You can't really say that Republicans haven't been plotting a strategy on Iraq. Not for removal of the troops, for avoidance of blame.

There had already been plenty of dress rehearsals for an updated Dolchstosslegende, one in which every theme around "we would have won, too, if it hadn't been for those cowardly Dems" could be recycled, expanded, and used as part of the umbrage to drive the next war. But with yesterday's Washington Post editorial, the Republican exit strategy from blame went into a new phase of rapid withdrawal.

What the Republicans -- and the Post -- are trying to sell now is the idea that, despite having called Democrats every imaginable name for even considering the idea, having used every possible procedural dodge, and having continued to toss a wrench into the works of every sign of progress, Republicans were just about to make a deal. Suddenly they all agree that things are going badly (what? even in the lovely Indiana-style markets?) and that they don't back Bush (unless, of course, he asks for anything -- anything at all). They were really about to sign on.

Sen. Johnny Isakson expected to be bored by the war speeches on the Senate floor Tuesday night; instead, the Georgia Republican was riveted by the passionate debate and spent hours soaking it in. But Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a recent GOP convert to the antiwar cause, fumed that her new Democratic allies had forced a showdown just as a bipartisan consensus appeared to be emerging.

In other words, if Democrats hadn't pushed so hard for getting the troops out, Republicans would have gotten the troops out, despite passing on every previous opportunity. A paragraph later, it's revealed that while Republicans "blocked a simple-majority vote," Harry Reid didn't just shelve a defense spending bill, he "stood at the front of the chamber and shut down the war debate, probably until September." Who knew Reid had such power?

The Post's coverage continues into profiles of four lawmakers. (It's interesting that Johnny Isakson is the the Loyal Republican while Jan Schakowsky is the Antiwar Liberal. No slant to those labels.) Giving plenty of occasion for those who have carried Bush's water to claim that they've had second thoughts. Oddly enough, the Post writers never point out the disconnect between calling last week's debate "premature," complaining about Reid's actions, and then claiming that nothing can be done till we get Patraeus' report in September. And while the Democratic actions were "partsian," Republican actions in blocking a vote get a single mention. Apparently you can be frustrated that someone won't let you do something you didn't intend to do in the first place.

What will happen once we get to September? Let's revisit that Wikipedia article on Dolchstosslegende.

After the last German offensive on the western front failed in 1918, the German war effort was doomed. In response, OHL arranged for a rapid change to a civilian government. General Ludendorff, Germany's Chief of Staff, said: "I have asked His Excellency to now bring those circles to power which we have to thank for coming so far. We will therefore now bring those gentlemen into the ministries. They can now make the peace which has to be made. They can eat the broth which they have prepared for us!"

... As the Kaiser had been forced to abdicate and the military relinquished executive power, it was the temporary, "civilian government" which sued for peace - the signature on the document was of the Catholic Centrist Matthias Erzberger, a civilian, who was later killed for his alleged treason. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Even though they publicly despised the treaty, it was most convenient for the generals — there were no war crime tribunals, they were celebrated as undefeated heroes, and they could covertly prepare for removing the republic which they had helped to create.

All the credit, none of the blame. I wonder how many times that memo will be handed out at Fox?