I. If you read carefully, as I know you always do, you remember that I have on one or more occasions expressed my disagreement with Sen. McCain’s unkind demonization of Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, who was trying to do the impossible of waging two wars, while reforming the military at the same time. When anyone criticizes Rumsfeld for opposing the surge, they fail to recognize two subtle points:

(1) His commanders in the field, whether Sanchez, Casey, or Abezaid, did not request more troops on grounds that the Americans should not escalate, at least until the sectarian strife burned itself out, since a long-term presence was necessary, but politically impossible if we were to send tens of thousands more troops into the fray — especially given our global commitments elsewhere and the wear

of serial deployments to Iraq.

(2) There were two surge proposals, not one. Go back to late 2004, McCain and others (apparently many Democrats whose mantra was “we had too few troops”) were calling for large numbers of additional

contingents, that would have spiked our presence at well over 200,000. That the 160,000 seems to be working and is just barely politically palatable suggests that it was the right number.

But I know of no evidence that suggested Rumsfeld adamantly opposed the necessary Petraeus appointment, or the change to a counter-insurgency strategy, or the reinforcement of 30,000. He may have, but I don’t recall in the public record that he did. Bottom line, McCain’s fides on the war is unquestioned, and needs no damnation of Rumsfeld. He speaks wonderfully on the need for victory, and has galvanized fence-sitting Republicans to insist on defeating the enemy, not withdrawing from him.

II. You direct me to the McCain tape. I listened to it in its entirety. His speech reflects pretty well on conservatism: he talks on the need to stop pork-barrel spending and end unnecessary federal deficits, end insider scandals, expresses strong support for the global war, wants more nuclear power. True, he believes in global warming, apparently human-induced, but I didn’t hear Al Gore-like mega-billion dollar remedies based on dubious science.

III. As I said, at some point McCain is going to have to address the genuine problems he has with the conservative base and, most urgently, articulate why his immigration position was wrong in not closing the border first before discussion of anything else. You, better than I, know the other issues that likewise need remediation.

The anger with McCain, as I sense it as an outsider, seems not just his supposedly weak conservatism (He, in fact, rates in the 80s on such litmus tests, shares positions with Giuliani, and has about-faced no more than have Giuliani and Romney) — but arises more as an emotional issue: in the past he has gratuitously either embarrassed or apparently, in self-righteous fashion, tried to embarrass conservatives with whom he disagreed, and now it is considered legitimate pay-back time.

IV. All well and good, and completely understandable, BUT Republicans will have to decide the level of conservative fides necessary to unite behind a candidate. For all the gloom and doom of the past year

about a sure-thing Hillary win, we are just now seeing that it is not so fated. McCain runs ahead of her or Obama. His war record and service have an undeniable appeal to millions regardless of their politics –conservative veterans who overlook his lapses, moderate Democrats who wish to honor a veteran with whom otherwise they disagree.

In addition, given the current Democratic fratricide, it is not so fantastic to believe that some disaffected Democrats would vote for McCain, not because he is liberal, but because they are so turned off by the Clinton character-assassination team.

I can see why conservatives are leery, but should McCain prove himself skilled in winning elections in widely diverse states like South Carolina, Florida, and New York, pick a more conservative running mate (Thompson or Romney comes to mind), and engage cooly and candidly with his critics who have legitimate concerns, I think such a Republican ticket will win in November, and that the difference between its governance, and that of a third Clinton term, would be enormous. I also think you will see a number of prominent conservatives, far to the right of McCain, begin to endorse him should his surge continue, since they fear mightily the neo-socialist-at-home/UN-like-governance-abroad alternative being voiced by the current three Democratic lawyers running for President.

V. That is a long-winded reply to Peter’s gauntlet — to be continued I hope this week at the Hoover coffee hour.