Just a few comments on fellow blogger David's earlier post on some conservatives' dire predictions on the GOP's political future due to Iraq. Of the three he mentioned -- William Buckley, David Brooks, and George Will -- the only one I really listen and pay attention to is Bill Buckley. David Brooks and George Will are very good writers and reasonable conservatives, but they both view the modern Republican Party and conservative movement through the lens of : "What would Reagan do?" And Ronald Reagan isn't walking through the door anytime soon.

William Buckley, however, is a different story. He was one of the original anti-communist Cold Warriors, and the National Review was founded in part to be the voice of anti-communism in modern politics. So he knows what's involved when one is fighting a murderous ideology in addition to armed forces. When he "turned against" the Iraq war I was disturbed and I read him carefully. But that happened almost three years ago, not recently. In fact, one of his first anti-Iraq War columns was written prior to the 2004 elections (Should We Have Gone To War?). Even stronger was a column that he wrote over a year ago, It Didn't Work, in which he states: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."

In short, Buckley's Iraq War viewpoint is not new. And it's as wrong today as it was three years ago, or a year ago. Primarily because Buckley, as well as Brooks and Will, view the war through the same prism as the Democrats -- as an electoral and political problem within our own country, threatening GOP ascendancy -- as opposed to a problem that needs to be solved, not run away from.

That's not so say that there haven't been serious mistakes made. But going in wasn't one of them. Tell me exactly how -- with the sanctions programs disintegrating and with Saddam Hussein having bought off (Oil for Food scandal) Russia, France, and Germany -- diplomacy would have either removed Saddam or prevented him from restarting his weapons programs? Just as it was a forgone conclusion that after we didn't finish off Saddam during Gulf War I we would eventually have to go back in -- if we didn't go into Iraq in 2003 we would have probably have had to go in by now anyway.

Three leading conservatives are in agreement. The GOP is in deep, deep trouble over Iraq. The outlook for the 2008 elections isn't pretty. Prepare the lifeboats. So say David Brooks, William F. Buckley, and George Will.

In his recent editorial in the National Review, Buckley summed up the plight this way:

"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."

This past Sunday, Brooks' column was titled, "Grim Old Party," and contained the following assessment:

"The public, in short, wants change. And yet the Republicans refuse to offer that. On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, bu they don't publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along."

More piling on? Here's George F. Will on Sunday's "This Week" when asked if there will be big time defections in the Republican ranks if there isn't substantial progress in Iraq by September:

"Absolutely. They do not want to have, as they had in 2006, another election on Iraq... ...This could be a foreign policy equivalent of the Depression, forfeiting the Republican advantage they've had since the '68 convention of the Democratic Party and the nomination of McGovern. The advantage Republicans have had on national security matters may be forfeited."

But the president has said no to timetables, and no to enforceable benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Given that the Iraqi parliament plans to take July and August off, it doesn't take a fortune teller, or even an especially astute pundit, to predict that we'll be seeing that "private disgust" metastasize into full-scale revolt come September.

Released on the same day that Robert Gates was sworn in as Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon's new 49-page "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" offered absolutely zero surprises, unless, that is, you happen to be either Laura Bush or Mr. Gates' predecessor. You see, only days before, these two hucksters were still clinging to the utterly bankrupt notion that things in Iraq aren't nearly as bad as the media portrays them.

Enter the Pentagon, who presumably has not been watching CNN in order to collect its information. Their findings? Attacks on US and Iraqi troops as well as those on civilians are up some 22 percent since August. The weekly number of such attacks averages around 1,000. And nobody in Iraq much trusts the current government to solve the problem any time soon.

Perhaps New York Times columnist David Brooks said it best when asked about the First Lady's characterization and Donald Rumsfeld's tired media finger-pointing: "Get off it already!"

According to AOL News, the House of Representatives failed to override Bush's veto of the Iraq War funding (with timetables for withdrawal) which brings us back to square one. Our troops are in Iraq and they are going to run out of funding very soon.

