The Irrational Hypocrite Strikes Again; Breaks Own Rule & Discusses "Old Bones"

Because hypocrisy stinks in the nostrils one is likely to rate it as a more powerful agent for destruction than it is ~ Rebecca West (12/21/1892 to 3/15/1983) a British author, journalist, literary critic and travel writer. A prolific, protean author who wrote in many genres, West was committed to feminist and liberal principles.

A blogger who (ironically?) calls himself rAtional nAtion has a STRICT policy against discussing what he calls "old bones". What is in the past should stay in the past, given that it is over and done with and we can therefore do nothing about it. Discussion on said topic is pointless.

Or that might be one rationale for someone to call a topic "old bones" and chastise those who bring it up. Or it might be a defense mechanism designed to prevent conversation on a topic the objector does not like. In the case of the "rational" individual that topic is any criticism of former preznit bush and his illegal wars launched while our nation was in shock after 9-11. A shock the former criminal administration used to steal from the American people via war profiteering.

I recently brought this up on the rAtional oNe's blog and was immediately shot down. My comment and the "rational" response as follows...

Dervish Sanders: The Bush Family profited greatly as a result of the war with Iraq. Yeah, I know that's an "old bone" according to RN and one other who comments here, but why, simply because the former prez is no longer prez should no one be outraged by this? (6/28/2914 AT 01:30:00 PM EDT). "rAtional" nAtion uSA: It is old bones and GWB is not a war criminal which I know you have proffered in the past. Having said that O I have no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future. (6/28/2014 AT 02:20:00 PM EDT).

Huh. Mr. Nation has "no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future". But why would Congress do this? Given that the rAtional oNe wishes everyone to not discuss any transgressions of the bush administration, which involves any discussion of war profiteering that took place. Why put anything into place when there is no reason (no reason that we're discussing, in any case).

Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps that is what the rAtional oNe desires? Who knows. Also, who brought up bush's war crimes? I didn't mention them. I didn't use the term "war criminal" in any case, although war profiteering might be considered a war crime. I'm not sure. Surely I would deem it to be highly immoral.

But whatever immoralities or war crimes those in the former bush administration might have indulged in are "old bones" and thus not worthy of discussion. Which is why you'll NEVER see the rAtional oNe mention them, except to chide anyone who might do something as pointless as bring up anything that might have anything to do with such things.

Nope. No way Mr. Nation would write and submit a comment like this one...

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: GWB, elected to office twice. Playing to the fears and reality of 9/11 he was able to advance rather idiotic agenda, Afghanistan excepted of course. Although he. couldn't even get the job done there cause he had to turn to Iraq. Big scare over phantom WMD and all. Yep, historians are going to have a blast with the dude's legacy down the road. Oh, did I mention his poor (very) economic and fiscal policies? I hate say it, but GWB indeed managed to screw up his wet dream. (7/1/2014 AT 7:58pm).

But this is a genuine comment (from the blog Contra O'Reilly). The rAtional oNe actually wrote it. I wonder if he "hates to say it" because it makes him a hypocrite? No, that couldn't be it. And he's largely correct, excepting Afghanistan, of course (both wars were illegal). But this is ALL "old bones", as the rAtional individual would say. Discussion of this nature is strictly verboten. On his blog as well as on ANY blog that this rAtional dude might view... and that includes MY OWN BLOG!

On 9/28/2013 I authored a post for this blog in which I offered my thoughts on a discussion with one of the liars who sold us the Iraq war. The commentary was my response to an airing of the Thom Hartmann radio program in which Thom interviewed bush war criminal Douglas Feith.

In response to this commentary Mr. Nation scolded me due to my foolishness in bringing up a topic that nobody cares about.

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: Do you think Mr. Sanders that anyone is concerned with this any longer other than yourself? Inquiring minds want to know. (10/01/2013 AT 10:17pm).

Ok, if nobody cares, why did this supposed rAtional person author a comment on Willis Hart's "Contra O'Reilly" in which he brought up "old bones" like bush exploiting the fear that gripped the nation following 9/11? SURELY the rAtional oNe would not let me get away with such a comment... on his blog or on any blog where he comments. Not even on my own blog. "Old bones" would, withOUT a doubt, be a phrase included in a reply Mr. Nation would be sure to submit if he saw me make such a comment.

And if the rAtional gUy reads this... he KNOWS I speak the truth. Also, in regards to the "phantom WMD", I know another commenter who would object to that narrative. That person wouldn't be me, of course, but another that frequents the "rAtional" blog. This is a person who is absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD and the invasion NEEDED to happen in order to "disarm" him. This fool even goes so far as to claim that it wasn't bush who started the war (with his invasion) but Saddam!

In any case, I don't know why someone who is supposedly so rAtional would concern himself with things he deems to be old bones while believing others should not discuss them. I'm going with hypocrisy. No, make that astounding hypocrisy that stinks in my nostrils (a stink that I've reported on previously).

But I'm guessing that this rAtional mAn only objects when CERTAIN people bring up such topics. I know I'm in that group. Others are likely added (or excluded) by the rAtional hYpocrite as he sees fit.

SWTD #263, lDel #19.

World Nut Daily (WND) Sez "Impeach Obama For Aiding Terrorists" (Re Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap)

This is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity, if I have a member of our military who's in captivity ~ President Barack Obama talks about his decision to do the right thing (6/6/2014).

The Extreme Rightwing publication known as World Net Daily, or WND (or "World Nut Daily") has a petition up on their website calling for the impeachment of President Obama. The reason? The Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap amounts to Obama aiding terrorists (and is the last straw)!

WND is, by the way, the Obama-hate-site that generates a lot of traffic by pandering to racists in a BIG way... being a publication that ruminates NOT infrequently on the danger of "Black mobs" (although WND sez they "consider it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators...").

According to the "expert" opinion of one ex-military man scumbag named William Boykin, President Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in regards to the Bergdahl swap (among other things). Boykin, a crayZee Conservative "Christian" who was caught on a hot mic saying "Jews are the problem" and the "cause of all the problems in the world" and "that President Obama identifies with and supports Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood", is quoted in the petition as saying Obama ignored federal law in pursuit of an administration goal.

