The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

I'm having a hard time coming up with a quick sentiment, since the rush of thoughts and feelings I have have been overwhelming all day. But I did want to note this line in the Washington Post's conversation with National Review's always thoughtful John Miller:

New York, N.Y.: William Buckley came to oppose the war in Iraq, but his successor at National Review, William Kristol, is a hearty supporter, reflected in the magazine's editorial policy. Was that a source of distress or consternation for Buckley? Thanks for the chat.

John Miller: I believe it's fair to say that WFB supported the invasion of Iraq and began to have misgivings about the result that led him to reconsider the whole enterprise -- but that he also supported the troops surge. Last year, he made a personal contribution to the presidential campaign of John McCain.

(Also, the editor of National Review is Richard Lowry; William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.)

Buckley's view on Iraq was widely misinterpreted to mean that he withdrew his support of the war. He didn't. His view was far more nuanced, and anchored primarily by the president's inability to move past the war as an issue. But it always bothered me to see liberals grabbing his line and making it mean what they wanted it to mean.

topics:
John McCain, Iraq