And interestingly, apparently almost every Republican in the House is not listening to George Will, David Brooks, or William F. Buckley.

The House vote was 222-203, 62 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. With few exceptions, Republicans stood fast with Bush in the wartime clash.

So the big question this evening is: If Iraq funding with no timetables is such a loser with the American public, why is that not translated into at least some GOP defections in the House? How many Republicans did Nancy Pelosi get?

Two! And how many Democrats voted against this bill? Seven! So Nancy lost more Democrats in trying to pass this bill than gained Republicans. Ouch! That's gotta leave a mark!

Just as the three tenors of conservatism, William F. Buckley, George Will and David Brooks predicted last week, GOP support of the president's war in Iraq will hold out until September. So say John Boehner and Trent Lott, anyway.

Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott said Monday that President Bush's new strategy in Iraq has until fall before GOP members will need to see results. Lott's comment put a fine point on what Senate Republican stalwarts have been discussing quietly for weeks. It also echoed remarks made this weekend by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, indicating the GOP's limited patience on the war.

Why, you ask in astonishment, are the same Republicans who have bashed Harry Reid for what they claim is a hasty prognosis of the conflict now publicly hedging their bets? To try and save face come election time, of course, and attempt to avoid another massacre at the polls in 2008.

Or maybe it's the fact that today we learned that a key Sunni block is poised to pull out of the coalition government, or that, in the face of all the sectarian strife, the Iraqi legislature is planning to take a July and August vacation. Who knows, maybe deep in their hearts they are beginning to acknowledge that Senator Reid was right.

Interesting new book just out by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks that shows that conservatives on a whole regularly give and do more for charities than do liberals. Not surprising, since most liberals think that that is the government's job, not theirs. But it's good to see it validated in a thorough study by someone who, according to this article, is pretty liberal and very uncomfortable about his findings, although he chose to publish it anyway. Brooks is an expert in philanthropy, and is the head of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University:

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income. In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

Listen, I know many liberals, friends of mine, who give a heck of alot of time and money to charities - not to support liberal policies and social engineering (like Bill Gates) - but just to help normal, everyday people out of the kindness of their hearts. But it's still nice to see another canard of the Left, the greediness of conservatives, go down in flames - taken down by one of their own, a liberal academic scholar.

This morning, I had a chance to listen to Tim Russert on Meet the Press. One of his guests was Gwen Ifill. I have watched her presentations on PBS over the years. She was good. Today, she was great. Her comments were controlled and not emotional. She didn't throw bouquets at Tim Russert before telling him that he was part of the club.

The guests on the show brought up all the points that have been articulated on the blogs. Others do it. We listen to it. He has been doing it for years and finally that "shock jocks" are successful because of how politically incorrect they are. Despite how hateful their comments might be. Gwen Ifill threw it right back on Russert and one of his other guests, David Brooks, She said: "There has been radio silence from a lot of people who have done this program who could have spoken up and said, I find this offensive or I didn't know. These people didn't speak up. Tim, we didn't hear from you. David, we didn't hear from you."

In a recent article, Ms. Ifill wrote about how she had been a target of Imus. Many years ago, it has been alleged that Imus said, "Isn't The Times wonderful, it lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."

A couple of days ago, I wrote that the firing of Don Imus was wrong. Today, I listed to Gwen Ifill and realized that I was wrong. It was not all about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Long ago, Don Imus crossed the line and in the past he took care of his mistakes by apologizing. This time, the apology didn't work. You see, after apologies of the past, Imus never changed. He continued to say hurtful things about people and races that were just not true. Yes, Imus should have been fired.

...In the New York Times:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated - many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

The authors are Michael Hanlon and Ken Pollack from the Brookings Institution. These are not pro-Bush flaks, so don't try to argue their credibility.

