My Thoughts On A Discussion With One Of The Liars Who Sold Us The Iraq War

The Americans outplayed themselves, nobody outplayed them. They believed their own propaganda ~ Ahmed Chalabi (dob 10/30/1944) an Iraqi politician who was interim oil minister in Iraq in April–May 2005 and December–January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005-May 2006. This quote is from an interview with McClatchy in Baghdad that took place sometime during the week of February 22, 2010.

What happens when one of the bush war criminals shows up on a progressive talk radio program to promulgate the lie that ex-president GWb made the "right" decision when he ordered the invasion of Iraq? Answer; he's treated respectfully by the nation's top rated Liberal talker (which he doesn't deserve, but what are you going to do?). What follows is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann radio program. Thom discusses the Iraq conflict with Douglas J. Feith, a politico who served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President George W. bush (from July 2001 until August 2005).

Feith's official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and DoD's role in U.S. Government interagency policymaking (source: Wikipedia). This interview from 3/3/2013 has been edited by me for brevity and clarity...

Thom Hartmann: Welcome back, Thom Hartmann here with you. ...you will recall, back in 2002 a very strong case was made for a war with Iraq against Saddam Hussein. One of the folks involved in making that case was Douglas Feith. [Currently] he is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and director at the Center for National Security Strategies. Author of the book War and Decision. Douglas Feith, welcome to the program.

Douglas Feith: Good to talk to you.

TH: Thanks for joining us. If I may, just to kind of start this thing out. Do you have any concerns or regrets regarding our nation having gone to war with Iraq?

DF: I think that the rational for the war was strong. Naturally one has regrets about various mistakes that got made. But, I think fundamentally the president made the right decision. That removing Saddam Hussein from power was important and valuable and that the risks of leaving him in power were very substantial.

TH: And, yet Saddam Hussein was the principal enemy of the Iranians. He had lost a million people and the Iranians had lost a million people in the war between Iraq and Iran. Saddam was our Sunni bulwark against that Shiite force. Former Congressman Bob Ney, who got taken down in the Jack Abramoff scandal... he's got a new book out. It's called Sideswiped. In his book, he talks about a conversation with Fouad al Zayat, who was basically an arms dealer who made airplanes, you know, weapons of war [Zayat denies being an arms dealer]. Zayat was meeting with Bob Ney in London to discuss Boeing and other contracts that had to do with Iran.

They were in the Ambassador Club dining room, a private club. And, if I could just share a couple of sentences with you, I'd like to get your take on this...

[Thom reading from Bob Ney's book] he said, Fouad turned to me and said something that is burned into my brain. He turned and pointed to two men who were sitting at the table near us and involved in an intense conversation. He said, "do you see those two men? Do you recognize them?" [Bob says] I knew one of them, to the left was King Hussein of Jordan's brother, the crown prince. But I didn't know the other guy. Fouad replies in a very calm but firm tone "that other man... this man will lie to your country. This man will catch the ear of your president. This man is a wanted criminal in Jordan, yet he sits with the King's brother here in London. This man is here in London carrying out one of the biggest schemes in modern history. This man will soon take your country into war in Iraq. His name is Ahmed Chalabi". [Thom finishes reading from Ney's book].

Do you think it's possible that you and all the other guys in the bush administration were conned by the Iranian government, through their agent Ahmed Chalabi, into taking out their principal enemy, Saddam Hussein on their behalf?

DF: No, I don't think that analysis is right. It's wrong in a number of respects. I don't think that the decision-making in the US government was driven by Chalabi or any one guy. I don't think that the United States was conned. It was not a con that Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous guy...

TH: [interrupts] Oh, come on! He was writing a romance novel. He had no weapons of mass destruction.

DF: [jumps in] It isn't true that he had no weapons of mass destruction. He not only had had weapons of mass destruction, but he had used them against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. He had used them against Iran. Saddam was the first person in history to use nerve gas on the battlefield.

TH: ...but the UN went in, and they took that stuff out. They destroyed it. The weapons inspectors said "it's not there anymore".

DF: No, that's not what the weapons inspectors said. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the whole weapons of mass destruction issue. If your listeners are interested in the facts on this, what I would urge them to do is read the report of the Iraq Survey Group. They issued a three volume report, which is available on the internet, which explains the status of Iraq's WMD programs. Iraq was a country that had substantial weapons of mass destruction programs. The big mistake that was made by our intelligence services before the war was the belief that Saddam was maintaining chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

[Douglas Feith brings up the war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq shooting at UN and US planes that were enforcing the no fly zone to argue against Thom's "Saddam was no threat to the United States" assessment].

DF: I think president bush made the right decision... but the argument that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to us, that we were not worried about him, that he didn't have WMD programs, that the whole thing was made up... is an argument that is not accurate. It's not based on the facts.

TH: OK. ... Mr. Feith, thank you for being on the program. [Thom ends interview giving Mr. Feith the last word... as he usually does... in order to make his guests feel they were treated fairly].

[End Thom Hartmann discussion with Douglas Feith]

The argument that "the whole thing was made up" is HIGHLY accurate. Notice that the liar Feith continually refers to "WMD programs" and not actual WMD. And he mentions the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report which he THINKS backs up his version of events. It does not. Following are some of the key points I have selected to rebut Mr. Feith's assertions...

Iraq Study Group key findings: [1] Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991. [2] Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG. [3] Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW [biological weapons] program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.

Feith hinges his whole case (and the justification for bush's illegal war) on the Iraq "could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks" portion of the report, but IGNORES the "ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course". The FACT remains that the IAEA weapons inspections worked and the Iraq war was completely unnecessary. Not only was it unnecessary, but it was based on a lie. The IAEA inspectors on the ground at the time told bush they were not finding any WMD (although they did ask for more time to complete their inspections).

bush ignored them and informed the American people that we were invading (in part) to "disarm" Saddam (see my post "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies" for more details regarding how the ex prez lied us into war). The report issued by the ISG (the one referenced by Feith) confirms that Iraq had no WMD and that the sanctions worked (and bush LIED when he said the invasion was necessary to "disarm" Iraq).

It should be noted that the ISG report was issued on 9/30/2004 and that ex prez bush ordered the invasion on 3/20/2003. But the report only CONFIRMED what the inspectors had told bush BEFORE the invasion, which was that they were finding no WMD and that Saddam was (begrudgingly) cooperating. Sure, he fully intended to restart his WMD programs *if* we allowed him to do so (by not keeping the pressure on indefinitely), but surely that would have been less expensive (both in terms of the lives of our soldiers, the lives of innocent Iraqis and in terms of our "treasure").

A May 17 2003 poll of the American people confirms that "58 percent... say that considering its costs vs. its benefits the war in Iraq was not worth fighting..." bush, in lying to the American people (and the world) did NOT make the right decision as Feith suggests. Although many people are STILL not aware that bush lied when making his case for war. These people are still convinced that the intelligence was "wrong". Others, believe it or not, are convinced that bush "told the truth" and that WMD was actually found in Iraq.

These delusional fools are referring to the fact that "some misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found". Concerning these WMD, the ISG said "they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion". Indeed they were not. bush scarred the American people with fantasies concerning mushroom clouds. bush and the other war criminals from his administration (including Feith) are liars who are still working to rewrite history.

As for the accusation that Ahmed Chalabi (working for Iran) duped us into the Iraq war... I've heard that one before (and believe it), although I think bush would have found other "evidence" if Chalabi hadn't happened along to HELP bush build a case for invasion. Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counter terrorism expert said (concerning the intelligence that was provided to us by way of Chalabi) that "[it] isn't reliable at all... [and that] much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear (Chalabi's "intelligence" came to us via the Iraqi National Congress, which was "an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi that was formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the Gulf War, for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein").

This account is, however, is by way of someone who (in my opinion) has a great deal of believability; former Congressman Bob Ney (account according to his recently released book, "Sideswiped"). Yes, Mr. Ney could be described as a "disgraced" former Congressman, but I see no reason for him to lie. In fact, it is my opinion that he is trying to set things straight on this matter. That the identification of Chalabi came from an accused arms dealer (Fouad al Zayat) is of no consequence, IMO, as much of what he said turned out to be provably true. What Chalabi told our intelligence services DID catch the ear of our president. He was wanted man in Jordan (in regards to the Petra banking scandal), and his intelligence (via the INC) did help the bush administration build the case for war with Iraq.

Mr. Chalabi denies that he was an agent for Iran, but I don't believe him. Fact is, Chalabi and the bush administration had a falling out way back in 2004. The allegations then came from bush Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenant, and resulted in a raid by US forces of Chalabi's Baghdad home... although (apparently) no evidence has ever been produced that conclusively proves Chalabi was an Iranian agent. Or the evidence was covered up by bushies who didn't want it widely known that the administration ALLOWED itself to be duped.

For the record Mr. Chalabi is a Shiite Muslism (Saddam was a Sunni Muslim and Iran is largely Shiite). When Chalabi was feeding his lies to our intelligence agencies he thought he might end up as the leader of Iraq. And there is also the fact that the bush administration paid him nearly 33 million dollars so he'd tell them things they wanted to hear.

There were those, however, who knew beforehand that Chalabi was a liar and not to be trusted. Bob Ney confirms this in his recent book... further proof that the bush administration cherry picked intelligence that supported their case for regime change in Iraq. But "cherry picking" is FAR to generous a term to use when it comes to the duplicity employed by the bushies when it comes to their pre-war lies and their continuing lies TO THIS DAY (exemplified by Mr. Feith). That there are those who continue to believe that bush did not lie in regards to WMD he knew Iraq did not have leaves me completely flabbergasted. These individuals truly have their heads buried deeply in the proverbial sand.

THP podcast info: This segment of audio is from the 3/6/2013 Thom Hartmann Podcast... 0:14 to 9:32 of hour 2.

SWTD #207

Exposing The Game Playing Canardo Hypocrites

The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity ~ Andre Gide (11/22/1869 to 2/19/1951) a French author and winner of the Nobel Prize in literature in 1947. Gide's career ranged from its beginnings in the symbolist movement, to the advent of anticolonialism between the two World Wars.

I thought my hard work has paid off and I was finally banned from inaccurately titled blog rAtional nAtion uSA. Seeing as this is a goal I've been trying to achieve for awhile (and actually thought I had achieved awhile ago), now is the perfect time to author a post in which I get all full of himself and proud-like in regards to my accomplishment of securing another banning. Excuse me while I preen and strut all around Leftist blogistan, or at least here (with this post).

Now, you might be asking yourself "how did Dervish achieve this laudable goal?". Answer? A lot of hard work and tenaciousness and I eventually frustrated and got the goat of the blog proprietor, Lester Nation (AKA "rAtional nAtion", AKA "RN"), one too many times. He vowed "never again" and declared my welcome worn out. Am I OK with that? Damn straight I am. Although the fact that I gave Liberals and Progressives a bad name in the process is not something I'm entirely happy with. But if this is the price I have to pay in order to get the boot? Well, then I guess I have to accept it.

Or not. Turns out I'm not banned. Lester simply decided that he would have the last word in the particular comment thread (actually 2 comment threads) where he made some false accusations and lobbed some baloney insults my way. Lester determined that my objecting to his lies equated to me "beating a dead horse". Fine, Mr. Nation. It's your blog so you can present your lies as the truth and I can't stop you. But I can use my own blog to set the record straight... which is what I will now do.

As it also turns out, I have absolutely no desire to "preen" or "strut" or get myself banned on purpose. These are all inaccurate accusations that come from the lying lips of Lester Nation. Lies and characterizations that I categorically deny. Despite what the bloggers Joe Kelly-Hagstrom or Lester Nation or Willis Hart might say, I do not view myself as giving Progressives a bad name. Lester is stating his hypocritical self-important point of view. Lester Nation, an individual who views himself as vastly superior to everyone else, naturally believes everyone thinks similarly. It's called projection, and what it entails is someone accusing another of what they themselves are guilty of. Here Lester accuses me of having a big ego when that is what Lester is quilty of (in spades).

Other accusations made by Lester are also false - and the hypocrite has a lot of nerve putting forward these laughable charges - including me "baiting" him in order to "get his goat". I'm only attempting to engage others with differing views in honest debate. If anyone is looking to get someone's goat via baiting it is this Nation fellow. Fact is, this idiot ADMITTED (in a comment he submitted to my blog) that baiting and goat-getting was HIS goal in engaging me in conversation...

rAtional nAtion: Like I care wd. Really, your blog is a mere amusement for me, an oppurtunity to laugh and then infuriate you. I do recall you said having a conversation with me is infuriating. Rest assured it is a one way deal (9/13/2013 7:06pm).

That is in stark contrast to the fictions the rAtional carnardo promulgates on his own blog...

rAtional nAtion: I assure you Mr. Sanders I will treat your site with the same respect, unless and/or until such time as you fail to do the same (9/15/2013 4:19pm).

Note the dates of these two comments... on the 13th he ridicules my blog and says the only reason he comments is to purposefully infuriate me because it makes him laugh, then on the 15th he warns me to treat his site with respect or I'll be banned. And that isn't the end of Mr. nAtion's extreme hypocrisy! In the same comment he also says...

rAtional nAtion: You remain welcome to post here Mr. Sanders, as long as you refrain from ad hominen attacks (9/15/2013 4:19pm).

After this comment (in which he says I'm "welcome" to submit my thoughts) he accepted no further submissions from me. I sent through a few, and none of them contained any "ad hominen attacks". But the liar rejected them. He didn't like it (apparently) that I pointed out he was wrong in regards to the "ad hominen" attack claims. The supposed ad hominem from me occurred when I called another of his regulars (Willis Hart) an idiot, but that was IN RESPONSE to Mr. Hart using the pejorative against me first.

Now, this Hart character had already gotten MY goat by continually claiming that our president "backed himself into a corner" with his comments about the use of chemical weapons by Syria being a red line. Then Hart says President Obama is "trying to weasel out of by saying that the WORLD set the red line", even thought it WAS the world that set the red line. And, if that isn't enough, this guy then slanders Liberals with a vile lie, saying "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden" and that "it's politics. Period, end of discussion".

So, the lives of innocent people... not Syrian military types or the Al Qaeda associated freedom fighters opposing them, but innocents (ordinary civilians: women and children as well as men) caught in the crossfire (or in the chemical gas)... the lives of these people mean absolutely nothing to Progressives (like me) according to this mendacious dude. So, when he called me an idiot I went off on him. And in response (to Lester asking commenters to not attack each other), this idiot innocently says...

Willis Hart: The dude comes out of left field and throws my name into the mix purely trying to start an argument with me and I obliged him. (9/15/2013 AT 4:19pm).

Out of left field?! I was trying to start an argument WITH YOU?! Right, and I suppose you claiming Progressive are using the slaughter of innocents as a political football is something I *shouldn't* take offense to? And, Hart's claim that one of GWb's rationales for invading Iraq (in addition to the MAIN justification of "disarming" Saddam) was because of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds (15 fricking years previously)... this means that Progressives are hypocrites (because they objected to the invasion of Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapons but are "supporting" Obama and "his" red line in regards to Syria). And this dummy says that me disputing this bullpucky is me "throwing his name into the mix"... and for no reason other than I'm "purely" trying to start an argument?!

Obviously these claims by Mr. Hart are laughable. Incredibly, unbelievably laughable. But the Hartster defends his name-calling by saying "he's right, Les, I did throw the first ad hominem... sorry, but when the dude said [something factually inaccurate] that did seem pretty darn stupid at the time". OK, on that the Hartster is correct... I got my facts wrong. And what I claimed was idiotic (in it's wrongness), and (for that reason) I probably shouldn't have went off on him... BUT, given the fact that he'd already teed me up (with his false slanders of our president and Progressives using the slaughter of innocents for political purposes) I threw a second ad hominem (and replied by using the same "idiot" pejorative against him).

The Hartster is still very much wrong with his "left field" and "trying to start an argument" claims, however. And even though I admitted I was wrong and I submitted a comment saying so (my comment DID contain some information that was factually inaccurate), all the "Rational Nation" commenters chastised me because I allowed Mr. Hart to get MY goat. And then they all discussed how they are fed up with me... and finally Lester defended Hart by saying Hart's "comment is not an attack, it is a statement of your intelligence as he sees it".

Riiiight, Lester. If I submitted a statement of YOUR intelligence as I see it Lester wouldn't view it as an ad hominem? Oh, and the deluded Dennis Marks joins in and proclaims I'm "like the little spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum when everyone doesn't want to play his game"... but I'm not playing any games. Playing games is RN's purview, as per his OWN ADMISSION!

But, wait, there is MORE! I just checked over at Willis' blog and found he is AGAIN lying about me in post-form...

Willis Hart: On wd Saying that He's "Not going to bother composing a serious comment if it isn't going to be published" Over at Les's Site... Being that he's written literally hundreds of comments here that he KNOWS aren't going to be published, the man is either a liar or he's admitting that the comments that he does leave here aren't serious (and more along the lines of harassment). Either way... (insulting accusations against me he has absolutely no way of knowing the truth about)... (9/25/2013 AT 3:47pm).

This commentary came about as a result of me thinking I was banned by Lester... so I submitted a test comment (which can be described as noted above by Willis). But I'm not a liar, nor are my comments on Mr. Hart's blog non-serious. I simply am not looking to also leave comments on the blog of Lester if they aren't published (as I do on the blog of Willis). One blog where I do this is enough.

In response to this post on Hart's blog Lester says "Mr. Sanders isn't a serious person, nor is he always truthful". This is simply more projection from Mr. nAtion. Unless he means I'm not serious about playing games, lying, and attacking the blogs of others like he is. What I should do is ban him from commenting here again, but instead I'll do the same he says he is going to do to me, which is to let some comments through but not publish others.

To ban him outright would be to admit defeat. The idiot thinks he is getting the better of me (or he keeps insisting he is). In a recent comment (submitted but not published) Lester says, "LMAO! Keep trying (and spinning) Mr. Sanders. Rest assured the enjoyment is all mine". So, Lester gains enjoyment by making an ass of himself? Apparently he does, which is fine by me. So keep the comments coming, Lester. I may publish or I may not. As for your blog, I'm going to be visiting it less in the future.

Before ending this commentary I would like to address one other issue. On another comment thread located over at Hartster's blog the ID Spoofer Rusty Schmuckelford says "Your stalker is now posting as George Whyte.... batshit crazy". According to Rusty I am Willis' "stalker" and the "batshit crazy" remark is also directed at me.

This could be interesting... now Rusty is lying to his buddy Willis? I will have to keep an eye on this and see if Schmuckelford is able to dupe the Hartster into believing his bullplop. The truth of the matter is that George Whyte is (one of) the Bloggers whose account Rusty has impersonated. It was actually Rusty who posted as George Whyte (when he spoofed his ID). So, is Rusty is lying to his supposed buddy Willis, or does he actually believes his own bullpucky (in which case I think it is Rusty who is "batshit crazy").

Update, 10/11/2013: I am now officially banned by the Canardo Lester Nation of the ironically titled blog "rAtional nAtion uSA". Many times RN has insisted (here and on his own blog) that I was "lying" about him banning me. In actuality it was Lester who lied in an effort to get me to submit comments to his blog (some of which he'd publish and others he would send to the spam folder). This is typical of the kind of games the Canardo likes to play. Whoop-dee-do, I say. I could care less if I am banned or not from Lester's idiot blog. Add one to my total. I am now banned from three blogs, although each one of the three are blogs ran by one of the band of idiots that hang out at the previously mentioned irrational site (I speak of Dennis Marks, Willis Hart and Lester Nation).

Update, 3/25/2014: Turns out I wasn't banned on 10/11/2013. Although I'm banned now, as of today. At least for the time being. Lying Lester has banned me several times, so it is currently unknown if this banning will be the one that sticks. Me calling out Lester for lying about why the Civil War was fought was fought apparently pushed him over the edge.

For my harsh words regarding this matter I make absolutely no apologies, as I find this lie particularly vile. Lester, while referring (rightly) to slavery as a "national stain", also vigorously defends the lie that the Civil War was fought over States' Rights or Tariffs, which is utterly ridiculous and flatly contradicted by historians who say the war was fought because of slavery. RN, in embracing this lie, actually participates in the campaign of dissembling that is darkening the stain.

SWTD #206, lDel #8, wDel #36.

On The Possibility That Humanity Could Cause It's Own Extinction

No matter what we call it, poison is still poison, death is still death, and industrial civilization is still causing the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet ~ Derrick Jensen (dob 12/19/1960) an American author and environmental activist (and critic of mainstream environmentalism) living in Crescent City, CA. Jensen has published several books questioning and critiquing modern civilization and its values, including The Culture of Make Believe and Endgame.

Today I want to talk to you about the extinction of the human species. Unbelievable as it might sound, there are those among the living who could still be around when it begins. I'm not talking about global thermonuclear war or overpopulation; two of the other scenarios I could see that annihilate or doom us respectively... I'm talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming (Human induced climate change, or "AGW"). Some say "it has never happened before and it isn't happening now", but it HAS happened before. Global warming HAS nearly caused the extinction of all life on earth and it could happen again.

This previous global-warming-caused extinction, known as the Permian–Triassic extinction event, resulted in "96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate" getting wiped out. Of course humanity was not responsible for this warming-caused extinction, as humanity did not exist 252.28 million years ago (when this event took place), but an analogy between the human-caused warming of today and non-human-caused warming of the past can be made. Then, as in the past, carbon dioxide is what we have to fear.

Progressive talk-radio host Thom Hartmann explained how humanity could bring about it's own demise in a rant on the 2/22/2013 airing of his nationally syndicated program. What follows is an excerpt from that specific show, which I have edited for brevity and clarity...

Thom Hartmann: We need to use the words "global disaster" and we need to talk about extinctions. And I'm serious talking about extinction. The last major extinction on earth... not the last one, but the second to last one. The last one occurred at the end of the Jurassic period. That was when, 66 million years ago, an asteroid hit the earth [the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event] near what is now Cancun, leaving a giant crater which is the basin off the coast of Mexico that leads into the gulf of Mexico. That meteor killed roughly 60 percent of all life on earth, including virtually all the dinosaurs, with the exception of some of the holdovers like the alligator.

But the extinction the preceded it, the Permian Extinction, killed 95 percent of all life on earth and resulted in a period of time roughly 80 thousand years in length during which the planet was virtually sterile and tens of millions of years for the planet to come back, and then 65 million years for the dinosaurs to evolve before the next strike happened [the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]. That happened 250 million years ago... and up until the 1990s nobody knew what caused it. The assumption was that it had [also] been an asteroid strike like the other extinctions. They were always either asteroid strikes or massive tectonic activity... the changing of continents; breaking up of continents that blew all kinds of lava out into the atmosphere. Nobody really got what caused the Permian Extinction.

[According to] a brilliant BBC documentary about this, the Permian Extinction was caused by two events... first, there is this area known as the Siberian Traps, encompassing hundreds of square miles, that just kind of opened up as a giant volcano. Not volcanic activity... it is known as sheet lava... a giant flow of lava out onto the ground. That, in the process, released so much carbon dioxide that it warmed the planet 5 degrees Celsius.

There has been a strong consensus ever since the early 90s that is what happened when they first found the evidence of this up in Siberia... but the question has been... 5 degrees Celsius is enough to kill off 60 percent of life on earth, but not 95 percent [so what happened that caused the additional 5 degree temperature change?]. The scientists at the IPCC are suggesting that if we continue on the course we're on... and nobody thinks we will because we're not that insane... but if we continue to pollute at the level we are [pump CO2 into the atmosphere] that, by the year 2100 we will have raised the temperature of the earth 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Keep that in mind as I tell you the rest of the story.

These Siberian Traps blew out all this lava, and that lava, and the gases from it... the carbon dioxide in particular, raised the temperature of the earth 5 degrees Celsius. But, like I said, that wasn't enough to kill everything. So what killed everything? Along the coasts of all of our oceans... along that area where the land meets the sea, this is the area of greatest biodiversity on the planet [this area is called the Abyssal plain]. Here you have a lot of life, particularly vegetable life [as well as microbial life]. This stuff has a life cycle, and when it dies it settles to the bottom... and as it settles to the bottom it is rotting, and as it is rotting it is producing methane gas... methane is also known as natural gas.

So, these things are rotting and sinking to the bottom... and as they do, the methane that is released; at high pressure deep under the ocean; gets locked up in these crystalline lattices in water that is at, or slightly below the freezing temperature, but doesn't freeze because the pressure is so high... what it forms is a slurry of methane hydrate crystals. Hundreds of trillions of tons of this substance can be found along the coasts of all the continents. It's there at a depth of maybe only 60 to 70 feet... above that it would turn into a gas and bubble up to the surface. Below that depth the decomposition and formation of methane stops.

So, it's only in this specific area [the Abyssal plain], and the oil companies have been exploring how to suck this stuff up because it's almost pure natural gas... so, one of the things they learned during the late 90s, when they were drilling for methane hydrate crystals of the coast of England, is that this stuff was really rich in what is known as carbon 12. Carbon 12 is a form of carbon that results via rapidly decomposing plant [and microbial] matter.

About the same time, a group of geologists were looking at the Permian extinction in Antarctica, in South Africa and in Greenland and they found that, in the Permian extinction layer, that 80 thousand year layer... about 40 thousand years into it, long after the Siberian Traps had ceased erupting, but while the planet was still 5 degrees warmer, there was a second giant warming of the planet. It was that second warming that raised the temperature of the planet an additional 5 degrees, and that killed 95 percent of all life on earth. That cumulative 10 degrees of warming was enough to basically sterilize the planet.

At the time that happened the geologists expected to see the signature of an asteroid hitting .. a large amount of iridium [in the sentiment]. Instead they found carbon-12. So the question was, how did carbon-12, which is the product of centuries of plant decomposition, end up in the atmosphere in such massive amounts that it is buried 40 thousand years into the sentiment layer of the Permian Extinction? Turns out that the initial 5 degree temperature rise was enough, over that 40 thousand years, to warm the oceans to the point where that the methane hydrate aggregate [methane plus water frozen in a crystalline structure found under the ocean on the Abyssal plain] warmed up and started melting... which released the methane gas, which bubbled to the surface and into the atmosphere.

Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that is what raised the temperature an additional 5 degrees [for a total of 10 degrees] and that was the cause of the Permian extinction. And that is what we are doing to ourselves with our unabated use of fossil fuels. This is a climate crisis.

[End 2/22/2013 Thom Hartmann Rant]

Don't listen to people who tell you that "the earth is essentially a living organism, and living organisms mostly adapt"... they may be right, but it's the earth that adapts; not always life. Sometimes this "adapting" takes millions of years... that is what we could be on the verge of right now... an accelerated warming that could eventually lead to the extinction of the human species.

A 10/24/2012 Examiner.com article reveals that this is already happening. According to a scientist at the University of Fairbanks AK, "subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap". Furthermore, the Examiner article (reporting on findings published in the Journal "Nature") says...

Examiner.com: We may approach a turning point... from a warming driven by man-made carbon dioxide to a warming driven by methane. ... Using seismic records and ocean models, [it is] estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes [1 billion metric tons is the same as 1 gigatonne] of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water.

In comparison, in 2010 man (via the burning of fossil fuels) released 36.7 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, so the 2.5 tonnes (of methane) mentioned above is only a fraction of the CO2 that is released annually... but it is important to keep in mind that methane is 25 to 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas (multiply 2.5 times 25 for the equivalent amount of CO2). And this is just an estimate of what is currently destabilizing... as the oceans warm the amount of methane released could rise exponentially. The result could be an abrupt climate change.

Wikipedia notes that the term abrupt climate change "is also used within the context of global warming to describe sudden climate change that is detectable over the time-scale of a human lifetime". It has happened before... the Permian–Triassic extinction event was triggered by an abrupt climate change; and it is on the verge of happening again. Naturally things would get uncomfortable for humanity long before 2100; and we would know before then if we were on an irreversible course such that an abrupt climate change was unavoidable.

A 10/17/2012 article from Phys.Org warns that it is "too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions" and that humanity should concentrate on "adaptation policies". Thom Hartmann may believe that "we're not that insane" to not do anything about global climate change, but I believe we ARE that insane...

Especially given the fact that there are those who believe AGW is a "hoax" or that "this whole CO2 theory is being discredited as we speak". AWG is being "discredited" only if you believe that "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position" equates to discreditation.

For the record it should be noted that I am a pessimist while Thom Hartmann is an optimist. Humanity is very possibly doomed, in my opinion. But while I am worried about the economic impact this coming disaster may have on my life, it looks like the worst of it will come some time after I'm dead. While I believe we do have an obligation to future generations to not screw up the planet for them... quite frankly I believe "we" will fail them and they are f*cked. Seeing as it's inevitable, I'm not going to spend to much time worrying about it.

Thom Hartmann Postcast Info: Subscribers to the Thom Hartmann program podcast can locate of this segment of audio at 20:15 to 28:35 of Hour 2 on Friday February 22 of 2013.

Image: Methane ice worms on a methane hydrate aggregate in the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers speculate that the worms may be grazing off chemosynthetic bacteria that grow on the methane or are otherwise living symbiotically with them.

Video1: Thom Hartman's mini-documentary, "The Last Hours of Humanity" describes how methane evaporating from the ocean could cause an extinction event (7:34). Visit Last Hours.org for more information.

Video2: The Last Hours of Humanity, Part 2 (11:28).

SWTD #205

False Charges Of Hypocrisy Against The Left From Hypocrites On the Right Regarding Syria

It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish with contempt ~ Thomas Paine writing on America's first Right-wing president, John Adams. Thomas Paine (2/9/1737 to 6/8/1809) was an English born American Writer and political pamphleteer, whose "Common Sense" and "Crisis" papers were important influences on the American Revolution.

The Left came out against former president bush when he illegally invaded Iraq, touting a baloney rational of needing to "disarm" Saddam. This despite the fact that the IAEA weapons inspectors on the ground at the time were saying it looked like the country was pretty much devoid of WMD. Now that a Democrat is president and it looks like we may lob a few missiles over there (Syria, this time) in order to take out their admitted WMD stockpiles, the Right is having a field day pointing out the Left's "hypocrisy".

Take, for example, a recent article by Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters, which is "a website dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias" that (for the most part) doesn't exist...

Noel Sheppard: When George W. Bush was president, Hollywood stars turned anti-war activists such as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were all over the airwaves touting peace. As America apparently heads to war with Syria under a liberal Commander-in-Chief, such folk are mysteriously silent. (Article: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Refuse to Comment on Syria, 9/9/2013).

If Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (who are no longer a couple) don't want to comment on Syria, whereas they did comment on Iraq... maybe it has something to do with the moderate "Blue Dog" President Barack Obama telling us the truth and pushing an accurate "chemical weapons out-of-bounds" angle. Remember that when these two celebs spoke out against bush's war - it was a war that bush lied us into! I mean, objecting to a war where the stated justification is an out-and-out lie (and those paying attention knew it) is a little different than waiting to see how a possible military action against a country accused of breaking international law plays out.

This is the reason that I too have been silent on this issue. I did not want to jump to any conclusions, given the fact that we haven't actually done anything militarily yet! Has Obama ordered an invasion? No, he ruled that out during his address Tuesday evening (9/10/2013). The United States is not going to put any boots on the ground in Syria. Yet the Right is quick to break out the comparisons when it comes to who is a hypocrite for not objecting like they did when bush lied us into a boots-on-the ground war in Iraq!

With Iraq it was president bush who broke international law with his illegal invasion; whereas with Syria is it Assad who broke international law with his use of chemical weapons. Granted, the ideal place to handle this would be the United Nations... and I've heard very little on that front (I don't recall President Obama mentioning it during his speech). But now that Syria's foreign minister has admitted that they do indeed have chemical weapons and that the regime is "ready to accept a deal advanced by Russia... to place the weapons under international supervision"... perhaps now is the time to shift responsibility for this mess into the hands of the UN?

The loss of innocent life is extremely troubling; and that, coupled with the fact that Syria has broken international law... this has led me to believe that standing by and doing nothing isn't an option. But, on the other hand the American people are NOT with the president on this. That, plus, even if we only lob a few missiles over there... some innocent people are bound to be killed, and (as a result) some Syrians will surely end up resenting our intrusion (and hate us for it). Nobody is going to buy the "greeted as Liberators" crap that the bush administration was peddling prior to his invasion of Iraq. This time that won't sell.

This is why we've sat this out for so long, I believe. There are simply no good options here. And that may be why these "hypocrite" Hollywood celebs are staying silent too. I honestly do not know what we should do, although I would strongly protest any kind of prolonged engagement for sure; but this is something the President said was definitely not in the cards during his speech. Fact is, while it looked like a vote by Congress would be the route Obama would go for awhile (and that Congress would say NO), that too has now been delayed until the Russian proposal for Syria to disarm itself of it's chemical weapons can be considered.

So, what's with this rush to condemn people for not speaking out against "war" with Syria when it isn't clear what we're going to do? Obviously these people could not give a flying fig about war. It's politics. Period, end of discussion. That's why they're saying things like President Obama "backed himself into a corner" with his "red line" statement about Syria and their use of chemical weapons, when the fact is that, as pointed out by the president himself, "the world set a red line". Indeed, it is the world that has drew the "red line" and not President Obama... so we can dispense with this silly "painting into corners" nonsense...

Wikipedia: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. A total of 196 states may become members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, including all 193 United Nations member states. Of the seven United Nations Member States that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

Still, this does not stop some from making this "corner painting" or "backing into" assertion. Truth be told, this argument first came to my attention via the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart. I pushed back against this absurd accusation, and what follows is a reply of his (the most recent to repeat the "corner backing into" claim)...

Willis Hart: I said that he backed himself into a corner with this idiotic red line (which he's now trying to weasel out of by saying that the "world" set the red line - the world evidently not setting a red line when Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds 20 years ago) comment of his. (9/11/2013 2:09pm).

How is President Obama pointing out the very real line that has existed since the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare" backing himself into a corner? BTW, the gassing of the Kurds occurred in 1988 when George HW Bush was president, and his administration's reaction was to continue selling these chemicals to Saddam. The world "evidently" did set the red line then, but the first Bush administration simply chose to ignore it. Now we have a president who chooses to not ignore it, and all the weaselly Hart can do is criticize him (and clearly for political reasons)?

And, according to Mr. Hart the Leftist Hollywood celebs are "silent" because "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden". Concerning "people Like Bruce Springsteen and Tim Robbins" Willis says they are "seemingly not giving a rat's-ass" about the non-existent possibility of "war" with Syria (a "boots on the ground" war that can not, in any way, be compared to Iraq, that is). Frankly, I think that the Hartster pushing these lies from the Right is shameful.

Finally, Mr. Hart gives a shout-out to veteran Leftist Ed Asner who claims that "a lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama". Sorry, Mr. Asner, I've got a lot of respect for you (and I appreciate you taking a stand on Syria), but that's total bullpucky (or at least mostly bullpucky).

The real reason for the "silence" from Hollywood Liberals is because "an all-out war in Iraq under Bush... was a much bigger deal than potential missile strikes against Syria under the direction of Obama". That's according to Mike Farrell, another Hollywooder who is among the vocal celebs when it comes to opposing "war" with Syria (quotes from a 9/6/2013 Hollywood Reporter article by Paul Bond).

Also according to Asner (and on this I agree with him), "the lack of an organized effort against war in Syria is a matter of timing. Bush took months to make the case for war in Iraq, giving the antiwar Left plenty of time to prepare a response". It isn't that the "Hollywood Left" is being "silent" now, it's that nobody is sure what we're going to do yet, and (in the case of Iraq) bush wanting war was apparent for quite some time (and that gave the "Hollywood Left" time to organize it's opposition). And the lying too. We must not forget the lying.

Conclusion? These claims of "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden" are FALSE, and are being peddled by hypocrites and liars... or fools suffering from delusions of grandeur (Hart). This Hart guy views himself as superior to us "partisans" when he's the one who's guilty here. Guilty of taking his Obama-bashing cues from the Right and guilty of not seeing that we're dealing with an honest president here and a REAL red line... when the last president who made the case for war was a liar and tried to frighten us with imaginary "mushroom clouds" (something else Hart denies). Not to mention the fact that President Obama is specifically not advocating an invasion (something I would categorically oppose).

As for the bombing, I am not convinced that would be a good idea either. Let the UN handle this, or at least make a case there. The citizenry of the United States is clearly opposed to our taking the lead in Syria, and if President Obama pushes forward on this I think he will be making a mistake.

Correction 9/14/2013: I cited the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 as the treaty that resulted in the world drawing a red line in regards to the use of chemical weapons in warfare. The red line was actually drawn with the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The 1925 treaty prohibited the use of chemical weapons while the 1997 treaty prohibits the manufacture and stockpile of chemical weapons. I know I knew this, but still made the mistake for some reason... maybe because I'm an "idiot" as pointed out by Mr. Hart. This post has been modified to reflect the correct information.

Further Reading
[1] President Obama's Masterful Job on Syria by Grung E. Gene, Disaffected And It Feels So Good 9/12/2013.
[2]Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria by Dennis J. Kucinich, The Huffington Post 9/05/2013.

SWTD #204, wDel #35.

Exposing The Truth About 101

Although it hurts, I think we have to say that if there is fraud of any kind... it has to be exposed, no matter what the cost. The truth is of more value than anything else ~ John Gerhart (11/27/1907 to 1/9/1981) a United States Air Force four-star general who served as commander of the North American Air Defense Command under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

This is a commentary that concerns shitheads and people who are nuts. These aren't pejoratives I ever used to describe anyone, or I didn't use them first, at least... this is a bogus claim made by the blogger Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom). That I called him "nuts" and he only began talking about me behind my back to other bloggers about me being "nuts" in response to me slandering him with the insult first. This is an untruth that Mr. Kelly presented in his shithead post, and is an allegation I absolutely must refute.

Near the end of a commentary on his blog in which he labels me a shithead, he makes the following claim...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: But since all this "nuts" thing, which WD actually started long before I called him nuts and I submitted his comment on Will's shitheaded blog as proof, I've had no choice but to identify them as shitheads. None of this is my fault. The only responsibility I bear is deciding who is a shithead and who isn't. (8/28/2013 at 1:35pm). See DSD #29 for a copy of Joe's commenary.

Categorically false. And Joe101 knows it; or should know it. Perhaps he does not remember, but I sure as hell do. In any case, Joe101's statement is not factually accurate, and I can prove it. The comment he speaks of, the one that he submitted to Willis' shitheaded blog as proof, is as follows (Joe101 published it in the comment thread when I asked him what his "proof" was)...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: This is the meat of the comment you left calling me a "nut" WD. Further proof you not only started this whole thing, but that you are indeed a shithead. I took no offense. Just WD being WD. But God forbid someone say you're nuts. You big baby. Now quit being a shithead. And you should apologise to me and everyone else for making this conversation, or should I call it now, an intervention as nobody has come to your defense, other than me if you open your shithead eyes. (8/30/2013 at 6:50pm).

What follows is Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting me...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting Dervish Sanders: What kind of a nut shutters his blog (or restricts readership to "invited" readers only), says he can't blog anymore because it gets him in trouble, then opens up his blog for the world to see again? You think those people you got in trouble with won't check to see if your blog is active again? I asked if you could not simply delete the post that "got you in trouble" and you said no. But that looks like you did delete that post (I don't recall what the title was, but I do recall the subject matter... and it does appear to be gone). (Original source for quoted comment 2/22/2012 at 9:08am).

This is Joe101's "proof" that I called him a "nut" first and that I owe him an apology. Trouble is, I remember making that comment, and it was in RESPONSE to him calling me a nut. Actually I heard about this from Willis Hart. He told me on his blog that a Liberal Buddy of mine had contacted him via facebook and said I was nuts.

I wrote a post about this conversation on my blog titled, "w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Told Willis Hart on Facebook that w-dervish Is A Frigging Nut". In response to this post Joe101 said "You're nuts", thereby confirming that he was the person Willis Hart described as the "Liberal Buddy" who told him I was nuts. The date that comment was made was 2/18/2012 (Joe101's is the first comment the post received). The date of the comment (by me on his blog) that Joe101 says is the one that is "proof" I called him a nut first? 2/22/2012.

So, he says the "proof" I called him a nut first is a comment I made on 2/22/2012 which was in reality MY RESPONSE to him calling me a nut on 2/18/2012 (actually this is the date I found out that it was Joe101 who called me a nut behind my back in a conversation with Willis Hart that took place earlier on facebook). As anyone can see 2/18/2012 is a date that occurred BEFORE 2/22/2012. And 2/15/2012 (the date I found out from Willis Hart that Joe101 was calling me a nut in a conversation that took place on Facebook) is earlier still.

As everyone can see, Joe101's claims about who called who a "nut" first are not accurate. So why the hell does he remember that I called him a nut first? And why does he not apologize after I point out to him that he has the dates wrong? Instead he says "You started it with your nuttery". This is his response to my irrefutable proof that he called me a nut first (and that what he says in his post is utter bullshit)?! Why not admit the mistake? I ask again, who the hell would like being called "nuts" or a "shithead"? I'm guessing nobody. But I object and Joe101 says I'm a "big baby"?!

And apparently NOBODY else (as Joe101 pointed out) sees anything wrong with this? Nobody at all, huh? Even after Joe101 called me a nut FIRST I still acted in a friendly manner toward him (so this "big baby" charge is bullcrap). But now (with this "shithead" post), not only does he toss red meat to my detractors (Willis Hart, Dennis Marks, and Lester Nation), but he sits back and enjoys the show as the raving maniac Steve laughs it up. This is, in my strong opinion, the definition of a shithead. As much as it pains me to say it, Joe Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom, AKA Truth 101) is a shithead of the highest order. I wonder... does that mean the Republican conversion is complete?

Sequence of events that prove Joe101 is a shithead in regards to his claim that I "started" the insulting by calling him "nuts" first

2/15/2012: Date Willis Hart told me Joe101 was calling me NUTS behind my back on Facebook.

2/18/2012: Date Joe101 called me NUTS on my blog in response to a post I wrote about what Willis Hart told me.

2/22/2012: Date Dervish Sanders called Joe101 "nuts" on Joe101's blog (this is the comment he says "proves" I insulted him first).

SWTD #203

Exposing The Real Canardos (An Angry Hate Post)

My father told me all about the birds and the bees, the liar - I went steady with a woodpecker till I was twenty-one ~ Bob Hope (5/29/1903 to 7/27/2003) an English-born American comedian, vaudevillian, actor, singer, dancer, and author who appeared on Broadway, in vaudeville, movies, television, and on the radio. He was noted for appearing in over 70 films and shorts, including a series of "Road" movies co-starring Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour.

A short while ago the blogger Lester Nation (AKA "rAtional nAtion" or RN abbreviated) started calling me "Canardo". This was a new nickname, coming after the series based on the last name Sanders. "Harlan" or "Colonel" or just "Col". Now they seemed to have moved on to "Dervie" or "Dervy". I'm not sure but I think they've moved on from "Canardo", perhaps because I figured it out.

At first it didn't make any sense to me. I thought it sounded Hispanic, but eventually I realized that removing the "O" from the end resulted in the word "canard", which is "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor". So, looks like Lester and Dennis are both calling me a liar. Lester never confirmed that this is what he meant by calling me "Canardo", but this is my best guess (a solid guess I would say, and probably accurate.

This brings me to the purpose of this post. Lester invited me back to his blog; I went, but only submitted a short comment at first to see if Lester would publish it. He did, so I jumped in and joined the conversation. Of course commenting on the Lester blog invites arguments, as there is nobody there I agree with politically; at least I don't agree with any of the three major players who dominate most of the conversation, those people being rAtional nAtion (or "Lester Nation", as I like to call him... although his real name is "Les Carpenter III) Willis Hart and Dennis Marks.

Fact is, each of these three amigos dislikes me with some intensity. This explains the "Canardo" slur. They all think I'm a liar. As well as the fourth amigo, the lying ID spoofer Rusty Shackelford. Funny thing is, the lying and dishonesty that is actually taking place is all coming from these four. A recent conversation turned to accusations of lies from them but... I did not lie. The conversation ended when Lester refused to publish my response to an accusation of lying (through my teeth, no less) by Willis. I do not know why, but this is a subject, when it comes up, I am usually always accused of lying about by Mr. Hart.

The Hartster opposed the Iraq war. He's talked about it many times, usually he's solidly against it, although he often makes a point of defending George W bush. On 8/1/2012 Willis said...

Willis Hart: A strong case could have been made for deposing [Saddam] on humanitarian grounds alone. That was the rationale for taking out Gadaffi and Hussein was infinitely worse ... [so] maybe we can give some slack to [George bush?] (8/1/2012 at 4:44pm).

OK, so Willis thinks the invasion of Iraq was "boneheaded" but he usually makes a point about defending GWb. Even though GWb lied about WMD (Willis denies GWb lied despite the fact that it is obvious).

But the point is Willis was against the invasion. It's in print on his blog (multiple posts). So saying he supported it would not be truthful. Yet he says this is what I did (the "lying through your teeth" comment). My question is, what's with this guy? Could this "lying through my teeth accusation" have something to do with this comment (one Lester actually published)?

Dervish Sanders: As I recall there were many on the Conservative side who cited Saddam's killing of his own citizens as an extremely good justification for taking action (Willis, Dennis and others). (Thu Sep 05, 10:39:00 AM).

And, in response Willis published this angry comment...

Willis Hart: wd is lying through his teeth on this one. As he knows I was fully against the Iraq war FROM DAY ONE and well before John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton turned against it. Les and I are the consistent ones on this issue and wd the partisan stooge who suddenly supports military action simply because a Democrat has backed himself into a corner (much like he did in Afghanistan). Shameless. (Thu Sep 05, 11:48:00 AM).

First of all I don't support military action in Syria. I never said I did. Secondly, Barack Obama has NOT "backed himself into a corner". Willis says this only because bashing the president is his new thing (previously Will said he voted for him in 2008). And, in regards to the "lying through my teeth allegation"... I said it was an "extremely good justification" not that it was the Hartster's justification. Willis himself said "A strong case could have been made" on his own blog! As you can see, I was referencing comments Willis made on his own blog, yet the dummy says I lied!

(BTW, I didn't include a link in my original comment... something that would have been proof that Willis talked about this justification, but I was only referring to things I remembered him saying. I didn't go back and actually find the Contra O'Reilly post until now).

