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.

Rudy Giuliani Anti-American Praise of Pootie-Poot Brings Shame To Our Country

I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul ~ George W bush (dob 7/6/1946) 43rd preznit of the US (2001 to 2009), reflecting on a meeting with new best friend, Pootie-Poot, or Vladimir Putin, as he is known to everyone else.

H/T to Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions for her highlighting of Rudy Giuliani's disgusting commentary regarding the invasion of the Ukraine by Russian troops with her story "Rudy Has The Hots For Vlad!", in which she discussed the former NY mayor praising Vladmir Putin by saying he's "what you call a leader" (in contrast to Obama).

According to the Progressive blogger SK "the unlawful invasion of a sovereign country is real leadership" and that this insult to President Obama deserves to be called out. Actually, SK referred to Giuliani's praise of Putin "anti-American blather", and with that assessment I agree.

Mr. "a noun, a verb, and 9-11", is the idiot who, after running around looking heroic on 9-11, ran a failed presidential campaign, and then started a security consulting business... as if being mayor during the 9-11 attacks made him an expert at security - when the fact is that the reason he was running around looking all heroic is because he ignored the NYPD's objections to placing the emergency command center in the WTC...

William K. Rashbaum, writing for the NYT: The New York Police Department produced a detailed analysis in 1998 opposing plans by the city to locate its emergency command center at the World Trade Center, but the Giuliani administration overrode those objections. The command center later collapsed from damage in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. (The New York Times, 1/26/2008).

And, there is also the fact that the Giuliani administration was warned about problems with NYFD radios in 1993 but did nothing to fix the problem. Giuliani lied to the 9-11 commission when he said "firefighters heard the orders and heroically decided to stand their ground and rescue civilians"... the International Association of Fire Fighters says "121 firefighters in the north tower didn't get out because they didn't hear evacuation orders" (due to the KNOWN radio communication problem).

It is a horrible joke that Giuliani has been able to use 9-11 (first in his failed attempt to become president) and then to make money off of (security consulting and as a Fox Nooz contributor). That he was running around on 9-11 due to the destruction of the emergency command center should be his shame. That so many firefighters died due to his administration's inaction in fixing a known problem should be his shame. Unbelievably him being mayor on 9-11 is his source of pride (and has made him a LOT of money).

Giuliani was a consistent cheerleader for the bush administration's lying us into an illegal invasion of Iraq, and now he has the gall to criticize Obama while praising Putin? I agree completely with Giuliani's praise of Putin to be "anti-American blather", which makes him a pretty loathsome character, IMO. Even IF you don't take his record on 9-11 into consideration.

SWTD #237

Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition

The day I made that statement, about the inventing the internet, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the Camcorder ~ Al Gore (dob 3/31/1948) an American politician, advocate and philanthropist, who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001), under President Bill Clinton... joking about the deluded liars who think he claims to have invented the internet.

Al Gore, the only person ever elected to the presidency who did not serve, also happens to be the victim of an (old) lie about him having claimed to be the inventor of the internet. Actually, this "lie" is more of a joke... because we all know he didn't say it. That Al Gore claims to have invented the internet has been debunked by Snopes. Follow the link and you will see that the judgment of this well-known resource for validating and debunking "urban legends, Internet rumors, email forwards, and other stories" (Snopes) is that the meme is false.

Yet, this does not stop Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) from lying and stating that, no, he truly believes that Gore said he invented the internet...

Dennis Marks: Al Gore did not use the word invent, but he did use the word create, and said that he created the Internet. Yes are no: are you aware of the existence of synonyms? And if you are, how can you argue that invent does not mean create? Face it: Gore claimed to have invented it (correct paraphrase), which is untrue since he never did. (4/18/2012 AT 5:49am).

So, Dennis has to resort to synonyms to "prove" Mr. Gore "lied"? How pathetic. At best it could be argued that Mr. Gore misspoke. He surely did not lie, as we know Mr. Gore was referring to legislation he sponsored during his time in Congress. The Wikipedia page "Al Gore and information technology" notes that "in the 1980s and 1990s, [Gore] promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet".

