More About Phony Vet Benny Ortega

[WateringHole]

I was clearing out my mail box when I ran across an email that was sent to me I overlooked.
It's from the reporter who wrote the story in the Times Union about Benny Ortega, his name is Terry Brown. What caught my attention the most is what he put in parenthesis. This is his email.



Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:39 am
From: Brown, Terry

Hi AL,

Thanks for alerting me about Benny Ortega's possible fraud. FYI: I asked Ortega to provide me with a copy of his DD214. To date, he hasn't sent it to me. Also, I have three sourses checking out his story. I'll keep you updated. Terry (Viet Vet myself, 101 Airborne Div. 69-70) Brown@TimesUnion.com

It appears to me if this dude is "really" a Vietnam Vet, than he doesn't have to be hit by a Mack Truck to come to the conclusion somebody is jerking on his chain about being a Vietnam Vet also.
Just asking Ortega two or three questions would have alerted him just how legit he was.

BTW......Means he claims he was with the 101st in Vietnam, he should have had some knowledge about SOG operations in the bush, which Ortega claimed he was involved with.

[Packo]

Al,

Write him back and ask what part of the 101 he was in. I get a lot of guys saying they were in the Cav and when I ask them what unit, they don't have a clue. On the SOG ops....I wouldn't have a clue about those but Sid would. I really don't know many grunts that would have a clue about SOG ops unless they worked with them. Those things were way above my "need to know".

Ortega was a phoney or he'd have had his 214 lickity split. I'd also ask Brown if he's going to print a rebuttle/correction so people don't give this wannabee any more of their hard earned money.

Thanks for the update.

Pack

[Robert Ryan]

All I know SOG was Special Operations Group, what they did, I don't want to know, I can only surmize what they did.

[Boats]

Found this article may be of interest -

Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Kerry, SOG and the war in Cambodia


The infamous MACV-SOG "get out of jail free" card


Six members of SOG, the secret special operation group of Vietnam War



The Swift Boat folks are trying to say that John Kerry is lying about being in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968. The odds are he is telling the truth.


Why?


Because of the history of SOG, the Study and Observations Group, really a small, black ops unit created independently of the Special Operations structure, but drawing people from their units.


Members of the Riverine Force often faced serious danger in combat, often working with Navy SEALS, Special Forces, and MACV-SOG.


Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke served as a foreign service officer in Saigon and the Mekong Delta during the late 1960's, and described the danger on Wolf Blitzer Reports today:



BLITZER: All right, I just want to get you on the record on this whole issue of Vietnam, John Kerry's service in Vietnam.


You were a young American diplomat serving in Saigon during the Vietnam War. So this is a personal matter for you as well. When the Democratic candidate makes such a big issue of his Vietnam service during the war at the Democratic Convention and now other veterans opposed to him come out and say, effectively, he's lying about that, what do you do to make sure that this does not become a negative campaign issue for the man you want to be the next president of the United States?


HOLBROOKE: First of all, Wolf, I don't think that the Republicans are doing themselves any service by questioning the credentials of a man, John Kerry, who volunteered three times. First, only a handful of his classmates in college volunteered for military service at all.


Then he volunteered for Vietnam. And then when he was on a slow boat out in the South China Sea, he asked for the Riverine Force to command a swift boat. I was not just in Saigon, as you said. I spent three years in Vietnam and a year and a half of that in the Lower Mekong Delta, in the same area where John Kerry was. I was a civilian, but everyone was getting shot at down there.


I was not in as much danger as John Kerry, but I know those mangrove swamps very well. Danger and death lurked behind every single turn. And when the attack ads say that his wound was only a light wound, what are they talking about? The distance between a light wound and death is an inch. It's one aorta. It's one artery. It is unbelievable to me, given the danger that people in the Riverine Force faced, that any of them would go to town and be used this way 30 years later.


I'm embarrassed for the people who have done this ad. And I think that everyone should read what Jim Rassmann wrote in today's "Wall Street Journal," reaffirming how he owes his life to John Kerry. Rassmann is a Republican who was not recruited by the campaign, but just got angry about the earlier misrepresentation.


Anyone who served in Vietnam deserves the admiration of all Americans. We're not attacking. John Kerry, myself, we're not attacking those people who are attacking Kerry. They served. He served. He was wounded three times. He saved lives. And let the record speak for itself. As Senator Kerry himself says, let them attack. They're just advertising his heroic war record.



So what exactly was Kerry doing in vietnam?



Dramatic changes in the course of the war characterized 1968. The enemy's bloody country-wide Tet Offensive of February and March and the follow-up attacks during the spring influenced American decision-making in several important ways. The Johnson administration, convinced that the allied military struggle was faring badly and buffeted by growing domestic opposition to the American role in the war, ordered the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Southeast Asia. At the same time, the administration began diplomatic talks in Paris with the Vietnamese Communist in hopes of achieving a negotiated settlement of the long conflict. U.S. leaders decided that their ability to deal from a position of strength depended on an enlargement and improvement of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces as U.S. forces departed the theater. This "Vietnamization" of the war became the cornerstone of American policy.


The SEALORDS Campaign
As U.S. forces prepared the South Vietnamese military to assume complete responsibility for the war, they also worked to keep pressure on the enemy. In fact, from 1968 to 1971, the allies exploited the Communists' staggering battlefield losses during the Tet attacks by pushing the enemy's large main force units out to the border areas, extending the government's presence into Viet Cong strongholds, and consolidating control over population centers.


The Navy in particular spearheaded a drive in the Mekong Delta to isolate and destroy the weakened Communist forces. The SEALORDS (Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, and Delta Strategy) program was a determined effort by U.S. Navy, South Vietnamese Navy, and allied ground forces to cut enemy supply lines from Cambodia and disrupt operations at his base areas deep in the delta. It was developed by Vice Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., appointed COMNAVFORV in September 1968.