I've thought for a long time that if the surge were to succeed it would take awhile for us to find out and that all the talk of a pullout back in the spring or earlier was way premature. And now we have this article as a big indicator that the surge is working. In the end, the article calls for congress to continue funding the surge into 2008.

President Bush has been begging for more time. The military is pleading for more time. A few more editorials like this and they will get the time they need.

O.K., I'm skeptical about Hillary Clinton's ability to craft health care legislation. I've written on this page how her first attempt, during her husband's time in office, was a failure in leadership that did not account for the complexity of the task. This time around, she assures us, she has learned from past mistakes. From the NY Times:

Mrs. Clinton promised to cover everyone without big new bureaucracies, without a complicated reorganization of one-seventh of the American economy and without affecting Americans who are insured and happy with their coverage--all features that helped doom the Clinton [Bill] administration's plan 14 years ago.

Maybe. Hey, it's worth a look, anyway. You can read about the plan here. David Brooks, for one, is impressed with what he sees, stating:

"Hillary Clinton's health care plan is a huge step forward from 1993. It's better than the G.O.P. candidates' plans (which don't exist).

But one person who is against the plan, even though he hasn't read it, is Mitt Romney. Watch as he stumbles through the following set piece yesterday. He cannot engage any of the specifics of the plan because he hasn't bothered to look at it. It's really a shameful display of how some politicians rely on buzzwords and tried and true talking points over substance.

Do most Americans really care whether their health care is administered by their state government as opposed to the federal one? And why should residents of Mississippi suffer while those in California enjoy universal care?

A fascinating interview of Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas is over at BusinessWeek.com that concentrates on his younger years at Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. -- specifically the influence on his life that one priest, Father John. E. Brooks, had on his life. Read the whole thing. It gives a starkly different impression of Thomas and his views than is in current conventional wisdom. It is a fairly wide-ranging interview, touching on things like affirmative action and the way that that particular policy inadvertently steals away and makes easy to dismiss the individual accomplishments of minorities, and the media:

Dianne Brady: Thank you for meeting with me.

Clarance Thomas: Father Brooks asked me to do it. One of the reasons I don't do media interviews is, in the past, the media often has its own script. One reason these stories are never told is that they are contrary to the script that people play by. The media, unfortunately, have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions of what I should think or I should do.

Refreshing. The interview is a nice counter to the crap that we get about Clarance Thomas from Democrats and those on the Left on a regular basis.

Divisiveness over gay rights, once exploited by Karl Rove and company in 2004, could be turning into harmony soon.

One symbol of this harmony may be country music. Last Valentine's Day, the Dallas Morning News reported on "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other," a pro-gay-rights song by country star Willie Nelson. The Morning News quoted Alan Pierce, the co-owner of a Texas gay country bar: "It acknowledges it as a reality in life. It could help straight America acknowledge this."

Just as the idea of gay marriage has faced opposition through state bans, so did a previous pro-gay country song, Garth Brooks' "We Shall be Free," meet with disapproval.

"Though it didn't focus exclusively on gays, the tune stirred some controversy; some radio stations across the country wouldn't play it," the Morning News reported. "'We Shall be Free' peaked at No. 12 on Billboard's country singles chart, ending a string of Top 10 hits for Mr. Brooks."

Thanks to the efforts of stars like Garth and Willie, Republican candidates like Mitt Romney may have to find other issues to manipulate if they want to get elected.

There's a piece in a McClatchy newspaper that wonders why (all of a sudden) the right wing punditry is falling over itself praising Sen. Hillary Clinton:

• Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, a neoconservative weekly, wrote that she answered the now-famous "would-you-meet-with-despots" question "firmly and coolly."

• Rich Lowry of National Review, a conservative weekly, gushed: "She excels. ... Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president."

• David Brooks, conservative columnist at The New York Times, wrote that Clinton "seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change" and is changing perceptions in a way that may persuade voters to give her a second look.

• Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist at The Washington Post, summed up the Clinton-Obama smackdown: "The grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie."

