In his column Friday, David Brooks cites John McCain's 1983 speech arguing for US withdrawal from Lebanon, writing "This was not the speech of a man who thinks military force is the answer to every problem. It was the speech of one who conforms policies to facts."
For those are interested, here is a more extensive excerpt from the speech that I posted back in December (it's drawn from Matt Welch's McCain: The Myth of a Maverick):
The fundamental question is "What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the US presence stabilize the region?...
The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.
Brooks preferred Bush/Cheney over McCain and he preferred Guilliani (and Romney as well) over McCain. But he prefers McCain over any Democrat.
So Brooks does a little dance, distancing McCain from the very unpopular Bush/Cheney policies.
Brooks is pragmatic and calculating. He knows that it helps your credibility not to withhold criticism for failed policies.
But, if he can focus that criticism on the failed execution of the policies then the policies themselves can remain unchallenged.
*****
You can go back and find many instances where Brooks endorsed or justified the very things that Brooks now praises McCain for criticizing.
Posted by: Howard | March 31, 2008 at 07:12 PM