In response to Willis' false accusations of "lying through my teeth" I composed a comment and submitted it for publication, but Lester decided to trash-can what I wrote. This is a underhanded tactic he's used before... he will wait until a point in the discussion comes when no response from me makes me look bad. Previously I made a mistake and everyone jumped all over it, calling me stupid and a liar. I submitted a correction (admitting my error) but Lester declined to publish it. Here Willis says I lied (when I was referring to comments made by Willis on his own blog) and Lester refuses to publish my rebuttal.

Honestly, however, I only realized the misunderstanding of Mr. Hart when I went back and re-read what I originally wrote (now, not when I composed and submitted the comment Lester didn't publish). In the comment Lester did not publish I said Willis was "canardo-ing through his teeth". If Lester had published I might retract that accusation. It was a misunderstanding.

However, and this is a big however, Willis seems to OFTEN "misunderstand" comments by me and immediately responds with ANGRY accusations of lying. It happened earlier in the same thread (concerning another topic that would take some time to explain. If you are interested you can read the thread yourself here). Willis said "you're a liar, wd. I fully know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim", But I never said he didn't know the difference.

I explained myself on this one, and I think Willis accepted my explanation, as he didn't repeat the "lie" accusation in his response... but he did make a new one a short while later. Either I'm a bad writer, and that explains why Willis frequently misinterprets what I mean (and concludes I'm lying)... or Willis is allowing his dislike (possibly hatred) for me to color his interpretation of what I write. It seems he's always looking for "lies" by me that he can immediately pounce on.

Given that Willis has "now concluded [that Dervish] is a pathological liar", and (in the comment thread belonging to the post in which he made this accusation) declared me a "virulent liar" and "absolutely insane"... I'm thinking it's Willis' prejudices against me that is causing him to imagine lies by me where there were none (and not any bad writing from me).

I'm not a liar or a "Canardo", and this is my proof of that (seeing as Lester wouldn't publish my rebuttal I'm not going to try again). In fact I think my time on the blog of Mr. Nation is nearing it's end (Lester is becoming increasingly hostile). But Lester might decide we're friends again and urge me to come back. It was not that long ago that Lester declared I was "banned forever", but turns out that was just another of Lester's canardos.

Hopefully this sets the record straight regarding who the real canardos are. Currently they hang out at two blog... The first one being Contra O'Reilly (the blog of Willis Hart) and the second the ironically titled rAtional nAtion uSA (the blog of Lester Nation).

Update 9/10/2013: Lester read my post and commented elsewhere that my comment (the one he refused to publish) was in his spam folder. He went and retrieved it and now it is published. Sure RN, I'm positive that is exactly what happened. Or, could it be that Lester refused to publish until he read my commentary above, then saw his chance to call me a liar by publishing what I wrote? Below is the highly suspect response by RN. Suspect because comments before and after were published. Just this one was inexplicably sent to the Spam folder.

rAtional nAtion: The dude is claiming I don't post his comments. Another canard. I checked my spam after noticing his false claim and low and behold. They are now posted. As expected the usual canards from the Canardo. (9/8/2013 AT 5:13pm).

Right. The canardo doesn't publish until he sees an opportunity to call me a liar after doing so (AFTER reading this post, an action he acknowledges with his comment). RN's fellow canardos will surely believe him, but I do not.

SWTD #202 lDel #7, wDel #34.

Exposing The ID Spoofer Rusty

I am the last and highest court of appeal in detection ~ Sherlock Holmes in the 1890 novel The Sign of Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (5/22/1859 to 7/7/1930).

I am putting on my Sherlock hat for another commentary in which I uncover the facts and expose the truth about what certain people are attempting to get away with here in blog land. The individual being outed today is one Rusty Shackelford and the fact that he has been getting away with the spoofing of the IDs of other bloggers. Today this ends with my revelation of the facts.

My uncovering of the truth began with a slip-up by the blogger using the account "Guess Who". On 9/04/2013 at 4:33pm Guess Who published a comment and immediately removed it (the entry now reads "This comment has been removed by the author"). Six minutes later George Whyte posted the following...

George Whyte: Sorry Dervy old boy, I must apologize, I'm not feeling very well and I really do agree that Obama is a bit off the wall and I was ashamed to say so because of all my previous posts. And I am here today to admit that Barack Obama is NOT The Messiah. And as for Eric Holder, he is a fraud and a crook. These two are more like Cheech and Chong on steroids, pot and crack. Obama and Holder have several things in common in that they both have fathers not born in America, they both have an extreme dislike for White people and Christians, they both hate the Constitution as written and they are being allowed to destroy America bit by bit without a fight so far. (9/04/2013 AT 4:39pm).

The odd thing is both commenters, Guess Who and George Whyte, used the same profile picture. Curious as to what Guess Who said (in the comment he removed himself), I went to my email inbox and looked for the comment (Blogger emails all comments to me, therefore I can read ALL COMMENTS submitted, even if they are deleted). The comment Guess Who self-deleted was EXACTLY the same as the comment made 6 minutes later by George Whyte. Furthermore, another comment by George Whyte was made in reply to the "George Whyte" comment I quote above.

This comment is as follows...

George Whyte: Mr. Sanders, the above cheating liar is an impostor. Just link to its name and see that it has blocked any access to its blog information, such as when it started blogging, because I exposed the liar and cheat. I started my blog in August 2012, the above lying asshole did not. And the above lying asshole stole my avatar again. Too bad you've attracted liars and shitheads to your blog. You need to delete the assholes, otherwise people won't want to post on a blog where these assholes steal other bloggers identities, as the above asshole has. (9/04/2013 AT 5:12pm).

From this exchange it is easy to deduce that Guess Who changed his avatar to match George Whyte's (the real George Whyte) and submitted his comment. He intended to, but forgot to change his Blogger ID. When he realized his error he deleted his comment, went into his Blogger account and changed his ID, and then reposted the same comment. Afterward he changed his ID back to Guess Who. His profile is, by the way, hidden from scrutiny, as he has set his profile to not display. Click either Guess Who or "George Whyte" (the first fake "George Whyte" comment) and they both take you to a page that says "Profile Not Available". However, when you click on the comment by the George Whyte who says the other one is an impostor, you get an actual profile.

In response to these two comments, the Guess Who deleted comment and the (fake) George Whyte comment that ends with an assertion that our president hates the Constitution, I published the following...

Dervish Sanders: I think "Guess Who" forgot to change the name on his account before posting the comment above impersonating George Whyte. The deleted comment above (looked at it in my email inbox) is EXACTLY the same as the one from "George Whyte". Caught in the act. (9/04/2013 AT 4:47pm).

And in response to this comment by me Rusty Shackelford said...

Rusty Shackelford: You've solved another case Sherlock... most impressive Holmes, most impressive! (9/04/2013 AT 5:54pm).

The reason Rusty wanted to interject himself at this point was, I believe, was because Rusty is Guess Who and Rusty is the one who spoofed George Whyte's ID. This comment was his way of laughing at me... laughing because I correctly deduced that Guess Who was the spoofer, but did not guess that Guess Who was Rusty.

So what makes me think that Rusty is Guess Who? I was doing some research for another post when I came across a prior comment by Shaw Kenawe. In this comment Shaw presents evidence that Rusty and Guess Who are accounts controlled by the same person. I have copied and pasted Shaw's comment below...

Shaw Kenawe: DS, your resident troll, Rusty Shackelford, spreads his slander around the blogsphere like a farmer spreads manure in his fields - except the farmer's manure is useful. Here's what he left on AOW's blog about me: Guess Who [August 17, 2013 at 7:15:00 AM] The moron Shaw Kawae had George Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and Paula Deen ready to be stoned to death in a public park, or thrown in prison for life for racial hate crimes (after all, she used the "N" word 30 years ago! Well this dumb-ass Lib was wrong on both counts. this progressive PC twit see's a racist behind every tree and walking up every dark street. She clearly believes every thing that pours our of the vicious mouths of Sharpton, Jackson and yes of course Obama's. In her blind eyes there is NEVER a guilty Black on a White who may have had a good reason to do what they did. And he left this here: Rusty Shackelford [8/13/2013 11:13 AM] The moron Col Sanders had Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and Paula Deen in prison for racial hate crimes. duh, dead wrong on both counts. the twit see's a racist behind every tree. The poor benighted spammer. Couldn't come up with original drivel for each of the con blogs he infests, so he just interchanged our names - and couldn't manage to spell mine correctly, either. So sad. (8/17/2013 AT 1:35pm).

