The most polarizing issue for the country is the Iraq war. Here, as on other fronts, McCain tries to bridge the extremes. He has been one of the sharpest critics of the administration’s strategy in Iraq, arguing loudly since 2003 that there weren’t enough U.S. troops to stabilize the country. He voiced the generals’ anger at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld long before they went public with their dissent. But at the same time, McCain has backed President Bush and the basic U.S. mission in Iraq. ~David Ignatius, The Washington Post

The column isn’t very interesting–more of the usual McCain-is-our-hero talk that was on everyone’s lips six years ago. It is a bit revealing in that McCain continues to claim that he is a conservative, which never ceases to strike me as strange, and also revealing in what it tells us about the thinking of McCain-adoring writers.

As an example of McCain’s political derring-do, Ignatius cites his position on Iraq that allegedly bridges “the extremes.” The extremes are represented by either committing more soldiers to Iraq or supporting the present policy. Somehow, even within the GOP, I find it hard to believe that these are “the extremes.” The “extremes” listed here are two fairly close alternatives about which adamant war supporters disagree. It is as if any position that moves away from both greater, bloodier entanglement and the futility of the status quo does not exist in Republican circles, but other, more critical and skeptical positions must exist.