When Admiral Zumwalt launched SEALORDS in October 1968 with the blessing of the new COMUSMACV, General Creighton Abrams, allied naval forces in South Vietnam were at peak strength. The U.S. Navy's Coastal Surveillance Force operated 81 Swift boats, 24 Coast Guard WPBs, and 39 other vessels. The River Patrol Force deployed 258 patrol and minesweeping boats; the 3,700-man Riverine Assault Force counted 184 monitors, transports, and other armored craft; and Helicopter Attack Squadron Light (HAL) 3 flew 25 armed helicopters. This air component was soon augmented by the 15 fixed-wing OV-10 Bronco aircraft of Attack Squadron Light (VAL) 4, activated in April 1969. The lethal Bronco flown by the "Black Ponies" of VAL-4 carried 8 to 16 5- inch Zuni rockets, 19 2.75-inch rockets, 4 M-60 machine guns, and a 20-millimeter cannon. In addition, five SEAL platoons supported operations in the delta.


Complementing the American naval contingent were the Vietnamese Navy's 655 ships, assault craft, patrol boats, and other vessels. To focus the allied effort on the SEALORDS campaign, COMNAVFORV appointed his deputy the operational commander, or "First SEALORD," of the newly activated Task Force 194. Although continuing to function, the Game Warden, Market Time, and Riverine Assault Force operations were scaled down and their personnel and material resources increasingly devoted to SEALORDS. Task Force 115 PCFs mounted lightning raids into enemy- held coastal waterways and took over patrol responsibility for the delta's larger rivers. This freed the PBRs for operations along the previously uncontested smaller rivers and canals. These intrusions into former Viet Cong bastions were possible only with the on-call support of naval aircraft and the heavily armed riverine assault craft.


In the first phase of the SEALORDS campaign allied forces established patrol "barriers," often using electronic sensor devices, along the waterways paralleling the Cambodian border. In early November 1968, PBRs and riverine assault craft opened two canals between the Gulf of Siam at Rach Gia and the Bassac River at Long Xuyen. South Vietnamese paramilitary ground troops helped naval patrol units secure the transportation routes in this operational area, soon named Search Turn. Later in the month, Swift boats, PBRs, riverine assault craft, and Vietnamese naval vessels penetrated the Giang Thanh-Vinh Te canal system and established patrols along the waterway from Ha Tien on the gulf to Chau Doc on the upper Bassac. As a symbol of the Vietnamese contribution to the combined effort, the allied command changed the name of this operation from Foul Deck to Tran Hung Dao I. Then in December U.S. naval forces pushed up the Vam Co Dong and Vam Co Tay Rivers west of Saigon, against heavy enemy opposition, to cut infiltration routes from the "Parrot's Beak" area of Cambodia. The Giant Slingshot operation, so named for the configuration of the two rivers, severely hampered Communist resupply in the region near the capital and in the Plain of Reeds. Completing the first phase of the SEALORDS program, in January 1969 PBRs, assault support patrol boats (ASPB), and other river craft established patrol sectors along canals westward from the Vam Co Tay to the Mekong River in Operation Barrier Reef. Thus, by early 1969 a patrolled waterway interdiction barrier extended almost uninterrupted from Tay Ninh northwest of Saigon to the Gulf of Siam.


Allied Navies on the Offensive
The new year witnessed the strengthening of the border patrol barriers and the expansion of SEALORDS into three regions: I Corps, the area north of Saigon, and the remotest reaches of the Mekong Delta. In April, Task Force Clearwater's I Corps efforts were enhanced by Operation Sea Tiger in which Task Force 115 Swift boats, River Division 543 PBRs, Vietnamese Coastal Group 14 junks, and River Assault Group 32 units battled to secure the Cua Dai and Hoi An Rivers in Quang Nam Province. Soon afterward, in June, naval river forces began patrolling the vital Saigon River from Phu Cuong to Dau Tieng, the latter in the hotly contested Michelin Rubber Plantation. This operation, designated Ready Deck, tied in with the Giant Slingshot interdiction effort to the west.


In the Mekong Delta proper, Swift boat, PBR, riverine assault craft, SEAL, and Vietnamese ground units struck at the Viet Cong in their former strongholds, which included the Ca Mau Peninsula, the U Minh Forest, and the islands of the broad Mekong River system. From 7 to 18 April, ground, air, and naval units from each of the American services, the Vietnamese Navy, and the Vietnamese Marine Corps conducted Silver Mace II, a strike operation in the Nam Can Forest on Ca Mau Peninsula. The enemy avoided heavy contact with the allied force, but his logistical system was disrupted. After raiding and harassing operations like Silver Mace II, the combined navies often deployed forces to secure a more permanent Vietnamese government presence in vital areas. In June 1969, for example, the U.S. Navy anchored a mobile pontoon base in the middle of the Ca Mau region's Cua Lon River. This operation, labelled Sea Float, was made difficult by heavy Viet Cong opposition, strong river currents, and the distance to logistic support facilities. Still, Sea Float denied the enemy a safe haven even in this isolated corner of the delta. The allies further threatened the Communist "rear" area in September when they set up patrols on the Ong Doc, a river bordering the dense and isolated U Minh area. Staging from an advance tactical support base at the river's mouth, U.S. and Vietnamese PBRs of Operation Breezy Cove repeatedly intercepted and destroyed enemy supply parties crossing the waterway.


By October 1969, one year after the start of the SEALORDS campaign, Communist military forces in the Mekong Delta were under heavy pressure. The successive border interdiction barriers delayed and disrupted the enemy's resupply and troop replacement from Cambodia. The raiding operations hit vulnerable base areas and the Sea Float deployment put allied forces deep into what had been a Viet Cong sanctuary. In addition, American and Vietnamese forces captured or destroyed over 500 tons of enemy weapons, ammunition, food, medicines, and other supplies. Furthermore, 3,000 Communist soldiers were killed and 300 were captured at a cost of 186 allied men killed and 1,451 wounded.





