Stacy McCain has made a theme out of fisking David Brooks, and I think Brooks is every bit the tool McCain thinks he is. In this piece, Brooks tries to make a point about how much “smarter” Obama is in handling terror-related security issues and, unwittingly, I think, says mouthfuls about the critics of President Bush’s security policies (emphases mine):

As for the treatment of terror suspects, Jack Goldsmith has a definitive piece called “The Cheney Fallacy” online at The New Republic. He lists a broad range of policies — Guantánamo, habeas corpus, military commissions, rendition, interrogation and so on. He shows how, in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

The odd thing is that Brooks views this as some sort of triumph, when it’s really an indictment. Not of Obama (whom I’ll get to in a moment), but of anyone who suddenly finds palatable virtually the same policies they condemned under Bush. Those people might as well say Since George Bush didn’t ask nicely, we will squawk, leak, and generally undermine the war on terror, because we’re that petty.

Oddly enough, far lefties and those who supported Bush all along both come out looking good, or at least consistent. Most conservatives I read are rather relieved that Obama has retained as much of Bush policy as he has, and the lefties have enough integrity to bitch about Obama.  Those who look terrible are those who flip-flopped, demonstrating once again the national security blackmail played by Democrats.

Hard as it is to admit, however, Brooks has a point about President Bush’s failure to realize that other’s opinions matter. Bush’s mistake was in thinking that the country would see him doing the right thing and that would be enough. He never adequately defended his policies. That defense would have been necessary in any event, but was even more necessary in light of the shrill attacks that were constantly waged against him.

As for Obama . . . well, as I’ve said before, I hope he was simply lying like crazy on the campaign trail about dismantling Bush security policies. Because the only other alternative is that he was very naive while campaigning and learned he was wrong upon taking office. And having someone that naive as president scares the crap out of me way more than having a liar for a president.