“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared–seared–in me.”
But he doesn’t say it any more.
This official retraction, of a serious claim that had been made repeatedly and that was part of the candidate’s own explanation of his why he holds the views he does, ought to be news. At 11.30pm I couldn’t find it on the BBC website.
More can be read about the “Bush AWOL” story here (4 February), here (10 February), here (14 February), here (also 14 February), here (27 April), here (31 May), here (10 July), and here (24 July).
The February cluster of stories are evolving versions of the same basic framework. But that’s the point, isn’t it? The BBC was on top of every twist and turn of that story.
Here’s what the BBC are apparently saying about it on Sunday:
‘There are no pages about “John Kerry Christmas Cambodia” from BBC News . You may find results from other sections of the BBC site or the world wide web’.
Indeed.
I guess if this story expressed the essence of the man John Kerry is or the man he is trying to present to the United States electorate it would be important enough to cover.
To be fair, Broadcasting House this morning led with a summary of the UN oil-for-food scandal, saying that if true it is the biggest fraud ever in the world. With the finger pointing several times at France and Russia for blocking attempts by the US and UK to stop the scams.
But there is only one other reference on the enormous, sprawling BBC website to the oil-for-food scandal. And NO REFERENCE still to the Swift Boat Veterans.
I haven’t followed, and won’t follow, this story. It lives as pundit fodder. But, Drudge? As a source?
Friday’s Newsight had a report on the subject. Slightly off centre.
1st sentence ofSoppel’s introduction told us swiftvet book was published by a CONSERVATIVE publisher.
Sell’s then provided film report, only talking head being a pro-Kerry US journalist. Film included “band of brothers” photo – no mention that some had objected to being shown on it.
Back to studio & interview with a Dem campaign organiser. Finally a brief interview with the book’s author.
Overall impression – dirty tricks by Rep sympathisers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3563184.stm
re above programme. Including video for next 24 hrs for broadbanders.
Billg,
The problem with burying your head in the sand is that it leaves your posterior exposed to passing strangers.
This story is more than punditry fodder. It has made all the news sources in the U.S. including interviews with John O’Neil, the author of “Unfit for Command”.
Kerry has backpedalled on the story because he doesn’t have much choice, having blamed a man who wasn’t even President at the time he claims to have been sent to Cambodia by that President.
Kerry made up a story for political ends, told it on the floor of the Senate (it’s in the record) and repeated it in newspaper articles. It’s false and so is the story teller. Perhaps that’s why the BBC is also ignoring it. It doesn’t fit their agenda.
StinKerr, I’m not burying my head in the sand.
I don’t care what John Kerry says about Vietnam. (Unless he’d just shut up about it. That would please me. Maybe he can make a deal and get Bush to shut up about God.)
Why, as a U.S. voter, do I say that? Because I don’t judge presidenial candidates based on anecdotal Boy Scout tests of personal virtue. Kerry and the Democrats agree with me much more often that Bush and the Republicans; the net impact of a Kerry presidency would be more beneficial that a Bush second term. I’ve already decided that, so nothing short of one of ’em commiting a capital offense is likely to sway me.
As for the breadth of coverage, I can’t say. I don’t watch any of the cable news outlets or listen to talk radio.
In any case, none of the talking pundit shows deliver legitimate news content. They’re just television versions of most blogs: people telling other people what they think about things other people have said. I.e., a closed loo
billg,
Whatever one’s assessment of the importance of the Kerry / Cambodia / Swift Boats story, it pretty well has to be similar in importance to the Bush / National Guard story.
Yet one is covered, the other not.
billg
You seem to enjoy wallowing in ignorance about a whole stream of lies made by your choice of Presidential candidate.
“My mind is made up already – don’t confuse me with the facts”.
I recommend you spend a little time looking around for what has been reported – not just on talk radio or TV ads, but also in some serious newspapers. And documented in detail – in book form, affidavits from lots of people who served with Kerry.
Remember Watergate ? Of course Nixon couldn’t be guilty ?
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend it is not even worth examining whether Kerry might be a total peacenik who betrayed his comrades and lied through his teeth about his Vietnam service. But “truth’s a chiel that winnae die, and cannae be disputed”.
