... what the alternative reality version of the McCain Baghdad stroll looked like, hop over to The Weekly Standard's blog where you'll find:

Drum's snide tone is fairly representative of the left's reaction to McCain's trip. But really, how was McCain supposed to go out in Baghdad. Isn't the press being a bit unfair when it "presses" McCain on the subject of personal security? The man may well be the Republican nominee for the presidency. Any high-ranking official that goes out in Baghdad would have similar protection. When President Bush makes public appearances in this country--say to throw out the first pitch at a ball game--he, too, wears body armor. When President Clinton came to speak at Princeton while I was a student there, there were sharpshooters on the roof of my dorm. There were dozens of security personnel--for an event at Princeton.

Of course, there are places that don't require so much security. Nancy Pelosi received a "warm welcome" in Syria. And if McCain were so inclined, he could probably travel to Iran or North Korea with limited security as well. The streets in those countries are safe--that's how police states work.



Baghdad = Princeton, eh? Sure. It's really neat how today's conservatives with twist their thinking about everything under the sun around in defense of the fixed point of the war. We're now supposed to believe it's the conservative view that safe streets an exclusive feature of totalitarian police states?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.