On the one hand, he voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration's prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called "surge," and with some success.

So, at any moment, he would be able to present himself as a strong patriot, and at another moment as a critic of the hard-line hawks, and at still another as a hard-line hawk with more experience and military knowledge than the others. And, depending on which position he was occupying, he could deny that he was an uncritical supporter of the war or that he was inattentive to the needs of the troops, or that he had nothing positive to offer.

To clarify: on the one hand, McCain voted to authorize the war based on weak intelligence and for reasons that have now been thoroughly discredited, and on the other hand, McCain supported the surge, which has reduced violence, but which has failed to bring about the political progress for which it was intended in the first place.

A collective gasp issued from close observers of the Iraqi parliament when news broke on Thursday that a key piece of legislation had stalled. The provincial powers bill, already ratified by the country's legislature, had been vetoed. That piece of legislation had been hailed by the Bush Administration as an important step in defining the nature of the Iraqi government.

I guess Stanley Fish thinks that repeatedly poor judgment makes McCain fit to lead.  Whatever.  I'd say that if anything, the surge has demonstrated just how intractable the divisions are in Iraq.  Even with the added security, we're not seeing substantial progress.  In fact, according to the Center for American Progress, as of the end of January 2008, only three of the eighteen benchmarks America set for Iraq had been fully met (another five have been partially met).  The goals on which little or no progress have been made are by far the more important initiatives such as disarming the militias, shielding Iraqi security forces from partisan influence, or coming to a detailed agreement on oil revenue distribution.  But this doesn't matter to the media, because as usual, they've forgotten what the surge was supposed to achieve in the first place.  All they know is that violence is down, so the surge must be a success.  They say this even as our own military groans under the increased pressure to maintain these levels.

"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future," Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week.

Gen. James Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, sent a similar message when he agreed to send another 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan. Without relief soon, he told reporters, the Corps cannot continue to sustain such commitments.

So what does our good friend Stanley Fish offer to these facts?

The parts of McCain's story, even with one or two twists and turns, fit nicely into a coherent narrative that brings credit to him in every chapter. I was resolute in the beginning, I demurred for a while but for good reasons, and now I am resolute again, and you can trust me because, in this area especially, I know what I'm doing. He can rehearse this narrative without apologizing for anything and then turn around to Obama and (borrowing from Clinton's attacks on him), declare: You, on the other hand, don't know what you're doing, as everything you say, not only about the war, but about the conduct of foreign policy, proves. (He and President Bush are already pushing this line in anticipation of Obama's nomination.)

With Obama as his opponent, McCain has the advantage every which way. He continues to get mileage out of the straight-talk express, and at the same time he also has the political flexibility that comes along with having taken a few detours along the way, and talked out of several sides of his mouth.

Are you effing kidding me?!  McCain and Bush, two of the most stalwart supporters of what is widely considered a major foreign policy blunder get to school Obama on foreign policy?  And everything McCain has done in regard to Iraq has been right and "brings credit to him in every chapter."  Seriously?  Even the part about remaining in Iraq for 100 years if need be?  McCain has got Stanley Fish in his back pocket, clearly.  And since when does a candidate actually get credit for talking "out of several sides of his mouth?"  It's not even "both sides of his mouth," McCain is so all over the place that Fish actually had to change the expression to make it fit.

This is just ridiculous.  This piece sounds like it came straight from the McCain press office and onto Stanley's blog.  It is completely out of touch with reality, and Fish should be embarrassed for having even published it.

I took on the New York Times love affair with McCain when they endorsed him as well.  That piece can be found here.