I would bet not actually. Ron Paul is reviled here because he does not think that the Iraq invasion was necessary, among other things including exactly how much of the world the US decided that it needed to try to include within the US sphere of influence. Indeed, the Condi Rice proposition that there are no spheres of influence was the proposition that the entire world is our sphere of influence, entirely overlooking that the radius of influence is determined by geometric distances over which you can sustain substantial projection of power, including the effective occupation of land (requiring boots on the ground).
William F. Buckley was a strong critic of Bush's Iraq invasion as well. His criticism and Ron Paul's were prescient. We are now bankrupt. A major cause of that is the direct cost of Iraq, and, probably more significant, the indirect cost that to get democratic buy in to invade Iraq Bush had to agree to ruinous social arrangements.
So, no, William F. Buckley is at peace with his Redeemer who liveth.
The WOT was 100 billion, and Obama spends
10 times that on bankers and terrorists every 5 months.
The bankruptcy is mainly from the Democrats.