The NYT's Caucus blog reports on a new conservative group called Freedom's Watch that's opposed to an Iraq withdrawal. In addition to hiring Ari Fleischer as its spokesman--which is a feat in and of itself, when you consider that Fleischer is currently embroiled in the monumental aluminum baseball bat debate--the group is launching a $15 million advertising campaign to pressure wavering members of Congress to support the Bush administration's Iraq strategy. Here's one of the ads: On an emotional level, the ad's bluntly honest--in that there's no real way to question the sincerity of the double-amputee vet when he says "[I]f we pull out now, everything I've given and sacrificed will mean nothing." On an intellectual level, the ad's bluntly dishonest--from its reference to the Congressional "vote to fight terrorism in Iraq" to its implication that the people we're now fighting in Iraq are the people who attacked us on 9/11. But, because it's a wounded vet making the case, I'd imagine the ad's emotional punch will carry the day. Which is why I wasn't all that enamored with the six sergeants and a specialist op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. It made a pretty powerful intellectual argument for withdrawal, but that argument was largely lost in all the hubbub over the fact that the argument was being made by soldiers. And to counter the argument, all the anti-withdrawal people need to do is find some soldiers or vets who support staying in Iraq. Obviously, the Iraq debate can't be conducted at a purely intellectual level--nor should it be. But an Iraq debate that devolves into both sides trotting out soldiers to support or oppose withdrawal is no debate at all; it's a quagmire. --Jason Zengerle