I don't know how it happened, but while I was away, Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" story seems to have found its way into the mainstream news.

Because I have complained about their lack of coverage, I think it's only fair to praise today's Philadelphia Inquirer for actually conceding that this story exists in an article otherwise unfavorable to the Swift Boat veterans:

Nevertheless, they have exposed a Kerry embellishment. Kerry has insisted for years that he slipped over the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve in 1968, but, on the talk shows yesterday, even his staunchest defenders failed to back him up. John Hurley, a vet who works for Kerry, said only that Kerry "was five miles in Cambodia on a different occasion" and that the details had become "confused."

Voters may ultimately question whether this rehash is warranted, particularly in the midst of a new war. But even some Democrats acknowledge that Kerry has invited these attacks - by virtually asking voters to judge him on the basis of his Vietnam record (as opposed to his Senate record, which he rarely mentions). He was invoking Vietnam as a measure of his toughness even before he ran; back in May 2002, he told The Inquirer in an interview: "I'm prepared to kill a terrorist... . I killed people in Vietnam."

According to my dictionary, to embellish something is to enhance the beauty of it. Thus, if one visited someone's house and found that it less than merited a write-up in, say, House Beautiful magazine, it would constitute embellishment to praise the owner's taste as "ecletic, provocative, and individualistic." But to say that one visited the house when one never did, that's no more an "embellishment" than it would be for me to say that I was present in New York during the 9/11 attacks.

Now wait just a minute!

Here are the actual facts from my personal life:

Therefore, it was as if I had been right there. I really was right there, because Philadelphia is between Washington and New York, and Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania.

So I WAS THERE. A victim. Ground zero. I'll never forget it as long as I live.

Any talk to the contrary is "gotcha" politics of the type we don't need.

Besides, 9/11 is old news these days.

What we need to be talking about is the War In Iraq.

And as a victim of 9/11, I know all about war.

(I need not bring up my status as a veteran of Cambodia, which was seared into my brain by genuine Apocalypse Now flashbacks.....)

UPDATE: Speaking of beautification, Glenn Reynolds has created a parallel universe which might yet save Kerry:

"I would have invaded Iraq regardless of the WMD issue," Kerry observes. "Saddam Hussein was a threat, and a menace to his own people. And a free, democratic Iraq will be the first step toward addressing the 'root cause' of terrorism -- despotic Arab regimes that spew hatred to distract their people from their own tyranny. But as I said last year, the reconstruction needed more resources. That was why I voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction money, but urged the Bush Administration to ask for more, to do it right."

Kerry also takes a dim view of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. "I think that his film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was scurrilous and dangerous to the morale of our troops. That's why I asked that he be excluded from the Democratic Convention, despite Jimmy Carter's wishes. And that's why he wasn't seen there. In a time of war, we don't need guys like that. We can win this campaign based on our ideas, not propaganda films. That's also why I told Chris Matthews to 'stuff it' when he tried to make an issue out of President Bush's National Guard service."

UPDATE: By calling myself a 9/11 victim, I meant no offense to anyone, but I do think it's fair to ask at what point an exaggeration crosses the line to become a serious lie. Others have argued that the Cambodia lie is either not a lie, or is irrelevant. My question is: when are such lies relevant? The blogosphere was not happy about Micah Wright's false claim that he was a veteran, even though Wright was not running for president. Is my hypothetical claim to be a 9/11 victim any different?

If I wouldn't get a pass (and I know I wouldn't), then why should Kerry?

Or is the blogosphere held to a higher standard than a candidate for president?

I'm trying to avoid being a moralist, so I want to ask: is there some invisible, does-not-matter line I am missing?