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.

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.

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) is the embodiment of how seriously the Democrats are in eliminating the "culture of corruption" in Washington. In short, they're not - they're only interested in cleaning the Republicans' house, not their own. Jefferson is a target of the Feds in a corruption investigation that has already seen one of his former aids, Brett M. Pfeffer, plead guilty to aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official and conspiracy (sentenced to 8 years). Another Jefferson confidante, Vernon Jackson, has also plead guilty to bribery of a public official and conspiracy to bribe a public official, receiving 7 years. In both instances the person being bribed was Congressman William Jefferson! There's alot more to this story that I'm not even going to get into ($90,000 cash found in Jefferson's freezer, for instance) - suffice to say that if you Google the Congressman you can find out all about him - and that even the Democrat-friendly mainstream media thinks that the investigation is going to end up in Jefferson's indictment and conviction.

William Jefferson (D-LA) was officially indicted today on numerous counts. According to AP:

U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

The indictment handed up Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years, according to a Justice Department official who has seen the document.

Jefferson, of course, is the man who was found with $90,000 in cold, hard, marked bills in his freezer. He was barely re-elected last November and, although the speaker of the House tried to place him on important committees, she was rebuffed.

Congressman Bob Inglis appears to be becoming a um, Freudian couch case.

Over the last two years Inglis appeared as a hand wringing apologist for himself and his self-confessed and numerous past mistakes, at the same time showing up as a stereotypic, milquetoast appearing, hubby and dad, and mild mannered, spectacle-wearing Christian Conservative Congressman. Then as suddenly as Ken Mehlman disappeared from view during the Foley scandal, Bob becomes the squinting, finger pointing, homo-Pelosi-Democrat hating, red faced "right to lifer", who disassembled on live television last Thursday night's debate with Dem contender William Griffith.

The startling question heard on the even tempered streets of Greenville, SC during the annual Fall for Greenville Festival this weekend AND is to be the subject of the lead story this coming week in THE BEAT, the local To The Left, Counter Culture weekly is - What About Bob: Is Bob becoming a clone, (pardon the mention of the forbidden!) of Bill Murray's character in the hilarious Richard Dreyfuss hit movie, What About Bob?

In a Thursday night campaign debate with Democratic contender William Griffith, GOP Rep. Bob Inglis accused House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of withholding knowledge of Mark Foley's pedophile acts, thus leaving the Pages in harms way.

In the most bizarre of bizarre scenarios the usually calm, moderate-appearing 4th District congressperson became strident.

Narrowed eyes glinting, stretched neck, veins pulsing, pointing fingers at his Democratic contender, Inglis accused Pelosi of holding back the truth about Foley's stalking of Pages. Her alleged purpose: Democratic political advantage in the 2006 midterm elections.

On October 20, Professor Marjorie Cohn became president of the National Lawyers Guild. In an interview with me Sunday, the new president of the NLG identified several instances in which she says President Bush has violated U.S. and international law. Here they are:

1) Bush illegally invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and then put laws in place to immunize himself and his high officials from war crimes prosecutions. Even before Bush removed his hand from the Bible Laura held as Chief Justice William Rehnquist swore him in as President, Bush was planning to attack Iraq and change its regime.

2) Bush ignored warnings of the 9/11 attacks, then used that tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq and push laws through a shell-shocked Congress too timid to stand up for our Constitution.

On Wednesday, President Bush resubmitted a number of judicial nominees who had been previously obstructed by Senate Democrats... much to their dismay.

The White House on Wednesday submitted Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; Peter Keisler of Maryland to the District of Columbia Circuit; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
[...]
"Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee. "For the sake of the country, we hope that this is an aberration because the president feels he must placate his hard-right base, rather than an indication of things to come."

Contrary to the claims of Schumer, Democrats haven't "asked" President Bush to be bipartisan, they've demanded he adhere to their liberal standards. Sorry. No sale. This action of the President is in fact a test to see how genuine Democrats are when they say they'll be bipartisan. Every single one of these nominees has to be given a vote. Every. Single. One.

If Democrats continue to block these nominees, then they were never sincere about bipartisanship, and never will be. The truth will come out, and it may just be over the issue of judges. This is a test of the Democrats and their sincerity about bipartisanship. I am sure they'll fail it miserably.

After his self-described thumpin' in the November election, President Bush talked a good game about bipartisanship and cooperation and meeting in the middle, etc. Then he promptly T.O.'d the Democrats by pressing ahead with the nominations of four contentious right-wingers to federal judgeships.

Well yesterday the White House wised up and realized the men would have no shot at confirmation in a Dem-controlled congress. The administration submitted a list of 33 proposed judges, and the controversial four were not on it.

Three of them had submitted letters asking their names be withdrawn, while the White House itself gave up trying to win a promotion for U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of North Carolina, who had drawn strong opposition because of rulings that rejected civil rights claims.

The other failed nominees include William J. Haynes II of Virginia, the Pentagon's top lawyer; Michael Wallace of Mississippi, who was given an "unqualified" rating by the American Bar Assn.; and William G. Myers III of Idaho, who was accused of favoring the mining and cattle industries when he worked in the Interior Department.

Conservative activists ain't happy with Mr. Bush, while liberals are no doubt dancing jigs that the judicial tide is moving slowly back to the left. Of course they would argue that much damage is already done: since 2000, Bush -- with full cooperation from a Repub congress -- has appointed 255 judges to the federal courts, including two Supreme Court justices.

Louisiana U.S. Representative William Jefferson -- he of the $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer -- has been nominated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the House Homeland Security Committee. Jefferson was removed from the Ways and Means Committee prior to the November elections because of his ethical issues. Now Pelosi wants to appoint him to one of the most important committees in Congress.

