California Conservative

Mike Ciresi has had enough of getting beaten over the head with the MoveOn.org ad. That’s why he wants to return to debating the Iraq policy. I’m all for that so let’s have at it. Let’s just stipulate one thing before getting started: that we get beyond the focus group-tested cliches and actually use actual logic. Let’s apply that logic to actual events on the ground. Likewise, let’s talk about verifiable statistics that support our opinions.

Immediately following the general’s testimony on Sept. 11, I said he should receive the gratitude of the nation for his service. Attacks on his veracity and patriotism have no place in the critical debate that Congress must have on Iraq. There never has been any question of our ability to achieve the “military objective” of dampening down violence as a result of our troop surge. Indeed, the nation’s resolve in going after terrorists is an objective supported by all Americans.

While it’s true that Mr. Ciresi said that Gen. Petraeus’ veracity shouldn’t be challenged “immediately following the general’s testimony”, it’s equally true that he flinched a bit immediately after that:

Ciresi’s campaign just flubbed an opportunity to take a centrist position by repudiating their perceived repudiation of MoveOn.org’s attack ad.

The blogger who contacted Ciresi’s campaign also claimed his spokeswoman “did not respond to a separate question asking what Ciresi saw in the Congressional testimony that targeted Petraeus as ‘unpatriotic.’”

So, Ciresi’s campaign won’t provide an example of what qualifies as the attacks on Petraeus’ “veracity and patriotism” as mentioned in their email of September 11, 2007. But, according to Ciresi’s spokeswoman, it’s apparently not the MoveOn.org ad.

Let’s get back to actually debating the policy. Here’s what passes for policy with Mr. Ciresi:

My long-stated plan offers that new direction:

• Support a comprehensive surge in diplomacy and the convening of an
  international peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council
  that should involve all regional governments.
• Establish a plan for withdrawing our troops from the civil war within a
  given time period.
• Redeploy our troops with an emphasis on combating terrorism, training Iraqis
  and protecting Iraqi borders.
• Calibrate the reorientation of our troops with a concomitant obligation by the Iraqi government to meet the economic and political benchmarks that they
  established and agreed to.

This is strictly typical focus group-tested regurgitations of the Democrats’ talking points. It isn’t policy. The term comprehensive surge in diplomacy means nothing to the average voter. I’d further state that Gen. Petraeus has already talked about withdrawing troops as more terrorists cells are eliminated. It’s foolish to “establish a plan for withdrawing our troops” beyond that.

It isn’t apparent whether Mr. Ciresi is paying attention to what’s happening in Iraq. If he were paying attention, he’d know that some of the surge troops are protecting the Iraq/Iran border. Other surge troops are fighting terrorists in western Iraq. They’re also starting to direct their attention towards killing al-Sadr’s militias south of Baghdad.

In short, Ciresi’s telling us that we should keep doing what we’re doing with the exception of putting together a plan to leave. That doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.

Technorati Tags: Mike Ciresi, MoveOn.org, David Petraeus, Iraq, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Iran, Iraq, Military, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.