What follows is the statement by Gore; from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 3/9/1999...

Al Gore: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Gore directly references the legislation he sponsored after CORRECTLY pointing out that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". While it is true that "create" and "invent" are synonyms, Dictionary.com defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the [English] language". In the context of Al Gore's quote, the meaning is NOT the same, as Snopes points out...

Snopes: Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions... (excerpt from the Snopes article Internet of Lies).

In the context of Mr. Gore's quote an honest person can NOT use the "synonym argument" and thus conclude Gore was claiming to have invented the internet, as a synonym can mean a word that has NEARLY the same meaning and not EXACTLY the same meaning. A honest person would look at the CONTEXT of the word being used and conclude - as Snopes did - that those who claim Gore invented the internet are full of bullplop. But Dennis is not an honest person. Also, he most certainly is full of poop.

Proof that Dennis dissembles is that when I said "he [Gore] was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored", Dennis remarked...

Dennis Marks: Now that is a flat out lie. You are defending Gore on what you think he said, not what he actually said. He CLEARLY took credit for bringing the Internet into being. Which in fact he never did: it existed before the point in time in which he claimed to have invented it (exact word "Created"). (3/28/2012 at 8:46am). [Note: Dennis deleted this comment, but I quoted him in my response immediately following the deleted comment].

No, Dennis, you delusional lying sack of excrement, Al Gore actually said "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives..." and he was referring to the legislation he sponsored. The only one thinking (or imagining) Al Gore said something that he did not is YOU. Mr. Gore did NOT "clearly" take credit for bringing the Internet into being.

Conclusion? We should all thank Gore for helping set up the environment that lead to the internet as we now know it. Without the foresight and genius of the ex-Vice President, I would not be online blogging today. If only Mr. Gore had invented a method of ensuring the integrity of elections, then perhaps George bush would not have stolen the presidency from him. It is a shame, as with a President Gore, we may have stopped the terrorists and prevented the tragedy of 9-11. At least we have the internet, I guess... and for that I say... THANK YOU, Mr. Gore... the only man ever elected president who never served. The world owes you a debt of gratitude.

As for Mr. Marks, I think we (all of us in the reality based community) can conclude he is a delusional nutter who will now - if he reads this commentary - start claiming Gore lied about inventing the camcorder.

Video: Al Gore tells the truth about how he took the initiative in creating the internet.

Update 10/6/2014: In regards to the comment by Dennis that he deleted above, according to him he did it "for the amusement factor".

SWTD #236, dDel #18. See also TADM #15.

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.

The Truth About Dennis Marks

"Pathological liar" is absolutely the toughest individual to deal with as a psychiatrist. Because you can't take anything they say at face value. And you can't, you know, fill in their personality. You don't know what's real and what's not ~ Dale Archer, a medical doctor, psychiatrist and Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

The truth about the blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is that he is a cowardly delusional virulent liar. As well as pathological. Concerning pathological liars, Wikipedia says "the individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies". This, I believe, very much describes the Dennis Marks. Much of the time I think he actually believes his lies. Other times I think he's got to know he's lying. But it can be hard to tell.

The reason for this commentary on the lying of Dennis is to push back against a number of particularly virulent and vile lies that Mr. Marks has told about the proprietor of this blog. Said lies as laid out below. Take a look at these comments from Dennis (with links to prove he actually said these things) and then tell me if an individual who slings such sick and virulent lies is someone who should be trusted to tell the "truth" about anyone or anything.

Five of Dennis Marks' Vile Lies

1. dmarks: ...you defend antisemitism. (6/10/2012 at 6:11pm).

2. dmarks: [MSNBC host Ed Schultz was charged with] domestic violence? In light of how WD defends and supports Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children, no wonder he defends Schultz so much. (6/22/2012 at 1:23am).

3. dmarks: By lying about it, denying, and downplaying, WD is nothing more than an apologist and supporter of domestic violence. (6/22/2012 at 5:42pm).

