Bill Buckley Claims the Iraq War Is a Failure

A couple of weeks ago, Glenn Greenwald wrote about how contemporary Republicans don't actually have an ideology--such as, say, conservatism--they just have a cult of personality built around the Prez. As if to provide a test case, William F. Buckley--the godfather of the modern conservative movement--wrote an editorial in The National Review essentially admitting defeat in Iraq. He's not the first to suggest such a thing--we've had John Murtha and Howard Dean to do the same recently. In fact, Greenwald compared Buckley's editorial with Dean's argument (they're essentially the same) and noted the conservative response to Dean. It was said to be treasonous and cowardly. Michael Reagan said he should be hung. Do all these things also relate to Buckley?

There's little doubt that anyone will be screaming for Buckley's scalp. I think most winger commentary would be just as happy to ignore the editorial. One indication of that is the fact that the editorial is time stamped at 2:51 Friday afternoon, but the first mention of it at The Corner, the National Review blog, didn't come until 6:01 Sunday evening, more than 51 hours later. Ramesh Ponnuru downplays Buckley's pronouncement, pointing out that he's been skeptical on the war for a while (although not really addressing the content of Buckley's opinion), and identifying Buckley's conclusion that the war is a failure as "premature." Still, he acknowledges that it's important.

It's foolish to expect consistency in a time when facts don't matter and every argument is one of convenience. But maybe some of the opinion-makers on the right (if not in the administration itself) will come around to Buckley's point of view on the subject. A boy can dream, can't he?