The mission of MACV-SOG was to penetrate the border areas of Vietnam and attack the NVA sanctuaries. A very dangerous, very risky kind of war, where SOG members could expect horrible deaths in combat. THE NVA had special teams which tracked them down and on one occassion burnt a team alive with flamethrowers.



Officially titled as the Military Assistance Command Vietnam Studies and Observation Group. The MACV SOG teams were normally US Army Special Forces teams that were hand selected to perform one of the most dangerous missions assigned to anyone in Southeast Asia. The SOG teams were assigned the area of Cambodia and Laos that became the main infiltration routes and storage areas for the North Vietnamese Army. These teams operated along the length of South Vietnam and into the adjacent Cambodia and Laos normally to a depth of about 18 miles. In this area of responsibility, there were over 100,000 North Vietnamese Army Regulars and Viet Cong.


The SOG teams were made up of American and indigenous personnel; i.e. Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Montagnard mercenaries. In 1972, as the American personnel were withdrawn, the team makeup was normally two Americans and four indigenous personnel.


The main mission of the SOG teams was to locate and observe the enemy, wire tap communications, relay information for air strikes, and do anything within their means to disrupt and destabilize the enemy. All without getting noticed or caught.


The U.S. Air Force Forward Air Controller (FAC) was their main daytime link to safety. At night, when the FAC's had returned to base, their radio link would be taken over by an orbiting command post or listening post high in the mountains of Laos. The FAC would have regular communications check in times with the team leader. Otherwise, the FAC would not fly close to the team, for fear of giving away the team position. The FAC may have several teams dispersed in his area of responsibility at the same time. The teams would try to find a safe place to bed down for the night at least two hours prior to dark. This would give the FAC and the alert helicopter crews enough time to return to base before dark. The FAC and helo crews would launch the next morning at dawn, the helo crews returning to alert locations near the appropriate borders and the FAC patrolling across the border to re-establish voice communications with the teams.


The ideal SOG team mission would entail being inserted by helo into a cold landing zone (LZ). A cold LZ that was one that was not watched by an enemy LZ watcher, this would allow the team to be inserted without being discovered. Many LZ's had troops stationed at the LZ to fire warning shots if the LZ was used as an insertion point. If the insertion was successful, the team would recon to their objective, gather intelligence, and recon to a pickup point to be whisked safely away by the helo crews. Several days later, they would do it again.


But the North Vietnamese were not a backward Army and they had been fighting this type of jungle warfare for many years. The North Vietnamese knew that a good army would have recon teams probing their areas. They had prepared a network of LZ watchers that were stationed at almost every LZ large enough to fit a helicopter. They had special trained trackers dispersed along the border. Many trackers had tracking dogs to help track the teams through thick jungle. They had communications tracking equipment that they would use to try and pin- point the teams location, when the team used their radio to communicate with the FAC. When the general location of the team was known, the North Vietnamese would truck in as many troops as possible to join the hunt for the team. Their goal was to get the team surrounded and, if possible, use them for bait to draw the Green Hornet crews into a trap during a rescue. It was a big deal for them to capture or kill a SOG team or Green Hornet crew.


A team on the run had nothing to lose. They did not wear the uniform of an American or South Vietnamese Army soldier and they normally carried communist block weapons (ammunition was easier to find behind the lines if you ran out), and they didn't carry US identification cards (remember we weren't there). If captured, chances were very high that they would be treated as spies and killed on the spot. It takes a special breed to do this job and survive to do it again.



But SOG would and could use ANY means to get to and from their misions, including Swift Boats and PBR's( smaller, four person craft designed expressly for riverine warfare. To those familar with Apocalypse Now, it's the patrol boat Willard trvaels upriver on) . There were three major divisions of SOG, CCN, CCC and CCS. Each stood for Command and Control, in this case, North, Central and South. Kerry would have been assisting missions run by CCS, which had a large mix of Navy SEALS attached to it.



Command and Control South, MACV-SOG (CCS)
Arrived Vietnam: November 1967 Departed Vietnam., March 1971


Location: Ban Me Thuot


Command and Control South (CCS) was a new field command created by MACV-SOG when permission was granted to conduct cross-border missions into Cambodia. Commanded by a Major, and later a LtCol., CCS was the smallest of the MACV-SOG field commands and was engaged in classified special unconventional warfare missions inside VC-dominated South Vietnam and throughout Cambodia. Its organization was similar to that of CCC. It contained Spike recon teams (RT), Hatchet forces, and four SLAM companies. Cross-border operations had been conducted into northeastern Cambodia since May 1967 under Project DANIEL BOONE, later known as SALEM HOUSE. In 1971 the name was changed to THOT NOT. CCS folded in March 1971 when MACV-SOG created Task Force I Advisory Element at Da Nang.



A SOG team usually had two Americans, usually ranking sargeants from a Special Operations unit, usually Special Forces, but sometimes Navy SEALS, and in CCN, Marine Recon. People didn't join MACV SOG, they were asked to join and could leave any time. Ususally, these were young SF soldiers who had proven themselves in of SF's operations, like Project Delta, which ran commando missions within Vietnam, or with A Teams working witn Montanyards or Nungs. Occasionally, a Long Range Reconnaisance Patrol (LRRP) Team member would be asked to join.


LRPPS did short range tactical recon for US Army divisions, while Marine Recon did the same for the two Marine divisions. In 1969, the Army turned the LRRP companies into Ranger companies.


But the main mission of SOG was to do illegal cross border operations. The Camboidans complained frequently about violations of their borders by US planes and troops and boats.


Here's a simple tautology: SOG teams often infiltrated Cambodia using water borne craft, sometimes sampans, sometimes, Swift Boats and PBR's. Often, teams would be dropped by helicopter, and then make their way back to a Swift Boat or PBR.


This is a map of the Mekong Delta from the South China Sea to Phnom Penh




The Mekong Delta



So it's hardly like Kerry is saying he flew missions to rescue POW's or some of the horseshit stories fakers tell.


