Today's New York Times story about Bill Buckley's surrender of ownership and control at National Review notes his "retrospective doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq." What he says is actually stronger than that:
Mr. Buckley said there was a growing debate on the right about how the war in Iraq squared with the traditional conservative conviction that American foreign policy should seek only to protect its vital interests.
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
That seems pretty significant to me, especially given NR's generally gung-ho attitude toward the war, although perhaps he's said the same thing before and I missed it.