You are here

Holidays In Cambodia [hook-theft alert!]

Despite wishful attack-blog assertions to the contrary, it seems that the Kerry campaign has not disavowed Kerry's three recorded references (once each in 1969, 1986 and 1992) to being under fire in Cambodia. And according to a fairly detailed deconstruction in Slate, there's even good reason to argue that he could have been there on Christmas Eve in '68.

Which won't impress an attack-blogger, of course; someone like Glenn Reynolds enters the fight with his mind made up, and it takes a lot more than facts or argument to sway him. What it would take is an interesting question for another time...

Comments

Liked the earlier blog on whether or not the memory of a Cambodian Christmas may be stronger than the reality.

BUT.

The reality (or more accurately, my reality) is this: Whoever is in office as President of this our USA this Christmas Eve is infinitely more relevent to my personal future than whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia for any Christmas Eve any time before.

And I'm thinking I'd rather have an absentee "Ghost of Cambodian Christmas past" lighting the big tree on the White House lawn this year, than the present Scrooge, who just succeeded in stripping millions of working class Americans of overtime pay that most assuredly is going to have some impact on the future of our children (our very own next generation "Tiny Tim"s).

Those who can't afford a holiday turkey this year or next year might want to pause a moment to thank the administrative turkey in office this year who made it all possible.

The movement conservatives' view of the Vietnam war might as well have been formed entirely by movies for all the sense they make on the subject. The libertarians have views I can understand, but not the Reagan/Limbaugh conservatives. Their fury is incredible.

Harry

"Fury" is right. So much of it seems to be driven by rage -- blind rage, often. It all seems so adolescent, not in the sense of being immature but in the sense of being driven by fear of dominance.

I'm pretty sympathetic to modern Libertarianism, not least because I'm very much "in touch" with that inner adolescent. But I do think they sell their position far, far too strongly. "Libertarian Civil Society" seems to me an obvious oxymoron. But unlike the Limbaugh/Reagan-worshipper crowd, you can occasionally find Libertarians willing and able to discuss the matter; I've seen some very interesting debates spring up when Libertarians collide with AnarchoSyndicalists...

I dunno, maybe Kerry was in the vacinity that night, maybe he wasn't.

Does it really matter?

I mean, nobody seems to care much where Bush was that night. Or what he was dong. Or about where he was or what he was doing any other night during that whole horrendous era.

How come? Or does it just not matter where Bush was, or what Bush was doing....? It probably doesn't, because, you know, he's important. HE is the President. So it probably just doesn't matter.

:::scortch:::

--Lynne

Add new comment