Now it’s time to meet the Republican presidential candidates, who held their first debate in the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. Like the Democratic debate before it, the Republican debate was mostly a congenial affair. It’s still early, though.

The New Republic has a handy blogger roundup on who won and who lost.

John Dickerson says the real winner was former President Ronald Reagan, whose name was frequently invoked by all of the candidates while they played nice with their primary opponents, which is also well-known Reagan tactic.

Peggy Noonan thinks fixating on who is the next Reagan is absurd: “What is to be desired now is a new greatness,” she said. Also, Fred Thompson shouldn’t wait too long to get in.

John Archenbald search for leadership qualities is mostly skin deep: “Let's face it: Not only are most of these guys completely obscure, they also look exactly the same. They're aging Caucasian men with jowls. Several of them are fighting for a starting position on the All-Jowl Team.”

Fred Barnes says the forgettable early debates such as these mostly benefit the second- and third-tier candidates.

Byron York says the real war of words began after the debate, in the spin rooms.

According to Marc Cooper the GOP debate was won by the Democrats. While all Republican contenders distanced themselves from the President, their policy proposals weren't any different from his.

As promised President Bush yesterday vetoed the Iraq War supplemental funding, which defined timetables by which the U.S. would begin withdrawing combat troops as early as October. While timetables were an indefensible position for the president and nearly half of Congress, ‘benchmarks,’ on the other hand could be an idea everyone can get behind. But is this anything more than semantic quibbling?

The Washington Post explains that benchmarks may show up in the next round of legislation as clearly defined steps the Iraqi government should take toward a political settlement. If they don’t, the likely punishment would be cutting off nonmilitary aid. The Post says it’s a deal Bush should go for.

However, Democrats are disputing the Post’s reporting that they have already given up the push for troop withdrawal timetables (see The Horse's Mouth).

Arianna Huffington suggests the benchmarks are part of the same old wait-and-see tactic that’s keeping the U.S. indefinitely engaged in Iraq.

Clifford May says that benchmarks, while potentially useful, could tie the hands of Gen. David Petraeus if their too inflexible.

The New Republic explains why America’s good cop/bad cop routine may be the most effective way to demonstrate that it’s patience with Iraqis is not unlimited.

Turkey is in the midst of a national crisis over the future of its secularism. Moderate Islamists are gaining power and many fear for what this might mean for Turkey. Others don’t think we should worry.

The Washington Times worries that if Islamists take greater control of Turkey, the important international role of Turkey as a moderating Eastern force will be damaged.

The New York Times also worries about Turkey’s changing political culture. Secularism and democracy are threatened.

The Washington Post says that the threat to democracy in Turkey comes not from the Islamists, but from the secularist elites.

Stephen Schwartz thinks “the Sunday marchers in Istanbul got it right. Between militarist secularism and radical Islam, most Turkish citizens would likely continue to take their chances with the army. But the country will not move forward until it adopts three indispensable principles of a real democracy: a non-political military, religious pluralism, and full equality for all minorities.”

Simon Tisdall says that the Turkish military’s promise to protect the constitutional legacy of Ataturk carries the dark tones of past coups.

P. David Hornik chides the EU for criticizing the Turkish military: “Why does the EU sternly upbraid the Turkish military even in a situation where its power might be essential to saving the country from Islamism?”

An official Israeli government report published yesterday criticized Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, military chief of staff, for “serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence” during the lead-up and first six days of Israel’s month-long war with Lebanon last summer. In a televised response, Olmert acknowledged the mistakes, but said he would not resign.

Shmuel Rosner draws comparisons of the Winograd Report to investigations of other "failed wars," specifically the Bay of Pigs invasion and the current war in Iraq.

The Economist says political rivals may still force Olmert’s resignation, capitalizing on approval ratings that were in the single digits even before the Winograd report. “...[B]ut the Israeli public has been so disillusioned for so long that it may well just shrug.”

The Washington Times says not to be surprised if Iran and Syria “gamble on the possibility that Israelis will focus on the prime minister's political problems rather than security threats like the anarchoterrorist state being created in Gaza.”

The Guardian sees Olmert’s response as an attempt to spread the blame around, betting that his own party, Kadima, is not yet ready for him to step down.

Helena Cobban at The Nation offers an outline of the reports main findings before expanding her scope to the choice all Jewish Israelis now face.

In an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, David Makovsky says that, whatever happens with Olmert, the 150-page report is a model of impartial, thorough investigation by a democracy into its own possible deficiencies. “This is Israel at its finest,” Makovsky says.

The war in Iraq continues and the opinions are plethora. Four years into the war we are still debating why we’re at war, how we got there, and how to win.

Robert Novak looks at Chuck Hagel, a man he says “represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats' personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.”

Niall Ferguson looks at the consequences of ignoring the reality of the war at home. If we want to keep spending money and making no sacrifices, history tells us that we’re in for some consequences.

The New York Times asks why, after all of this time, we are still in the dark about exactly how the decision to go to war with Iraq was come to. That is just one example of the many myths and dissimulations the Bush administration uses to keep its government opaque.

Andrew C. McCarthy wants Tennet to be honest: “If you want to say we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say you’d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists.”

Arianna Huffington wonders why George Tenet didn’t come forward with his story of how the Iraq war was sold sooner. “The honorable train left the station a long time ago,” she says, “and Tenet wasn't on board.”