Republican Umbrage Resurfaces

General Wesley Clark: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

Clark: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

So there's that. The McCain campaign's response:

Campaign Manager Rick Davis: Sending Wesley Clark out as a surrogate for your campaign and attacking John McCain and his war record and his military experience and his service is, I think, just the lowest form of politics.

I would love to hear, from Davis, McCain, or anyone else on the campaign team, exactly which part of Clark's statement was untrue, unfair, or an attack. Pointing out that spending time in a POW camp does not equate to executive experience is like saying that going to kindergarten isn't the same as playing wide receiver on a professional football team; it is offensive only in that it is so blatantly obvious, it should never need to be said.

The Dark Is Afraid of the USA

It seems that with the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial starting and the Democratic Primary drawing to a close, the occupation of Iraq is coming back into focus. I hope this is good news; I would really like to believe that the more people think about Iraq, the more likely they are to vote for a Democrat in November.

The conservative blabbershpere does not seem at all worried, though. They seem to be embracing the change, and using it to renew assurances that, no matter what one thinks about starting the Iraq "War", one has to believe in the importance of winning it. Five years in, I've still never heard a plausible description of what a victory in Iraq would look like, but I'm constantly assured that it is of critical importance. Many of the original conditions have come and gone: the fall of Saddam Hussein, a democratically elected government, a constitution. Others are no closer to, if not further from, becoming a reality: a strong Iraqi military and police force, a decline in sectarian violence, and Iraqis embracing Western democracy. What have we accomplished so far? I know the staunch faithful can point to vague stories about schools being built and can find positive trends in wildly fluctuation casualty reports, but how is Iraq better today than it was before we invaded? The people are less safe, they are less free, they are impoverished, they do not have basic utilities, and every day they wake up with the shame and resentment that comes from being an occupied people. Five years into this debacle, there is no concrete evidence of being any closer to any sort of victory. The enemy is not a government or even an organized unit that could surrender or be wiped out; it is a loose, unstructured coalition without any real central command.

What does victory in Iraq mean, outside of a meaningless battle cry to prove one's patriotism? What would it entail? Does anyone actually believe it's possible? The United States is not Chuck Norris. The boogey man does not check under the bed for it, it did not give the sun skin cancer, and it can not create a victory where victory is an impossible notion good for little more than stirring up nationalism. When do we, as a self-governing nation, become a parody of ourselves? Has it already happened?