Just looking at maps and the evidence, I think Kerry is likely to be telling the truth and this is yet another shameful lie told by people with no dignity or honor.


posted by Steve at 1:41:00 AM


39 Comments:Great post with very good research. Hopefully this will put an end to this silly argument. Anyway, I was hoping to get your take on Dylan Glenn's race for Congress in Georgia. He lost (somehow I get the feeling you're not surprised) but he received a pretty healthy 45% of the vote, which is pretty good for a black man in a Republican primary in Georgia.


By Anonymous, at 2:05:33 AM


Interesting research. It does suggest that such operations were indeed occurring at the time in question. However, I fail to notice here the confirmation that John Kerry was in Cambodia, being shot at, on Christmas in 1968, as he claims, working for the CIA. In his own biography, he says otherwise. Different stories on different days, I guess.


Another point of interest in your post. I find it interesting that not only the entire Vietnam debacle but the SOG operations you describe were put in motion by (wait for it) two Presidents of the Democrat persuasion. *That damn Nixon, he controlled the world even before being President*


P.S. I happen to agree with the comment that "Anyone who served in Vietnam deserves the admiration of all Americans". Unfortunately, your candidate had testified to the opposite at Senate hearings on his return. He's forgiven them now, though, so it's all cool. Big hugs for all the war criminals, okay?


By Pogo, at 848 AM


P.P.S. Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch and Steve Gardner, part of the five-member crew that served on Kerry's own swiftboat, deny they or their boat were ever in Cambodia .


By Pogo, at 855 AM


Pogo,


If you looked at a map, you might notice that there isn't exaclty a customs post along the banks of the Mekong. And since only Kerry and the coxswain would actually know where the boat was, it's more than likely, that they could have been a meter over the border or a kilometer over the border. It doesn't really matter. He could be wrong, he might not have been in Cambodia, but I would hardly call that a lie.


The fact was that he actually drove a Swift Boat in Vietnam. If he crossed into Cambodia or if he didn't, it wasn't like George Bush was flying close support missions from Tan Son Nhut.


So what if he was waiting for a SOG team a few meters from Cambodia? What if he neglected to mention to the crew they were engaged in illegally violating Cambodia's borders. It's 35 years ago. Hell, people remembered liberating a concentration camp when the documentary evidence shows something entirely different.


What is important is that he has one silver star, one bronze star with V for valor and three purple hearts, more than George Bush, who knocked up Mexican whores and forgot to get paid for eight months from the Air National Guard.


You know, if the Swift Boat folks had attacked him for protesting the war, that would be fine. I have no problem with that.


Now they want to debate whether John Kerry was in Cambodia? Hell, Christie Todd Whitman says he was, because her husband was with him on another boat. Now is she lying about this as well?


The fact is that many of the same men who are attacking Kerry signed his awards and attested to his bravery. You can see the documents online, if you want. Now, either they lied in 1969, or they're lying now. And they are stepping over their own lies now.


If they were honest and said "we hate John Kerry for poresting the war", they would be laughed at, but they wouldn't be pathetic liars.


And if you doubt for a minute Kerry was lying about war crimes in Vietnam, google Tiger Force and see what he was getting at.


But you won't, since you're really about defedning the cowardly bully Bush at any price. A man who's never lifted a finger to help a soul.


It's shameful and it's wrong, but it's expected. It's not like Bush can run on his record of desertion, alcoholism and failure.


By Steve, at 1009 AM


Re: "So what if he was waiting for a SOG team a few meters from Cambodia?"Yeah, I agree, what's the big deal?


Except, Kerry has made Vietnam central to his campaign. If he's making this up, it matters. A few of Kerry's renditions have him running guns to the anti-communists, for which he stated he got his lucky hat ("My good luck hat," Kerry said. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.")


So if he was actually 58 miles away (as his own biography attests), he's lied. And not a little lie; not a "few meters off" lie. This is a "I was on secret missions" a few bricks shy of a full load self aggrandizing lie. What sort of man, already the recipient of military honors, feels the need to create a story like this one? One who should be President??


I wonder if the good Senator is wishing he'd not set his entire candidacy on just 4 months of his life. Just my opinion.


By Pogo, at 10:35:52 AM


Last thing,


This isn't merely an exagerration of war effort, a forgiveable if odd mark on an honorable war record. Kerry spoke in the Senate in 1986 against Reagan's position on Nicaragua using his secret mission into Cambodia (which was 'seared, seared' into his memory) as evidence of his moral authority on this issue.


In short, if he was a few meters off, what to make of his Senate claim to clandestine operations and how that meant our government was wrong (again)?


Ask yourself what the left would be doing if Bush had made a similar claim. It wouldn't be along the lines of ..."oh, that was sooo 35 years ago", I am certain.


By Pogo, at 11:01:57 AM


It's 35 years ago. Hell, people remembered liberating a concentration camp when the documentary evidence shows something entirely different.OUCH! Steve, pulling that reference out of your hat was brilliant. For those who don't remember the 80s as well as Steve clearly does, please refer here:In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps. On the matter of the thread topic itself, yes, it's clear that Kerry was involved in operations on the Cambodian border. I'm sure the Republicans here are shocked, shocked to discover that the United States government was being deceptive about their military operations there. (somehow, the argument seems to have morphed from, "Kerry was never anywhere near Cambodia" to "The president was a Democrat when Kerry claims he was there!" Whaa?)


By Coffee, at 1114 AM


We're supposed to take that story in the New York Post seriously when they caption the picture of Kerry and Rassman like this?


"FALSE HONOR? Kerry campaigning in January with crewmate Jim Rassman, whose life he reportedly saved.
- AP"


With that caption, they're bringing into question Kerry's Bronze Star, which he won partly for pulling Rassman out of the water while under fire. They're calling both Kerry and Rassman liars. They're saying that the other men on the boat who backed up the story were liars. They're saying that Kerry's commanding officer was a liar for approving the medal. Funny how everyone is lying except, gee, John O'Neill, a Nixon hit man who's had it in for Kerry for thirty years. He, of course, is as upstanding as they come. It's EVERYBODY ELSE that's lying. Uh-huh.


