The "Ad" and the Coming Political Season

Great Debates
#1

I didn’t think they’d do it. I really didn’t. Maybe my cynicism gland is overtaxed. But I read the article in the NYT about the ad the Pubbies were planning on running, and I said to myself, “Nah, self, no way are they this far over the rainbow. This exceeds thier yearly quotient of thermonuclear chutzpah.”

But they did. If, by some lucky chance, you are ignorant of the ad of which I speak, allow me to ruin your day. (No, no, don’t thank me. I’m a dad, I do this sort of thing reflexively. It’s nothing, really…)

"…The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush’s campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: “Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power,” he says after the screen flashes the words, “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”…

What a splendid serving of weasel meat is contained in that word “some”. No specifics are given. Not “Howard S. Merriweather, of Dinglesburg, Iowa…” Just “some”.

But we all know who they mean, now don’t we?

Gird yourself. More coming…

“Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others,” then urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of pre-emptive self defense.”

Pre-emptive self defense! Ye Gods and little fishes, what in the bleeding Hell is “pre-emptive self-defense”?! Surely that cannot be Iraq. Surely that doesn’t mean justifying a military assault on a nation that has done nothing to us.

I suppose that, if on Dec. 6, 1941 the Japanese task force en route to Hawaii were to have been spotted, then an attack on that task force would have been “pre-emptive self defense”. In what respect does that remotely resemble the situation with Iraq?

I plotz, I collapse in stunned dismay. They’re just going to try and brazen it out! They’re going to stand there and repeat the same drivel that has been entirely discredited. GeeDubya dashed to the rescue, and protected us from the dread Iraqi threat in the nick of time!

When you wrap a pile of horseshit in an American flag, you don’t dignify the horseshit, you defile the flag.

So is this where we’re headed? Can we expect such innuendo to be a staple of the Forces of Darkness election campaign? Are there no honest conservatives of enough stature and scruple to speak out about this?

I’m already appalled, and they haven’t even gotten warmed up yet.

#2

Not to worry. Since this position is so clearly false, why do you expect it will do the Republicans any good? Isn’t it likely that all who view this falsehood will be immediately aware of its mendacity?

#3

I am reminded of an early Peanuts cartoon, wherein Lucy advised Charlie Brown “You win some, and you lose some.”

“That would be nice” says CB.

The scenario you propose would be nice. The “Ode to Joy” and the “Hallelujah Chorus” would be sombre dirges in comparison. J Lo driving up a convertible full of cash and parking it in my driveway. Also nice. Not ever having to die until I was good and ready, that would be nice, too.

#4

Because so many people are dimwitted fools, unable to see as clearly as their intellectual superiors such as elucidator

#5

This will be just one strand of probably three, imho.

This kind of angle is intended to preach to the converted; to firm up the existing Bush constituency before moving out to try and win sceptics, etc. with differently themed approaches.

Given the record amount he’s pocketed, I’d imagine the campaign itself – not necessarily the message(s) – will be hugely sophisticated and work at different levels to different audiences in different areas.

And if that doesn’t work, I guess you just suspend elections due to ‘war on terrorism’, or summin’.

But seriously, I don’t really know how far it is from faking the entire pretext for a war of aggression and getting away with it to suspending elections, but I fear it’s not as far as it used to be - two years ago, who’d have thought we could get here ?

#6

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

#7

That last to furt, not to our esteemed correspondent from perfidious Albion, Werewolf of London. We regret any confusion.

#8

Methinks furt doth protest too much.
Whoa, I’m in GD. Suppose I should put the brakes on, eh?
Anyway, if it’s any consolation at all, today’s GDP number, a very cool +8.2%, gives him something else to run on. Should elevate the debate somewhere above this sewer level porn. One hopes, anyway.

PS: Fox apparently gets advance notice of what the Bush campaign is up to. Was watching the other day (yes, I subject myself to their equally sewer level BS from time to time) and the anchor said, quoting from memory,

“You knew they would do it. They’re attacking the Commander-in-Chief for the war on terrorism. The Democrats…” blah blah, etc.

I don’t speak German, so I turned it off.

#9

What? Political ads that appeal to emotions rather than arguing facts logically and reasonably? I’m shocked. SHOCKED!