4. dmarks: you [Dervish] strongly favor abortionists being given the power of judge, jury, and executioner... by killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust. (6/23/2012 at 6:58am).

And when another blogger who calls himself Rusty Shackelford said "based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior", Dennis replied with the following comment...

5. dmarks: Thanks for proving, Rusty, that to WD, it doesn't matter if someone rapes children, beats his wife, or wants to see the Israelis (specifically Jewish ones) wiped out... it's all fine if the person has a "D" after his name. (6/23/2012 at 4:23pm).

My Response To These Five Vile Lies From Dennis Marks

So, I'm a supporter of anti-Semitism, domestic abuse, child rape, and "killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust" according to Dennis. If true I'd have to be one sick, perverted and hateful person, but these are all clearly lies. Even if all these vile accusations were true, do you really think such a person would come right out and say they held all these positions?

Of course not! So we know right off the bat that Dennis is lying. But if you want explanations regarding how the sick mind of Dennis reached these conclusions about me, read on...

1. 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.

The fact is I disagree with the Jewish Dr. Boyle in regards to views on Israel; I just don't believe that makes him anti-Semitic. Disagree with his anti-Zionism if you will Dennis (and we'd be in agreement on that), but Dennis crosses a line when he accuses Boyle of wanting to "wipe out" his fellow Jews - as well as claiming that Boyle and Norman Finkelstein (another Jewish man who is critical of Israel) "...are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scaped out of industrial ovens".

That Dennis would say something so loathsome about two Jewish men (one with parents who were holocaust survivors) is itself anti-Semiti, in my strong opinion.

(Note: see SWTD #234 for my expanded commentary on the subject of Dennis' problem with anti-Semitism).

2-3. Domestic Violence: Rusty Shackelford claimed that "he [Dervish] knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife, but tries to sweep the facts under the rug", but I don't "know" this at all. I asked that Rusty or Dennis provide a link to a reputable mainstream news organization that has reported that Ed Schult's ex-wife filed a restraining order against her former husband and gave the reason for it as domestic violence. When neither Rusty or Dennis were able to, they simply declared my refusal to condemn Mr. Schultz without any proof of me being "an apologist and supporter of domestic violence".

But check this thread and you will see that I said "I've neither defended nor condemned him", I only asked for proof which neither of these slimes were able to provide. I asked for proof multiple times but never got any. I tried to Google for the answer myself, but only found accusations (as described by Dennis and Rusty) on Rightwing blogs and messageboards, which does not amount to "proof".

(Note: see SWTD #307 for my expanded commentary on the subject of Dennis Marks' and Rusty Shackelford's evidence-free charge of Ed Schultz being guilty of domestic violence).

4. Abortion bloodlust: This stems from a conversation in which I defended ex Senator Russ Feingold against accusations from Dennis concerning Feingold "wanting born American citizens to be killed without any due process and fair trial". Dennis says I support this "bloodlust" because I agreed with Feingold, when Senator Santorum brought up absurd scenarios involving a fetus in the process of being aborted "slipping out" and being "completely delivered", Mr. Feingold said "I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor".

But, because I agreed with Senator Feingold that this question should be left to those who are qualified to answer it (doctors), Dennis says I'm for "killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust". Bloodlust has nothing to do with it, you sicko. I'm for preventing suffering and if you stop an abortion in process that is what you may very well end up with (a baby that suffers for awhile before dying). What the idiot Santorum describes is a birth, and NO, I do not believe a doctor should be allowed to kill a child that is born. Kermit Gosnell did that, and the murdering bastard was rightfully convicted and sent to prison.

In any case, in regards to actual births, Feingold said (in the same discussion with Santorum cited above) "Once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue" (TADM #48).

5-A. Child Rape: The "someone rapes children" line is due to me bringing up the name Scott Ritter during a discussion of Iraq's WMD program. Scott Ritter is a former IAEA inspector who, prior to bush's invasion of Iraq, said Saddam had no WMD.

