This Is Getting Old

Glenn Reynolds one-ups himself, in some of the most apalling post-modern relativist bullshit outside the academic left that I've ever seen. (Speaking of the academy, what can it possibly take to get a position in the University of Tennesee Law School? Opposable thumbs?) Take it away, you silly sod:

THIS PIECE in the Chicago Tribune [referring to the Rood piece corroborating Kerry's account] doesn't seem to add all that much considering how it was being spun. William Rood, who served with Kerry, weighs in strongly on the Silver Star medal debate, in Kerry's favor. But as I've mentioned before, the medals are something of a distraction.

Did Kerry deserve the Silver Star? Ultimately, that's a subjective decision that is unlikely to be resolved 35 years later. If it turns out that Kerry put himself in for the Purple Heart, that will be embarrassing for him, but that's not addressed here. (We'll find out, of course, if Kerry ever releases the records, something that he seems rather reluctant to do). But although putting himself in for a medal would make Kerry look self-serving, it's only an embarrassment. As for the rest, well, it's degenerated into a he-said / he-said argument that suits the spinmeisters. [Emphasis mine.]

If you're not either rolling on the floor laughing, or trying to stanch the bleeding from your just-burst forehead vein, read through this graf again.

The medals are a distraction? Presumably from the awesomely important question of whether Kerry was in Cambodia in January or February 1969, and the depravity, perversity, dishonesty, and let's face it, psychopathology of a man who would claim to have been in Cambodia in December 1968. (The latest theory floating around is that Kerry misremembered Tet celebrations as Christmas, which seems eminently believable and ought to put the whole thing to rest---stay tuned.)

Glenn is factually correct about one thing: he, Glenn, has indeed repeatedly said that the medals are a distraction. No doubt he'll keep saying it. But it won't be anymore true. The worthiness of Kerry's medals are the subject of half of the SBVF"T" campaign. The other half is Kerry's purported treason for his anti-war activities (we'll get to that tomorrow...fuck it's past midnight, I mean later today). The Cambodia nonsense, despite Glenn's insistence, is exactly as relevant and impressive as the demonstrable proof that Bush lied, to pander to Pennsylvanians, about the cheese he has on his cheese-steaks. Let's reduce this to language Glenn might comprehend: nobody gives a fuck about Cambodia except for Glenn Reynolds, some Glenn Reynolds wanna be's, whatever neo-John Birchers are still around, and Republican party hacks; nobody should give a fuck either.

What people would care about, rightly, is whether or not Kerry was somehow fraudulently awarded a chestful of medals. There seems to be a mathematical principle at work here, something like "the greater the extent to which all the SBVF'T' claims about Kerry's medals have been rebutted in minute detail by every eyewitness account, by all the available documentary evidence, and the statements of members of the SBVF'T' themselves prior to joining SBVF'T', the more Glenn Reynolds will insist that the O'Neill/Corsi libel is a sideshow to the really important issue of Cambodia". In a strictly logical sense, Reynolds' position is a coherent one. The problem that he'll have to deal with is that it's a position only a head-in-the-sand shill could possibly take, and when this is over, very little (nothing) will be left of his credibility as an independent commentator.

Now, on another hand, what happens when blind and blinding hackery meets Derridean relativism? You get statements like this:

Did Kerry deserve the Silver Star? Ultimately, that's a subjective decision that is unlikely to be resolved 35 years later.

Can we review the relevant facts here? All the after-action reports, which, as it turns out, were not written by John Kerry, and had to be approved by Kerry's COs, back up Kerry's version of events. William Rood, the only other officer participating in that episode still alive, corroborates Kerry's version of events. Kerry's crewmates corroborate Kerry's version of events. (Let me know if I'm leaving something out.) Against that, John O'Neill presents third-hand hearsay at 35 years remove. Not to mention that O'Neill has already been amply exposed as a liar and slanderer. Yup, I guess it's just a he-said/he-said toss-up, and we'll never know, gosh we shouldn't even get quagmired in this unresolvable Gordian knot of a puzzle of an enigma of a mystery of a did you know that Kerry lied about Cambodia?

One other thing. By Glenn's logic, every medal that has ever been awarded to a soldier is subject to suspicion. Did [insert soldier's name] deserve his medal? If anyone says otherwise, then we'll never know.