Also, I'm not too sure that the Repugs really want to keep pointing to that particular speech that Kerry made in 1986. He was comparing his time in Vietnam to what was going on at the time in Nicaragua. You know, what later turned out to be Iran-Contra.


Do the Repugs really want to bring up *Iran-Contra* to one of the men who was most instrumental in investigating it? Really?


I say, Bring It On.


-- Mnemosyne


By Anonymous, at 11:49:01 AM


Pogo,


Besides being condescending, you miss the point. Kerry's record as one of the most decorated officers of the the Riverine Force, he won five mdeals in four months, is not some conjecture, but a matter of record.


Now we're debating trivia about his memories. I'm sure he ran more than one mission to Cambodia. I think the larger point is that he has a Vietnam War record to debate and Bush's records remain a mess which hide him going UA, which is between AWOL and outright desertion.


Even if he lied about being Cambodia, and I actually believe him, or believe he thinks he is telling the truth, he has witnesses to his personal heroism. Bush can't find anyone who even remember serving with him in Alabama.


The fact is that this is really a debate about his postwar career, but they know that Kerry was on the right side of the issue and their defense of the war would be seen as crankdom.


Bush won't condemn it because he is a bully and a coward. Only in politics could his record be turned into a debate.


Here's a simple question: does anyone deny that Kerry was on patrol on the night of Christmas 1968? He wasn't getting drunk and fucking a whore, right? He was waiting for a SOG team. So if the debate is on whether he remembers being in Cambodia versus actually being in Cambodia, we can both agree that he wasn't living in Houston, chasing secretaries.


The fact is that the log book would show where his boat was that night, whether it was out on patrol or in harbor. All of this can be tracked down by an archivist.


And if it shows he was out, then this is moot. Because lying about not being in Cambodia was SOP, as you can find out by even five minutes of research.


A sad, desperate and silly argument by a losing campaign.


By Steve, at 12:00:07 PM


Hi Coffee,


You said "it's clear that Kerry was involved in operations on the Cambodian border." I find it curious, if only because it is contradicted by Kerry's recent biography wherein he states he was not in Cambodia at all, but 58 miles away. His crewmates confirm this second story.


I'm al for disclosure on Iran-Contra. Given Kerry's use of his Cambodia experience as an example of the immorality behind such fiascos, I just wonder why he gives different versions of this story.


Oh well, if he'd release his service records, that would be cleared up pretty quickly. What do you say we ask him?


By Pogo, at 12:00:48 PM


He did. Hundreds of pages. They're linked on the kerry camapign site.


Were you asleep this spring?


By Steve, at 12:04:56 PM


Apologies for all of the bad formatting. I swear it didn't show up that way in preview mode.


By Coffee, at 1201 PM


Just like Bush. No, wait, those records were "lost" and "accidentally destroyed". Move along now -- nothing to see here.


By martianchronic, at 1205 PM


Steve,
So where is the evidence of his whereabouts on Christmas 1968? Was it Cambodia or not?


Regarding: "So if the debate is on whether he remembers being in Cambodia versus actually being in Cambodia, we can both agree that he wasn't living in Houston, chasing secretaries."I agree, what difference does it make? Kerry says he was running guns for the CIA in Cambodia, his crewmates say otherwise. But since he cites this experience as evidence of why Iran-Contra was wrong, the accuracy of the claim matters. It is clear from your vehement dislike of Bush's TANG claims, that such truthfulness matters to you as well.


But if it isn't important, then Kerry should shut up about Vietnam. If he thinks it is important (indeed it is the centerpiece of his campaign), and more important a reason for him to be elected President than all of the years following that 4 month experience 35 years ago, then he should be expecting a detailed critique..


By Pogo, at 1249 PM


There's a collapsing going on here where minor points are compared against major points as if they carried the same weight. For the sake of argument lets say Kerry wasn't in Cambodia and he misremembered or engaged in a fiction to make his point at those hearings 35 years ago.


My question: How does that sin compare to a) not showing up at all (Bush) or b) his indisputed acts of bravery: volunteering for service, volunteering to go where the fighting was and his conduct in the war.


They just don't deserve to be discussed in the same conversation. The tragedy here is they are being treated as if they somehow cancel each other out. Even if Kerry flat out lied we would still be left with his honorable service and brave conduct. The man *risked his life* and you want to engage in 'he said/she said' kind of games.


By storme, at 1208 PM


Regarding: "Even if Kerry flat out lied we would still be left with..."A man who feels the need to lie about his past for political purposes, well gosh, that behavior apparently made Bush unfit to be President. But it makes Kerry even more fit, somehow, I guess. Odd thinking, contradictory, self-negating, but unsurprising.


By Pogo, at 12:38:17 PM


All I can add to this is that with all the hoohoo about whether Kerry was or was not in Cambodia, I know exactly where Bush was during the Vietnam War.


He wasn't flying planes, and
He wasn't in Vietnam. All the hoodoo can't change those two ugly facts. And really, no one knows where Bush was when he wasn't in Vietnam, either.


By Anonymous, at 12:51:25 PM


Also, sometimes troops from "normal" units could find themselves attached to SOG temporarily based on operational requirements, which was common with some Marine recon and Army airborne units. It was also common for military and intelligence agencies to use each others personnel for specific tasks (look up the CIA's Phoenix Program for an example). So it would seem entirely possible that Kerry, in a normal military unit, would find himself temporarily attached to something like SOG, which would then get missions from the CIA.


By Anonymous, at 12:59:14 PM


Kerry is telling the truth about his military service. Bush lied about his military service.


All of the available evidence from those years supports these statements.


The trolls want to say Kerry is lying about Cambodia just because they're too lazy to look in the archives? That's plain ridiculous.