All Kerry has to do is release his service records, just like Bush. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that he has refused this ?
Natalie: I don’t doubt the the Bush/National Guard story got more play. Still, I don’t know how to assess “balance” across a universe of sources. Should we measure column inches and air time, and demand Bush and Kerry get equal numbers? When one source consistently slants in one direction the bias is obvious after. But, it seems almost impossible to assess balance across media in their entirety.
JohnInLondon: I didn’t say I was ignoring any Kerry prevarications. I just said I think a Kerry presidency would be more beneficial than a second term for Bush. It isn’t as if I had a choice of one candidate who told a lie and another candidate who has always been honest. Facing a choice between two liars, it seems prudent to vote for the liar who will best favor your own best interest.
In November, the Kerry Cambodia story the Bush Guard story will not sway many voters. People will give priority to domestic issues that impact them personally, as they always do.
billg
There is a vital difference. The stories about Kerry and a whole series of possible lies about Vietnam go to the heart of his character. Americans will take that into account in voting, if the stories and all the affidavits by veterans stack up. The Bush national Guard story has already been discounted in people’s voting intentions – the Swift Boat vets story has not yet been assimilated by the voters. You yourself remain ignorant of it, as you say.
billg,
Here’s a link to a book that John Kerry wrote. This one’s an autographed edition. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29223&item=6919058673&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Be sure not to ask yourself why a Presidential candidate has been suppressing a book that he wrote rather than having it reprinted as every other candidate has done.
I’ll be that story didn’t make the BBC either.
Oops, add a ‘t’ up there. “I’ll bet that story didn’t make the BBC either.
JohninLondon, StinKerr: You’re missing the point. I agree that Kerry’s statements reflect his character. But, if a voter already holds the character sof both candidates in equally low esteem, he isn’t likely to let that factor determine his vote.
I’m not ignorant of the Kerry in Vietnam stories. He’s been around for years and people have been writing these stories all along. As I said, they won’t influence my vote.
My vote, and most others, will be determined by my sense of who will leave the nation in better shape after 4 years.
Finally, this issue isn’t getting much play outside talk radio, cable news, and political blogs. Of course, if you get all your news from those 3 genres, it may seem different.
I know this doesn’t really have much to do with the issues here, but DAMN! GWB was hot!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1190071/posts
Kerry reviews “Apocalyse Now” in 1979 & his Martin Sheen trip starts.
(via comments at Tim Blair)
I only listen to music on my radio, billg. Not much else to listen to in this part of the world.
The blatant bias of mainscream media has driven me to cable TV, (including C-SPAN) blogs, and news sites. I don’t see anything wrong with it because all of the ones I read back up their discussions with multiple references to credible news sources. I’m aware enough to be able to search for multiple sources and have learned which sites are not to be trusted. The rest I still get confimation.
It’s a shame that it has come to the point that amateurs are forced to find the truth because the professional news gatherers are not doing the job or are ignoring things that do not fit their agenda.
I’ll repeat my request from other threads: Show me a BBC news story that puts President Bush in a good light.
Col. Hackworth regards both the Bush and Kerry Vietnam backstories as irrelevant to the debate.
I am inclined to agree with him.
This story has great relevance to the debate on who is best-suited to lead the US government. John Kerry has been spinning this yarn for years, embellishing and honing it for his own purposes. The media elites have decided which ‘news’ we need to hear. Anything that keeps George in and John out is not newsworthy. This story is a perfect example. See U.S. News and World Report’s political analyst, Michael Barone’s latest column on this very thing: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040816.shtml
-continued-
He concludes:
“Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia claims were first noted in the widely read instapundit.com on Aug. 6. As this is written, on Aug. 13, not a word about them has appeared in The New York Times or The Washington Post, nor have they been discussed much or at all on ABC, CBS or NBC News. This is a vivid contrast with the treatment by these news organizations of the charges — false charges — by Michael Moore and Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe that George W. Bush was AWOL while in the National Guard. A double standard seems to be at work. But then, as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said on “Inside Washington”: “Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win.” ”
-continued-
Michael Barone continued:
“Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia statements, made over many years, seem to be the kind of resume padding that routinely disqualifies political appointees and damages political candidates. His repeated tellings of this story seem more than a little weird, and usually we don’t want people who do weird things to be president. Perhaps by the time you’re reading this appears, the Times, the Post or the broadcast networks will have addressed this issue.