These are some of the same folks who tore Sen.Clinton up for years when she was first lady. All of a sudden, she's great? And right wing talk show hosts are already saying she's the nominee for sure and begun the anti-Hillary campaign. Seems they always know things I don't know (or maybe they just Make Stuff Up?). After years of tearing her down they're suddenly building her up and expressing genuine admiration? Or maybe it's all a ploy because Karl Rove sees Hillary as the weakest candidate in the general election. The thing is I think Rove is right. I don't think she can win the general. I'll predict something: All of the right wing commentators will do a 180 if Clinton is nominated and go back to their assigned negative roles.

Anyone remember David Duke? A KKK member who created quite a stir in the late 80's and early 90. Well unfortunately, this particular brand of southern racist never went away and is still kicking around. This week, Duke is going to Iran for Iranian president Ahmadinejad's first ever holocaust conference.

On the agenda? Whether the holocaust really happened. I am not making this up.

Of course Ahmadinejad has been a holocaust denier for a long time, but it's been really hard to get the American Democrats to pay attention to what the crazy Iranian has been saying about Israel.

Maybe now that David Duke is going, they might get up enough gumption to denounce what's going on with the Iranians and get serious about the implications of a nuclear Iran.

But why might Iran want to have a holocaust conference in the first place? Since Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that Israel should be destroyed, the reason for the conference seems simple enough. No holocaust, no reason for Israel to need a homeland safe from oppression. Therefore Israel was simply a landgrab by evil jews who lied about their history in order to get the land.

The New Orleans Times Picayune is reporting today that a prostitute has come forward who claims she had a four-month sexual relationship with Republican Senator David Vitter back in 1999. Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, paid for the woman to take a lie-detector test, which, Flynt says, the woman passed with flying colors.

Previously, Vitter denied having anything to do with hookers in the Big Easy, and he'll no doubt maintain that claim today after Flynt holds a Beverly Hills news conference with the prostitute, Wendy Yow Ellis:

During a phone interview Monday, Ellis said she met regularly with Vitter in the French Quarter aprartment and that he paid her through her pimp, Jonathan, whose last name she did not know. She said Vitter met her through the New Orleans Escort Service, not through the madam whose notorious Canal Street brothel was raided by federal agents in 2001. Although that madam, Jeanette Maier, claimed in interviews that Vitter patronized her brothel and favored a prostitute named Wendy...

Of course, it could just be a political hit. Vitter, who has already confessed to committing a "very serious sin" in using the services of D.C. madam Deborah Jeane Palfry, may have only ever visited escorts in the nation's capital, not in New Orleans. After all, Ms. Ellis stands to make a bit of money from this revelation. Yet, for enterprising reporters, if the allegations of a four-month entanglement are true, then there will be a leads to follow.

This is the last thing the Republican party needs at the moment (and if I had a dollar for every time I've said that over the past two years!). Let's say Larry Craig gets a judge to overturn his guilty plea, and a formal trial begins. Meanwhile, every gumshoe in New Orleans will set to work on Vitter.

Vitter and Craig, two men who chastised Bill Clinton for his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky, bound together again. Good luck with that, boys.

When you're a Democrat leader and David Broder, the "dean of the Washington Press corps" and Democrat cheerleader, turns on you -- you've got to start thinking about retirement. I post a link to the lefty Think Progress site, but only because Instapundit forced me to! Don't worry, though. Think Progress, playing to type, is attacking Broder (one of the best friends in media the Democrats have) for calling Reid an "embarrassment."

David Broder, the sagely insightful "dean" of the Washington press corps, attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today over his claim that the war in Iraq is lost. Speaking on XM radio, Broder said that Reid should "learn to engage mind before mouth opens," and suggested that Reid's Senate allies "have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid" and his "bumbling performance."

Asked if Harry Reid is "an embarrassment," Broder said, "I think so," since "every six weeks or so there's another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case."

Oh, Harry, Harry, Harry...