WH memo to '08 GOP Senators: "F You."

Last week:

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday endorsed a new resolution opposing President Bush's buildup of troops in Baghdad, as even some of the most loyal Republicans scrambled to register their concerns and distance themselves from an unpopular policy.

You remember this position, first "articulated" by Smilin' Norm Coleman a few days back: I OPPOSE ESCALATION! (Psst! In Baghdad, but not in Anbar.)

Seems his has become a popular position among a certain class of Republican Senators, with Warner formalizing the position by introducing his own non-binding resolution to compete with Levin-Biden.

And just take a look at who's decided they're on board:

With the introduction of the Warner resolution, five Republican senators are now on record opposing Bush's decision. The resolution's co-sponsors, Warner, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), are all up for reelection next year, as is Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who was included in the resolution's drafting over the weekend.

John Warner: up for re-election in 2008.
Norm Coleman: up for re-election in 2008.
Susan Collins: up for re-election in 2008.
Gordon Smith: up for re-election in 2008.

The fifth GOP Senator on record, of course, is Chuck Hagel.

Up for re-election in 2008.

So what do we hear from the White House and National Security Advisor Steven Hadley this week?

[T]he president's review also concluded that the strategy with the best chance of success must have a plan for securing Baghdad. Without such a plan, the Iraqi government and its security institutions could fracture under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and mass killings. Chaos would then spread throughout the country -- and throughout the region. The al-Qaeda movement would be strengthened by the flight of Sunnis from Baghdad and an accelerated cycle of sectarian bloodletting. Iran would be emboldened and could be expected to provide more lethal aid for extremist groups. The Kurdish north would be isolated, inviting separation and regional interference. Terrorists could gain pockets of sanctuary throughout Iraq from which to threaten our allies in the region and our security here at home.

My, my, my, Republican Senators. Do you want to Win in Iraq^TM, or not?

Can't you see that without the president's plan, there could be widespread  civil war Sectarian Violence^TM, and that the chaos would then spread throughout the country, and the region? It's like the Domino Theory, which for those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, means it will all happen in 30 minutes or less.

Plus, Iran could be emboldened. Which would be very awkward for the normally shy and retiring Iranians.

Finally, the terrorists could gain pockets of sanctuary, from which they would be drawn to us like flypaper follow up home like puppies. And you don't want your grandma to be killed by puppies, do you?

If these threats all sound terribly familiar to you, you are clearly an idiot. After all, this is a new plan, with new reasons to support it, and new guarantees that it will work. Because it has to.

No, this president will not protect us, Senators.

I know, because he won't even protect you.

He lost you the Senate, and with GOP Senate prospects in the next cycle looking even worse than your results in this cycle, he's now hanging you out to dry over the one tiny bit of advice you've ever felt comfortable giving him on Iraq.

He's staking your seats -- your whole party, really -- on Baghdad. And he's sent no one less than his National Security Advisor out to throw you an anchor.

Tell me why you prop this 30% deadweight up, again?

Race tracker wiki: VA-Sen MN-Sen ME-Sen OR-Sen