I don't know, Andrew. I'm a bit concerned that he didn't just conflate several real events, but that he also folded in the better part of a movie. And I disagree that there wasn't a big distinction between "near" Cambodia and "in" Cambodia.

What concerns me is not so much that he "lied," which he probably did... but it's hard to determine intent. The real concern goes to judgment. What kinds of executive decisions are required of a President, and what does this say about Kerry's tendency to "fuzz the line" to an extraordinary degree. What decision involving war and peace in this "War on Terror" does not involve making judgments about the lesser of a number of evils, or the choice of a "guilty until proved innocent" paradigm vs. an "innocent until proved guilty" method? Hans Blix got completely lost in nuance, and simply couldn't distinguish between the two. And he's a bastion of clarity compared to Kerry and this "Xmas in Cambodia" thing.

More to the point, as Lileks observes, he claims this as a formative event in his life. Yet it appears to be an event that didn't actually happen. Was he ever in Cambodia, and just got the date's wrong? Was he watching the scene from Apocalypse Now as the swift boat pulled into the USO Christmas Party, and just allowed his memories to be rewritten?

This fellow was motivated by these false or at least seriously flawed memories to some rather significant anti-American behavior. What else is locked up in that inscrutable Boston blue-blood psyche? What might it motivate him to do, when confronted with a critical turning-point?

I don't know whether there's electoral gold in it for the Republicans, but it sure scares the hell out of me.

It's a small point, but I'll raise it. Nixon wasn't President in December of '68, Johnson was. Nixon was only President-elect, and didn't have the authority to order anyone to do anything.

It just detracts from the story a little, and casts further doubt as to the veracity of it.

RPL,

Ummmm...yeah. We already know the story is incorrect, and the Kerry camp has already repudiated it. The question at hand is what this says about Kerry.

Scott,

As I said, memory can very often play tricks on people. I would not be surprised if Kerry honestly believes what he said, or at least that he did at the time. The brain is a funny organ that way.

When I was very young, in the Army, I rescued Fay Ray from a gorilla. It is Seared - SEARED, in my memory.

ANd Jimmy Carter lied about it too.

Thank you all.

Reagan was the same way with conflating movies and the truth. Kerry's probably just got early onset Alzheimers.

Well I'm not so sure. First, Kerry made his record the issue, noone else did. HE is hailing himself as a war hero. If you want to look at just one incident, then maybe. But this mans character is being disputed. Not by one incident but by several, and not by just any americans, but by those who served along side Kerry. The fact that so many are willing to accept Kerry's accounts because he is a "decorated war hero" bothers me because SEVERAL equally heroic men and highly decorated men are saying the opposite. I grant that there may be different viewpoints on some things, but I can't disregard other brave mens opinions like the Mainstream Media appears to be doing. I wasn't there. I don't know, but others that were, do. Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt to the 250+ veterans. Kerry has yet to speak out or prove himself. Simply falling back on it's the republican attack machine is insufficiant. These brave veterans are of all political backgrouonds.

For shame! Do you people know what damage you are doing to Kerry's self image?