Here's David Brooks, writing today on Sen. McCain:

But in the long run, his embrace of Iraq may not hurt him as much as now appears. In 10 months, this election won’t be about the surge, it will be about the hydra-headed crisis roiling the Middle East. The candidate who is the most substantive, most mature and most consistent will begin to look more attractive and more necessary.

In his speech yesterday, excerpted on his own Web site, McCain criticizes the "cynicism" of those who advocate withdrawal without accepting responsibility for its consequences. But many of us have in fact considered the implications of withdrawal. There are serious arguments against his position grounded in national security concerns. Yes, Gen. Petraeus thinks success of a sort remains possible. Other informed people in and out of the military disagree. Instead of making the case for Petraeus's view just on the merits, Brooks and McCain seem to want to throw in a measure of gratuitous shaming. That their commitment to the war is not shared by a majority of Americans is no doubt painful for them, but for them to imply we are not serious is more offensive than almost anything anyone among the netroots says.

McCain also said this yesterday:

Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let's put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll.

Gone are the assurances McCain made last year in speeches at the New School and elsewhere that our opposition to the war is a sincere reflection of our convictions -- now he suggests it's all about politics. This ignorant, mean, and unsubstantiated assertion is unworthy of him and a contradiction of the idealism he has long maintained he wants to bring to American public life.

While I believe his arguments should be considered, although I already opposed his candidacy, I do think this kind of rhetoric makes McCain less trustworthy, less worthy of the White House. I still grant him, and Brooks, the dignity of recognizing the seriousness of their views, even though I believe their analysis of the prospects for success is flawed and even though they seem unwilling to grant me and other opponents of the war the same civic respect.