Monday, March 13, 2006
David Sanger suggests as much in this NYT "new analysis" article. I mean, he doesn't directly say "Bill Buckley, the nation's coolest neocon", rather:
When Mr. Bush gave a set of speeches on Iraq in December, the calls to pull out were mostly from the left. Now, a rising chorus of neo-conservatives, who urged Mr. Bush to topple Mr. Hussein, say that, having liberated Iraq, the rest is up to the Iraqis.
"The administration has, now, to cope with failure," William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in February. "The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
Sanger only mentions Buckley in that one line, as a demonstration of the neocon unrest, not a very good demonstration. It’s also a gross simplification of Buckley's argument. The column he was citing can be found here. WFB has been a bit pessimistic on the Iraq venture for a while now, but this column went a bit further. I am more optimistic, but David Sanger, take note (I wish), I am not a neocon (not that there's anything wrong with that), and neither is WFB. I hate the prefixes, but if I had to give Buckley one I would dub him a "primo-con", you know, to demonstrate first-ness and awesomeness.
Comments: Post a Comment