Endless Lies, Endless War: Obama Accepts The Democratic Nomination

Arthur Silber's most recent post draws attention to the speech last night in which Al Gore said:

We can tell Republicans and independents, as well as Democrats, exactly why our nation so badly needs a change from the approach of Bush, Cheney and McCain.

After they wrecked our economy, it is time for a change.

After they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it's time for a change.

Silber highlights Gore's mention of the fact that Iraq did not attack us, and draws the logical conclusion:

Therefore, the United States was not acting in self-defense. The invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression. Thus, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq constitute an ongoing war crime, indeed a huge, horrifying series of ongoing war crimes. The war crimes continue today, and will continue tomorrow.

There's nothing very startling in this, of course. Regular readers of this page -- and many other websites, such as Silber's -- have known this for a long time. The startling part, as Silber says, is actually hearing it someplace other than the internet.

As I heard that phrase this evening -- "and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us" -- I froze for several seconds. I couldn't believe Gore had said it, or that I had heard it. I doubt that even one commentator will say a word about it.

Kudos to Arthur Silber for catching -- and pointing out -- this tiny bit of truth in Al Gore's speech. Every now and then we get a bit of truth from a politician. It's always unexpected, and it's almost always shocking.

But there was an exceptionally vicious lie in the very same sentence, and Arthur Silber didn't pay it any attention. So I will.

Of the Bush administration, Al Gore said :

they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us

but this is not even remotely true, except when parsed as political code.

If by "they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us", Gore means "they didn't capture Osama bin Laden", then he's technically correct: They didn't capture Osama bin Laden.

But then again, they were never trying to capture him. They were trying to capture Afghanistan!

Furthermore, it wouldn't have done them any good if they had captured him, because Osama bin Laden didn't attack us on 9/11. And if Al Gore or Arthur Silber or anyone else has information to the contrary, they should contact the FBI immediately.

As Barack Obama pointed out in his acceptance speech last night, America is not a nation of whiners.

So rather than whine about how we've been deceived, and how we continue to be deceived, about the facts of 9/11 ... rather than whimper about how all the 9/11 lies are trumpeted by all the national figures of both major parties ... rather than snivel over the fact that these lies are blasted at us every day by both the major and the minor media ... rather than gripe about how all these transparent lies are consistently given a pass in very disturbing places, even by some highly respected and extremely dissident writers ...

No, no, no, no, let's not do any of that!

Instead let's take a moment to savor a few of Obama's remarks on foreign policy:

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue.

Let's give Barack Obama the courtesy of taking him at his word.

Let's listen when he tells us what he wants to do.

Specifically, then, Obama wants to :

• defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries
• finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
• protect Israel
• prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
• stand up for Georgia
• curb Russian aggression

And in general, Obama promises to:

• rebuild our military to meet future conflicts
  
• send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission, and
  
• restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future

I find it notable, though not surprising, that even though Obama wants to send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission, he says nothing about whether this future mission might be justified in any way.

There's heavy irony in Obama's conclusion, because he says he wants to "restore our moral standing", but he seems to have no idea how that could be done.

We cannot defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by attacking only two of them, can we? But if we attack all eighty, how will that enhance our moral standing?

How can we finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan? How many more sleeping children will we have to kill to do it? And will that bring us a better future?

Three weeks ago, Georgia started a war against Russia -- with American backing. If we stand up for Georgia, will that show that we long for lives of peace?

Russia, having suffered an unprovoked attack, responded much less violently than America would have done. If we use this event as a reason to curb Russian aggression, will that demonstrate how much we long for a better future?

What if the Russians had attempted to curb American aggression -- in Iraq, for instance? Or in Afghanistan?

Israel, armed to the teeth with the only nuclear weapons in the region, continues to wage a brutal campaign of repression against the Palestinians, and keeps trying to drag America into a war with Iran, which has neither nuclear weapons nor any way to produce them. How can we enhance our moral standing, and move toward our longed-for lives of peace, and protect Israel at the same time? By using nuclear weapons against Iran to make sure Iran never develops nuclear weapons?

No, no, no, no, no! It makes no sense!!

We should start by recognizing that America never was the last or the best hope "for all who are called to the cause of freedom".

We should realize that every time our President -- whoever he may be -- sends "troops into harm's way" without justification, their presence serves to deprive other people of their freedom -- and we should also realize that this is exactly what they are sent there to do.

We should press for full and open investigation of the crimes of 9/11 -- and all the false-flag terror preceding 9/11, too. We should demand that the perpetrators be removed from office and held fully accountable for their actions.

Above all, we should start telling the truth about all these events, because there's no other option: those of us who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future, don't want to see endless war based on endless lies.

We'll never see peace based on lies -- but that's all we're going to get, from any national representative of either major party.

And everybody else is locked out.

I didn't watch Obama's speech last night. I didn't watch Al Gore either. Instead I went to bed early. And as I was drifting off, I had a waking-dream, or a "day-mare", or whatever you want to call it ... in which Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Presidential nomination with these words:

If I am elected, I promise to invade all the countries America hasn't already invaded, starting with the Islamic ones.

And if I am re-elected, I promise to re-invade all the countries America has already invaded.

As a vision of the future, it seemed too ludicrous to mention -- but it was a good deal more accurate than most of what you'll be reading in the mainstream media today.

As Arthur Silber says, you can have your choice of war criminals.

You can have your choice of liars, too.

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.