Like Shooting Fish In a Swift Boat

Hat Tip: KJC, commenter at Blogs for Bush

They make it too easy.

By now, everyone in the blogosphere, and a good many people out of it, are familiar with the swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad critical of John Kerry. And we're all aware of the Kerry camp's response.

Well now, Moveon.org has chimed in with this ad. If you can't stomach viewing them, I'll summarize: They parrot the Leftist line regarding the SBVfT, and urge President Bush to put a stop to the ad.

In case you didn't know, the Swift Boat Veterans and Moveon.org are both 527 PAC's. They are required by law to operate under the same set of laws. One of these laws states that 527's may not actively endorse or oppose a specific candidate, nor may they coordinate with a candidate.

Now, do you think that if President Bush had the influence to stop the SBVfT ads, would that be coordination between the two? Sure, that's reasonable. Would the left construe it as such, play it up, and use it to discredit both Bush AND the Vets? Oh, you bet your sweet Aunt Fannie! Don't think for a minute that scenario wasn't on Moveon's mind when they came up with this stinker. If president Bush does nothing (aside from distancing himself from the Vets' ad, which he did, and which is the only thing he CAN do), they continue to whine. He can't win -- at least not in their eyes.

Now I could be wrong, and Moveon could honestly think that the President can do something about the vet ad (*snicker* Yeah, right). But even giving them this benefit of the doubt, what do either possibility tell us about Moveon.org?

If they honestly believe that the president CAN do something (not likely, but humor them), it would imply a certain level of naivety, ignorance, or carelesness in their interpretation of the 527 laws. If that's the case, one has to wonder how fast and loose they play with their OWN adherence to those laws.

If they ARE aware, and fully recognize the president's inability to do anything about the swift boat ads, then they're being disingenuous, and intentionally trying to stick the President with something they KNOW isn't his fault.

So which is it? Dishonesty or disingeuity? Frankly, I can't decide. But my instincts tell me it's a bit of both.

Update:
Good point from George Turner over at The Rottie. Isn't this the same Left that accuses Bush and Ashcroft of jackbooted squashing of dissent, now urging the president to exert some jackbooted squashing of dissent?

Which voice is speaking now, moveon?