You know what's startling? The fact that liberals (er, I mean, progressives) have blithely ignored a tidal wave of lies promoted by their ostensible leaders. And I don't mean routine buffoonery like Hillary's tale of Bosnian snipers disguised as child greeters or her mother's encounter with Sir Edmund Hillary in The Time Tunnel.
Instead, I refer to the Democrats' tectonic lies. Lies so foundational, so interwoven into Democrat lore that they can no more be removed from the party than its symbol -- the ass -- can be replaced with a platypus.
Some of the most outrageous lies marketed by the left include the following:
LIE #1: There is no terrorist threat. There is... No... Terrorist... Threat.... I repeat: There is no terrorist threat. None.
On April 2, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued the following statement: "Nuclear terrorism remains a threat." But perhaps the DHS is populated with partisan liars? Oh, wait, a report from the Congressional Research Service, a bipartisan team of scientists and researchers, opens with the following statement:
It would be difficult for terrorists to mount a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, but such an attack is plausible and would have catastrophic consequences, in one scenario killing over a half-million people and causing damage of over $1 trillion...
In combating nuclear terrorism, the standard for success for the United States is daunting — zero nuclear detonations, which may require stopping every terrorist or rogue state attempt to acquire and deliver a nuclear weapon — while a single nuclear detonation in the United States would constitute a terrorist success... ...studies have shown many potential weaknesses in U.S. ability to thwart nuclear terrorism.
Furthermore, there have been numerous documented attempts at nuclear terrorism in the past. And more appear to be on the way, with the Atlantic's William Langewiesche stating "the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped."
The assertion that "there is no terrorist threat" is as baldfaced a lie as has ever been marketed to the American people even disregarding the stunning national security ramifications.
LIE #2: Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror. This fabrication, unceasingly marketed across the entire swath of spectrum controlled by the mainstream and leftist new media, is as patently false as the assertion that Michael Moore is a celebrity endorser for Subway.
The website Hussein and Terror (authored by Deroy Murdock) is an excellent starting point for understanding Iraq's role as the central clearinghouse of terror. Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam and Salman Pak are central to that level of understanding; those who can't define these terms believe this lie and those who know the terms comprehend why this is such an egregious lie.
Other facets to consider include A.Q. Kahn's offer of nuclear weapon design to Iraq and Kenneth Timmerman's analysis of recently released Pentagon documents:
“Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state... ...a Jan. 18, 1993 order from Saddam Hussein, transmitted to the head of Iraqi intelligence, “to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially in Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian (Muslims) or friends.” ...In response, the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including “the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.” In other words, al-Qaida.
Put simply, Hussein's Iraq was linked to a myriad of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Putting Hussein down was a blessing not only for the Iraqi people but also for the citizens of the West who would have suffered as victims of terror attacks sponsored by Saddam.
LIE #3: The Ripple Effect: not so much a single lie as an entire genus of lies in which falsehoods spread from left-wing anthills to the mainstream media.
A perfect example is represented by a recent (March, 2008) incident involving CNN's Glenn Beck. In an interview with pastor John Hagee, Beck noted that certain crackpots had emailed him with rumors that Barack Obama was the "Anti-Christ."
Within hours, the odious (and failing) Media Matters website posted an "alert" that claimed Beck had seriously considered that Obama is the Anti-Christ. As you might expect, this alert was effectively read right off a teleprompter by an unhinged crackpot (and MSNBC "journalist") named Keith Olbermann. At which point, the New York Times picked up the story.
The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist... Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.
In other words, the Ripple Effect -- a series of increasingly shrill falsehoods -- spread from an inconsequential progagandist website to the New York Times (but I repeat myself).
On CNN, Beck predicted the outcry before it even occurred and also described a series of similar events that can all be categorized as outright lies.
LIE #4: the assertions of Obama's church - I need not rehash the all of the lies of Pastor Wright and his friend Louis Farrakhan.
The highlights: the U.S. government invented HIV as a means of genocide against people of color; that racist Louis ("The Jews helped Hitler get the Third Reich on the road") Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness"; and reprinting (in a church newsletter, no less) the lies of a murderous posse of terrorist thugs known as Hamas.
The church, now under greater scrutiny due to Obama's 20-year relationship with it, has done its best to airbrush its website, removing damaging newsletters and statements. Furthermore, references to Wright on Obama's website have been purged.
Both are moves reminiscent of the "bad old days of the Soviet Union."
Why do progressives buy into this tripe? Well, for one, they're Democrats.
And I'm just getting started. More leftist lies are on the way.