If they don’t, it’s reasonable to ask why not.”
And that’s one example of why this blog exists.
Kerry can’t run on his Senate record nor his VVAW record, he has suppressed as far as possible his book “New Soldier” so all he has is a few months service in Viet Nam. Now we find that he’s embellishing that.
I knew people who served on PBR’s there. I respect them all for their service under fire. None of the ones that I know ever embellish what they did. They don’t have to.
It is indeed unfortunate that blogs like this have to exist. They do esist because the professionals are biased or corrupt and need to be called on it and corrected.
When the news services get back to being neutral, unbiased, disinterested parties the blogs will just blow away in the wind. Until then these blogs provide a necessary and critical service and I am grateful for them.
Er, can we get one thing straight.
John Kerry served in Vietnam. Fact.
At the same time, George W Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard. In the US. Thousands of miles from the battlezone. Fact.
Now, Mr Bush plays much on this image – a false one – of being a war leader. Yet, when given his chance to serve his country he backed out. Just like Cheney and other loudmouth rightwing chickenhawks who pulled all the strings to avoid the draft.
So get this: it really doesn’t matter one iota what Mr Kerry did, or did not do, in Vietnam or Cambodia because he was there and Mr Bush was not.
On this particular issue, because he actually served his country when asked to, I’m afraid he trumps Bush every single time (and the voters see it too).
Ricky L–
John Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia story is a lie. Fact.
The BBC has yet to report this. Fact.
John Kerry has not produced his service medical records (though George W Bush has). Fact.
The BBC has yet to report this. Fact.
George Bush was AWOL. Myth.
The BBC relentlessly ‘reported’ this ‘Bush was AWOL’ until they had to face the truth. Fact.
Ricky L is parroting Michael Moore. Fact.
Also, John Kerry bad-mouthed his erstwhile comrades. Fact.
The vast majority of the men who served in the Swift Boats with Kerry say he is unfit to command. Fact. And that his “heroics” were a fraud. Fact. And that he scuttled back to thwe US as fast as he could escape real service, while men with reaql wounds stayed their full tour of duty if they could. Fact.
And still no mention of Swift Boat Veterans on a search of the vast BBC website. Versus lots of acid stories about Bush. Fact.
“Yet, when given his chance to serve his country he backed out.”
Since when did serving in the ANG stop being counted as serving his country? Flying 1950s single-engined supersonic fighters without the benefits of an advanced zero-zero ejection seat is bloody dangerous, and cannot be considered as taking an easy option.
“Just like Cheney… …who pulled all the strings to avoid the draft.”
Wasn’t Cheney married and therefore not subject to the draft? Getting married is not normally refered to as “pulling strings”.
Would “pulling strings” be akin to faking a back injury to avoid the draft then going skiing? (Howard Dean)
The Bush AWOL story got cranked up by Terry McCauliffe (DNC Chair) who didn’t serve a minute himself. Can anybody say ‘hypocricy’? Sure, I knew you could.
The funniest part was when he mentioned that he was in Cambodia during christmas of 68 while ‘Nixon was in the White House’.
Nixon was elected in November of 68, but a newly elected president doesn’t take office until January of the following calender year.
I can’t believe that the journalist *here* who put that piece together get that one.
Actually Natalie & Co., the swift boat story has hardly made any rounds on TV at all here in the US, and only got cursory coverage by Fox. The Washington Times, a conservative paper is ran a long piece on it, but other than the internet, the only exposure has been the campaign adverts that the Swifties have been running themselves. The networks are censoring this piece.
There is a reason that military people are wary of the democrats’ wars. Basically, becuase they are more about domestic politics then the national interest, and they never challenge the population to make a hard choice about the national interest.
Even liberal people I know who are in the military, or were in the military simply can’t countenance John Kerry.
Realistically though, he wouldn’t have gotten many votes from them anyway, so if he gets ONE by running around talking about being a hero, then he benefits. There is another X factor at play here as well – and that’s the image that your average suburban liberal has of what counts as a dedicated member of the military. It doesn’t resemble what a member of the military is most likely to see in someone who did their service well.