Not to carry this too far, but I find I agree in part with Ron Christie, not maybe about all of Gen. Pace's decisions or comments (especially about gays), but about the process.

The Democrats are entitled to question and criticize Pace and focus on the Iraq war. They are entitled to vote against him if they so choose. But for this administration to pull the nomination because they didn't want to take on the issue of Iraq shows a lack of political courage and a lack of belief in their policies. OK, so they got blowback from Democrats — at this point they are getting blowback from practically everybody, no matter the political stripe or ideology.

If this war is not "divisive," we need a new definition for the word. Now, to blame Democrats for their decision is a bit hard to take, but maybe I am missing something. What I see is an administration "twisting slowly in the wind," to borrow the old Watergate phrase. They don't know which way to turn on Iraq and this upheaval is indicative of their failed policy.

If Democrats told Bush that a re-nomination would be ugly — so what? If the administration believed in Pace and felt he was the right man for the job, they should have put him up. If they thought the votes would not be there or if the vote was just too costly, fine. But it is strange that we see blind loyalty to an incompetent like Gonzales and no loyalty to Pace. I suspect that the White House may have wanted the best of both worlds: Get rid of Pace and blame it on the Democrats. But maybe I am being too partisan (and too cynical) with that one, Ron!