The reason for dmarks' accusations? Scott Ritter was caught in "police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature" (two separate incidents). These incidents, however, occurred many years after Scott Ritter left the IAEA. The charges Mr. Ritter was convicted of have absolutely nothing to do with the WMD Scott Ritter did not find in Iraq.

The truth is that other members of the IAEA, including David Kay, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, all said Iraq was disarmed. Former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei called the bush administration's claim that Iraq had WMD a "deliberate deception".

In any case, even after I told Dennis (numerous times) that I condemn Ritter for what he did after leaving the IAEA (a job in which he told the truth, as evidenced by the fact that the entire agency agreed with him), Dennis still insists I "defend" child rape... and he calls it "rape" even though Ritter was arrested before anything actually happened (he didn't rape any kids). But my pointing that out is, according to Dennis, part of my "defending" it. Clearly this is a vile "attack the messenger" ad hominem from Mr. Marks.

(Note: see SWTD #312 for more information regarding individuals at the IAEA who determined that Iraq did not need to be "disarmed" because they had no WMD).

5-B. Person has a "D" after their name means it is fine with me: This Dennis deduces because I wouldn't condemn Ed Schultz of domestic violence with no proof. And the same applies to Scott Ritter, despite the fact that I did condemn him for what he did after leaving the IAEA, and even though Ritter is "a self-professed conservative Republican who admitted... he voted for Bush three years ago [in 2000]". Dennis imagined a "D" behind his name because anyone who went to Iraq and found no WMD must be a liar (and a Democrat).

In conclusion, and in regards to the my accusations of Dennis being a "virulent liar" - this has, I believe, been proven. So, should you believe Dennis when he purports to be revealing the truth? I recommend no. Actually, I think Dennis' past statements (lies) speak for themselves, and THEY say "don't believe Dennis, he lies".

(See "The Truth About Dennis Marks", a blog I started on 2/21/2014 to tell the actual truth about the dishonest Mr. Marks... as opposed to his made up "truth" about me.)

SWTD #232, dDel #15.

Dennis Butt-Kisses In Gratitude For rAtional Hypocrisy

Someone who does anything to get their boss/co-worker/a$$hole friends to like them. Also someone who should be punched in the jaw ~ definition of Butt Kisser, courtesy of the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases" (entry #1).

I have a long history of arguing with crazy, pathological liar Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), and, as a result, Dennis drops lies about me into any conversation he can (even when I am not present), the latest example as follows...

Dennis Marks: [In regards to] unnecessary regs, RN, add those put in place... [by] big business [who] does mere lip service complaining about it, because these regulations destroy mom-and-pop operators (which some have called "plutocrats" anyway and want wiped out) and strengthen the fat-cats. (2/9/2014 AT 3:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

There actually is some truth contained within this comment by Dennis. Big business does often lobby for regulations they believe will harm their smaller competitors, but the lie here is that (1) Liberals love regulations, regardless of whether the are needed or not (because they empower bureaucrats and allow them to help cronies over their competitors) and (2) Conservatives support smart regulations. They do not. They put forward this reasonable sounding argument as a way of chipping away at ALL regulations.

Corporations (in lobbying for regulations that harm smaller competitors) are simply playing both sides (as they always do). If there must be regulations, then they're going to find a way to make them work in their favor. This DOES not mean corporations like regulations (they still hate the ones that protect consumers from their malfeasance), and Dennis, in arguing against "unnecessary" regulations, actually argues against ALL regulations.

Lies About Who I've Referred to as Plutocrats

But those lies aren't the lies of Dennis I was referring to. The lie about me that Dennis dropped into his anti "unnecessary" regulation argument is that "some" call "mom-and-pop" operators (small businesses) plutocrats and "want them wiped out". This is a call-back to a prior discussion wherein Dennis lied and insisted I called small business operators "plutocrats"...

Dennis Marks: ...anyone who believes that the way to stop plutocrats (identified by Dervish Sanders as small businesses, school boards, doctors) is with a strong state is an extremely gullible "bootlicker": the exact type of person who is first in line saying "Yes SIR!" when stuff really went bad in Mao's China... 1990s Serbia... Lenin's Russia, or mid 20th century Germany. (1/26/2014 AT 5:36pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

This is just one example of Dennis promulgating this absurd lie. Here is another...

Dennis Marks: ...don't take Mr. Sanders' references to "plutocrats" too seriously. He has painted the term with very broad strokes, having in the past accused small business owners, doctors who are good at what they do, and school boards all of being plutocrats. (1/24/2014 AT 11:54am via the rAtional nAtion blog).

And here is another one from a little further back in time...

Dennis Marks: Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'. Then he said they were all engaged in some sort of genocide and called them Nazis. (8/15/2012 AT 3:31am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

I'm not sure, but I think the lie from Dennis about who I've referred to as plutocrats began during a discussion from August of 2012 that concerned tenure. I said "getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats' plan to destroy all good paying middle and upper middle class jobs. That way there is more money for them. It's all about greed" - and from that Dennis deduced that I was calling "school principals and school boards plutocrats".

Then Dennis said "we were discussing people who hire, fire, and pay teachers. You slammed these people as plutocrats". This is where Dennis made his mistake. He may have been talking about these people, but I wasn't (not with that comment). Attempting to set Dennis straight, I clarified that "we were discussing people who oppose tenure. I referred to a certain group of people who oppose it and gave their reason".

But did Dennis accept this clarification? No, he continues to lie about - and make a joke out of - who I refer to whenever I use the term "plutocrat". And, despite the absurdity of this lie, it not only persists, but continues to grow - with more and more people being in included in the "plutocrat" category by me in the delusional mind of Dennis - even after I posted the following to the rAtional nAtion blog...

Dervish Sanders: I never said [Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats]. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of mom-and-pop stores are plutocrats. Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this). I predict no. (8/16/2013 AT 8:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

As you can see my prediction was 100 percent accurate. I said I categorically rejected calling small business owners (or "mom-and-pop" owners) "plutocrats" - and Dennis responded by saying "I am glad WD changed his mind" (even though I couldn't "change my mind", as I never believed that to begin with). But still Dennis repeats this lie again and again. Even though he acknowledged I "changed my mind".

Also, I never called teachers being denied tenure "some sort of genocide" nor did I call anyone a Nazis. This addition to the lie is nothing but pure imagining by Dennis.

Lies About Others

But I am not the only person Dennis likes to tell absurd lies about. Anyone who talks back to Dennis, or (God forbid) agrees with me, might find themselves the target of mendacious fabrications from the blogger who loves to beat dead horses. Following are two such examples, the first one concerns blogger John Myste...

Dennis Marks: [Reagan is] proof that African-Americans just need an environment of economic opportunity, and don't need affirmative-action quota policies that treat them as if they are inferior beings (damaged, in the words of that Myste guy) that can't compete on a level playing field. (2/1/2014 AT 7:30pm via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

John Myste is someone who used to comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog, but left over a dispute with Dennis on 11/5/20012 - and I have not seen any comment from him anywhere since (not even on his own blog). Obviously Dennis holds onto grudges - and keeps bitching about years-old arguments - even when the person in question isn't around any longer.

And, just as I never said what Dennis continually insists I said about who is a plutocrat, John Myste never said Black people are "damaged" or inferior. In regards to that false quote Dennis keeps trying to stuff into Mr. Myste's mouth, he said...

John Myste: [Contra O'Reilly] has been dominated by the repeated assertions of a completely irrational man, who insists on making up straw men and refuting them. ... I would prefer debating my opinion against someone else's on philosophical grounds to debating what my opinion is. I don't enjoy posting something and then have 50 comment long treads trying, not to defend what I believe, but having people tell me I am saying something I clearly am not saying and having this discussion (someone inventing claims and calling them my opinion) be the discussion. That is pointless, childish and boring. (11/5/2012 AT 8:35am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

Indeed, this is exactly what Dennis does. And he never lets the argument drop, even when the person says "farwell" and never returns, or even when the person in question has never commented on the blog Dennis is complaining about him on.

Such is the case with Malcolm Bondon of the blog Progressive Soup (my second example of someone Dennis keeps lying about). This time Dennis' anger stems from a June 2013 discussion about Fox Nooz complaints concerning the White House inviting the rapper Common to perform there. I agreed with Malcolm's criticisms of Fox Nooz and Dennis disagreed with them.

Approximately 6 months later and Dennis is still fuming that his efforts to slime me on another blog failed (Dennis lied about me using profanity on his blog and called me a troll... in addition to other lies (SWTD #124). And, not only were his lies about me not believed, but the proprietor of the blog actually had the audacity to agree with me that no WMD was found in Iraq (SWTD #154), MSNBC personality Toure never (SWTD #131) "bashed Herman Cain for being Black", and that the rapper Common didn't lie about no WMD being found in Iraq or "bash" Black people - by using the N-word in his raps (TADM #59).

And, although Malcolm of Progressive Soup has never commented on the blog Contra O'Reilly, and the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly has never (to my knowledge) commented on Progressive Soup - that did not stop Dennis from whining about Malcolm with this recent comment...

Dennis Marks: Fox News is in a position of being a voice of dissent against the most powerful ruler on the planet. In this they deserve support. Damn those like that Progressive Soup guy who want Fox silenced. That's bootlicking. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

That "Progressive Soup guy" never said he wanted "Fox silenced" in his commentary about the Fox News/Common story. Someone exercising their free speech rights to voice their disagreement with a Fox Nooz story does not amount to wanting the organization "silenced". Not once does Malcolm suggest any such thing. In regards to "silencing", Dennis is blatantly lying, but, as I've already pointed out, this is something the dishonest Dennis does with great regularity... about me, and about others.

Butt kissing in Response to Hypocrisy Regarding Lies

Two blogs where the constant lying of Dennis is permitted (and even encouraged) are those of Willis Hart and Lester Nation. The blog of Willis Hart, because the guy hates my guts (referring to me in his latest post as a "vapid, insular, virulent, shameless, paranoid, and amoral partisan stooge"), and the blog of Lester Nation, because his opinion of me is not that dissimilar from that of Mr. Hart.

The butt kissing referred to takes the form of Dennis immediately adopting (and referring to me) using the latest nickname Lester has come up with... the current one being "Derv The Swerve". Before that I was "Canardo". Every time Lester comes up with a new nickname, Dennis latches onto it and starts using it immediately.

The reason being that Dennis is appreciative of Lester going along with his lies about who I've referred to as plutocrats, and he recognizes (as do I) that the "warnings" issued by Lester in which he says things like "it will be most appreciated if you and dmarks take your personal issues elsewhere", don't apply to him. This warning from Lester because Dennis inserted the plutocrat lie into one of his comments (first Dennis quote at the top of this commentary) and I responded. Key here is the fact that the warning wasn't issued until I responded and was clearly directed at me.

After the warning Dennis lied again and said he was only making a "general comment" and not referring to me specifically. In response the hypocrite Lester posts the following...

rAtional nAtion: dmarks... My comment was indeed in direct reference to what appears at least to me to be a running issue between Mr. Sanders and yourself. Mr. Sanders, or Derve the Swerve as I have come to call him, thoroughly enjoys taking every opportunity to toss out the bait. Ignoring the bait and not responding to it is IMO the prudent course. That and not tossing out bait of your own, which Mr. Sanders always takes. I hope you get what I'm saying. For dudes like Derv, who are always right even when they are wrong, it is advisable to let him just talk to himself. (2/10/2014 AT 8:07pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

The hypocritical part isn't the first bit (which he gets right), but the accusation that *I* "tossed out the bait", even though I was simply responding to a tired (and absurd) lie from Dennis. And, then Dennis says "I can see how it can appear to be such a reference. In light of that, I will do better to avoid such references that might trigger tantrums in the future".