By Anonymous, at 1:05:03 PM


Guys, off subject, but I'm wondering what everyone now thinks about Sistani's "heart problem". It looks more and more as if he's still on board with BushCo, and has removed himself from what looks like a big offensive in Najaf, and other places, to wipe out as many of Sadr's militia as possible. I'm thinking that he didn't want to be around when the marines begin systematically carving up the city and going house to house in clearing out the resistance there. Doesn't look good for him to be quiet as his fellow shiites, even if they are Sadrists, are being wiped out.
Only thing I can figure is that Bush is promising, in stone, to permit the un-jiggered elections which will permit the Shiites, or at least, the "moderates", to get their full share of control in any elected government. But, from Sistani's point of view, when will that happen? Expecting it in January looks like nonsense, but if our military, with what may be an improving Iraqi police and guard capability, can succeed at suppressing Sadr and his militia, it will stregthen Allaw's and Bush's hand, enormously. I think they are going for it. Gracchus, Anonymous...any thoughts???


By L. Dunnagan, at 1:09:24 PM


Kerry has an interesting habit of letting the wingnuts get themselves all lathered up about something (i.e. releasing his military records) and then pulling the rug out from under them (i.e. by publicly posting the records in PDF format on his website).


Don't be surprised if we suddenly get a new release from the Kerry campaign -- like a declassified document that shows that he was sent to Cambodia -- just as the wingnuts reach full hue and cry.


And the wingnuts who keep crying, "Kerry hasn't released his records!" somehow forget to mention that the records they're asking him to release are his MEDICAL records from the service, not his MILITARY records. His military records are on his website. His medical records are not. Much as the wingnuts try to conflate them, most reasonable people would consider MEDICAL records and MILITARY records to be two different things, though they do both start with the letter "M." And do they really want to insist on making Kerry show his medical records when there's that little fact of Bush's missing medical record -- the refused flight physical that Bush still can't quite explain away? (Hint: that flight physical was mandatory. He lost his flight status over his refusal to take it. Inquiring minds would like to know why.)


-- Mnemosyne


By Anonymous, at 1:53:13 PM


I'm not your archivist, go dig it up yourself if you care. The Washington Naval Yard, where the Naval Historical Section is is on 8th and I.


But, US units routinely lied about their locations on maps and in documents. Remember, SOG was a top secret unit. Their activities were entirely black. So it is possible that Naval crews lied about their positions to avoid legal hassles.


In 1968 the Cambodians had at least one crew in custody for violating the border.


So, the evidence may exist in the classified CIA archives, or in the Navy Archives or not at all. It doesn't matter. We know air crews routinely lied about their position, so did the SOG cross-border teams. SOG didn't exist, wasn't part of the OB, and was attached to headquarters and hidden. Their teams wore either black uniforms or even NVA uniforms. Nothing with patches. They didn't even wear the tiger stripe common to LRRP teams and the Mike Forces and Project Delta (the in country version of SOG) teams because they were too "American".


To argue that Kerry didn't support a black op in Cambodia is besides the point.


Since this is about character, find a non-Vietnam instance of Kerry padding his record. As a lawyer or politician. Because if he could do it once, he could do it again.


The irony is, of course, America hasn't had such a reluctant war hero since Smedley Butler. Kerry's open angst at serving his country has been known for 33 years. It's not exactly a secret.


If Bush had served in Vietnam, this would all be over. He supported the war and let other people fight. So the only alternative is to smear someone who was actually brave and got all his pay from the Navy.


By Steve, at 1:56:14 PM


Here's a radio interview featuring, Steve Gardner, a man who served with Kerry at the time Kerry claims he was in Cambodia.


He notes that they always travelled in packs ("on any movement we would do, we are talking four or five boats going in on an engagement, we were always within 50 or 75 yards of each other").


Money quotes:
SG: "The closest we can get to Cambodia, and that's a long swim, is 50 miles."


HH: Is that the closest you think you came, 50 miles?


SG: "I know it is, categorically. You couldn't go any farther.""HH: OK. When you were on the boat, did you ever go into Cambodian waters?


SG: Absolutely not. That was a physical impossibility to go inside Cambodian waters.


HH; Why?


SG: They had four or five, at all times, boats, plus they had it wired with wire, they had concrete pylons down so that the only time they could get through it was at high tide, and that was just so the sampans and the people that trafficked back and forth could get through.""When you were on the boat with John Kerry, for your two months and two weeks of the tour that he served, did you ever have a CIA man on board?


SG: Number one, no."


By Pogo, at 200 PM


That wouldn't be the same Steve Gardiner who claimed that Kerry would make the physically impossible relocation of his craft from upriver to coast in order to avoid attack? Whose crewmembers react to with incredulity and disgust? Who couldn't remember "significant dates and locales," unlike his fellow crewmen? Who only came forward in March of this year? Who blames Kerry (falsely, according to the regional manager for the company, who blames a drop in business) for his own firing?


By Brian C.B., at 4:41:31 PM


L.D.,


Just got to your post re: Iraq. No-one is expecting an election in January -- the idea is apparently a joke over there. But let's look at the contenders:


There's no way the U.S. is gonna let Sadr run for office -- one way or another, he's out of the running. Anticipating this, Sadr made the big martyrdom speech today ("keep going...*coff*...even when I'm gone"), therefore ensuring an on-going Shiite insurgency in the south. Said insurgency will no doubt aided by Iran (AKA the next country Bush will invade) and be supplemented by the usual batch of religious crazies.


Allawi has even less chance of seeing the elections come to pass -- if he's not killed by Baathist insurgents or an Islamic fantasist, one of his own police or guard (likely a Shiite) will likely do it. Such is life for the Saddam Lites of the world. No doubt some new crook will pop up to take his place -- students of Vietnam will find this process very familiar.


Sistani seems to be the U.S.'s Plan B option: a "tame" Shiite who (supposedly) won't sell out to Iran. I doubt he'll have much legitimacy with the insurgents in Sadr City, but he might bring in enough "moderate" Shiite and Sunni votes from elsewhere to make a go of it. This is neoCon/PNAC wishful thinking at its finest, of course.


