Weird NY Times story on Repubs:

I had heard Greg Pallast last night on Mike Malloy as I couldn't get to sleeep...Pallast's words were a cliche to a guy who'd done nicely in oil: he said that the reason we invaded Iraq was to keep oil prices high, not to get oil.

I kinda thought that, and so did the stock market,....which (Leo Strauss anyone?) brings me to today's story from the NY Times:

But people who attended a series of high-level meetings this month between White House and Congressional officials say President Bush's aides argued that it could be a politically fatal mistake for Republicans to walk away from the war in an election year.

White House officials including the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, outlined ways in which Republican lawmakers could speak more forcefully about the war. Participants also included Mr. Bush's top political and communications advisers: his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove; his political director, Sara Taylor; and the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett. Mr. Rove is newly freed from the threat of indictment in the C.I.A. leak case, and leaders of both parties see his reinvigorated hand in the strategy.

The meetings were followed by the distribution of a 74-page briefing book to Congressional offices from the Pentagon to provide ammunition for what White House officials say will be a central line of attack against Democrats from now through the midterm elections: that the withdrawal being advocated by Democrats would mean thousands of troops would have died for nothing, would give extremists a launching pad from which to build an Islamo-fascist empire and would hand the United States its must humiliating defeat since Vietnam.

Republicans say the cumulative effect would be to send a message of weakness to the world at a time of new threats from Iran and North Korea and would leave enemies controlling Iraq's vast oil reserves, the third largest in the world. (The book, including a chapter entitled "Rapid Response" with answers to frequent Democratic charges, was sent via e-mail to Republican lawmakers but, in an apparent mistake, also to some Democrats.)

Well, let's go see "Rapid Response." But first:

...the withdrawal being advocated by Democrats would mean thousands of troops would have died for nothing, would give extremists a launching pad from which to build an Islamo-fascist empire and would hand the United States its must humiliating defeat since Vietnam.

Huh? Must humliate defeat? Why must? Must not? And, er,uh..."Islamo-fascist?"

Thousands of troops died so that George Bush could do a devil's bargain with the Saudis so that they could sell non-cheap oil and in return they'd make a pretense of occasionally rounding up the usual suspects.

This is projection of blame: thousands died because it was George W. Bush's fault and you want thousands more to die because?????

About "Rapid Response." I haven't found it on line yet, but I'm looking. But it's evident that they've been ham-fisted about this whole thing, something the Times sort of airbrushed out.