the sake of fun, that O'Neill DID misstate facts. So if that's true, you think that invalidates EVERYTHING the Swifties said, and in and of itself validates Kerry? "O'Neill lied, so that serves as objective evidence that Kerry was in Cambodia, that he didn't fudge dates, that he didn't inflate his accomplishments..."?

But go ahead, set the precedent! Because there are misstatements of fact in every Michael Moore movie, every Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins and Barbara Ehehrhrheherhenrenreich column, every Al Franken book, every Ed Schultz broadcast; I guess that means that everything any of them ever utters is a lie, right? By the standard you just set for the Swifties?

"The resot of you, are going to believe what you want to believe and nothing will change your mind anyway!"

Perhaps. It'd help if any of you on the left presented any reason to change our mind. You haven't come close so far.

Jim, I am not sure what you are getting at, but the documented evidence, and eyewitness accounts all back Kerry's versions of events. Even those who do not support Kerry are coming out confirming Kerry's version of events.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000/

John, He was busted Cold, unless he is now Flip Flopping from his origianl words, which is par for the couse of the Smear Boat Liars. Here is what O'Neil said recently:

""How do I know he's [Kerry] not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made-up story.""

An here is what he told the President of the Untied States back in the 70's:
"O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir."

The other frustration is when the SBL says that even those that support Kerry say he was never in Cambodia, and that is not accurate either. Their objectivity had been distorted.:

Jim Wasser, the Radioman:
"On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]. I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."

Again. Nothing the Smear Boat people have said can be support by documented fact and eye witness accounts, whereas Kerry's versions can be. The Mission of the RNC is to continue to parrot these items even when they know them not to be true.

It is SOP for them!

Flash

Mitch: Whatever O'Neil said is on tape, and will come out if it is contextually relevant.

The O'Neil tape was the final nail in a long list of debunked evidence.

I chuckled at your link from a few days ago, about your definitve proof of GW ANG service. The link pointed to an article about the Lone man in the ANG who has come out to say GW was there. But even the Bush Campaign states that Bush wasn;t there when this guys says he was, and the payroll reports to jibe either.

So it is YOU who has set the standard for truth in the debate, and I'll take official US Navy documents and eyewiteness accounts given AT THE TIME over the modified accounts of those who have a personal appointment at stake!

Flash

Flash,

On my way to a meeting, but...

...there is NO long list of Swifty lies.

And if one person saw Bush in the AANG, that's one more than ever saw Kerry in Cambodia with a boatload of guns, dogs and hatless spooks.

Flash

I'm talking about Brinkley's attempts to provide Kerry with cover for his Christmas in Cambodia fantasy.

Also, with all due respect to blind partisanship, at what point will the pro-Kerry folks stop the circuitous argument that the "documented evidence" supports Kerry's version of events when we all know that the gravamen of the Swiftie charges is that Kerry inflated the reports that underlie that "documented evidence".

Moreover, the degree to which pro-Kerry people will engage in rank intellectual dishonesty and/or inconsistency is mind numbing. Look, one cannot claim that the documented evidence supporting Bush's ANG service is insufficient because there are no eyewitnesses corroborating it (or refuting it I might add), but the documented evidence supporting Kerry's version of events is dispositive regardless of the fact that there are a boatload of eyewitnesses that dispute that evidence. Of course this doesn’t even touch upon the faulty premise that if Kerry’s war record – trumpeted by Kerry himself ad nauseam - is going become a central issue then Bush’s ANG record – never even raised by the president as a reason you should vote for him – should also be central.

This kind of bald intellectual legerdemain are just a few examples of the rubbish being promulgated by the left. It’s obscene how many people on the left are willing to sell their intellectual soul to advance a political point of view.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/

"the citation contains such detail about the actions of both Thurlow and Lambert—actions that Kerry cannot have known since his launch was on the far side of the river—that it seems implausible Kerry could have written the recommendation."

I must preface this commentary with the statement: As a Vietnam Vet (’68 & ’69) it is impossible for me to put aside my personal animosity towards John Kerry for his actions after his return from Vietnam and his slanderous attack on all who served there.

That being said, the vitriolic attacks on John Kerry, the man, have no place in the political debate. The questions raised about Kerry’s service in Vietnam by the Swift Boat Vets are legitimate questions and should be answered. Kerry and his supporters have touted his service in Nam and his subsequent protest of the war as defining his character. The Swift Boat Vets have called his character into question.

In my opinion, the Swift Boat Vets aired this in public the wrong way. It is understandable their frustration with the main stream media, who ignored them until the ads were aired. However that does not excuse their methods. If, as they say, their concern was setting the record straight, why not give Kerry a chance to answer their charges in private? Why not approach him with the letter signed by the 250 some odd colleagues, the signed affidavits and the proof of any inconsistencies in his book and his public statements over the years? Why not ask him to allow their representatives to view all of his military records? Then ask Kerry to publicly set the record straight regarding any proven inconsistencies about his service and his awards.