An obvious lie, this "general comment" and "appearance" BS, yet Lester allows him to get away with it - and even encourages it by adding his own lies. Well, at this point I know it would be futile of me to try and reply, as Lester sometimes publishes comments I submit, but rejects many others - which is why I decided to set the record straight here. No "tantrum" throwing, just a setting straight of the record. Now I can, if Dennis brings this up in the future on the blog of Lester or the blog of anyone else, simply link back to this post; a post in which contains the unequivocal evidence of Dennis lies (as well as Lester's hypocrisy).

SWTD #231, dDel #14, lDel #15. See also TADM #57.

Narratives of Benghazi Hoax True Believers Debunked (Part 1)

...there's no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president's wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you - when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service - is not the same as making up a false story. It's not even a sin ~ John Dickerson; an American journalist. He is chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and political director of CBS News. Before joining Slate, Dickerson covered politics for Time magazine for 12 years, serving the last four as White House correspondent.

This commentary is in response to a post on the site of a Libertarian blogger who asserts 35 witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi terrorist attack will tell us - if only the administration were not stifling their desire to tell the American people the truth - that President Obama has "patently lied" to us. The "lies" are spelled out by the Libertarian Willis V. Hart (WTNPH) as follows...

Willis Hart: They will tell us that a) there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate (and hence no spontaneous eruption resulting from it), b) the weaponry that was used was of a high-powered nature (mortar, AK-47s, etc.) and not the type of shit that an individual would simply have in their back-pocket, c) a terrorist splinter cell was claiming "credit" for the attack WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, d) the terrorists knew where everything was and had obviously cased the facility well prior to the attack (in other words, THEY PLANNED IT), and e) the consulate itself was being used as a conduit to a gun smuggling operation into Syria and that many of the weapons probably landing into the hands of al Qaeda - none of which this President wants the American public to hear, obviously. (2/5/2014 AT 9:43pm).

According to WTNPH this was a "cover-up"; but he lies. There was no "cover-up", at least in regards to things that don't concern national security (which I'll get back to), but there are logical explanations for the issues raised by Hart, which I will address point by point, starting with his assertion that "there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate" with the rest of this commentary (assertions B through E will be addressed in a subsequent post).

First of all, The Obama Administration NEVER said there was a "spontaneous eruption" outside the Benghazi Mission; or Susan Rice (who was tasked with presenting the official White House response). On 9/16/2012 then United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice "appeared on five major interview shows to discuss the attacks". In delivering her CIA talking points, Rice asserted the following...

Susan Rice (relaying CIA/State Dept Talking Points): Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is - as of the present - is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. ...we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. (Wikipedia/2012 Benghazi attack/U.S. government response).

Notice that then ambassador Rice referred to "what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo". Rice didn't claim there were protests outside the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, although there were reports at the time that the attack was in response to the Innocence of Muslims video (IOM), as this excerpt from a 10/15/2012 Huffington Post article points out...

Michael Calderone, writing for HuffPo: On Sept. 12, Reuters reported that there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked and described the assailants as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad". (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions, 10/15/2012).

The book The Benghazi Hoax cites this Huffington Post article, and further points out that "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi... "reported what people told me they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face" [The Benghazi Hoax, Page 30]. So there actually WAS a question regarding whether or not the attacks were in response to the IOM video, however, "State Department officials said they never concluded that any protests over the video took place near the Benghazi mission on Sept. 11 (and the Rice talking points referenced protests in Cairo, NOT Benghazi, as I already pointed out) [quote from Calderone HuffPo article cited above].

And former White House correspondent John Dickerson concludes that there was no cover-up, because, as he writes in a 5/16/2013 Slate article...

Michael Calderone: In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. ... So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions [Islamist militia group] Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along. (I Was Promised a Cover-Up, 5/16/2013).

