...and I mean NEVER. But can't politicians, even Newt Gingrich, change their minds?

Before the shouting starts, I know, I know: I know the misrepresentation that's been going on for the past three years about Iraq (and longer about Bush). I know that anyone even suspected of thinking that the war might possibly not be going well (let alone thinking it was a bad idea in the first place) has been painted as unpatriotic and as undermining the very success of the misguided enterprise.

And yes, I know that there's a difference between a true change of opinion and a change for political opportunism. I know that some minds respond to reason, new information, and soul-searching, while other "minds" sniff the winds of expediency.

But the Democratic party has to be able to run a viable candidate soon. Blaming Bush for his "misleading" "intelligence" will go only so far. Everyone on both sides of the aisle who voted for the war in Iraq and who has voted to extend the war during the past three years must answer for those actions.

It's one thing to call out Newt and other two-faced leaders, ex-leaders, pundits, and bloviators as hypocrites. It's another to get them to publicly acknowledge that holding this administration accountable for the deaths of U.S. forces, coalition forces, and Iraqis is a patriotic, responsible action. That's the rhetorical war that the country should be fighting.

Because as days go by without a united demand for accountability for past actions and a solid plan for future actions, soldiers and civilians die. Both sides must stop posturing and slinging mud. Someone has to stop first. So I'll give Newt and his buddies a pass on this one. But I do expect action in return.

You definitely have a point. However, the Republicans and the Bush/Cheney ran a campaign with "Flip Flop" as their centerpiece. I can understand changing your mind on an issue, but in Gingrich's case its a self-serving example of a leopard changing its spots. These phonies need to be held accountable to the standard they took it upon themselves to set.

One thing the anti-war movement did right back then was to welcome politicians, news anchors, civil rights leaders, etc., who "changed their minds" whether it was sincere or opportunistic. The idea was that it was always good to have a prominent figure speaking out against the war, regardless of their motivations. I hate hypocrites as much as anyone, but this seems like a positive step.

Now there is a Newt with the same opinion! Must be spring, that's when they came out of their holes.