So maybe they'll run Sistani against Allawi (if he's still alive) or whichever bum of the month is in the ring at the time. There's a choice for you: a dour cleric who's itching to impose Islamic law, or a murderous martial-law thug who's little better than Saddam. And whomever wins the Iraqi election (and the one her as well), it'll be U.S. troops and security goons who'll be tasked with propping up the government, protecting the oil infrastructue and keeping the Iranians away for at least the next 2-7 years.


And what of the Kurds, you might ask? I can only speculate, but I'm certain that, looking at the choice of leaders I've presented, they'll probably be asking themselves the same question during target practise.


Mission accomplished, indeed.


I'm sure Steve will be picking this up in a new thread. For now, I return you to the Kerry debate and our regularly scheduled troll.


-- Gracchus


By Anonymous, at 5:36:46 PM


http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/...displaystory//


I tried to post a link to the Time report on Steve Gardner above. Didn't, for one reason or another. But a researcher has out-Gilliard-ed Gillard on this one (no mean feat and no insult) and come up with the definitive answer: you can't disprove Kerry. Contains a link to the Time interview.


By Brian C.B., at 842 PM


Here's a link for the url Brian posted.


By martianchronic, at 11:00:47 PM


If Kerry did in fact lie and make up that business about Cambodia, that still doesn't compare with Bush's lies. Bush's lies got 10,000 Iraqis and 1,000 Americans killed and many hundreds if not thousands of Americans mangled for life. All for WMD's that weren't there. Oh, but the WMD's were moved to Syria, and we know this because Sharon and his lunatic government told us so. Uh-huh.


By Loveandlight, at 11:04:56 PM


Didn't mean to be quite so brief -- I hit publish instead of preview. The Diary on Kos that I linked to above is really worth a read. It's a good rundown of what the Cambodia smear consists of and the available evidence for and against.


It'd be amusing to see some of Kerry's critics examine Bush's military record with the same exacting scrutiny that they're applying to Kerry's. Amusing to imagine, anyway -- it'll never happen.


By martianchronic, at 1117 PM


Just your regularly scheduled troll checking in.


Didja hear that the Kerry Campaign has now admitted that Kerry's stories about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968 aren't true?


On Aug. 11, on on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" (yes, eeeewww, that show), Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson admitted this to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:


JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.


KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.


JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.


POGO: So, y'all are wrong (again). Kerry lied, um, clarified. Whatta great candidate you have. Wonder what else he needs to clarify? After the election maybe?


Apologies accepted. Spin may begin now.


By Pogo, at 838 AM


Hell, yeah. Kerry may have spent New Year's Day in Cambodia rather than Christmas. That proves that his Day Runner personal calandar wasn't meticulously annotated in a combat situation. We trolls agree he should have been scrupulously checking the date, not saving lives.


By Anonymous, at 11:40:59 AM


Great comeback, Anon. But the fact is, Kerry's walking away from this one as fast as he can because he was never ever there. Face it man, your candidate lied to you. Like Clinton, the first of many. Get used to it.


By Pogo, at 435 PM


What strikes me about thinking like Pogo's is how it reminds me of the thinking of Moon Hoax twinkies and Holocaust deniers.


The basic formula is to pick endlessly at the historical record in the hope of finding some discrepancy. The assumption is that the entire narrative will then come crashing down to be replaced by default with the twinkie's chosen beliefs.


So far it hasn't worked out that way. Find a mistaken caption or misplaced photo in the Apollo record, or errors in secondary sources, and there's still a mountain of evidence which is best explained by the hypothesis that the Moon landings were real.


Find a disagreement among Auchwitz survivors about the exact amount of time a gassing took, or an error by one of the perpetrators in estimating the number of people whose murder he administered and there's still a mountain of evidence which is best explained by the hypothesis that a supposedly advanced Western society made an organized attempt at genocide.


Pick a hole or two in Kerry's thirty-years-later reminiscences and there's still a mountain of evidence which is best explained by the hypothesis that he was there, of his own volition, in places where people were getting their assses shot off, and that he showed up for work and did the job he was assigned well enough to earn the approbation of the people he was working for.


When you compare that to the record of a candidate which is best explained by the hypothesis of string-pulling to get a nice safe outski for someone who couldn't even manage to show up for work consistently, well, the desperation of the Bush apologists to fling up a smokescreen of nitpicks is quite understandable.


It's also profitless to spend the time to argue with them. The twinkies and deniers will never change their minds; they have reasons for clinging to their chosen conclusions which have nothing to do with the rational evaluating of evidence.


And so it is with Pogo and his ilk.


By Anonymous, at 4:51:03 PM


Kerry's final mission, when he picked Rassmann out of the water, was on March 13. Think back to his claim of being in Cambodia for Christmas, only 12 weeks before. Since his entire Swiftboat tour was only 14 weeks, imagine the state of his training and preparedness after less than 2 weeks on the job. If there was ever a mission to Cambodia, can you imagine any commander in his right mind sending the newest most junior, most rogue, most untrained, most arrogant, most unpredictable greenhorn on one of the most sensitive missions likely contemplated (but NOT conducted) in unit history? No one in their right mind would ever do such a thing, and the entire chain of command would make sure it never happened. Sensitive missions are conducted by the most experienced and trusted, not the newest idiot to show up on the block.


By Anonymous, at 1:54:29 PM


When the facts upset your image of reality, you can always retreat into a fog bank of bullshit speculation. It's kind of pathetic, though, to see literate people acting like two-year-olds.


Dan Webster


By Anonymous, at 3:54:40 PM


Here's some things to think about.


1) MACV-SOG insertions and extractions were done by helicopter, not boat.


2) SEAL ops were done by boat, HOWEVER, Swift boats had two (2) 12 cylinder GM 12V71 diesel engines. They sounded like Greyhound buses coming up the river. Not exactly what you want in a covert operation.


3) The Kerry campaign has now admitted that his memory of the Christmas in Cambodia episode (which was "seared - seared" in his memory - Cong. Record. March 27, 1986) is mistaken and it was actually January and/or February.


