Dennis' Passionate Defense of bin Laden Takes The Cake

Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks, is an individual who Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) considers a personal hero. In fact, Dennis frequently goes out of his way to defend Mr. bin Laden, arguing stridently against a course of action that could have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody and tried for his role in the attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers.

Just as recently as today (3/31/2014) the dead-horse-beating Dennis complained about this blogger's support for a plan that could have brought OBL to justice shortly after the attacks, as opposed to the ten years it ended up taking to hunt him down...

Dennis Marks: Derve found an obscure but extreme columnist who named this organization of Khadaffy, Assad, Saddam Hussein (at the time), the leader of Sudan (and many other butchers and despots) as a "moderate" organization. When it is nothing more than the worst sort of terrorist cabal. Turning Bin Laden over to them for "justice" would be akin, to, say, turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK for them to handle it. Derve is also hung up on the idea that the bungling George W. Bush intentionally let Osama go, despite a complete lack of evidence on this. The only evidence here is of Dervish's maniacal (and sometimes murderous) hatred of our duly elected 43rd President. He is willing to shove all facts aside for that bright and shining hatred. But you are right. Dervish wanting Bin Laden to have been handed over to his fellow terrorists really really takes the cake, doesn't it? (3/31/2014 AT 10:00am EDT).

The "obscure but extreme columnist" Dennis refers to is Gareth Porter. Mr. Porter is actually an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, and not "obscure" or "extreme". (SWTD #76).

Dennis' claim that this blogger wanted OBL to have been handed over to his "fellow terrorists" is complete bullpucky. I would have been very much opposed to such an idea, if anyone ever put it forward. But the fact is that nobody ever did. At first the Taliban suggested it would turn bin Laden over to the OIC, which is a moderate Islamic organization (I'll take the word of a historian specializing in US national security policy over that of the ad-hominem-slinging Dennis' uninformed opinion any day). Finally the Taliban (desperate not to be bombed) said that any neutral third country would do.

Who that third party might have been is something bush could have negotiated with them on. Those negotiations may have broken down, sure, but we'll never know, as bush dismissed the offer out-of-hand (because he always intended to invade, no matter what).

As for the bush administration letting Osama go, there is NOT a "complete lack of evidence". There is evidence, and the evidence is a fu*king Senate foreign relations committee report that says "Donald Rumsfeld had the chance when he was US defense secretary in December 2001 to make sure Osama bin Laden was killed or captured, but let him slip through his hands".

According to the report there is "a mass of evidence that points towards the near certainty that Bin Laden was in the Tora Bora district of the White Mountains in eastern Afghanistan" and that "fewer than 100 American troops committed to the area were not enough to block his escape".

bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, responded to their YES to that demand with a refusal to discuss terms, and then (via Rumsfeld) sent a clearly inadequate number of troops to capture him? The obvious conclusion is that bin was allowed to escape.

As for the complete nonsense about turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK - this comparison simply does not hold up - as the US authorities captured Eric Rudolph. Why the hell would the US authorities turn Rudolph over to the KKK? That wasn't the case with bin Laden. WE DIDN'T CAPTURE HIM. He was never in our custody. That bin Laden be turned over to a neutral third party for trial may not have been ideal, but it would have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody.

What Dennis argues for is a course of action that resulted in 10 extra years of freedom for OBL. When I cite a course of action that may not have worked, but represented a chance to capture and hold bin Laden accountable, Dennis ridicules me and argues strongly in favor of bin Laden remaining free. And he makes a ludicrous comparison involving turning over a criminal we HAD IN CUSTODY to the KKK... when we NEVER HAD OBL in custody!

The ONLY reason for considering the Taliban's offer was because we did not have OBL in custody. All I argued in favor of is that any path by which OBL might have been brought to justice should have been considered. Who the hell would oppose that? Someone who wanted OBL to go free, obviously. And the dead-horse-beater continues to argue for OBL to have not faced justice for his involvement in the 9-11 attacks. That, IMO is a cake made of poo and lies that Dennis has been trying to get people to eat for 12+ years.

Finally, preznit bush was not "duly" elected, as an election being decided by the Supreme Court is not how our presidents are to be selected according to the Constitution. It's never happened before or since. Even if you believe bush got the most Florida votes (which he did not), the Supreme Court's involvement immediately nixes "duly". bush's SCOTUS anointing wasn't "duly" at all.

TADM #33. See also TADM #28 and SWTD #240

Dennis LOL, Classics Edition #1

Welcome to the first in a new series here on "The Truth About Dennis Marks". This new series of postings will highlight classic Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) LOLs from the past.

For this first entry we will be traveling back in time to 2012. This highly LOL-able comment was proffered by Mr. Marks when I asked him about his support for the invasion of Iraq by preznit bush...

Dennis Marks: I was always opposed to the Iraq War. It was senseless for Saddam Hussein to start it in the first place by invading Kuwait. And it was senseless for him to re-ignite it by breaking the cease-fire in so many aggressive ways. (7/22/2012 AT 1:36pm).

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That's still funny, even 2 years (almost) later. Originally I said "that was a good joke dmarks... about Saddam starting the war. Although I'm laughing at you and not with you".

Indeed. That is an observation that still proves to be true to this day. Dennis makes many LOL-worthy comments, but they are always of the "laugh at" and never the "laugh with" variety.

