I am not a great fan of William F. Buckley, one of the fathers of modern conservatism. But his obvious intelligence and willingness to live in reality (more so as Mr. Buckley has gotten older) make him a towering giant compared this this generation of Fox News wingnuts.
Buckley long ago came out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but he's just gone one step further. Now he says that the Iraq war is not only a lost cause, but that the Republican party may be one too.
The full article is here. (Warning: it's National Review, in case you don't want to give traffic to a rightwing site.)
The Waning of the GOP
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.
[SNIP]
But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.
[SNIP]
Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort." The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.
(boldface is mine)
Buckley has been a frustrating figure over the years. With his keen intelligence and ability to analyze so cogently, it always seems like he's about to really see the light. Then his next column is rightwing tripe.
But on the Iraq issue, Buckley has been spot-on from the beginning. And he's only gotten more fierce about it, the longer our soldiers are there.
So my question is for all you Republican war cheerleaders who like to throw accusations of treason around so easily: who is going to call William F. Buckley a traitor?
This man just said the exact same thing that Harry Reid said about Iraq. When will we hear chirping chickenhawks like Jonah Goldberg and Cliff May, who draw a paycheck from the magazine Mr. Buckley founded, call him "un-American?"
Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh -- we're all waiting. Please denounce William F. Buckley as a traitor, immediately.
(I'd recommend that you don't try the "he's an old man who doesn't know any better" tack, since he's still smarter than the whole lot of you combined. You can throw in a brace of Glenn Becks and a Saxby Chambliss or two, and your collective IQ points still don't add up to Buckley's.)
As for the second part, regarding the end of the GOP: maybe Brian Williams needs to sit at Buckley's feet and learn for a few days. According to Williams in last week's Dem Presidential primary debate, the Democratic party is in danger of "extinction"...despite mopping the floor with the GOP in the recent midterm elections.
Mr. Buckley seems to have drawn the exact opposite conclusion. Williams should spend less time listening to Limbaugh's noxious spew, less time blowdrying his hair, and a little more time listening to reality-based people smarter than himself. (And that list is endless, comprising most of the country.)
I'm not here to praise William F. Buckley as any kind of moral hero. He's been on the wrong side too often over the last half-century.
My god, though...what a breath of fresh air compared to this modern generation of rightwing hate-pukers. Buckley deserves blame for spawning some of this foul brood.
But at least he's capable of seeing -- and then telling -- the truth.
*
*
*
[UPDATE: As commentor Little points out, below, I buried the lede somewhat. In fact, I didn't include it. Sorry, I'm skittish about copyright, so I didn't excerpt this blunt line from Buckley's piece:
General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it.
The "disease" part is fascinating, as Buckely reflects on Islamic insurgency and terrorism...and compares it to the tide of Christianity which brought down ancient Rome. Wow! That's an old-school Catholic talking. And if a Democrat said something like that...well, you can fill in the rest.]