The Gingrich Tease

Says Josh Marshall: "If I were Gonzales and the White House, I'd see McNulty's departure as a very unwelcome development. Behind the scenes, supporters of McNulty and Gonzales have been increasingly at odds as the scandal has progressed -- with McNulty's supporters saying he wasn't kept in the loop and that that the Gonzales clique is made of crooks and the Gonzales supporters (read: Sampson, Goodling, Elston, et al.) saying McNulty let the cat out of the bag in his testimony earlier in the year."

With some Republicans are challenging Bush on the war, Bill Kristol shows his disgust:

"The media are primed to reward Republicans for defecting from the White House on the war. So the Washington Post reported on its front page Thursday that the House Republicans had spoken truth to power. They told it to the president like it is. The on-the-record star of the meeting was Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. 'People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble,' Davis told the Post. 'Well, this was our chance, and we took it.'

"But what chance did they take? How did they help the president deal with a crucial foreign policy challenge? Davis 'presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the [Republican] party's position is, participants said.' Polling figures!

"These same Republican congressmen presumed--at the very same meeting--to criticize Iraqi politicians. Yet the Iraqi political class is showing a lot more courage than the American political class. They risk assassination. Our politicians risk electoral defeat. Yet it is our politicians who panic--and do so shamelessly and abjectly. And stupidly. Do the Republicans who want Bush to cut and run really think they would benefit if Iraq were to blow up, with U.S. troops helplessly standing by watching the slaughter, the full spectacle of American defeat unfolding before the American people? Here is a fine posture for a Republican to assume in 2008: I voted for the war, and then I voted for the surrender. Who in their right mind would vote for such a person?

"As for the Democrats, they are in a way less abject. Most of them simply believe the war is lost, or that it should be lost, and want to throw in the towel."

Power Line's John Hinderaker scoffs at the Democrats' talk about making sure returning vets are well cared for:

"When conservatives talk about supporting the troops, they mean doing everything possible to help them win the war they're fighting. Liberals never seem to talk about victory, but rather see 'support' as turning soldiers and veterans into another victim group, dependent on government health and welfare services.

"Will it work? So far, at least, I think a large majority of our service personnel think of themselves as warriors rather than participants in a social welfare program. But there is a certain logic to the Democrats' approach: if one's only concern is the safety of the troops, the simple solution is never to fight. And if, like most liberals, you have no intention of ever fighting, then you might as well take credit for keeping the troops safe."

I don't think a soldier who was wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan would see himself as a victim for expecting that the military health care system would give him better treatment than some got at Walter Reed.

That NYT piece on Bill's role in Hill's campaign has National Review's Jim Geraghty questioning whether the ex-president will be a big fat distraction:

"I wonder how many baby-boomer campaign correspondents with fond memories of the 1992 campaign are eagerly awaiting this assignment: