Election: A Potential Setback for Kerry?

[Modred]

While I believe that most of us here acknoledge that most, if not all, of the accusations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are at best weak and at worst something far worse than just smear tactics in an election campaign. However, both candidates have been subject to such attacks, and here we have a potential pit fall, albeit a rather small one, for John Kerry.

I am sure that most of us are familiar with Kerry's claim that he spent Christmas of 1968 across the Cambodian border carrying out a secret mission, upon which he was fired upon by drunken South Vietnamese allies. One of the loudest criticisms of John O'Neil, who also criticized Kerry during the 1970s, has been that the said crossing into Cambodia did not occur and that US Forces were never ordered into Cambodia for covert operations.

Recently, the Kerry campaign has actually given ground on this issue.

Kerry has said on the record that he was mistaken in his recollections and has since said he was on a river near Cambodia, not actually in the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130372,00.html

On Thursday, the group released a 30-second Internet ad disputing Kerry’s contention that his Swift Boat crossed into Cambodia. Kerry’s campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated, but that he does recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date.

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

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/swift.boat.author.ap/index.html

As I said earlier, it is a small acknoledgement, however all three sources record that the Kerry campaign has faltered on its insistence that Kerry was in Cambodia at that time. While other parts of the articles mention that "Kerry recalls being in Cambodia at some point during his Vietnam service," this is a vague report that is much more difficult to stand by than having a specific date for being in Cambodia.

Seeing this advance of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, do you think that their attacks on Kerry's image as a war-hero could breed more such admissions from the Kerry campaign, or at the very least create doubt in a notable portion of American minds?

[TheBB]

How does it matter if Kerry crossed a border once in a lifetime or not? Jesus. People choose presidents on the weirdest of reasons. My grandma votes extreme right because the party leader is cute. Wtf?! This undermines the entire idea of democracy... I say people get some fucking perspective on things and forget about whether or not Kerry spent 2 hours in Cambodia or not.

[Chiron]

I think it's just a memory lapse. Sometimes things blend together when you're in a stressful environment, and you can't quite remember exactly where you were. The point is that Kerry participated in the war, and now we should focus on the campaign platforms and future policies.

[Mattimeo]

We shouldn't consider military service when electing a president. Right? I mean that's what John Kerry says. In 1992 he supported Bill Clinton, a draft-dodger during veitnam saying that military record was not important when comparing Bush I and Clinton. So why we care whether either of them served in vietnam in this election is beyond me.

~Don't Panic

[LordAhriman]

Have politics seriously degraded to the point where we can care about things like this? (I'm a Republican.)

[Modred]

We shouldn't consider military service when electing a president. Right? I mean that's what John Kerry says. In 1992 he supported Bill Clinton, a draft-dodger during veitnam saying that military record was not important when comparing Bush I and Clinton. So why we care whether either of them served in vietnam in this election is beyond me.

~Don't Panic

I have a theory about Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency, and will eventually make a thread about that. Don't worry, it doesn't really belittle him, just some comments on the time period and how he was custom made for it. :p

Anyway, the point is that John Kerry has made his Vietnam war record an integral part of his campaign. He has repeatedly referred to his service in Vietnam as proof that he is in touch with the military and is capable of sustaining national defense.

When running on a war record, shouldn't we pay attention when he allows another organization to pressure him into changing his story about his war record?

The question isn't really about where he was in Winter of 1968--the question is will he stretch his facts and then retreat in other areas as he appears to have done with this? Can the American people trust him if he runs on a record that has little to no value to current American politics?

[Mattimeo]

Anyway, the point is that John Kerry has made his Vietnam war record an integral part of his campaign. He has repeatedly referred to his service in Vietnam as proof that he is in touch with the military and is capable of sustaining national defense.?

Well he obviously can't use his time on the senate intelligence committee. He missed 76% of the meetings during the 8 years he was on the committee and all of the meetings the year after the 1993 WTC attack. And he voted to cut intelligence funding by 6 billion dollars. So maybe exagerating his war record is the best course of action ;)

~Don't Panic

[singo]

How does it matter if Kerry crossed a border once in a lifetime or not? Jesus. People choose presidents on the weirdest of reasons. My grandma votes extreme right because the party leader is cute. Wtf?! This undermines the entire idea of democracy... I say people get some fucking perspective on things and forget about whether or not Kerry spent 2 hours in Cambodia or not.
its not that its the fact he needed a memory jogging to remember he wasnt actually in cambodia.


a president with a knackered memory??

"Big red button what red button? this one?" *presses big red button* "oh that one.....oops"

[Mattimeo]

I think that the issue here is that one of his major attacks against the way the US operated the war is his claim that they lied about him being in cambodia. He would talk about how seeing the president on TV while he was in Cambodia saying that no US soldiers were in Cambodia really made him mad. Now that we find out that he wasn't really in Cambodia then what was he doing with such a vivid memory of the event? Maybe he was making this up? Maybe he was making other things up too? hmmm?

~Don't Panic

[Nuts]

Firstly, as Modred mentioned, Kerry has made his military service an integral part of his campaign. If we're to elect a president based on his historical service to this country, then we have a right to know if his service was honorable and truthful. You cannot ask that we pay close attention to a portion of the record, while ignoring all other aspects. Kerry opened a proverbial can of worms.

Secondly, for those who would accuse this of being petty; ask yourself if being honest is a petty issue. Nobody is questioning his service, they are questioning his honesty. It is admirable that Kerry signed up to fight in Vietnam. It is not admirable if he lied about his service to obtain unearned medals and a stepping stone to the presidency.

If I remember correctly (and I do) it was the DNC that first accused Bush of going AWOL from the National Guard. Nobody claimed that this attack was unfair or petty, did they? In fact, Bush provided numerous documents and paystubs to quell the accusations. Yet, even when provided with undeniable proof, they continued to attack. Interestingly enough, the mere fact that the accusation was made has caused the rumor to persist. it was a magnificent ploy by the DNC.

11 members of Kerry's unit find him to be unfit for duty as President of the United States. 4 remain neutral, and 2 have died. This leaves one person who actively supports John Kerry for President. These are men whom should have the closest ties with Kerry, yet only one of them feels strongly enough to come forward in support of his candidacy. If Kerry is going to trounce out Vietnam vets to vouch for him, then other vets have the right to denounce his record. Of course, it doesn't help that Kerry used a photo (http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Letter) of his crew to promote his record, when only one of the members approved of the use of the images.

The fact is, Bush has done very little complaining about the attack ads from Kerry and the 527's, yet the moment a 527 is aired against Kerry, we get a firestorm of fury from Kerry complaining about unfair campaign practices. Interestingly enough, none of these accusations have been answered, none at all. He refused to relase his war medical record, and he refuses to explain how he received more medals in a shorter amount of time than most any other vet, yet he maintains full use of his facilities.