Not at all.
>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
Hitchens's brief comments are, I believe, an indictment of the system that engenders Kerreys and a strong jab at folks who would rather jump on the little guy than attack the system that produced him. It's the very fact that Kerrey could have thought he was acting with justification that Hitchens (in my interpretation) is most appalled by. As I see it this is in no way a defense of Kerrey's behaviour, rather it is an attempt to direct people's attention to the root of the problem.
My own position on the matter never came up.
cheers Joanna
www.overlookhouse.com