Eli Lake reports that Senator Sam Brownback is committed to “doing everything I can to hold up” Christopher Hill’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Yesterday the Pentagon put Petraeus and Odierno on the record in support of that appointment in a move that seemed orchestrated to avoid another Freeman-like collapse of a controversial appointee. And the support of Petraeus and Odierno certainly will bolster Hill’s credibility with some, but obviously not Brownback. I’m struck by how liberals seem to misunderstand the politics at play in this fight. Michael Crowley wrote a piece for TNR on Wednesday that didn’t even mention the possibility that Brownback would put a hold on Hill’s nomination. Today he’s opining again that “this really doesn’t look like a fight many Republicans will want to be part of.” Maybe that’s true, but it kind of misses the point. The story here is that Brownback doesn’t care about the politics. Crowley also tries to psychoanalyze McCain’s opposition to the Hill appointment. Again, I think he’s looking for complexity where there isn’t any. McCain was a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s North Korea policy. He made it pretty clear that he thought the Six Party talks were a farce, and that Hill and the administration had been played for fools. And if one were to psychoanalyze McCain’s position: he spent four years held in prison by a bunch of commies in Southeast Asia. Is it really surprising that he would be hostile to a man who spent four years negotiating with a bunch of commies in Northeast Asia and has nothing to show for it? The bottom line is this thing could go either way. Update: Crowley also writes “During Hill’s confirmation hearing next week, watch to see whether McCain seems to be demanding a concession from Hill on this point, perhaps in exchange for McCain’s support, and whether Hill is willing to grant it.” McCain isn’t on the foreign relations committee — he won’t be questioning Hill.
