Sunday, October 24, 2004

Meeting "With The Entire Security Council" Is "Seared -- Seared -- In Me"

Remember my post on John Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" fiasco? Well now we have proof positive from Joel Mowbray writing in the Washington Times that Kerry spewed a whopper in the second Presidential debate about meeting "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But before we get to that, let's summarize what I wrote in "Cambodian Case Closed Conclusively". In short, there are two options. The first -- and far and away most likely -- option is that Kerry was never in Cambodia. His crewmen -- including both his supporters and critics never mind his fellow Swiftie captains -- deny it and nobody has climbed out of the woodwork to confirm it. Zero support from ANY contemporary in Vietnam.

Following this option, by far the most likely timeline -- more on the timeline in the next option -- is that Kerry started fabricating this story out of the whole cloth beginning at the time of his 1979 review of "Apocalypse Now" for the Boston Herald:
JOHN KERRY: "On more than one occasion, I like Martin Sheen in "Apocalypse Now," took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
Following this he peaked in the attack on Reagan's Contra policy on the Senate floor:
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.
The only problem with this is that even Kerry's hagiographer contradicts it:
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. ‘He was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia,’ Brinkley told London’s Daily Telegraph last week.”
However, further years end up with this astounding reportage by the Washington Post from June 2003:
And who is he, really?

A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

He smiled and aimed his finger: "Pow."
Continuing our almost certainty that Kerry's fabricating Cambodian Christmas, then we are left with options ranging from a Walter Mitty figurine that should be recalled from the Senate post-haste by his Massachusetts constituency -- to something far, far worse. Not to mention that outright lies on the Senate floor to attack Reagan would be an instant disqualification from the Presidency to any voter even feigning rationality.

The only other option -- Kerry is telling the truth about his Cambodian Christmas -- fits on the timeline as follows. (I know you're holding your nose at this point but bear with me!) Remember Kerry's infamous testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee in 1971 where he assassinated the character of the entire military (including my Marine cousin of course)?

Not only does Kerry not mention his Christmas in Cambodia but check out this snippet:
No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi.
If Kerry had been in Cambodia, how could it possibly not be incompetence of simply fantastic proportions not to bring up his Cambodian Christmas at this point in his testimony to suggest that more than helicopter crews are in Laos? He could have gained huge credibility and nearly blown the roof off the room for heaven's sake!

You're telling me that we're going to elect someone this incompetent -- or at minimum a raving amnesiac -- to be President?

So our Cambodian options are liar/fantasist or incompetent/amnesiac.

And now comes the meeting with the "entire Security Council":
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
In summary, I no longer call him Flipper since "Cambodian Case Conclusively Closed" is well aligned with today's "Council Case of Conclusively Consistent Cr*pola" over an arc of more than 30 years.

But I don't believe his new label should be "Liberal" as W is now touting. It is something far, far worse than that. But I trust I'm in polite company so I won't say it.

UPDATE: Beldar points out that "When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council."

And Roger gets the Cambodia link.

UPDATED AGAIN: Not Russia or China, Either.