Editorial disagreements

To say the least.

In some quarters, this editorial from Editor-in-Chief William F. Buckley was big news. Though I personally am not sure how--Buckley was never really on board to the extent that other big name conservatives have been.

Meanwhile, today at NRO, the editors write this: If Iraq ever descends into a real civil war, we won't have to debate whether it has happened. It will be clear for all to see. The military will dissolve into ethnic factions, and the government will collapse. That hasn't happened, and so declarations of defeat in Iraq — of the sort our founder and editor-at-large William F. Buckley Jr. made last week — are pre-mature. That view could ultimately be proven right, but there is no way to know with certainty at this point. Throughout the Iraq war, NR has tried to temper the rival fatalisms of the Iraq optimists and pessimists. Victory in Iraq has never been inevitable or impossible. The outcome depends, as is always the case, on the choices made by the players, including ourselves. Even if our influence in Iraq is waning, our commitment — and the specific forms it takes — still matters very much. Defeatism will be self-fulfilling.

Who says conservatives brook no disagreement? Anybody else have a hard time imagining The Nation printing a pro-Administration piece that congratulated them on...anything?