Before we get to the phony outrage, let's make sure we're all on the same page about what Boxer said. To me, it's as plain as day. Boxer doesn't have any skin in the game, so to speak, with regards to Iraq and the president's escalation. Neither her children nor her grandchildren are of the age where service is a possibility. Rice doesn't have any skin in the game, either, nor do so many who so breathlessly support this disastrous war. But the hawks sit back, in air conditioned offices, and move our young men and women around the globe, mere pawns on a chessboard. More to the point, they send them - as this president did Wednesday night - to their deaths. All the while, they know nothing of the sacrifices those serving and their families make in carrying out their misguided orders.

This, of course, hasn't occurred to the right wing, whose attacks have come at an unsurprising pace. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, in an editorial titled "Boxer's low blow", accused Boxer of "dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman." Referring to Boxer's "tasteless jibes", the paper called on her to apologize. Missing the point, the editors wrote, "The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman." But they weren't the only ones to miss the point - or lob insults Boxer's way.

A post at Little Green Footballs, in discussing Boxer's comments, suggested "we'd better get ready for two years of political grandstanding, ugly personal attacks, and undercutting America's security in time of war." Blogger B.T. at Ankle Biting Pundits titled a post on Boxer "Barbara Boxer: Arrogant *itch". At Wizbang, Kim Priestap said, "I can't imagine anyone saying anything more reprehensible or cruel", while sitemate Lorie Byrd asked, "Why is it that only liberal women who choose the feminist ideal lifestyle get any praise for it? Liberals evidently want to keep conservative women barefoot and pregnant." In a National Review Online twofer, Kathryn Jean Lopez said that, for the Democrats, it's "Attack the single black female Secretary of State because she is a single black female Secretary of State Week", adding that "The word I'm thinking of [for Boxer] rhymes with witch." Wrote Lopez, "When The View loses Rosie, Barbara Boxer ought to take her seat at the catty table."

Even White House mouthpiece Tony Snow piled on, saying, "I don't know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous." He later added, "Great leap backward for feminism." At NewsBusters, a site priding itself on its place in White House strategy, Warner Todd Huston wondered "Is this an acceptable criticism of a political official?" Calling it an "intemperate verbal assault," Huston scanned "other MSN sources" to see how they covered "the outrageous comments of the unbalanced Boxer." (It should be noted that before calling Boxer "unbalanced", Huston asked "Is this the Democrat's new era of niceness, their less rancorous way of governing?" Hmmm.) After coming up predictably empty, Huston then pointed to the New York Post article, saying they were the only outlet that "so far, seems willing to highlight Boxer's unsuitable comportment as a Senator."

Apart from the utter hilarity of a litany of right wingers lecturing anyone on "unsuitable comportment", or on "ugly personal attacks" and "acceptable criticism of an administration official", or on the issue of feminism, note how each and every one of the above examples missed the point - and missed it wildly. It's not about Rice, her gender, her childlessness, her personal life or even her race (as has motivated right-wing outrage before). It's about those so quick to send our young men and women to their deaths - based on lies, remember - not having the perspective to account for the consequences of their action. It's about those who tell military recruiters that service "isn't for our kind of people." It's about right wingers who consider supporting the troops slapping one of their bumper stickers on your car. It's about conservative pundits arguing that there are, in fact, things worth fighting and dying for ... like keeping Nancy Pelosi from becoming Speaker of the House.

Steve Gilliard is right when he says that "People have stopped being polite." If a few Republicans had their delicate sensibilities offended by some words in a hearing, it A. Doesn't say much for their worth in an actual combat situation and B. Doesn't matter one damn bit. The time for politeness on a life-or-death issue like Iraq ended months before Mission Accomplished. People are dying, every day, and to tread lightly around the fact that this administration doesn't know what it's doing and doesn't know what it's talking about is intellectually and morally irresponsible. We shouldn't have a Secretary of State who, when asked what the administration's plan was if escalation fails, says, "It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work." Nor should we have a Secretary of Defense who tells lawmakers, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq" and that he was "no expert on military matters."

If we let some seemingly hurt feelings get in the way of serious incompetence and lack of perspective, we've failed as citizens and as a nation. The right wing, here, is reacting rather predictably, because that's all they've got left. America has abandoned their wrongheaded ideology. What's more, their opinion leaders flail about, still unable to come to grips with last November's election. They lob insults, endlessly discuss non-issues and embarrass themselves by how out-of-touch they truly are. They gawk at the fender-bender without realizing they were the ones behind the wheel. Democrats like Boxer don't owe anyone an apology. Republicans like Rice owe America some answers.