tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post7808998378201210351..comments2023-09-16T04:45:50.404-05:00Comments on Sleeping with The Devil: Why bush Really Invaded AfghanistanDervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-43523359828967154992014-07-25T15:24:32.866-05:002014-07-25T15:24:32.866-05:00I expected Dennis would remove this comment, so as...I expected Dennis would remove this comment, so as to hide the evidence of his lying. This is what he does when caught, which is what happened when I linked to this comment on another blog. The point being to point out the hypocrisy of Dennis using the invented word "Canardo" (to mean a person who lies) as a neologism, when he said (in the <a href="http://truthaboutdennis.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-regards-to-deleted-comments-by.html" rel="nofollow">now deleted</a> comment above that he avoids "trendy neologisms").<br /><br />I knew (when I linked to this comment) that Dennis would likely delete it. And he did. But I copied it down first... what follows is the complete and unedited original comment from Dennis. Submitted to this blog on 12/5/2009 and deleted on 7/24/2014 because I linked to it <a href="http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2014/07/as-feds-ship-illegals-to-massachusetts.html?showComment=1406241242618#c8864874367679176873" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><b>dmarks said [12/05/2009 7:13 AM]<br /><br />"The poll is pretty self-explanatory I believe"<br /><br />Yes, and nothing you said have contradicted what it looks like, and is: something like a blog post, with discussion from blog commenters. Not a poll at all, actually. My description of that page stands as accurate and not "nonsensible". It is no more authoritative than, say, some random page at Shaw's or Patrick M's blogs.<br /><br />"I asked how you arrived at the conclusion that all of congress was hell bent on "retaliating against the then Afghanistan government"<br /><br />I arrived at this conclusion from looking at the facts. About a time when Congress was strongly in favor of retaliating against the Taliban. It is not a hard conclusion to come to, because that is what happened.<br /><br />And turning Bin Laden over to be tried in a terrorist ("Sharia") court, or letting him loose (the so-called "neutral country") were and are clearly completly non-viable options.<br /><br />"No idea? You're the one who made the claim. I'm guessing that you thought it sounded truthy enough."<br /><br />I avoid trendy neologisms, as I said earlier. I care if it is true (actual definition), and do not make referens to Stephen Colbert's comedy as if it is factual. It's about as lame as someone, say, seriously using Limbaugh's "feminazi" word in discussion. Or.... as lame as someone mistaking a blog discussion with an actual poll.</b>Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-78506074705577299012010-01-07T02:03:41.064-06:002010-01-07T02:03:41.064-06:00Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your ol...Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-44779694776324892692009-12-18T23:38:38.793-06:002009-12-18T23:38:38.793-06:00Dear Author w-dervish.blogspot.com !
Very interes...Dear Author w-dervish.blogspot.com ! <br />Very interesting ideaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-63130923141960544842009-12-13T21:55:41.530-06:002009-12-13T21:55:41.530-06:00dmarks said... The concept and use of "truthy...<i>dmarks said... The concept and use of "truthy" only exists in your mind. Your use of the word only proves some sort of poor reading comprehension.</i><br /><br />The concept exists in the minds of the previously mentioned dictionary editors as well. I stand by my use of it. <br /><br />Case in point, the Iraq Body Count figures. You know damn well that they are NOT counting each and every death. Just they ones they can verify.<br /><br />Even if you think the Lancent numbers are wrong, that does not mean the IBC numbers are "rock solid" by any stretch of the imagination. You just pulled that phrase out of thin air. Why? I'm guessing because it sounded truthy to you.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-37494595558828255162009-12-13T21:54:08.133-06:002009-12-13T21:54:08.133-06:00dmarks said... Earlier you said it was because the...<i>dmarks said... Earlier you said it was because the troops were in the area.</i><br /><br />Nope. Sorry, that doesn't ring any bells. Are you sure you didn't just imagine that was my reasoning? My argument has always been based on the fact that bush authorized the invasion.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... Clinton's bombings of Saddam's terrorist facilities during his administration were technically an invasion.</i><br /><br />First of all, I don't know what terrorist facilities of Saddam's you're referring to. Clinton, I believe, bombed some al Qaeda terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, but they didn't have anything to do with Saddam. Secondly bombing is bombing, invading is sending soldiers in, which did not happen under Clinton.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... He could have had them all out of Iraq by the end of January. But no; he didn't.</i><br /><br />I suppose he could have, but that wouldn't have been very responsible. There is an agreement in place and he's following it. After bush invaded I think Barack Obama has obligation to withdraw responsibly.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... Now you hang it on the equally irrelevant "who invaded first". If we followed that, anyway, Clinton would be to blame for it all... You also prove my point by conveniently shifting the case.</i><br /><br />I'm not "shifting" anything. That's something you just made up. And I think it's a pretty weak counter argument you've invented. I damn well do think it's relevant that bush authorized the invasion of two countries. <br /><br />I admit I don't like bush, but it's because he's a war criminal, not the other way around. What's up with your irrational and inconsistent love for George W. Bush? You must love him, as you keep comming up with these seriously twisted theories regarding why he isn't responsible for a damn thing he did in office. First it was Barack Obama's fault, and now it's Clinton's fault. Is it because they're Democrats?<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... I do know the actual death toll. It's well known. Rock-solid figures.</i><br /><br />Yes, I agree that the Iraq Body Count figures are rock solid. All the bodies they counted as being dead are dead. The problem is they didn't count everyone. Things get messy in war and you can't always gather up all the bodies, line them up, and mark them off on a clipboard. That's where the Lancet comes in. As I pointed out earlier, they're peer-reviewed, and are using a scientifically proven methodology. And they are <a href="http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Middle-East/U-K--Medical-Journal-Stands-by-Iraqi-Death-Toll-Estimate.html" rel="nofollow">standing by</a> their estimates. I suspect that the people trying to discredit them simply can't accept there is that much blood on US hands.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... You have overlooked the obvious. As in, who were the main terrorists of concern at the time it was passed? Do you honestly think that OBL and the Taliban, and the nation that hosted them, were not the main target of the bill?</i><br /><br />I asked you if the bill mentioned the Taliban, OBL, or if we would or would not consider offers of turning over anyone. You're tell me "no", but really "yes"? Sorry, I'm not buying that seriously flawed logic.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... I have proven the inconsistency of the Bush hatred before, when I pointed out the similar imaginary studies from the Clinton years that pegged Clinton as a war criminal who killed 1,000,000 Iraqis.</i><br /><br />Now it's not bush but Clinton who is responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis?! And you linked to a study?! Again, your claims ring no bells.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-47689663207981952362009-12-13T07:08:41.323-06:002009-12-13T07:08:41.323-06:00"Barack Obama simply took over the job. He di..."Barack Obama simply took over the job. He did NOT authorize the invasion of any country."<br /><br />Which sort of proves my point. Your claims of US troops having killed people has nothing to do with US troops actually killing people. Earlier you said it was because the troops were in the area, and that made them guilty. Now you hang it on the equally-irrelevant "who invaded first". If we followed that, anyway, Clinton would be to blame for it all, since the Clinton's bombings of Saddam's terrorist facilities during his administration were technically an invasion.<br /><br />You also prove my point by conveniently shifting the case. Earlier, it was based on US troops merely being there. Now you based it on who started the invasion. Which makes even less sense because <b>the Commander-in-Chief is in charge of the military</b>. When Obama took over, he could have decided to pull the troops out. He could have had them all out of Iraq by the end of January. But no; he didn't. He kept them there. So anything to do with US troops in Iraq since the start of his administration is 100% his fault. Even (unless you have abandoned the "because the troops were there" reason) the bombings. <br /><br />"#2. You do not know what the "actual" death toll is. You're simply agreeing with a number you find truthy enough and dismissing a figure from a respected medical journal (the lancet) because... I don't know. Because you just don't like it, I guess."<br /><br />I do know the actual death toll. It's well known. Rock-solid figures.<br /><br />Again, I reject anything "truthy". I do know what the actual death toll is. No quotes needed around actual. Iraq Body Count provides the most accurate reading, because it's an actual death toll. I reject the Lancet body count, and it has nothing to do with truthiness, but everything to do with their <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804/war-statistics" rel="nofollow">flawed methodology. </a><br /><br />If "truthines" comes in here at all, perhaps it is an irrational and inconsistent hatred for George W. Bush which causes some people to ignore facts and buy into fringe kook "war criminal" theories that won't ever get anywhere because informed and consistent people reject them. The fabrications about Bush's "crimes" are truthy enough to those who really hate Bush just because he is not in their political party.<br /><br />I have proven the inconsistency of the Bush hatred before, when I pointed out the similar imaginary studies from the Clinton years that pegged Clinton as a war criminal who killed 1,000,000 Iraqis.<br /><br />"The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" doesn't mention OBL, Afghanistan or the Taliban"<br /><br />Thank for you naming it, yourself. You have overlooked the obvious. As in, who were the main terrorists of concern at the time it was passed? Do you honestly think that OBL and the Taliban, and the nation that hosted them, were not the main target of the bill? Go on, tell us who was. Barring them, perhaps Iraq? Saddam's Iraq was in fact one of the main places for terrorism. Let's see you answer that one.<br />"so I don't see how you could possibly "know" the majority of Congress was in favor of taking down the Taliban. Again, I'm guessing that it simply sounds truthy to you, so it MUST be accurate."<br /><br />I know because of the <i>actual vote</i>. Cold hard facts. <br /><br />The concept and use of "truthy" only exists in your mind. Your use of the world only proves some sort of poor reading comprehension.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-67460751774077577822009-12-12T16:01:56.022-06:002009-12-12T16:01:56.022-06:00#1. No, not just because he was the commander in c...#1. No, not just because he was the commander in chief and "his" troops were present. Because he authorized the invasion. Barack Obama simply took over the job. He did NOT authorize the invasion of any country.<br /><br />Sorry, but I do not know what "incident" you're referring to. Also, Barack Obama may now be the commander in chief, but he did NOT authorize the illegal invasion of Iraq. That was done BEFORE he assumed office. I don't get why that's so difficult for you to understand.<br /><br />#2. You do not know what the "actual" death toll is. You're simply agreeing with a number you find truthy enough and dismissing a figure from a respected medical journal (the lancet) because... I don't know. Because you just don't like it, I guess.<br /><br />I asked if you could point me to a piece of legislation where the invasion of Afghanistan was specifically voted on. There isn't one, as far as I know.<br /><br />The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" doesn't mention OBL, Afghanistan or the Taliban... so I don't see how you could possibly "know" the majority of Congress was in favor of taking down the Taliban. Again, I'm guessing that it simply sounds truthy to you, so it MUST be accurate.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-76494827803989567622009-12-12T15:22:32.364-06:002009-12-12T15:22:32.364-06:00I'm waiting for you to be consistent and criti...I'm waiting for you to be consistent and criticize President Obama for killing 1,000 Iraqis in that incident this past week.<br /><br />He did, by the standards you used earlier:<br /><br />1) You blamed Bush for all deaths in Iraq, no matter who caused them in reality. just because his troops were there.<br /><br />2) You place the death toll in Iraq during the Bush years at 1,000,000. Which is just about 10 times as much as the actual death toll. <br /><br />"Congress was strongly in favor of retaliating against the Taliban". <br /><br />Would numerous links from Democrats making statements to this effect be sufficient? I already pointed out that most Democrats voted to do this, as well as Republicans ("strongly in favor" as indicated by a significant majority vote in Congress).<br /><br />Thanks for the origin of "truthiness". I did not know it went that far back. However, regardless of where the word came from, it is irrelevant in this discussion. I always skip over that to look for what is actually true.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-50851150683132258692009-12-09T10:54:27.928-06:002009-12-09T10:54:27.928-06:00FUCK YOU AND THE DONKEY YOU RODE IN ON.FUCK YOU AND THE DONKEY YOU RODE IN ON.Ted B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-88892236125440974772009-12-06T16:43:54.355-06:002009-12-06T16:43:54.355-06:00From Dictonary.com: Poll: a sampling or collection...From Dictonary.com: <b>Poll</b>: a sampling or collection of opinions on a subject, taken from either a selected or a random group of persons, as for the purpose of analysis.<br /><br />The poll (and it is a poll) I linked to allowed a random group of persons (people who visited the site) to respond to the question "Did Bush/Cheney decide to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora on purpose"? I never claimed it had the authority of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zogby_International" rel="nofollow">Zogby</a> poll (for instance). You said it was "poorly cobbled together", which is total BS.<br /><br />Why the hell should I have said something contradicting it being a blog post? That IS what it is. I NEVER claimed otherwise. I did NOT mistake it for an authorities poll (like Zogby). I didn't base any of my conclusions on it, I just linked to it at the end of my post because I thought it was interesting. I never claimed it proved anything.<br /><br />bush derived his authority to attack Afghanistan from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists" rel="nofollow">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists</a> which does not mention the Taliban, bin Laden, or rejecting any "non-viable" (according to you) offer to turn him over. The Congress never voted on any of these things, so I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that "Congress was strongly in favor of retaliating against the Taliban". If you can provide a link to a news story that proves this point, please do.<br /><br />And what about bush saying, "give him up. We know he's guilty"? Does this not imply that if they had given him up (unconditionally) that we wouldn't have retaliated? Also, I fail to see how turning bin Laden over to a neutral third country is "letting him loose".