The Republicans will no doubt try to pin future casualties in Iraq on the Democrats, and will probably get away with it.
If the Bush adminstration cared at all about any value other than loyalty, heads (higher than staff sgt.) would have rolled when Abu Ghraib was exposed. The idea that this series of disgraceful crimes and atrocities is the responsibility of a few "bad apples" in guard & reserve is insane. It is the result of the Bush administration's plan to go to war with no clue as to what to do after Saddam was toppled. Gonzales' role is minor-- he helped give the Pentagon legal cover to do as it pleased-- compared to that of Rumsfeld; it should be sufficient to deny him promotion to AG.
I always ask myself in situations such as this, how would the Republican right respond it these crimes had occurred on Bill Clinton's watch, perhaps enabled by Janet Reno's Justice Dept. Of course, your collective heads would have exploded with rage.

You probably won't believe me, Clark, but my head never exploded with rage at Clinton. I didn't vote for him, and wish he had lost both in 92 and 96, but I didn't think he was a horrible president (at the time - looking back, however, post-9/11, I realize he was pretty lousy in certain areas!). But during his terms in office I was not among those on the far right who thought he had his opponents killed, etc.

The idea that this series of disgraceful crimes and atrocities is the responsibility of a few "bad apples" in guard & reserve is insane.

No, it's the truth -- read the original report from the military and investigate the subsequent legal action.

What kind of mind does it take to see the truth as "insane"?