Drudge had some people worried, quoting O'Neill's accusation that Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia during the Christmas of '68. On closer inspection though, this seems like a bunch of bull, just like everything else.
O'Neill quotes Kerry on the floor of the Senate saying:
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.
A Boston Globe profile from a while back has Kerry giving much more detail:
Kerry said he had gone several miles inside Cambodia, which theoretically was off limits, prompting Kerry to send a sarcastic message to his superiors that he was writing from the Navy's "most inland" unit.
Full link for more detail
...
This was after a fire fight earlier that day (Christmas Eve) in which Kerry's boat encountered fire from a Viet Cong machine gun nest, and then later narrowly overted friendly fire from some South Vietnamese troops who were shooting rounds in celebration.
According to Drudge "O'Neill observed that the Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty (Kerry's recent biography). Instead, Kerry replaced the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 'near the Cambodian border' in a town called Sa Dec and Christmas day was spent at the base writing entries in his journal."
Replaced the story? There is no contradiction. The mortar attack doesn't "replace" the Cambodia story. It happens after the Cambodia story. O'Neill is clearly trying to be deceptive here. The Boston Globe narrative states that there was both mortar fire "near Cambodia", and that the same day the boat had also gone several miles into Cambodia. One does not contradict the other.
The only other evidence cited is that three of the crewman don't remember being in Cambodia. If this is true, is this unreasonable? There are a bunch of possible explanations for this.
A Washington Post reporter once inquired about Kerry's lucky hat. Kerry responded with:
"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.
(WashPost, Laura Blumenfeld, June 2003)"
This hat was in a "secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase". Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry "brushed it aside". Only when he was trapped in this interview did he reluctantly explain it.
Kerry says the mission involved a CIA operative. Could it be that some of his crew mates weren't there, or didn't realize the nature of the operation?
Or is John O'Neill correct and has Kerry made up a surprisingly consistent story involving lies so perverse that they involve making up stories about lucky hats and CIA agents, told in coy ways over the period of decades (and involving props).
You make the call.