Hey, it’s just Compasionate Conservatism, man.:slight_smile:

But don’t worry, Luci. The Dems will be out shortly telling us how Bush wants children to go hungry, seniors to die painfully, and the middle class to sink into poverty. Happens every four years, if you hadn’t noticed.

#10

Oops. Meant to add:

I certainly hope that in the SDMB GD forum we can spend time debating the issues, and not who has the worst political ads.

#11

Not that I’m being paranoid or anything, but general Franks already sent up the trial balloon on that option last week: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

#12

Got my cite. Where’s yours?

#13

No cite. I admit it’s an opinion. Or, rather, a prediction. Right now the Dems are too busy jockying for position among themselves. The Bush attack adds will come out after the Convention. If they don’t, I’ll stand corrected.

#14

It’s getting into a bus and going across town to beat a guy into a bleeding pulp because you think he might have a knife in his boot. You’re fully justified, of course, because there’s a gang in the next city that set your car on fire last year.

#15

You would think so, wouldn’t you? You would also think that people couldn’t be stampeded into an illegal with bogus evidence and you most definitely wouldn’t think that once the subterfuge and lies and hidden motives were exposed that the people would take a collective exception to it and hold the liar accountable but they haven’t and they won’t. People are stupid. Just ask Hermann Goering.

#16

Illegal war. Stampeded into an illegal war.

#17

Actually, **Dio]/b], I think that was an example of sarcasm. Not something you would know much about, being a Minnesotan, and all. Its sort of like saying something nice, but not really meaning it. Hard to explain, really. Kind of like irony, only snotty.

#18

I suspect that most of the charges will be about special interests. IE Bush is a corporate hack that instead of trying to help seniors simply wants to help corporate execs who give him money.

A subtle difference, but the charge that he doesn’t like conservative values can be used then.

So the charge wont be so much that he is an economic liberal or an economic conservative, but instead that he is economically for giving lots of money to his friends in buisness. It would be a mistake to firm up his conservative support with ads like you suggest John Mace

#19

:applause:

Well done, sir!

#20

There should be an accepted process for asking politicians for a cite.

The parts quoted by luci are actualy true-

“Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power”

True enough.

“Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”

I imagine that some people somewhere are.

*“Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others,” *

Somebody somewhere prob’ly is.

tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of pre-emptive self defense.”

The idea of pre-emption we’ve been using is sufficient.

“Preemption is…a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike.”
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil
Of course this requires an imminent threat.

And, (according to these folks anyway),
“For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.”
Sound like a reasonable enough things for international law, legal scholars and international jurists to do, IMHO.

Same site says,
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security, "
As well it seems one, as a nation, ought.

To me, for one, it seems notably peculiar that a centuries old, long maintained, and presumably well established recognition and option would be in need of a letter writing campaign endorsed by the President of the United States of America. This biases me toward the conclusion that the current national security policy on pre-emption is a change to, a redefinition of, a failure to conserve the long standing policy that has served our nation on its path to greatness.
Current National Security Strategy of the United States of America stance on pre-emption says that the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries, rogue states and terrorists, require an adaptation of what constitutes an “imminent threat.” The adaptation made includes cases when the time or place of the attack is open-ended. There’s no specific emphasis on the relative certainty and temporal nearness of an attack nor on the risks of inappropriate action. The strategy does explicitly discuss the greatness of a threat and the risks of inaction. This biases me toward the conclusion that the lack of a focus on the relative certainty, temporal nearness, and the potential downsides/worse-case scenarios of engaging in warfare, this redefinition of what constitutes “pre-emption,” (by “adapting” what constitutes an “imminent threat”), is the politically correct way of saying “preventive war.”

“Although the terms often are used interchangeably, “preventive war” and “preemption” are different strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war.”
same navy.mil site
If there was indeed an imminent threat from Iraq, then this was a pre-emptive war. A type of pre-emption that has apparently been sanctioned for centuries.
Since it is now being claimed, (not directly by any Admin official I note*), that the WH never actually presented Iraq to the American electorate and Congress as an imminent threat, one could conclude that attacking Iraq was not a pre-emptive attack, but rather a preventive one.
The PotUSA, (by proxy via his camaigners), is urging the American electorate to tell their national, elected, legislative officials that they’d like to support preventive war but they’d prefer it to be called by another more PC name, pre-emption.

IMHO

*Post links to the contrary if you’ve got 'em, please.