A Slate article by Emily Bazelon says the problem is that Obama "didn't tell Congress about the prisoner release 30 days ahead of time, as a recent federal law requires... [although] to justify this omission, the administration has invoked Obama's signing statement, which he added to the law for certain circumstances, like negotiating over detainee transfers, in which it would violate constitutional separation of powers principles to consult Congress".

Emily Bazelon refers to this as Obama's "Gitmo Fail" (the title of the article), but frankly I don't give a shit. LET the Repubs TRY to go after Obama on this. The truth is that they are all fking hypocrites in regards to the stink they are currently raising, as MANY Cons criticized the President for not doing enough (previously) to bring Bergdahl home.

"Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding Every Effort Be Made To Free Bergdahl" (ThinkProgress 6/3/2014, excerpts) ...many of the administration's loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. ...John McCain told Anderson Cooper in February that he "would be inclined to support an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man", like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama's deal "ill-founded" and a "mistake". Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that "the administration's decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests"... But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to "redouble its efforts" to find Bergdahl. "I renew my call on the Defense Department to... find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family" she wrote just one week ago. Sen. Jim Inhofe - the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - has also said that the U.S. "must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family". But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl's release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free "people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban". (article by Igor Volsky).

I don't know how bringing home a US serviceman, especially given that we were going to release five Taliban Gitmo prisoners anyway, could possibly be a "mistake". OBVIOUSLY the motivation for the Repub criticisms NOW over the deal that brought Bergdahl home - when they were critical of the administration NOT DOING ENOUGH previously - is ENTIRELY political in nature, and SHAMELESSLY so.

"Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon, No Matter What" ThinkProgress 6/2/2014, excerpts) The US is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 AUMF. It remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the US in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016. When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Gitmo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of US involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Gitmo detainees be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when US forces [left] Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the US possessed would have been severely undermined. (article by Ken Gude).

Furthermore, the ThinkProgress notes the following (IMO) pertinent facts...

Conservative critics... refuse to appreciate the cunning maneuvers that secured the release of the lone American soldier taken prisoner in Afghanistan at little risk to the security of the United States. ...the evidence demonstrates that the Obama administration has been remarkably successful at preventing detainees it has released from Guantanamo from engaging in militant activities against the United States. Statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have been assessed to have potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly 30 percent under the Bush administration. (Attribution same as above).

The issue of whether or not Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter is separate, and can addressed in full now that he is in our custody and can present his side of the story. What we absolutely should not have done was to deem Bergdahl guilty and that the "punishment" would be to allow him to remain a Taliban POW (and possibly be executed by them).

(Although there are some who say they have "never argued that we shouldn't have tried to repatriate Bergdahl", but now that we have him, he should be given a trial as a "formality" and then put to death. And with the putting to death there are some who agree).

In regards to the desertion charge, obviously that is something that a soldier absolutely can NOT do. Surely Bergdahl could have objected in another manner if that was his inclination (and it is my understanding that it was). However, according to the Libertarian Reason Magazine (a 5/6/2014 article by Sheldon Richman) "[we] shouldn't blame Bowe Bergdahl for deserting in the fog of endless war".

Reason article excerpts... The "fog of war" is a reference to the moral chaos as well as the rampant confusion on the battlefield. Individuals kill others for no other reason than that they are ordered to. Things deemed unambiguously bad in civilian life are authorized and even lauded in war. ...Bergdahl seems to have been plagued by this question [his responsibility in regards to the deaths of innocent civilians].

The author of the Reason article goes on to quote Anand Gopal, author of No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes.

By mid-2002 there was no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani (whose "network" held Bergdahl captive) and other top Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal and lay down their arms. [However], driven by the idée fixe that the world was rigidly divided into terrorist and non-terrorist camps, Washington allied with Afghan warlords and strongmen. Their enemies became ours, and through faulty intelligence, their feuds became repackaged as "counterterrorism".

So, death for Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier with a conscience who questioned his role in combat that lead to innocents being killed, but no repercussions for those at the top who got us involved in this pointless war (the war criminals in the bush administration)?

That, I've got a huge problem with. I've also got a huge problem with our current president keeping us involved in said war... and even foolishly "surging"... based on the dishonest idée fixe that surging worked in Iraq (when it did not).

An article by Jean Mackenzie of Global Post (via the Salon website) notes that "Bergdahl was a troubled young man, with naive and very unrealistic views on his service in Afghanistan [who] thought he was joining the Peace Corps with guns, going over to help Afghans".

So, who is responsible for the soldiers who were killed while looking for Bergdahl? Obviously Bergdahl bears some responsibility, but what about those who made the decision to involve us in this unwinable conflict? And why the hell did we think we could prevail when the Soviets did not?

Yes, those deaths were regrettable, but Bergdahl obviously shouldn't have been there to begin with. Or he should have been removed from that situation as soon as those around him realized he was "troubled". In regards to that point, I'd place some of the blame on the stigma that is attached to the mental health issue... and in regards to that the same Global Post article I just quoted notes the following...

...journalist Matthieu Aikins, who reports regularly from Afghanistan, tweeted: "Does running unarmed into Taliban terrain seem sane to you? Maybe Bergdahl's act should be seen through PTSD/mental health prism".

Maybe. Surely I would not be so stupid/uncaring as to say the "dude is going to be just fine", or that "I have no concern for Bergdahl per se, [instead] my concern is the principle of the matter"... when we're talking about a job (being a soldier) that involves KILLING people. Surely only a moron could not see that this might affect a person's ability to think rationally.

So, yes, I do have some concern for Bergdahl. I've also got concern for the war criminals who stupidly decided to get us bogged down in a pointless and unwinnable war - especially given the fact that the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden prior to our invasion but bush refused to negotiate (as the author of the Reason article points out)... concern that they will never be held accountable for their actions. And I've also got concern for the Obama administration that let the bush war criminals off the hook.

But assholes like William Boykin and those at WND who are calling for impeachment while citing the fake Benghazi and fake IRS scamdals? And the hypocrite asshole Repub politicians who are criticizing Obama for bringing Bowe Bergdahl home when the previously criticized him for not doing enough to bring Bowe Bergdahl home? F*ck them. And f*ck the idiots and racist bigots who are signing the petition too.

I'm not going to say f-you to whoever created a petition at the White House site to punish Bergdahl, however. He did break the rules and these people - the creator and the 19,156 individuals who signed to thus far - are entitled to voice their opinion on the matter.

I surely am not going to sign it, however. I found the petition after doing a Google search looking for a White House petition in SUPPORT of Bergdahl. Apparently there isn't one. In any event, my f-you is reserved for, as Grung E Gene of the blog Disaffected And It Feels So Good puts it, the "dishonorable conservative hypocrites [who] piss on the troops, veterans and Bowe Bergdahl".

Well said, Gene. I must say that I agree completely that these evil individuals hate our servicemembers. For the record, I added the word "evil", and if you think that is too harsh, keep in mind that the definition of evil is something that is "morally wrong or bad".

Is it morally wrong or bad to use service members as political cudgels - by first calling for an administration you seek to destroy to "free Bergdahl by any means necessary" - and then attacking the administration when it does just that... well, that is most certainly morally wrong and bad in my strong opinion.

(By the way, the Taliban has never been designated as a terrorist organization, so the Obama administration did not "negotiate with terrorists". Finally, I was very disappointed to see the WND impeachment document quoting Jonathan Turley who "says Obama's deserter-for- terrorists deal proves that 'what's emerging is an imperial presidency'". And he said this on Sean Hannity's program for crying out loud. Ugh).

Notes
[1] h/t to Infidel753 for the word "scamdal" in reference to the fake Obama administration scandals.
[2] h/t to Grung E Gene for the link to the story concerning the "by any means necessary" January 2014 petition created by the conservative opinion and commentary website PJ Media.

See also: OST #17.

SWTD #259

On Juan Williams Defending Condi Rice Re Rutgers U Profs Opposed to Her Being Invited To Speak There

Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking... her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross ~ Juan Williams (dob 7/6/1946) in a 1/26/2009 comment to Bill O'Reilly while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor.

H/T to Lester Nation of rAtional nAtion United States of America for his highlighting of Juan William's defense of the ex Secretary of State regarding her invitation to speak (and receive an honory degree from) Rutgers U, and some professors with a "political agenda" speaking against it.

Juan Williams, who Mr. Nation describes as a "a rational and reasonable liberal", cites Condi's credentials (including a PhD, college teaching, provosting at Stanford U, and working her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South) and concludes that "only partisan hatred can blind the faculty to her extraordinary level of accomplishment for herself and her country".

rAtional strongly agreed, and several Liberally inclined commenters also weighed in and said they said Condi should be allowed to speak. I attempted to submit two comments citing Rice's involvement with an administration that mislead the American people into a war based on cherry-picked faulty intelligence and outright lies, but rAtional was having none of it. No doubt because bringing up such things would fall into the category of "gnawing on old bones".

"Gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional likes to use when anyone brings up crimes or misdeeds of Republicans. This makes rAtional uncomfortable so he dismisses such talk by implying there is a problem with the person who brings up these things. The point being that I agree with the faculty's objections and (if I worked there) would sign their petition (my Liberal colleague's disagreement not withstanding).

It isn't "partisan hatred" to be concerned about misdeeds and lies of prior presidential administrations. That such things are swept under the rug explains why current and future administrations will continue to push the envelope. The Obama administration continued the policies of spying on the American people that began under bush (rAtional professes to be opposed). And the drone strikes in a country we aren't at war with (Pakistan and elsewhere) have only increased (but two examples).

I think "gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional uses to express his opinion that the idea that we could learn from past misdeeds or "mistakes" (and not repeat them) is BAD. So, we disagree on that, as well as the belief that Juan Williams is a "a rational and reasonable liberal".

This time Mr. Williams defends Condoleezza Rice. Previously Juan defended Clarence Thomas when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment. If Williams were a Conservative defending Black Liberals, I think other Conservatives might say he was doing so only because they're Black. I won't say that because I can't think of an example where Williams has defended a Black Liberal. He seems to have a habit of exclusively defending Conservatives.

And remember he was fired by NPR for Islamophobic comments on Bill O'Reilly's "Factor", and then hired by Fox. Because he played to the Islamophobia of their base, IMO. Frankly I question whether Williams is either rational or reasonable. And I have questions regarding how Liberal he really is. Williams agreed with the Rutgers Profs that Rice had a role "in pushing the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and supported "using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from terror suspects", but says she should still be allowed to speak.

Allowed to speak, in Juan's opinion because "all of that is [not] negated by her service in President George W. Bush's administration". No, Condi's accomplishments aren't "negated". We simply should not ignore her participation in the lying-into-war and supporting of war crimes, Juan! "Rational" my ass.

The article by Williams is under a header (on the Fox site) that asks "why do liberals have so much hate Black Conservatives"... even though the text of Williams' article does not mention this "hate". The "hate" is brought up by Sean Hannity in a video (at the top of the article).

According to one protesting prof interviewed by Fox Nooz, it's not about Republican and Democrat. Said prof says "I have good Republican friends who are members of the Tea Party. That's not the issue. For me it's the morality of what was done during the war".

Rudolph Bell, a history professor who signed on to the petition, agreed (who knows why) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity says he is concerned about the choice of Condi to give the commencement speech in regards to her role in misleading the American people concerning WMD Iraq didn't have, as well as her support for EITs (i.e. torture).

Some excerpts from the Hannity program...

Hannity: Did Barack Obama mislead the American people when he said if you like your [insurance] plan you can your plan? Rudolph Bell: She's absolutely welcome to come. I think $35,000 would be a little high. We normally pay at the most $2,000. Anyway, on academic freedom grounds I would never protest her coming to Rutgers. As a commencement speaker, that is different. That is a faculty governance issue. I'm not trying to silence her. She is entirely welcome to come as anything other than a commencement speaker.

Sounds very reasonable to me, and not "partisan hate", hatred for Black Conservatives or "Liberal lunacy". Allow her to speak, just not in a commencement capacity. That way people who want to listen can attend and those who don't can skip it. This way, people who wish to protest can do so by not attending and not have to miss their commencement. Also, we can avoid an "ugly" scene of people turning their backs on her (as has happened previously). Not that I'd be against that form of protest, but I'd have thought the University might want to avoid that. And I surely would not be OK with giving her 35k either.

As for Hannity claiming that Obama mislead the American people about keeping their insurance policies if they like them... that is a false claim. The ACA contains a provision that grandfathers in plans that do not meet the ACA minimum requirements.

Grandfathered health plans do not have to meet all of the law's new coverage requirements. But in order to be grandfathered, health plans must have existed on March 23, 2010. Those with individual grandfathered plans had to have them before the law took effect. And to maintain their grandfathered status, the plans must not be changed to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers through deductibles or co-pays. (Source).

The insurance companies changed plans to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers and therefore those plans did not maintain their grandfathered status. Obama told the truth. It was the insurers who (in my estimation) changed the plans ON PURPOSE so they couldn't be grandfathered in (so they could try to trick people into paying more) while blaming Obama.

But that is another topic entirely. I only wanted to address it because Hannity lied about misrepresenting - misrepresenting that, it should be noted (even if you think Obama misrepresented) - is not comparable. Telling people they can keep crap insurance plans (plans that do not meet minimum requirements) when some didn't meet the grandfather requirements is NOT the same as lying about WMD in order to hoodwink the public into supporting an illegal war!

In conclusion I must say that Juan Williams is a poor "Liberal" for attempting to give Condi a pass (even given her impressive resume prior to lying to the American people). Also, when the rAtional dude said "I would be most interested in hearing what my more liberal leaning readership has to say about the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University request to nix the invitation" he lied. I submitted 3 comments (2 critical of Condi and one of Juan) and rAtional declined to publish either.

Video Description: Proof Condi Rice lied about WMD Iraq destroyed.

SWTD #238, lDel #16.

Unbelievable Idiocy From Wing Dinger of A Libertarian Lunatic

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? ~ George Orwell (6/25/1903 to 1/21/1950)... Eric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic known by his pen name George Orwell. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to democratic socialism.

The following post from Libertarian lunatic wing dinger Willis V. Hart, via his blog.

Willis Hart: On the Lunatic Left and War Criminals... Call George W. Bush (an admittedly ineffectual President) a war criminal and then quote mass murderer Joseph Stalin, not to underscore the evil of the madman but his good 'ol common sense. Thoroughly unbelievable. (2/25/2014 at 2:47pm).

This because I posted the following quote by Joseph Stalin on another blog where the topic at hand was "political quotes to ponder". Quote as follows...

Joseph Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

The quote doesn't continue from there with "and the way to right this wrong is by subjecting the people to the rule of an elite class who will live like kings by stealing from the people and also murdering millions of them". That would represent the truth of what Stalin did, but he promised to right the wrong he describes with this quote in another manner. Obviously Stalin lied to the people. Now, that does not change the fact that the quote DOES represent a "fundamental fact", even if a mass murdering madman said it.

So, what the eff is Willis' problem? Likely he agrees with his buddy Dennis who remarked that Stalin is my "hero". No, his problem (which I didn't know before) is articulated with yet another commentary that he posted 2 hours and 13 minutes after the first one.

Willis Hart: On Buttressing Your Opinion Via Quoting Joseph Stalin... Call me old fashioned but once a person slaughters over 40 MILLION people, I really don't give a rat's ass what the fiend thinks about ANYTHING, and it astonishes me beyond comprehension how anybody would. Really. (2/25/2014 at 5:00pm).

Now I understand the Hartster's mistake... I wasn't "buttressing my opinion" by posting the quote, asshole. While I do agree with the fundamental fact contained within the quote, if I had actually been presenting an argument (or attempting to "buttress my opinion") I wouldn't have quoted Stalin (for obvious reasons). I posted it because I was curious as to the reaction it would get. I never figured it would result in 2 posts from Mr. Hart, as well as a decelaration that my posting the Stalin quote "creeps me out the most" from the idiot.

OK, I don't even know why this should be necessary, but let me say that I condemn the murdering that took place under both bush and Stalin. Both lied and presided over murdering for which they are (or will) surely burn in hell for (and yes, I am aware that more people were murdered under Stalin). Quoting someone is NOT an endorsement of them, nor is it the same as declaring said person to be your "hero".

That Willis persists with these vile lies, even after I issued a clarification for the half-wits who concluded that a quote sans any commentary was the same as me saying I admired the murdering under Stalin.

And I didn't say anything when Lester and Dennis both quoted the sociopath Ayn Rand. And I do know at least one of them believes in this POS and her "greed is a virtue" evilness... evil that includes referring to those who accept government assistance as "parasites" and "leeches".

I'm not afraid to call out evil when I encounter it; as with Rand, who fantasized about killing a train full of parasites and leeches (and their enablers) in her weighty tome "Atlas Shrugged" (AS).

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

I also call out the evil of Stalin, a wicked liar who preyed upon his countrymen who only desired fairness and a life in which they were the ones who benefited from the fruits of their labors. And the evil of George W bush, a man who greatly desired a war with Iraq so he could gain political capital (and hand out "reconstruction" money to his cronies) - and lied about WMD that Saddam didn't have - and scared the American people with imaginings of mushroom clouds - to get it.

In conclusion I'd like to say Willis can take his "creeped out" BS and shove it. Stalin also said "one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic", and there is truth in that... but I surely am not "buttressing my opinion" that mass murder is a inconsequential thing in quoting him.

The vile liar Dennis can take his absurd accusations of "Stalin worship" and stuff them even further.

The quote at the top of my post is a "buttressing of my opinion", BTW. George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and a democratic socialist, was an outspoken critic of Joseph Stalin. Wikipedia notes that Orwell was "actively opposed to the controversial ideology of Stalinism. The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror".

For the record I am in agreement with Orwell... on lunatics (like Willis V. Hart) as well as in regards to Stalin. Also in regards to his support for democratic socialism.

See also: Dennis Lies Concerning "Heroes" That Are Not Heroes (TADM #5) 2/23/2014.

SWTD #235, wDel #51.

Dennis' Problem With Anti-Semitism

The sad truth about bigotry is that most bigots either don't realize that they are bigots, or they convince themselves that their bigotry is perfectly justified ~ Wayne Gerard Trotman (dob 5/16/1964) a British independent filmmaker, writer, photographer, composer and producer of electronic music who was born in San Fernando, Trinidad.

Chalk up another in the virulent lie category, here we have another comment from the Contra O'Reilly blog. A blog, it should be noted, where the proprietor, Willis Hart appreciates the lies of Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). What does that say about Mr. Hart?

The comment in question...

Dennis Marks: We know [Dervish] is an extremist with a strong tilt toward totalitarianism and away from human rights, along with a lot of other nasty things (his racism and antisemitism, hatred of democracy when the people choose something he doesn't like... (2/23/2014 AT 3:57pm).