<br /><br />"Truthiness" actually existed before Stephen Colbert used it... "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" rel="nofollow">truthiness</a> already had a history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (as a derivation of truthy) and The Century Dictionary...". As such, it doesn't fit the definition of a "neologism". I used it because I think it accurately describes how you decide what the truth is.<br /><br />"feminazi", on the other hand, is an oxymoron. Feminism and Nazism have nothing to do with one another.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-74267098250816539512009-12-05T07:13:15.940-06:002009-12-05T07:13:15.940-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-45252738411584649312009-12-04T23:08:07.402-06:002009-12-04T23:08:07.402-06:00The poll is pretty self-explanatory I believe. The...The poll is pretty self-explanatory I believe. The author discusses the conclusions reached by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in their report, "Tora Bora Revisited: How We Failed to Get Bin Laden and Why It Matters Today". <br /><br />The page does not in any way appear to me to be "poorly cobbled together". A majority of the respondents believe that "Bush/Cheney decided to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora on purpose". Clearly you disagree. Why don't you just say so instead of making a nonsensical claim that the page is "poorly cobbled together"?<br /><br />BTW, I asked how you arrived at the conclusion that all of congress was hell bent on "retaliating against the then Afghanistan government", when the Congress was never given the chance to consider the Taliban's offer of surrendering bin Laden to face trial in a neutral third country? <br /><br />No idea? You're the one who made the claim. I'm guessing that you thought it sounded truthy enough.<br /><br />As for how many shooters were involved in the JKF assassination: I don't know.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-42133744208578519792009-12-04T19:51:25.270-06:002009-12-04T19:51:25.270-06:00"fail to see how accomplishing your goal make..."fail to see how accomplishing your goal makes you incompetent. Maybe you need to look up the meaning of the word?"<br /><br />I did. Incompetent does not mean "accomplishing some diabolocal goal that exists no where but in the minds of conspiracy theorists".<br /><br />By the way, toward the end of your post, you link to a poll. The page linked to is poorly cobbled together, like a fun blog post. But it looks like some sort of internet poll. Am I missing something and it an actual poll?<br /><br />I know it is entirely unrelated, but I'm tempted to ask you how many people shot JFK...dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-38883030101620581142009-12-04T18:21:23.635-06:002009-12-04T18:21:23.635-06:00Then why did bush ask the Taliban to turn over bin...Then why did bush ask the Taliban to turn over bin Laden? Isn't it stupid to ask someone for something and offer nothing in return? <br /><br />I was going on the assumption that what we were offering in return was to not attack, but you claim I'm wrong. Even if the Taliban had turned bin Laden over we'd have attacked anyway?<br /><br />Don't turn him over and we'll attack OR turn him over and we'll still attack? I bet that was a hard decison.<br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists" rel="nofollow">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists</a>, the bill that "justified" the invasion of Afghanistan, "granted the President the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom [the president] determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11th attacks, or <b>who harbored</b> said persons or groups".<br /><br />The key phrase is "who harbored". bin Laden and al Qaeda were in Afghanistan, although Afghanistan was never much of a country, so I'm not sure how that amounts to "harboring". In any case, the Taliban DID offer to give up bin Laden. bush TURNED THEM DOWN. <br /><br />If he had accepted they would have no longer been "harboring" him. Provided they had followed though. But he never even gave them the chance. I bet if that had been put to a vote the Congress would have decided to give the Taliban an opportunity to turn over bin Laden. <br /><br />The invasion (or the Taliban's offer) was not, however, put to a vote. Despite your imaginary scenario in which bush vetos the invasion and Congress overrides him. THAT never happened.<br /><br /><i>dmarks said... you won't find any argument from me that "Rummie" was incompetent.</i><br /><br />You will from me. He wasn't incompetent at all. He didn't send enough forces to capture bin Laden because he wanted him to get away. Mission accomplished. I fail to see how accomplishing your goal makes you incompetent. Maybe you need to look up the meaning of the word?<br />.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-21612845481162496762009-12-04T17:03:34.021-06:002009-12-04T17:03:34.021-06:00" I believe the evidence strongly suggests th..." I believe the evidence strongly suggests that Afghanistan was another "war of choice"."<br /><br />All wars are "wars of choice". No one ever has to fight back, you know.<br /><br />Besides, from your title, the fixation on Bush once again shows through. Bush was really a face in the crowd when it came to retaliating against the then Afghanistan government. An overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress voted for this, along with an overwhelming majority of Democrats. The margin was so great that even if Bush had vetoed it, the veto would have easily been overridden.<br /><br />As for the rest of it, you won't find any argument from me that "Rummie" was incompetant. He was no Eisenhower, no MacArthur.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com