Tuesday, August 31, 2004

What's Up With The Kerry Campaign?

What is going on with these people? The latest Kerry flip-flip was one of his best (or worst, depending on how you look at it). On August 1st, Kerry suggested that it would be a good idea to pull some troops out of Europe and South Korea. On August 16th president Bush announced plans to do just that. 48 hours later, Kerry slammed Bush for doing something that he, Kerry, had advocated just 17 days earlier!
It got me wondering; did Kerry's campaign manager, Bob Shrum, tell Kerry to do that, or was it Kerry's idea? 20 years ago, a Democrat could get away with such an outrageous flip-flip, but times have changed. Doesn't Kerry and his people realize that?
I'm beginning to think we were wrong about Kerry. Maybe he isn't a Liberal. Maybe he isn't anything. The man appears to have absolutely no core beliefs other than he, John Forbes Kerry, should be President of the United States.
After his "Christmas in Cambodia" lie had been nailed, Kerry and his campaign lost their discipline at perhaps the most critical moment of this election year. The campaign rushed out a cover story; Kerry was close to the Cambodia border and/or accidently crossed the border in January 1969. Meanwhile, Kerry's pet biographer, Douglas Brinkley, was telling the London Daily Telegraph a completely different story. Brinkley informed the Telegraph that Kerry conducted three or four clandestine missions into Cambodia, ferrying special forces (Navy Seals, Green Berets etc.) there early in 1969. Obviously, these two tall tales are mutually contradictory. Was there a breakdown of communication between Brinkley and the campaign? It would certainly seem so. It didn't help that Brinkley chose a British newspaper. Why didn't he choose the New York Times? The campaign may have seen it before they rushed out their own story, which in so many ways was inferior to Brinkley's.
Remember Kerry's original story: he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, He was fired at by the Khmer Rouge and by drunken South Vietnamese soldiers who were celebrating Christmas. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Richard Nixon was denying that any American forces were in Cambodia. For this reason, Christmas 1968 was a "turning point" in Kerry's life; "seared -- seared" in his memory. As you probably know by now, there are many problems with this story. Here are the highlights:

1)Richard Nixon was NOT president during Christmas 1968, Lyndon Johnson was. Nixon actually took office on January 20th, 1969.

2)The Khmer Rouge did NOT take the field until 1972.

3)The South Vietnamese were Buddhists: therefore, unlikely to be celebrating Christmas.

4)The large and noisy Swift Boats were NEVER used on such clandestine missions.

5)Not one of Kerry's fellow swiftees - not even among his so-called "Band of Brothers" confirms his story; in fact, two of his old PCF-44 crew have flatly denied ever crossing into Cambodia.

If Kerry was only close to the border, why would it be a "turning point" in his life, "seared" in his memory? If he accidently crossed the border; again, what was his beef with Nixon? It would have been Kerry's fault, not Nixon's. And why were those drunken South Vietnamese Buddhist soldiers celebrating Christmas in January? Come to think of it, why did they decide to throw a Christmas party in Cambodia? They must have been very drunk!

Brinkley's story - while undeniably also full of holes - is much easier to defend. They were secret missions. Nobody wants to talk about them (apart from the blabbermouth, Kerry). I believe the liberal mainstream media would have been satisfied; unfortunately, the Kerry campaign blew it. Now even the Washington Post has been forced to conclude that Kerry's Excellent Cambodia Adventure never happened. Kerry made it all up.


Post a Comment

<< Home