David Brooks Channels Kreskin

In his “No Apology Needed” column in today’s New York Times, David Brooks recalls some of Hillary Clinton’s prior public statements and votes concerning the Iraq war and states that the senator from New York doesn’t owe anyone an explanation about anything. And on top of that, he also states as follows:

“…But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage was really on her mind.”

Did you bother to ask Sen. Clinton about that? Oh, but of course not, since the typical rules of pundit discourse assume omniscience and transcendence of the typical rules of time and space associated with mere mortals (especially when Brooks or someone of his ilk is busy trying to malign “the radical left,” which, sadly for Brooks on this issue, is actually the majority of this country).

To be fair, though, I should point out that Brooks mounts an interesting defense of Clinton’s words and actions prior to the invasion. However, I suppose I should point out something that is completely ignored by the author and other pseudo-god pundits.

The voters of this country want to see humanity on this issue out of Sen. Clinton, something like what she communicated upon her return from visiting Iraq a few weeks ago. They don’t want to hear about strategy and calculation, though that can often be commendable on her part and representative of her formidable intellect.

And for the Senator or her campaign to assume that somehow this issue will go away (as noted by Arianna Huffington here) is not merely politics without foresight; it’s politics without any kind of intelligence at all.

And by the way, here's one more thing about Hillary Clinton: Broderius Ignoramus took her to task a few weeks ago because he accused Clinton of making a speech (Politicians do that? I’m shocked again!) when Gen. David Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, as opposed to “that straight-talking maverick” John McCain, who asked Petraeus 14 (count ‘em, Hil!) questions.

Broder notes the statement from Clinton staffers that she was responding to remarks of other committee members. However, I think this article from Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker gives a much more accurate portrait of what went on.

See, Clinton was responding to more cowardly weasel words from Joe Lieberman. And I think Clinton deserves credit for showing statesmanship and professionalism, since the more appropriate response to Lieberman (at long last, as far as I’m concerned) is a punch in the mouth.