Actually, Dennis, we know you have a strong tilt toward fascism, with your worship of the plutocrats and desire to see them buy our elections by allowing those with the most money to buy the most "free speech". And we also know that Dennis speaks against racism combating policies like Affirmative Action and spends a lot of time accusing Black people of racism. We also know that he spends a lot of time accusing Jewish people of anti-Semitism.

Dennis said "you defend antisemitism" because I cited Francis Boyle as an individual that believes George W bush is guilty of war crimes. As it also turns out, the Jewish Boyle is also "a harsh critic of Israel, Zionism, and American foreign policy towards Israel". What Dennis is arguing is that anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are the same thing, which I do not necessarily believe to be true. Certainly not in the case of Dr. Boyle, who is Jewish himself.

But this is just ad hominem from Dennis, given the fact that I don't agree with Boyle's Anti-Zionism (although I do believe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel and American foreign policy toward Israel). But I do believe Israel has a legitimate right to exist. And, even though I pointed this out, it makes no difference to Dennis. Even when I say I agree with Bolye (a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law) on George bush having committed war crimes, but NOT with Boyle on the subject of Anti-Zionism, Dennis STILL slimes me as "defending" anti-Semitism.

Now (with this most recent comment) I've gone from "defending it" to outright endorsing it. This is a virulent lie - both that a Jewish man is an anti-Semite for having anti-Zionist views, and that I "defend" these views (or share them) because I say I disagree with them (but agree about GWb and war crimes).

I've never defended anti-Semitism or endorsed it. And Francis Boyle is not "on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis". This detestable slur is wholly an invention of the despicable lying Dennis. Jewish people, I should note, are the only people I've ever seen Dennis accuse of anti-Semitism. The Jewish Francis Boyle and the Jewish Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were Jewish Holocaust survivors.

What I find particularly stomach-churning and vile about Dennis' continual slandering of the Jewish Boyle and the Jewish Finkelstein, slanderous comments such as the following...

Dennis Marks: Forget his genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm). see note below regarding this comment.

Right. Finkelstein's "denying" must include believing that both his parents were liars, right Dennis? Wikipedia notes that, according to an upcoming memoir, "Finkelstein recalls his strong youthful identification with the outrage that his mother, witness to the genocidal atrocities of World War II, felt at the carnage wrought by the United States in Vietnam". But that identification must have come before he decided his mom lied about growing up in the Warsaw Ghetto and being sent to a slave labor camp.

And, I should also note that Norman Finkelstein supports the two state solution, so he, unlike Boyle, is not an anti-Zionist. He did, however, author a book titled The Holocaust Industry, "in which he argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel" (description pulled from Wikipedia).

And, in regards to this book - for writing it, the Anti-Defamation League labeled Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier". But I find this charge utterly ridiculous given the subtitle of the book, "Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering". The suffering he refers to is the Holocaust - a Holocaust both his parents experienced first hand!

As for the "exploiting", the purpose of this commentary is not to defend or rebut any of the claims Finkelstein makes, nor to declare that he is 100 percent right or wrong... although there is SOMETHING to his claims, I believe. But I have not read any of his books. I am ONLY to defending Finkelstein against charges of "Holocaust denial". I mean, how can he deny the Holocaust while claiming that the memory of it is being exploited? Obviously this charge - made by the Anti-Defamation League and repeated by Dennis (in the quote above) - makes no sense, given the FACT that it would be impossible to "exploit" something that did not happen.

While I believe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of these two individuals and their opinions about Israel, Dennis crosses a line by accusing a Jewish man of wanting to "Wipe out Jewistan!" (this is a fake quote Dennis attributes to Boyle), or reduce them to ashes via a new Holocaust. Comments such as these are themselves anti-Semitic, in my strong opinion.

For the record, I have NEVER defended Holocaust deniers, nor will I. Holocaust denial is an inexcusable and deplorable offense, and Dennis is a lying sack of shit for accusing me of "defending" it.

But Dennis' belief that Jewish people who accuse bush of war crimes does not stop with Jews who also happen to critics of Israel. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists, also argues that bush is a war criminal. Cohn is a Jewish woman who lacks the reputation of Boyle and Finkelstein of being strong critics of Israel.

Despite the lack of anything factual Dennis could use to bash Cohn with, Dennis still thinks she MIGHT be anti-Semitic. When I brought up Mrs. Cohn's name in a discussion, Dennis replied "there are indeed many self-hating Jews. That you are surprised shows how little you know". So, in other words, he thinks it's possible that Marjorie is an anti-Semitic Jew, based on absolutely nothing other than her belief that members of the bush administration are guilty of war crimes!

What this points to, in my opinion, is the anti-Semitism of Dennis - although he is the type of bigot who doesn't realize he's a bigot. What other kind of odious scumbag would accuse Jewish people of anti-Semitism just because they suggest bush is guilty of war crimes - and go so far (at least in the case of Norman Finkelstein) as to state that they want their fellow Jews to "hurry up and be ashes scraped out of industrial ovens"? A scumbag anti-Semite that goes by the alias of dmarks would say such abominable things, that's who.

Update 8/18/2014: Dennis deleted his vile anti-Semitic "scaped" comment (for the amusement factor) and the Google cached page has been updated (and also shows the comment as removed). Make no mistake, however. Dennis said it, and it ABSOLUTELY is anti-Semitic (claiming that a Jewish man wants his fellow Jews exterminated). See image below for a screenshot that I grabbed before the deletion.

Also, for the record, in the original comment Dennis spells the word "scraped" as "scaped" (without the "r"). A typo, no doubt, but I mention it because I correct it above... which might be cause for someone to claim I'm misquoting or "fabricating". Although I think Dennis is inclined to stand by the comment. Update 6/8/2015: Turns out I was wrong. Dennis now says the screenshot is fake.

SWTD #234, dDel #17. See also TADM #6.

The Frances Delusion. Coupled With A High Probability of Spittle Flecking

The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion -- Bodhidharma (dob 6/22/1966) a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century CE. Regarded as the first Chinese patriarch, he began the physical training of the Shaolin monks that led to the creation of Shaolinquan (According to Chinese legend). Bodhidharma is regarded as the father of Zen Buddhism.

