ChgoSteve is the hands down winner.  

New York Times (10/12/01):
On September 19-20 the Defense Policy Board met for 19 hours to discuss the ramifications of the attacks of September 11. The group agreed on the need to turn on Iraq as soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan was over. The group included deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and former high-ranking officials such as William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, and Richard Perle. Gingrich declared that the U. S. needed a major geopolitical victory in response to the attacks. "Bombing a few caves in Afghanistan" wasn't going to do it, he said, but overthrowing Iraq's government would.

"If we don't use this as the moment to replace Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster," Gingrich said in an interview.

Washington Post (3/9/03):
"I think history will record that a remarkably strong president happened to be in office at a juncture where weapons of mass destruction and terrorism rewrote all the rules of engagement in international relations," Gingrich said. "It will record that the president moved beyond old institutions and developed a new set of alliances."

NPR, Tavis Smiley interview (September 2004):
"If you think Saddam Hussein having killed 300,000 Iraqis is in fact a dangerous guy and it's better to have him in jail, then whether we do it brilliantly or just do it, George W. Bush essentially was right."

Redstar66 had a nice catch:

My favorite? Back when he was giving speeches to the AIE during the drumbeat, saying there were people in Colin Powell's State Department we were "appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes."

ChcgoSteve:

AFP (4/21/2003):

In a speech to the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, Gingrich slammed the State Department for "ineffective and incoherent" diplomacy in the lead up to the war and turning the world, including allies in Europe, Turkey and South Korea, against US efforts to topple Saddam Hussein.

Arianna thinks we should let bygones be bygones.  

Think Progress gathered a "gotcha!" collection of Gingrich's greatest pro-war quotes. And Jane Hamsher opened up with both barrels:

"Newt should not be allowed to assume the status of visionary hero for seeing the light. Newt is a guilty fucker with blood on his hands and no amount of apostasy is going to wash that off... No. Fucking. Prisoners. We had to live through this war because nobody put a stake through the heart of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gingrich, etc. the first time around...Every one of those bastards must be made to wear this war, the war of their own making, around their necks..."

But while I absolutely understand and share their anger, and adore the passion (indeed, I called Jane this morning and told her so), I have to ask if this is really the way we want to respond to pro-war people who change their position?

Isn't the whole goal of those of us fighting to put an end to this immoral, outrageous, and tragic war to get as many war supporters as possible to join the chorus of voices calling for a pull out from Iraq?

Well, no.  From the brilliant JSW in the comments: "The Gingrichs and all the other hawks were busy calling the rest of us objectively pro-Saddam and objectively pro-terror, and have never recanted any of that.  They've just changed their tune as it becomes clear that wishful thinking and lies was not a strategy.

And they'll still call us un-American traitors if we disagree on anything else.  So I see no reason to be kind or welcoming.  This is pure calculating cowardice on the part of the people who built the modern Republican Party (complete with its utter disdain for truth or accountability) and were complicit in an extraordinary crime against the American and Iraqi people.

Giving them a pass now just allows them to stuff all of their past behavior down the Memory Hole, as they move on to the next crime.  Sorry, but no -- I've had my fill of recycled Team B members and Nixon/Reagan criminals."

Update: Jane has more.