4) The Cambodian border was clearly marked AND guarded by US Navy ships to prevent any of the riverine forces from going astray. Kerry would have been court martialed if he crossed the border, and he would have first had to have evaded those ships which would make his incursion a punishable offense since it would have been deliberate disobedience.


5) ALL of his superior officers have affirmed that NO ONE ever gave any orders to cross the border.


6) His own shipmates state that they never went in to Cambodia.


You can glean from the above facts whatever conclusion you want. I don't deal in innuendo.


By antimedia, at 551 PM


I glean that you deal in verbatim repetition of O'Neil's inaccuracies, lies, distortions and exaggerations.


Thing #1: I think you missed the very detailed, comprehensively sourced history lesson that kicked off this discussion. Like the section that begins, "But SOG would and could use ANY means to get to and from their misions, including Swift Boats and PBR's." Give it a look; you'll learn some things.


Thing #2: Official Navy records show Kerry inserting SEAL teams throughout February 1969. Douglas Brinkley discussed the Swiftboats' loud engines:


Q: Why did [Kerry] increasingly come to believe that riverine warfare was a mistake in policy?


A: Because the motors of the Swift boats could be heard from two miles away. If you were a VC with a D-40 rocket grenade launcher, you'd hear the humming of the Swift boats and you'd go and hide in mangrove thickets, and put the rocket launcher on your shoulder, and kaboom! You'd blow up the Swift boats. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Any time you went on a mission you had a seventy-five percent chance of somebody being killed. These were essentially suicide missions that they were being sent on.Thing #3: The Kerry campaign stated, "On December 24, 1968 Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire."


Thing #4: The Kerry campaign stated, "During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.


Thing #5: See the campaign statement in #4. Keep in mind that Kerry received his top secret clearance almost a year prior to his first covert mission of Dec. 2, 1968.The U.S. had been bombing the Cambodian border for years. This was kept quiet by the U.S. administration and press. Cambodia's Prince Sihanouk said in a 1967 press conference, "There is a contradiction between the declaration of friendship and respect from Mr. Dean Rusk on one hand and on the other hand your forces in South Vietnam continue to come into Cambodia and to kill." Nixon kept his spring of 1969 bombings secret. The CIA replaced Sihanouk with their own puppet leader in 1970, opening the way for Nixon's invasion that same year.


Thing #6: Shipmate Hurley said: Kerry was ordered onto the water Christmas day, made his way to the Cambodian border, endured three separate engagements with the enemy, and returned home. Hurley also said that Kerry was five miles into Cambodia on a different trip, but the two stories have gotten confused.


Dan Webster


By Anonymous, at 816 AM


>From Kerry's Fitness Report, 28 Jan 1969 (page 24 of this PDF):


LTJG Kerry was assigned to this division for only a short time but during that time exhibited all the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgement in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta. Involved in several enemy initiated fire fights, including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action.[Note the official verification of combat at Christmas.]


Though relatively new to the PCF he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all aspects of his boat and PCF operations. He was instrumental in planning of highly successful Sea Lords Operations. He was cited for his performance during action against the enemy by Commander Task Force in his message 080807Z Jan 69.(end quote)


Note that "performance during action" doesn't sound like his only participation was "planning".


Now to add that "Sea Lords Operations" involved incursions into Cambodia.


As to whether it's implausible that a SWIFT boat might go into Cambodia and drop someone off there, note: "The fellow on the right was a freelance journalist and photographer that had caught a ride into Cambodia on a US Swift Boat. He asked to be dropped off on the shore to proceed on his own. It is hoped that he found what he was looking for and survived to tell about it."


Sure doesn't sound like getting a Swift boat into Cambodia was a "physical impossibility", as Steve Gardner claimed.


By Anonymous, at 11:49:51 AM


In fact, the Navy said Swift boats were involved in those Cambodian incursions:


An acronym for "Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, Delta Strategy", SEALORDS started on October 18, 1968 when a Navy Swift boat (PCF) reconnoitered the entrance to the Cua Lon River on the Gulf of Thailand side of the Ca Mau Penisula. Following this mission, Swift boat crewmen conducted a series of incursions along the southern rivers and canals upsetting base camps and cutting Viet Cong supply and communication lines.So Gardner simply lied.


-- Raven

[Boats]

Here's another link you may want to review -

http://www.psywarrior.com/SSPLVietnam.html

[PHO127]

Were ever conducted with conventional infantry units. The missions and training were at opposite ends of the combat spectrum. I know I would never have run an operation with even the hint of a single conventional soldier. The impression that the wannabes give is that SOG opns were big ambushes of lots of NVA with the SOG people winning over insurmountable odds. BULLSHIT. We avoided contact at all costs. We were not there to fight but to gather intellegence. There were some exceptions if we were on a prisoner snatch mission then we would watch a road and try to take a single truck driver. Don't get me wrong, if we had to fight we were going to take a lot with us but 6 men can't hold out to long in a pitched battle. BTW, SOG was the only unit in VN to suffer 100% casualties. RT Kansas was 9 men and inserted in the DMZ shortly after Lam Son 719. They unknowingly inserted near a POL line the NVA were running from the north. RT Kansas was assualted by a full NVA regiment and held for about a day before they were wiped out. My RT, RT lighting was discovered on the 2nd day of a mission in Cambodia and made a 36 hour run and gun to an LZ for extraction, We were 2 US and 4 Khmer and lost 3 KIA and 3 WIA.

[catman]

Damn glad to have shaken you hand Sid. Welcome home!

Trav

[Boats]

SID - you have my thanks as well - someday I hope to shake your hand as well. Glad your home.

[frisco-kid]

Originally posted by catman Damn glad to have shaken you hand Sid. Welcome home!

Trav

I'm glad to have shaken your hand each time we met, also, Sid. Then I didn't have to worry about my wallet .

Welcome Home, my friend.

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Thank you Sid. You kept them off my skinny little butt.