The Republicans are calling them out:

House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on the appointment of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who is the subject of a federal bribery investigation, to a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

The decision to put Jefferson on the panel was made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and House Democrats endorsed the move at a private meeting Tuesday night, but his appointment must be confirmed by a vote on the House floor. Such an action would normally be a formality, but Republicans said yesterday that they would pursue a rarely used maneuver to force a recorded vote on the matter.

The fact that all votes should be recorded is for another post, but this is political brilliance. This maneuver can only make the Democrats look more inane than they've been. Consider this: since taking over power in January, the Democrats have enacted meaningless legislation in their "first 100-hours" push, spent ridiculous amounts of time on an anti-troop resolution that was non-binding and now wish to seat a man who was allegedly caught with bribe money in a position crucial to our national safety. Not to mention that their most prevalent person of late had some dubious dealings during the Abscam investigation. That's progress in their eyes I suppose.

The Democrats seem to be having a hard time adjusting to being the majority party. It was easy to snipe at the Republicans while not in a leadership position, yet now that they have control, it seems they are treading water and the GOP seems to be getting the best of them on a daily basis.

Perhaps the most important issue facing California and our nation came front and center yesterday when hotel heiress Paris Hilton made a last-minute appeal to governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to provide her with a get out of jail free card for violating the terms of her parole. From the LA Times:

Hilton's defense team has launched a last-ditch effort to keep her out of jail after a Los Angeles traffic court judge made international headlines by sentencing the socialite to 45 days in county jail for repeatedly driving while her license was suspended.... ...Her camp is also turning to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, circulating a petition seeking to pardon Hilton, who must report to the Century Women's Correctional Facility in Lynwood by June 5th.

If you're looking for an indication as to whether or not Arnold will even consider this weighty matter, you may recall the last high-profile person to request clemency from the governor: Stanley "Tookie" Williams. As you have no doubt noticed, the cases are strikingly similar. Williams, the founder of the Crips who murdered a 7-11 clerk during a botched robbery, underwent a transformation in jail, renounced gang life, wrote several children's books, brokered a peace deal between the Crips and the Bloods, and received a "Call to Service Award" from none other than George W. Bush. Paris Hilton, meanwhile, is rich, can't sing, and has trademarked the phrase, "That's hot!" Eerie, isn't it?

All eyes are on you Mr. Schwarzenegger. The fate of western civilization hangs in the balance. Do the right thing.

In the long history of the Nobel Peace Prize, we have seen some dubious choices as winners. Perhaps the most inane was Yasser Arafat who proceeded to collect his money and start the second Intifada whereby he sent young men and women to their deaths as suicide bombers and taking hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians with them. Jimmy Carter also was a ridiculous choice and was chosen solely because it would spite George W. Bush.

Now we have another winner showing that the Nobel Peace Prize is a farce. Ireland's Betty Williams, who took the award in 1976, takes Bush Derangement Syndrome to new heights:

In a keynote speech at the International Women's Peace Conference on Wednesday night, Ms. Williams told a crowd of about 1,000 that the Bush administration has been treacherous and wrong and acted unconstitutionally.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said at the Adam's Mark Hotel and Conference Center in Dallas. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."

About half the crowd gave her a standing ovation after she called for Mr. Bush's removal from power.

Emphasis mine. So let me get this straight, a woman was asked to speak at a peace conference for women and she advocated the assassination of a sitting U.S. president and said she's like to so it herself? Furthermore, the crowd who attended the "peace" conference gave her an ovation? Hypocrisy on a global scale!

Tonight the Democratic candidates square off -- on the same stage, face to face -- at South Carolina State University in Orangesburg, S.C. for the first time in the race. About time! I mean, there are only nine months until we have to vote.

First, the debate rules: This thing lasts 90 minutes; The question order is at the discretion of moderator Brian Williams; each candidate gets 60 second to respond (ha!); and candidates are supposed to refrain from asking direct questions of each other (huh?). So, as one of our commenters pointed out, it's more of a Q&A then debate.

In the most welcome modification to the typical debate format, the candidates skip opening statements. Nor do they go through the usual niceties of thanking everyone. "Consider yourself thanked," deadpanned Williams.

8:30PM Update: And it's over. Though it was a rather civilized affair, with few fireworks and zingers, I have to admit that was a quick 90 minutes -- as far as debates go anyway.

My Quick Thoughts:
- Brian Williams did a good job keeping things moving along, even trying to vary the types of questions. I liked the hand-raising thing on the gun question;
- Good thing little-known Mike Gravel was on hand to supply some moxie. He made the most of the few questions directed at him, going directly after his rivals with a passion rarely displayed the rest of the night;
- Hillary Clinton came across as knowledgeable and likable, willingly offering up mistakes she's made in the past. The Wal-Mart answer was good too;
- Laugh out loud moment: Joe Biden, (in)famous for his "verbosity," was asked if he was capable of a brief answer. The Delaware senator succinctly replied, "Yes."
- Why isn't anyone looking more seriously at Bill Richardson? His candid reply to the Alberto Gonzales question, among others, was refreshing;
- John Edwards took a good ten of his precious 60 seconds to pause before taking on a question about who is his moral compass. It was odd for him, but apparently smart: his choices (his Lord, wife and father) might have been predictable, but the reply as a whole was genuine and compelling.
- The only "scuffle" of the evening was between Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich, over security and Iran. It was oddly the most memorable debate moment for both men.

So what did you think? Let us know in the comments below.

Missed it? You can watch over at MSNBC. And don't worry: The candidates will be doing this for, oh, another nine months. Plus remember, up next week: the Republicans.