Francis Boyle, or "Frances" Boyle, as Dennis Marks likes to call him, is a Jewish man who has accurately described ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq as illegal and a war crime. Aside from that, Boyle has controversial views regarding Israel that I disagree with. Although I do NOT believe these views make the Jewish Boyle an anti-semite (only an anti-Zionist). Nor do I believe these views invalidate his correct conclusions regarding the legality of bush's invasion of Iraq, which is that it wasn't.

Actually, in regards to misspelling of Dr. Boyle's first name as "Frances" - this is something Dennis thinks I am guilty of. I've asked him on multiple occasions to to produce a link that shows where I used the wrong spelling, but Dennis never has... and I always assumed he was lying.

However, while researching a previous post on the topic of Mr. Boyle I found the comment where I misspelled "Francis" as "Frances". So, Dennis was right about me misspelling Dr. Boyle's first name. But - and get this - my misspelling was in a comment immediately following one by Dennis in which HE misspelled "Francis" as "Frances".

Not only that, but Dennis, when I first brought up the topic of Francis Boyle being among a number of people who believed ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal, referred to Boyle using the female pronoun multiple times... excerpt from said comment as follows...

Dennis Marks: Francis Boyle has no experience or authority in the matters she is writing about. This is why the real professionals dismiss her crankery out of hand. She's a clown who is out of her league. No one takes her seriously. Look at her latest call to impeach Obama. She's playing "model UN", but can't run with the grownups. So what if she has an actual law degree which she uses in a bogus claim that she is qualified in matters way out of her league. Armchair attorney indeed. (9/7/2011 AT 6:57pm).

Dennis was so embarrassed when I pointed out to him that Francis Boyle is a man that he immediately seized upon my repeating of his "Frances" misspelling (a comment in which I typed "Francis Boyle" twice and then "Frances Boyle" the third time I input his name).

In response to my repeating the feminized version of "Francis" that Dennis used first, he said...

Dennis Marks: Fair point on Boyle's gender. I read extensively on his qualifications to make such silly claims (none), and missed the gender point. Big oops! [then he quotes my one misspelling and says] You gave him a female name. You do it also. (9/13/2011 AT 4:04am).

I call BS on Dennis' claim that he read "extensively" on Boyle's qualifications. If Dennis had he surely would have noticed male pronouns being used. I also call BS on Dennis' claim that he thinks I made a "fair point". If it was fair, then would Dennis be obsessing on me repeating a misspelling he made first... over a year ago?

Here is an excerpt from a comment from 1/3/2014 in which the delusional Dennis brings up the "Frances" misspelling from 17 months prior... a misspelling that allowed him to combat my "fair point" about him getting the gender of Mr. Boyle wrong by saying "you did it also"...

Dennis Marks: That was a real hoot, wasn't it? That Boyle guy, an armchair attorney (WD spelled his first name "Frances") was his main, and for a while only, source on the idea that Bush was a war criminal. (1/3/2014 AT 5:11am).

This idiocy by Dennis posted in response to a commentary by Willis Hart of Contra O'Reilly titled Think Insanity"; a post that concerned how I'm insane. But how insane is it to obsess over a 17-month-old gaffe? Yeah, it was a huge screw-up (majorily criticizing a person without even knowing if you're talking about a man or a woman)... but Dennis CLEARLY lied about thinking I made a "fair point" or he would have let my repeating of his typo go. I didn't even notice his spelling mistake, but if I had I would haven't said anything (as we all make typos).

Clearly, if Dennis thought it was fair he wouldn't be lying about me calling Francis "Frances" more than a year after the incident (an incident in which he misidentified Boyle as a woman and then misspelled his name, afterwhich I repeated the misspelling ONCE)... would he? No. In fact, I bet Dennis' computer monitor was flecked with spittle on that day.

No doubt Dennis screamed and pounded his keyboard in anger when he realized his goof (in getting Boyle's gender wrong) which made him look bad in that debate. Lucky for Dennis he could (falsely) claim "you did it too" when I inadvertently repeated his spelling error (either because I had just read his comment and did it unconsciously, or because it was a simple typo). Either way it gave the insecure nutcase something to latch on to.

Point: Dervish Sanders. Delusional Point: Dennis Marks.

Also, in regards to Mr. Boyle's qualifications, he is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Further qualifying Mr. Boyle in regards to pronouncements of war criminality is the fact that, "during the war for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr. Boyle became the first international-law legal adviser to the First Bosnia-Herzegovinian President Alija Izetbegovic" (excerpt via Wikipedia), so he has actual experience practicing (or advising) on international law.

Which means the ignorant Dennis is full of shit when he says Dr. Boyle is "no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I".

Point: Dervish Sanders. Delusional Point: Dennis Marks.

Final Tally... Dervish Sanders: 2 points; Dennis Marks: 0 points. Due to the fact that delusional points aren't actual points.

 swtd-233. dDel-16.  See also tadm-38.

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

Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana (12/16/1863 to 9/26/1952) philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. A lifelong Spanish citizen, Santayana was raised and educated in the United States, wrote in English and identified himself as an American. The quote presented here is from Santayana's The Life of Reason Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense.

Today, many (if not most) American citizens agree that our war with Vietnam was a mistake and we never should have gotten involved in a conflict that lead to the deaths of 58,220 American soldiers. I bring up Vietnam because some say a lie by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson lead to our involvement that escalated to full blown combat.

Professor of History at the University of Kentucky George C. Herring argues that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe".

So, although exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was later called into serious question, LBJ used the incidents to pressure Congress into passing the Southeast Asia Resolution on 8/7/1964 (which eventually lead to all out war).

Whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq. Although blogger Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly strongly disagrees. In fact, according to him it is "quite chilling" that I would suggest such a thing. In a 6/3/2012 post Mr. Hart alludes to a bunch of other lies that LBJ may have told (I'm not well read when it comes to the Vietnam war, nor did I live through it), and (of course) he incorrectly assumes that I defend LBJ in regards to all of these probable lies. I was, however only referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The reason for Hart's posting was (in part) to gauge my "intellectual honesty" when it comes to declaring a president a "war criminal". I say George W. bush is a war criminal due (in part) to his lies about Iraq having WMD. I say ex-preznit bush knew Iraq possessed no WMD, as the inspectors on the ground at the time told him so. The Hartster disagrees.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

Unfortunately Willis is wrong. The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997".

