Of all the criticisms lobbed at White House hopefuls, few do more damage than the flip-flopper charge. Voters may respect a presidential contender with whom they disagree on an issue, but being perceived as having abandoned core convictions for the sake of political expediency, can sink a candidacy.

That is why former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reacted so quickly on Wednesday when left-leaning blogs and then mainstream media reports picked up on his apparent waffling on Libya and Muammar Gaddafi.

On Wednesday morning, Gingrich took to The Today Show to criticize President Obama's decision to enact a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace, telling host Matt Lauer, "I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with."

Gingrich added that intervening on humanitarian grounds was not "a serious standard" because the same justification could be used to validate action in numerous other countries where the U.S. has no plans for military action.

But in a previous Fox News appearance on March 7, before Obama had given the green-light to U.S. forces to take control of the skies over Gaddafi-held territory, Gingrich had called for the establishment of a no-fly zone without delay. He wanted one put in place "this evening," as a matter of fact.

And as if to highlight the apparent disconnect with his later remarks about humanitarian concerns not being a compelling reason to act, Gingrich also said on March 7, "All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. And we don't have to send troops."

When Gingrich's apparently dramatic change of heart was widely noted, the former Speaker wasted little time before posting on his Facebook page a statement in which he maintained that his own position had been consistent -- and that it was Obama who had waffled.

Gingrich said that while he initially opposed military action, once Obama said on March 3 that it was "time for Gaddafi to go," a show of force became the only viable solution.

"From the moment of the president's declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line," Gingrich said in his statement. "After March 3, anything short of a successful, public campaign for regime change would have been seen as a defeat for the United States."

Gingrich explained that his March 7 comments on Fox were reflective of the new reality that the United States faced because of Obama's comments, while his lack of support for military intervention on The Today Show on Wednesday indicated how he would have handled the situation from the beginning.

"Now that we have U.S. forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gaddafi from power will be considered a defeat," Gingrich said. "For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through."