I've spent 20 mins trying to find out further info (man, those right wing blogs, etc, are truely vitrolic in their hatred of Kerry/Democrats - it is quite tough reading it).
So, Kerry said the second italicised sentence in 1986 to the Senate while attacking Reagan over the wisdom of what he was doing in Nicaragua (he wasn't "defending the Sandinistas"). (I'm not sure what importance the stuff below the photo has to the point, other than in a Michael Moore "here is a bunch of fact, you connect the dots" sort of way. I'm ok with this, but you have criticised Moore for it.)
What Kerry says to the senate does not mention Nixon, but what he said to newspapers at about the same time did. There is plenty of room to allow Kerry the benefit of the doubt (although Kerry haters won't) on the timing of Nixon's innauguration (sp?).
More importantly, there is considerable debate over whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not, given that there was no war in Cambodia. Kerry asserted - in 1986 and 1992 - that he went there on a mission or missions at Christmas '68. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say he didn't, and there is generally conflicting evidence about whether it was possible or not. However, the balance of the evidence is against Kerry
at this stage.
I'm not sure what to think of this. Kerry has stated he went to Cambodia a couple of times in history ('86 and '92), and common sense dictates that it is difficult to imagine him thinking this was the sort of lie he could get away with - it was in the mainstream press at those times. However, the smear evidence out there at the moment indicates that he might have fabricated the Cambodia story - although "what for" is unclear.
I am waiting for his response. If it comes back "guilty", I will happily accept that neither of your candidates are fit to be president
.