The IAEA answers to both the Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security (Source: Wikipedia). A report by the IAEA submitted to the UNSC most certainly qualifies as the "paper trail" that Mr. Hart is sure does not exist.

Two days after ordering the invasion, in a radio address on 3/22/2013, the former preznit said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors submitted a report 14 days earlier to the UN that said they hadn't found any WMD, is it a reasonable assumption that bush lied? I mentioned the IAEA Report in a comment on Mr. Hart's blog on 5/5/2012. On 7/10/2012 he made the claim that there is no paper trail or evidence and until then we can't talk (i.e. he can't be convinced bush lied). In response I said, "I already gave [you the evidence]. We can't talk because you ignored it and are pretending it doesn't exist".

I think it is VERY clear that Mr. bush lied. The only other excuse would be that he did not believe the inspectors, and that simply does not fly with me AT ALL. A commenter on the Hart blog known as dmarks (or "Dennis Marks" as he is otherwise known) argues that Saddam had been given many chances and had drawn out the process (of complying with the UN resolutions that said he must dispose of his WMD), and that he had fired on UN planes in violation of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. While that is all true, it completely ignores the fact that Saddam was a crazy dictator and such things are to be expected from crazy dictators!

When Saddam violated the various UN resolutions it was entirely up to the UN to determine how those transgressions were to be dealt with. Enforcement of UN resolutions concerning Iraq was NOT the prerogative of the United States or ex-president bush. The fact is that bush made his case for war with Iraq to the UN and the UN rejected it.

When bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter, which is why Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006) said the war "was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter". This statement by Anon was made during a 9/16/2004 BBC interview while he was still the UN leader (not after his term expired).

But Dennis dismissed Mr. Annon's assessment of the legality of the war. Mr. Marks says Annon's comment provided SOME support for the argument of illegality, but not much... because the Secretary-General's comments were "off the cuff" and a "personal opinion". No Dennis, Mr. Annan's assessment was based on what the UN charter says (the 2 previously mentioned articles). That isn't an opinion, but rather a fact-based conclusion. As for Dennis' contention that the remarks were "off the cuff"; that is complete nonsense, as well as a serious charge of incompetence and/or irresponsibility.

The agenda here is clear, I believe... although they may be excusing and dismissing bush's crimes for slightly different reasons, the fact remains that Hart and Marks are acting as apologists for a president who lied and knew at the time he was lying. Lyndon Johnson prematurely went with some intel that later turned out to be wrong and used it as an excuse to ease us into a war step by step. And he kept it quiet when he found out later the intel was inaccurate.

Also, as alleged by Mr. Hart, he "lied" about the war's progress by misrepresenting it as "going swimmingly well when it wasn't"... as if the bush administration didn't do the exact same thing (by touting the success of the surge that actually wasn't a success).

But neither GWb nor LBJ are war criminals according to Mr. Hart. And that's why he says "at least I'm consistent". Personally I think that's a bunch of bullpoop. I'm consistent, in that I think both wars were very bad ideas, although Vietnam came about due to the irrational Communist paranoia of the time (along with some distorting and dishonesty from our leaders), while Iraq can be attributed to outright blatant lies from despicable and reprehensible individuals in the bush administration who wanted war for political advantage; i.e. bush's desire to be a "war president".

Dennis says, "I'm pretty sure his meltdown over the LBJ issue got him booted out of Will's blog". Mr. Marks is wrong. The Hartster didn't ban me over my LBJ comments (the banning came later, and what was at issue was an entirely different topic).

Also, there was no "meltdown", I only said I wasn't convinced that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin (initially). Certainly not in the same manner bush lied about WMD. LBJ found out LATER the Gulf of Tonkin info he got was inaccurate, while bush found out BEFORE he invaded that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Both liars, I suppose, but in my mind bush's lie was more egregious. That may be due to me being an adult of voting age during the Iraq war, while LBJ left office before I was born (and the war wrapped up while I was an infant). Also, I'm a Democrat and there is some partisan bias in play here... I'll admit that.

What do you think me-buck? Are the lies that got us into Vietnam comparable to the lies that got us into Iraq? I say they are, but only marginally. But the real issue here (the point of this post, that is) is that both Mr. Marks and Mr. Hart are completely wrong when it comes to the issue of bush lying. The evidence plainly shows that bush told a big fat lie, and in regards to that fact I am the one who is being honest, while the Hart fellow is being dishonest.

So what's up with these irrationals on the ironically titled rAtional nAtion uSA blog who'd rather we all move on because bush isn't president anymore? Do they want us to forget the past and thus be condemned to repeat it?

Further Reading
[1] Study Shows Bush & Co. Lied, 1/23/2008 (PE post by Shaw Kenawe that points to an article from the website The Center for Public Integrity).
[2] Fact Check: No WMDs in Iraq, 2/19/2008 (Regarding people who say buried barrels of degraded chemical or biological weapons qualify, Fact Check says, "we suggest ridicule").
[3] Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer, 2/9/2015 (That "the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent" was the conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence on Iraq).
[4] SWTD #312: Iraq War Based On gwb Lie Of "Disarming" Saddam When IAEA Officials Who Were There, On The Ground, Said Iraq Had No WMD, 9/4/2015.

SWTD #154, wDel #26.

Benghazi Irrationality

The rational mind of man is a shallow thing, a shore upon a continent of the irrational, wherein thin colonies of reason have settled amid a savage world ~ Wilford O. Cross, a quote from Prologue to Ethics.

The following statement is from the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Mr. Willis V. Hart (whom I have covered on this blog previously) via the Libertarian rAtional nAtion website...

Willis Hart: This was all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative (right before the election, no less) that Al-Qaeda was on the run and all that crap... We were lied to... and I don't particularly like being lied to whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama. This was a bald-faced lie of a story line that they didn't pawn on us once or twice but dozens of times and for over 2 solid weeks. And it was absurd, a spontaneous eruption... (condensed from two of Mr. Hart's comments).

But it wasn't Obama who lied (or authored the talking points that contained the lie, at least), not according to the NYT's David Brooks, who, on the 5/12/2013 airing of "Meet the Press" shared his assessment of how the talking points were formulated (and by whom) in the aftermath of Benghazi...

David Brooks: My reading of the evidence is a very terrible event happened at a CIA facility, they went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility onto the State department, onto anywhere else, and the state department pushed back. ... Out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush and then politics was inserted into it.