Two very similar comments, one by Guess Who and another by Rusty Shackelford... proof that the Guess Who account is controlled by Rusty. BTW, Rusty went back and deleted all his comments from the "Always On Watch" blog in an attempt to cover his tracks (if you click the link for the Guess Who blathering Shaw quoted all you will find is a comment with the same time stamp that now says "This comment has been removed by the author").

Nice try, Rusty, but you've been caught. Your Guess Who comment that Shaw copied before you deleted it proves you are Guess Who. And, as I've already pointed out, it was Guess Who that spoofed George Whyte's ID. Caught again. I'm going to have to agree with Shaw on this one... Rusty's behavior here has been sad, as well as pathetic. Guess who? I guess Rusty.

SWTD #201

A SWTD Celebration: 200 Posts And Counting

If I need a cause for celebration, or a comfort I can use to ease my mind, I rely on my imagination, And I dream of an imaginary time ~ Lyrics from the Billy Joel tune "Everybody Has A Dream" from the 9/29/1977 album "The Stranger. The Stranger was Joel's critical and commercial breakthrough, spending 6 weeks at #2 on the US album charts. It remains his best-selling non-compilation album to date, and was ranked number 70 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.

Welcome to the 200th Sleeping With The Devil post. As of today my blog has been in existence for exactly 7 years and 7 months. During much of this time my blog has received little traffic and even less comments. However, as of late that seems to have changed a little. But many of these new commenters are people who disagree with me politically and only comment to either insult me or post screeds they composed for, or stole from other blogs (screeds that are anti-Obama and/or racist). Not a development I am overly enthused about.

In addition it appears as though I've attracted a troll who is fixated on harassing me via name-calling, insults, and game playing... both here and on other blogs (the troll is following me around and keeping track of my comments on other blogs). This is an a$$hole who originally fixated on the Libertarian/Objectivist blogger rAtional nAtion and came to my blog to inform me of comments from RN he found objectionable (after he was kicked off the blogs of both RN and Shaw Kenawe). At first I engaged this fellow and discussed the issue with him. Turns out this was a mistake (although he may have fixated on me regardless of how I initially responded to him).

Here (on SWTD), he commented using a Blogger account with the name "Steve" attached to it. Elsewhere he comments anonymously (he can't comment on SWTD anonymously because I removed that option). The trouble with Steve was recently amplified thanks to a post by a former Progressive who has now gone Republican (or so he says). A blogger who calls himself Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (although he previously went by the name "Joe Hagstrom") recently tried to turn the blogging community against me by labeling me a shithead, an action that attracted Steve's attention. Steve was furious after I disabled anonymous commenting and he let me have it on Joe Kelly-Hagstrom's blog. I engaged him and he proceeded to lie, swear, laugh manically... and agree with Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (JKH) about me being a shithead.

Back on my blog Steve denied the person commenting on JKH's blog was him. In fact he was so enraged by the accusation that he threatened me, saying "I will have to make life bad for you in blog land" (and indicated that he would keep it up for a long period of time). Gee, Steve, I thought you were already doing that. And JKH (an individual with whom I was previously friendly) helped him out. And, in addition to JKH and Steve teaming up to bash me, rAtional nAtion stopped by to gloat.

However, in spite of the possibility that it is true that "poor Dervy has had a shitty Labor Day weekend" due to these attacks against him by a former Progressive blogging associate and some unknown a$$hole, I am resolute. Go away Steve and stop lying Joe "Truth". 200 posts is just the beginning. In fact, to commemorate this milestone I have changed my blog's tagline to (drum roll)... "Would you like a side order of Word Salad with your Non Sequitur?".

As I am a blogger who gives credit where credit is due, I must acknowledge that the source of this new tagline is the blogger known as Willis "Take No Prisoners" Hart. Although he intended it as an insult, I take it as a badge of honor, along with the "shithead" designation from the former truth-teller Joe Kelly (or Hagstrom) of the blog Truth 101.

Instead of exposing the truth he is now (according to his new tagline) "dedicated to finding and exposing shitheads the world over". As his first order of business JKH "exposed" me. He has yet to expose himself, however. In addition Willis Hart has exposed me as a moron who (a la Sarah Palin) is prone to word salads and non sequiturs, as well as using "any excuse in the book to make false accusations and trouble". For that reason Willis agrees with JKH about my shitheadedness; in fact he says it is "monstrous"... presumably because I tell many "bald faced" lies about him and his political positions.

rAtional nAtion agreed with much of the sentiment expressed by these detractors, saying (on the blog of Willis) "Word salads are a strong suit of Derv's indeed". On his own blog he contradictorily said I was being shitheaded (with my comments) while also "occasionally a few dimes short of a dollar but never a shithead".

Perhaps I should thank RN, as being a "few dimes short of a dollar" is nowhere near as bad as being a shithead or a "monstrous shithead"? I say no, given the fact that he has taken to the blogs in order to direct everyone's attention to the blog post of JKH. RN feigns friendliness and denies obvious hostility. But he points others toward this "shithead" post by JKH and he repeats the baloney "word salad" accusation by the blogger Willis Hart. In his latest comment on Progressive Eruptions he says I am "a Tosser Extraordinaire". Now he calls me "Canardo", by which I assume he means that I'm a liar ("Canardo" being canard with an "O" added to it).

Yet, for reasons that genuinely perplex me, a number of Progressive bloggers are eager to jump to RN's defense. Former progressive JKH is friendly to RN, and current Progressives Shaw Kenawe and Octopus are very strong defenders of RN. However, while both of these Progressives commented on JKH's shithead post, neither said a word about me being labeled a "shithead". I'm not saying they should have said anything; I'm only making the observation that they did not, whereas with RN they did. Surely "shithead" is a pejorative none of them would care to have attached to their names?

Insults coming from someone who disagrees with you is one thing, but it's another when it's "one of your own", which is something JKH used to be. The conversion to Republicanism by the former Truthster was something I at first took as a joke (as he has made comments previously about catching flack from people he works with for being a Democrat), but now I'm thinking the conversion is genuine. Surely some kind of conversion took place. A conversion to Republicanism or a conversion to shitheadedness (or both). And how convenient that JKH authored this post at the (almost) exact time Steve grew upset with me and left my blog in a huff. Is it possible that JKH is the individual who set up the "Steve" account and he is the a$$hole who posted MANY comments in response to the shithead post?

Who can say except Steve? Or the person behind "Steve". Not me, but then I "don't even get the simple shit" (Steve said so in a comment from him that I deleted). In any case, the purpose of this "hate post" (naming the people I "hate") is not to elicit sympathy. I imagine I'm opening myself up to the OPPOSITE by publishing this. The purpose is to let the haters and game players know that nothing they've published on any blog (or on JKH's blog) means that they "own me" (another claim of Steve's in another deleted comment).

My changing of my blog's tag line is evidence of that. THEY can hate and throw nasty bogus insults my way, but I'm not letting it get me down (which is exactly what they want, I suspect). I'm not going away. Sorry Willis, Dennis, RN, JKH and Steve... but you failed. Now is the time for me, with this 200th post, to celebrate and be happy, even if I'm only relying on my imagination to get me there. Some comments from well wishers would be appreciated, but not necessary or expected. If commenters decide to wish me luck going forward and offer words of encouragement, those will be gratefully accepted. On the other hand, if I get more insults or absolute silence (no replies), that's fine too.

SWTD #200, lDel #6.