Brooks on Clinton

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with David Brooks, and certainly not about Hillary Clinton. However,

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?

I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, “I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial”?

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach....

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

The column, of course, is on Times Select. Here's a link, for those of you who subscribe. I'm taking this from John Aravosis' post at AmericaBlog.

I don't agree with Aravavosis' reservations about Clinton. I have other reservations, but "genuineness" is not one of them. I don't think there's a candidate at this point, on either side of the aisle, who is genuine. (That includes Obama.) Not being an either/or person myself, I have absolutely no problem with someone who's willing to look for a third way.

I also am fed up with public figures -- or anyone else -- having to apologize for everything they say or do. It's one thing when you're deliberately hateful, like the Dobson Gang (who are certainly not going to apologize for anything they say), but for making the best decision you can based on what you know at the time? Nope. You can shove that idea right up your PC butt.