"Bowdlerize", according to Dictionary.com is "to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered vulgar or objectionable", and John Dickerson says the emails don't show that the White House did that. So, how did the terrorism references get bowdlerized (and the IOM video and the attack being a "spontaneous eruption" get the blame)? John Dickerson says "when the language does eventually change in the talking points, it is clear that it is at the behest of State Department officials, not anyone in the White House" [same article as quoted above].

I think that pretty much proves that the following assertion by WTNPH has very little merit...

Willis Hart: ...the Obama people... pushed this imbecilic narrative about a spontaneous eruption... from some stupid-arsed Youtube video and then continued with it for weeks. Yes, the Republicans are playing some politics here but so, too, is the Obama administration (their brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run). (5/12/2013 at 11:44:00am, From the "Rational Nation USA" blog).

They may have "pushed" it, but they didn't author it - and there was no narrative about Al Qaeda being on the run. WTNPH's assertion that the Obama campaign was claiming this (in order to help win the election) echoes statements made by Senator John McCain, who, on the 11/14/2003 airing of Greta Van Sustern's "On the Record", said "it interferes with the president's narrative, We got bin Laden, al Qaeda's on the run, therefore, I'm a great commander-in-chief".

In regards to the supposed "brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run", David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (authors of The Benghazi Hoax) put forward the facts that squash this lie concerning a narrative the Obama White House didn't have a hand in creating...

Excerpt, The Benghazi Hoax: Obama had never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism... Conservatives claimed that Obama didn't want to discuss "terror" because he wanted to fool voters into thinking Al Qaeda had been vanquished. Yet at the president's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Charlotte several days before the Benghazi attack, he said: "[F]or all the progress we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted". (Page 23).

But, back to the corruption of the talking points, which, as I already pointed out, originally contained terrorist references WTNPH says were removed so the Obama Administration could push a narrative of Al Qaeda being on the run. That allegation, as I have just proven, is false. It was the State Department, as John Dickerson revealed, which modified them, specifically Victoria Nuland, a former Dick Cheney aide at the State Department.

It was Nuland who pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings", and why, Nuland asked, "would we want to seed the Hill?".

So, in conclusion... the talking points were NOT "all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative". This is simply more bunk from the Hartster. Even Fox News admits this with a 5/10/2013 article titled "Benghazi attack: State Department pushed for changes in the administration's talking points" (Note: the article is via the Associated Press, but the link is to Fox's website), and emails the White House released prove this to be the case. Also, there was evidence to suggest the attacks were indeed a "spontaneous eruption" in response to the IOM video (the on-the-ground Reuters reporting by Hadeel al Shalchi).

Given these facts, was it a lie to go with the talking points as modified by the State Department's Victoria Nuland and present them to the American people - while noting that "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated" (as Susan Rice did)? I say NO.

The Obama administration may have accepted a spin that benefited them (as pointed out by John Dickerson in the quote at the top of this post), but they originally signed off on the "fully caffeinated version", so when State came back with the version that said the attack began spontaneously in Benghazi in reaction to the earlier Cairo protests over the IOM video, the administration going with that story for the time being (until the investigation was complete) "is not the same as making up a false story". What IS a false story (and a canard) is WTNPH's dishonest narrative that President Obama "patently lied".

At worst I think the administration could be criticized for taking the politically safe road (if you believe the argument that the original talking points that included the terror references would have hurt them in the election) by accepting the talking points as modified by State (at the hands of Victoria Nuland), but you can NOT say the president "patently lied". He patently did NOT lie, as the facts I just presented unequivocally prove.

1/28/2016 Update: Despite this post being labeled "part 1" and me promising a "part 2" in the body of the commentary... I haven't yet authored a second installment. Anyway (given the fact that a 2nd installment likely will not be forthcoming)... to answer the other point raised by WTNPH concerning the assailants having weapons "of a high-powered nature" that they wouldn't have "in their back pockets", I heard that people were there with those weapons because (at least ostensibly) to turn them over under the weapon recovery program (Source).

SWTD #230, wDel #50.