> It both is and is not ironic. The thing reeks of dread
> amusement. Hitchens is sneering at liberals for wanting to hold soldiers
> responsible for the practice of war, for wanting to hold them to
standards
> of squeamish civility (which, he says ironically, would put withholding
the
> use of torture on an equal footing with the use of correct language). At
> the same time he's is making the point that, according to the rules he
was
> operating under, Kerry acted honourably, and it's the appallingness of
that
> fact which brings out the final grim smirk: "for one day's work in a
> free-fire zone in the Mekong..."
>
> Aside from that, taken as a whole, this is a "Cop that, you wankers" to
an
> audience that is looking for answers from Hitchens.
>
> Joanna [Sheldon]
> ____________
>
> Of course Hitchens likes Kerry--the guy runs the university which
> probably pays this non Ph.D. very handsomely. So why would Hitchens
> mention that according one of the other SEALS and two Vietnamese,
> Kerry is lying about their being shot at by the Viet Cong? Why would
> Hitchens intervene in this dispute given his obvious conflict of
> interest if he were not trying to raise the market value of his "Your
> Honor Ken Starr" celebrity?
> At any rate, do you think Kerry's apology was a condition the
> Vietnamese "unofficially" wrote into the bilateral trade act which
> Bush is now considering? The timing of the apology is interesting,
> but probably this is no more than coincidence.
>
> Rakesh
===========
Or is Kerry trying to come clean to become a Dem. version of John McCain
for the sake of running in 2004? Or is he out of politics altogether? If
not, he should be....
Ian