So, was it the Obama Administration who wanted to "protect their narrative" of "Al-Qaeda on the run" and therefore lied to us, or is David Brooks right about this "narrative" being constructed by the CIA in an attempt to cover their ass? And why did former Dick Cheney aid at State Victoria Nuland ask for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya? (more on that later).

Brook's take on Benghazi is interesting because Mr. Hart is a huge fan. On 8/29/2012 Willis composed a commentary titled "On David Brooks", in which he said...

Willis Hart: Liberals think that he's a conservative. Conservatives think that he's a liberal. Yeah, you better believe that I can identify with him.

Willis identifies with him because he thinks Brooks is a "Moderate" like him. Willis' "Moderate" position on Benghazi is that he does not like being lied to "whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama". But Willis' hero David Brooks doesn't think President Obama lied. So where does this leave Mr. Hart, I wonder? "Respectfully" disagreeing, I'd guess. Or (more likely) he'd argue what Brooks said does not indicate President Obama didn't lie.

Also, in regards to Brooks and Hart being fellow Moderates... Mr. Brooks, prior to his NYT gig, "worked as reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal [and] as senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception". The Weekly Standard "is an American neoConservative opinion magazine [whose] founding publisher [is] News Corporation [Rupert Murdoch/Fox Nooz]".

OK, got it. Willis identifies with David Brooks because he perceives him to be a Moderate like (he perceives) himself to be a Moderate. But David Brooks isn't a Moderate. Would a "Moderate" work at the neoConservative Weekly Standard? What's odd here is that the Hartster does not identify as neoConservative (he has spoken against the neoCons). While he was gung-ho in his support for bush's Afghanistan invasion, he says he did not support the occupation and nation-building in Afghanistan, or the invasion of Iraq.

But David Brooks is a neoCon (or leaned in that direction while employed by the Weekly Standard, and, since leaving that publication, soured on neoConservatism. I'm not sure.)...

Wikipedia: ...before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Brooks argued forcefully for American military intervention, echoing the belief of commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. [However] In the spring of 2004, some of his opinion pieces suggested he had tempered his earlier optimism about the war. [Also] Brooks' public writing about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar to those by neoConservatives, according to a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald, that labels Brooks as a neoConservative.

My conclusions are that [1] The Obama Administration may have been aware that the CIA/State talking points were not entirely accurate, but for political reasons decided to go with them until the investigation revealed otherwise. [2] It's Mr. Hart's "Moderation" that causes him to go with the Conservative talking points on this and label this "lying", and [3] Mr. Hart is not that Moderate. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that he is a contributor over at the Libertarian rAtional nAtion blog.

Now, back to the former Dick Cheney aide who worked at State and asked "for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya". The State department spokesperson being referred to is Victoria Nuland, and regarding her "Republican party pedigree" Salon says...

Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald: Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoConservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain's presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol...

So she's a former Cheney aid with a Republican pedigree AND there is also a neoCon connection? Could this possibly be sabotage, in that Nuland purposefully corrupted the talking points so the Republicans could later claim a cover-up? I'm thinking probably no... but this is a rather odd coincidence, to say the least.

The Washington Post (the same paper Nuland's husband works for) says Nuland is the one who, "after reading the first draft of the State Department talking points that stated the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack", pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings". She asked, "why would we want to seed the Hill?".

Does this revelation take at least some of the wind out of the sails of those (like Hart) who are absolutely convinced this was an Obama administration conspiracy to lie to the American people in order to sustain their "narrative"? Or do the irrationals on Mr. Nation's blog have their own agenda? I think the following exchange suggests they do...

Jersey McJones: If there was some misinformation intentionally trotted out to the public... then there should be reasonable consequences. But this issue is not worth a snotty rag compared to the horror the last administration perpetrated while the cons sat silent. (5/13/2013 AT 01:42:00 AM EDT). rAtional nAtion: GWB was a poor President overall IMNHO and did more damage to conservatism than perhaps any prior conservative President. Having said this [Jersey McJones] seems to be stuck in time. But I suppose it is understandable. (5/13/2013 AT 09:20:00 PM EDT).

Yea, I understand why Irrational wants to sweep bush's war crimes and lies about WMD that were not found under the rug. If bush had been prosecuted (as he should have been) it would have been extremely damaging for the Republican brand. Not that Mr. Nation is ever going to get the Libertarian government he wants, but he surely does not want to see things swing in the other direction (toward the Democrats). He doesn't want Hillary (or some other Democrat) to win the presidency in 2016. Which is why he's on board with Willis in using Benghazi to damage Obama and Hillary.

Dictionary.com defines irrational as, [1] without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason; [2] without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment; [3] not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical", and that is how I view Mr. Hart's outrage over the president's supposed Benghazi "lies". It is very irrational to expect politicians to not act to protect themselves politically. Yet he has no outrage at all when it comes to the Republicans who are using this to ATTACK the Obama administration for political reasons.

It is the Republican lies for which there is FAR greater reason to be outraged, IMO. The truth came out in short order (the Benghazi attack was not a result of a spontaneous attack sparked by the "Innocence of Muslims" video). Obama still would have won the election. Also, nobody died because "the talking points were reduced to mush" (as David Brooks put it)... unlike when bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Mr. Hart isn't outraged about that at all. Quite the contrary, he has authored multiple posts defending bush lying about WMDs, which Willis says there is no evidence of!

When I said, "bush lied when he said we needed to invade Iraq to disarm it... even though all the evidence said Iraq was already disarmed", the Hartster's response was complete denial...

Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero (7/10/2012).

There is "no evidence" bush lied about WMD? Sure. The Downing Street Memo isn't evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee report that found the bush administration "deliberately misled the American public about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda and led the nation to war on false premises"... that isn't evidence either.

NO outrage over bush's NARRATIVE that Iraq had WMD and needed to be disarmed, just willful ignorance... but plenty of outrage over Obama's "bald-faced lie"? Willis did mention Dick Cheney lying, but about what I don't know. I tried to comment on the Irrational blog but it appears as though the Irrational fellow won't be publishing my comment. Not that it would matter, because ever since Willis banned me from his blog he refuses to acknowledge any words from me on any site we may both happen to comment on.

SWTD #150, wDel #24.