If it were true that Saddam started the Iraq war, then why did bush go to the UN (send Powell to make his case)? Why would he need to convince the UN to go along with starting a war if it had already begun?

The Dennis argument is, of course, completely illogical. But then, most of what Dennis says is illogical, and only good for LOL-ing in response to. But some seem to disagree. Like his buddies Lester and Willis. Why they put up with his insanity is a mystery to me. Sure, they suffer from their own delusions, but still, Dennis' nuttery outstrips even their own.

Update 7/1/2014: Dennis, as he often does when I link to comments of his, deleted his idiocy about Saddam "starting" the Iraq war. Also, the Google cached page was updated with a newer version, thus removing his comment permanently. But he said it, of this you can be positive. In any case he admits to deleting comments, claiming he does it "for the amusement factor".

In any case, in my response I said "LOL. That was a good joke dmarks... about Saddam starting the war. Although I'm laughing at you and not with you". So, I did not quote him, but this response CLEARLY concerns the delusional Dennis claiming that Saddam started the war. (So this is pretty solid proof, I think, that Dennis said what I say he did).

TADM #23

Dennis Marks Lies Concerning the Clinton Surplus

Regarding the surpluses of the Clinton-era, FactCheck.org says "there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased.

But Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) says "checking Treasury Department figures, it was solid debt all the way through Clinton and Bush. Clinton at the end ran unusually low deficits... but was never in the black".

What the lying Dennis is doing is substituting overall debt figures for budget figures. Dennis is correct that the total national debt continued to increase under Clinton, but that was because of interest payments on the National Debt. For Dennis to give Clinton any credit, the entire national debt (ran up primarily under Reagan) would have to have been erased. Completely ridiculous, of course, which is why Fact Check confirms that President Clinton ran surpluses during the last two years of his presidency.

But, according to Dennis, when I agree with a professional fact checking organization - I'm lying. Even George W. bush recognized the fact that the Clinton surplus was real. Shortly after assuming office the new prez said "we recognize, loud and clear, the surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money. And we ought to trust them with their own money".

And then bush frittered away the surplus by sending out rebate checks, knowing it would make the people happy and that they would credit bush for the "free money" (money that should have been used to pay down the debt). bush realized the surplus was real, and instead of using it responsibility he used it to purchase political capital.

But, when I brought up what GWb had to say regarding the surplus, Dennis simply ignored me and went back to calling me a liar who was relying on "accounting fraud" to arrive at a surplus.

And, when Dennis' buddy Will pointed out that the national debt went up every year under Clinton, Dennis felt validated and said (about me)...

Dennis Marks: [He is] the liar with the black crayon who arbitrarily scribbles out parts of the actual historic budget in order to create a fake picture of what happened to try to make Clinton look better. (8/31/2012 AT 7:48am).

That would make bush a liar with a black crayon as well. Although he only wanted to make himself look better by giving money away. But AGAIN, I was referring the the Clinton BUDGET surplus, not whether or not Clinton wiped out the entire national debt (and therefore no interest payments were necessary).

If fiscal responsibility is to be measured, looking at a president's budget (and not whether or not he did the impossible by completely paying off the national debt ran up mostly by Reagan) is what should be looked at. In this instance Dennis does not want us looking at who is responsible for the debt up to that point in time (Reagan).

When such things are looked at Republicans look bad and Democrats look good, which is why liars like Dennis seek to shift some of the blame from a fiscally irresponsible president (Reagan) to a fiscally responsible president (Clinton)... while ignoring the facts (as determined by a professional fact checking organization). It's transparent and shameful.

Fortunately very few fall for it. Sane people agree Clinton ran a BUDGET surplus, even if he did not pay down the entire national debt which was accumulated by every president that came before him (mainly Reagan). That is why only stupid people (like Dennis) make the argument that there was no surplus.

TADM #22

On Dennis Marks & Frances Boyle

Francis Boyle, or "Frances" Boyle, as Dennis likes to call him, is a Jewish man who accurately called the ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq 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 as Dennis does. Boyle, is clearly an anti-Zionist, however. But being an anti-Zionist does not automatically mean the person holding these views is anti-Semitic. I mean, the dude is Jewish himself! But Dennis has a history of referring to Jewish people who hold opinions he disagrees with anti-Semites... which could be, IMO, a kind of anti-Semitism itself.

Especially considering that Boyle's anti-Zionism is the ONLY stance of Boyle that Dennis uses to reach his conclusion that the Jewish Boyle is a self-hating anti-Semite. I've never seen any proof that Boyle is self-hating.

Although it does seem that Boyle being against the Iraq war and deeming bush's invasion (among other things) to be a war crime(s) is another factoid that Dennis used to determine that Boyle is an anti-Semite. Not that the two things have anything to do with one another (believing that bush might be a war criminal and anti-Semitism, that is). But the delusional Dennis seems to think that they are related.

In any case, I do believe these Boyles' anti-Zionism views invalidate his correct conclusions regarding the legality of bush's invasion of Iraq, which is that it wasn't. And, as far as Boyle's anti-Zionism views go - I disagree with them... not that that stops the lying Dennis from saying I do, which the confabulator has done on a number of occasions.

Video Description: Bush, Blair wanted for war crimes - an interview with Francis Boyle. (25:56; interview begins at 1:29)

TADM #4