Beyond advocating for the war, Gingrich was also advocating for the specific way it was fought: the Rumsfeldian strategy calling for a smaller invasion force and “footprint.” Gingrich has long been a proponent of this kind of change in the military. In 1981 he, along with Al Gore and others, began the Military Reform Caucus to explore those types of changes. In a speech to the Hoover Institution in the summer of 2002, he praised Rumsfeld’s tactical decisions in Afghanistan, saying, “The standard plan in Afghanistan was either Tomahawks or five divisions, and that’s why Rumsfeld was so important. ‘Cause Rumsfeld sat down and said, “Well, what if we do this other thing? You know, three guys on horseback, a B-2 overhead.” And it was a huge shock to the army … because it worked.” In December 2002, speaking to the Washington Post, he criticized senior military officials for wanting to fight a bigger, more conventional war and praised Gen. Tommy Franks for having a “more integrated, more aggressive and more risk-taking plan.” And after the war began, he praised the administration for sticking by its decision to go with a light, fast invasion, telling the Post that there was a “‘moment when the old Army was pounding away, saying that we were out there and facing the Republican Guard with too small of a force … That was the moment of optimum danger. A less confident administration might have paused and waited for another division to come up.”

He made numerous trips to Centcom, with Rumsfeld’s approval, to aid in planning the invasion.

The Republican party seems to have an overload of brilliant ideologues like Wolfowitz, Perle and Gingrich, whose ideas fail in the real world.

Gingrich who insisted in 2006 that he’d only run if America demanded it, and sought to be an idea man, has evidently decided that America can’t live without his creative solutions, and is on the brink of declaring his candidacy. Somebody is correct that he blows with the prevailing political wind, on the war and on his adulterous affair, which he cynicallt apologized to James Dobson for after many years of silence.

The problem I have with Newt is that some years ago he was front and center calling this World War Three. Remember that? Even going so far as to illicit response from Al Quaida about this being World War three.

Now suddenly as the unpopularity of the President continues to plague the GOP, Newt has backed down and became one of his critics as he seperates himself from Bush and his policies.

While this might be the right thing to do I find it a bit too Political and too Give the people what they want while really not believing that in my heart speech.

Its why Fred Thompson is a breath of fresh air for the GOP. He tells it like it is and yes he has baggage. Who doesnt. I for one dont think I could find it in my heart to support a Newter.

He has found his place. A weather vain for the GOP. Our version of “Finger in the Wind” Politics.

Using that logic, it should actually have been Mr. Bush who gave the progress report – not because it might have been the most expedient thing to do politically, but rather because it is the appropriate separation of roles.

Oh and for the greatest quote of the Bush Presidency:

“You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans’ TV programs, to remind them of why they don’t like him.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.