I notice that Sen. Brownback's getting flak in the blogosphere for deserting the President on the war. I think he's mistaken to oppose the troop "surge," but he hasn't flip-flopped as charged. I tried to take a poke at him in this week's Potpourri, because I thought I remembered him supporting the surge, and I was going to be the first to say he was for it before he was against it. But when I googled for evidence, I found it wasn't so. He was always saying
things like this (dateline Dec. 31):
Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), another possible presidential contender, said in an interview Saturday that he could favor more troops if they were a "precursor" to political stability.
Which is what I remembered. Except I didn't recall the next line of the story.
But he added: "A short-term buildup in troops, if it simply is to impose military order without the possibility of political equilibrium, that doesn't seem to me to be too farsighted."
"We have got to get to some acceptable balance between the Sunnis and Shiites," Brownback said. "We cannot impose a military solution."
Which is pretty much
what he said Wednesday, for which he's drawing fire.
"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," the Kansas Republican said in a written statement from Baghdad, where he met Tuesday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top officials to discuss U.S. policy in Iraq.
"Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution," Brownback said.
