It has only just begun

From a MoveOn e-mail campaign:

Today the GOP crossed the line. In their first ad for the 2004 election, they implicitly accuse Democratic presidential candidates of "attacking the president for attacking terrorists." The ad doesn't question opponents' ideas, it questions their commitment to America.

Of course, we'll fight back our way, using the power of the facts and the strength of millions of us working together. When Republicans equate the war on Iraq with the war on terrorism, we'll remind the public of the truth. When Republicans raise money from wealthy donors and corporate CEOs to attack the Democrats, we'll raise it with hundreds of thousands of small contributions from people across America. We won't let the Bush campaign get away with these kinds of attacks. And in the end, we'll take our country back.

Today, we can show the GOP what they're up against. They're paying $100,000 to run their ad. Together, we can raise $500,000 today to run ads that get out the truth in key battleground states.

The ad isn't just wrong, it's also hypocritical. In May of 2002, Vice President Cheney said, "What I want to say to my Democratic friends in the Congress is they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage [from the 9/11 or the War on Terror]... Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." Compare that to this paragraph from today's New York Times: "The Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism...By indirectly invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, the commercial plays to what White House officials have long contended is Mr. Bush's biggest political advantage: his initial handling of the aftermath of the attacks." (Many thanks to the Center for American Progress "Progress Report" for unearthing the quotes.)

The GOP ad, which starts running Sunday in Iowa, shows Bush's State of the Union address. Then, clearly referring to the Democratic presidential candidates, it says, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." It asks voters to "support the president's policy of preemptive self-defense."

Preemptive self-defense?

I've heard some politbabble before, but that may take the cake.

It seems to me that a defense implies an attack. Is it possible to defend before the attack? We have essentially bypassed the laws of physics. Cause and effect no longer apply. Seizing the initiave - in other words, self-defend before the other party does?

Maybe this (Merriam Webster) definition of preempt is the one we're talking about in our attack on Iraq: to seize upon to the exclusion of others; take for oneself .

Other definitions:

- to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over
- to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
- to prevent from happening or taking place
- to acquire (as land) by preemption

I'm having trouble with "preemptive self-defense". It's just not working for me. I understand a preemptive strike, but not a preemptive self-defense.

No wonder I have so much trouble figuring out what the smeg is going on.

And all those idiots voters out in TV land who would not otherwise be willing to invade another country will hear "self-defense" and think, well, hey, that's legitimate.

I wonder if MoveOn can have their counter-ads scheduled to run immediately following the GOP ads.

If you want to help their cause by donation, click here.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.