Would Kerry have agreed? Maybe - maybe not. We will never know. My opinion is he would not have agreed to any of those things because there are proven inconsistencies in his public statements and his military records. The point is that the fair thing to do was give him a chance, in private, to address these challenges. Imagine the moral high ground the Swift Vets would occupy if their ad has started something like this: “We the undersigned, having served with John Kerry during his tour of duty in Vietnam, have met with Senator Kerry and asked him to publicly address the differences between his recollection of events during his tour of duty and the recollections of the undersigned. He has refused to do so.”

They could have then detailed their case concerning the Kerry war record. Where there were still disputed allegations, they could confidently point to the best evidence available-Kerry’s complete military records. Even the staunchest Kerry defenders must admit that Kerry has lied about at least two incidents in his war record. With all of the bullets they had in their weapons, why did they resort to throwing stones? The simple answer is that their motives were not as pristine as they would have us think. They waited to ambush Kerry. They hoped to politically damage him beyond repair, and perhaps they have. Why? Maybe they consider this their justice for Kerry’s activities after his tour.

Kerry should produce his complete military records, answer any and all questions regarding his Vietnam service and apologize to all Vietnam Veterans for his accusations in the early ‘70’s. What should the Swift Boat Veterans do? They should be ashamed.

Flash

The essence of the dispute on Kerry's "no man left behind" Bronze Star is whether he was under enemy fire while he was fishing Rassmann out of the water. All the citations say is that all the boats were under fire. Several eyewitnesses including Thurlow said that they were not receiving enemy fire. You may think he's lying...fine, but that does not mean that the documented evidence is dispositive, especially since it may have been written by Kerry. What are you suggesting, that they wrote a joint report?

It is not unreasonable to review the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the event as a way of testing the veracity of the reports, i.e., the "documented evidence". And I gotta tell you, Rassmann's story has changed materially several times. First he fell off of a different boat than Kerry's, then he claims that everyone fled and Kerry stayed, which is the opposite of what even Kerry says, then he talks about a bleeding arm (which is only bruised) and then there is the omission of any reported bullet holes in the boats (don't bring up the 3 holes in Thurlow's boat, he has already explained that they were received the previous day).

Based on the various accounts available to us my take is that AT BEST there may have been some smattering of enemy fire at the very beginning of the incident, but highly unlikely that there was a hail of bullets whizzing around Kerry while he fished out Rassmann.

Here's what you dems can't grasp; a non-inflated version of Kerry's service is unquestionably honorable and clearly would have been a feather in his cap in the character column (in fact even if he inflated the record but didn't keep sticking it in our face it would have probably been OK). But an inflated and self-aggrandizing version of that same service (if it was inflated) negates any positive character marks he would have received and even becomes a net negative in the character column - big time.

The reason the claims that Kerry inflated the records is sticking (other than the Swiftie's story is far more credible than the MSM will admit) is because Kerry has been caught in other exagerrations and lies - many of them senseless (Christmas in Cambodia, "I don't remember meeting Jane Fonda, "I wasn't at the VVAW meeting that discussed the assasination of pro-war Senators", the "war atrocities" hoax he promulgated to Congress in his 1971 testimony, "I've met with foreign leaders that have privately expressed concern to me about Bush", the "I don't own any SUV's...my family does, and on and on and on).

Don't get yourself all tangled up over this Flash. It is just extremely easy to imagine Kerry inflating after-action reports to shamlessly promote himself in between shooting re-enactments of battles with his super 8mm camera (gee, I wonder why he made those films that he now uses as footage for political campaigns). I know you Kerry guys can't accept that, but that's the picture that is emerging and it's the one that's gonna stick.

Google is up to 4,350 hits for the search:

Kerry "Form 180"

How long can he hold out? Will he ever release his records?

Can anyone explain why the records are NOT relevant?

the recrods of kerry are not relvant for the same reason we not hear about bushes abortshion if bush not reveal the details of his abortsshion which hes so hollyer than thow about then why kerry have to give out his personal because he a herro. i ate republicans they all rethugslicans and i want to kill them for wrecking my country.

John O'Neill addresses the 'in Cambodia' accusation above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12893-2004Aug18.html

Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O'Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.

I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.

Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?

Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?

If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?

John E. O'Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?

Coming in late on this one, but as a famous sailor once said: "I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more!"

Award citations are not "official" Navy documents in that they do not officially document and /or validate the particulars of a military action. Citations are cursory and sometimes hyperbolic summaries of the distinguishing acts that merit a military award. The Navy form that substantiates an award recommendation (currently the NAVADMIN 1650) is official and I have yet to see one presented as evidence in behalf of Kerry's claims.
The 1960's versions of the current NAVADMIN 1650 that were submitted as part of his awards packages would be part of Kerry's official service record; I suspect that he has copies in his possession. The 1650 would not only provide details of the meritorious act(s), but both the officer who prepared the form and the officer(s) recommending an award would be identified on this form.
Reading the original award recommendations might be the first step in determining who wrote the awards and what this individual used for supporting documentation (i.e. After Action Reports (AAR), written affadavits, etc). Is there a good reason why we haven't seen the original paperwork?