Last month it was reported that Iraqi chemical weapons had fallen in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) hands. Now, a letter by Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon confirms the seriousness of the situation.

Reuters reported Wednesday:

Iraq’s government has lost control of a former chemical weapons facility to “armed terrorist groups” and is unable to fulfill its international obligations to destroy toxins kept there, the country’s U.N. envoy told the United Nations.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, made public on Tuesday, Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim said the Muthanna facility north of Baghdad was seized on June 11. He said remnants of a former chemical weapons program are kept in two bunkers there.

“The project management spotted at dawn on Thursday, 12 June 2014, through the camera surveillance system, the looting of some of the project equipment and appliances, before the terrorists disabled the surveillance system,” Alhakim wrote in the letter dated June 30. …

“The Government of Iraq requests the States Members of the United Nations to understand the current inability of Iraq, owing to the deterioration of the security situation, to fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons,” he said.

Translation: “Oops-e-doodle!”

In June, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that it was “not likely” that the weapons would be used on anyone. How reassuring.

Given this latest news, it might be a good time for a flashback to January, 2014. You might remember a the moment in time where President Obama referred to ISIL as a “J.V. team” who were wannabe Kobe Bryants. (Note: flippantly referring to Islamic jihadists with sports analogies apparently proves to reporters and young voters that you are cool.)

The New Yorker’s David Remnick reported in January:

I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

It turns out the “J.V.” team now controls large swathes of Syria and Iraq. Would the president still say his analogy was “accurate”? It also turns out that the “horrible actions” taking place in Syria and Iraq are exactly what the president didn’t want us to think — the work of an Islamic ideology that is a direct threat to the United States.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi

Fact: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi told American troops in 2009 “I’ll see you in New York.”

Fact: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is now the “caliph” of Islamic State, a terrorist Army with weapons, funding, new recruits flocking to the region, and a scary-saavy understanding of social media platforms.

Add to this that Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri — the terrorist engineer behind the underwear bomb that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab used to try and bring down a Detroit airliner on Christmas, 2009 — and you’ve got a serious national security situation.

So George W. Bush is an idiot because there were no chemical weapons in Iraq — except that there is, by the admission of the Iraqi government to the United Nations. We now have a groveling letter to the international community asking countries to “understand” that Iraqi officials didn’t want to let those toxins get into the hands of terrorists, but that the “J.V.” team Obama laughed at wasn’t really a J.V. team. They were really hard-core Islamic radicals intent on creating a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.

Here’s something else to chew on: the CDC freaked out on Tuesday because of six forgotten vials of smallpox at a Maryland lab, but yet terrorists steal two bunkers filled with chemical weapons in Iraq and George W. Bush is still a liar. (How does one forget that he has vials of smallpox in his possession?)

Reuters reported on the vials of smallpox on Tuesday:

Infectious disease expert Dr. Michael Osterholm said the discovery of abandoned vials of smallpox is a reminder to labs globally to take stock of what is in their freezers.

Although there have been concerns smallpox could be used in bioterrorism, the CDC says the chances of that occurring are very low. Currently, the government has a stockpile containing enough vaccine for every U.S. citizen.

The bigger threat, Osterholm said, is that these vials could have fallen into the hands of someone who would convert them into an aerosolized form and use them as a bioterror weapon.

“That could be a disaster,” he said.

Apparently the standard for finding chemical weapons in Iraq isn’t a handful of vials or even bunkers filled with chemical weapons, but a large castle with a neon glowing sign that says in Arabic and English “Chemical Weapons Found Here!” where Iraqi soldiers in Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP gear) roll around in chemical weapons like Scrooge McDuck rolls around in money.

Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing reporters grill the president on his “accurate” assessment that ISIL is just a “local” group of Sunni malcontents with no long term plans to attack Americans or American interests around the globe. Or not, because Mr. Obama was sold as the world’s most intelligent man and now media personalities are invested in saving their last remaining bits of credibility.

 

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

51 comments

  1. I so have a bridge I want to sell you, a can’t-miss investment. Some people cannot be fooled enough, so that all Pentagon and Langley do is return to the same well again and again and again.

    I heard there was talk about the Iraqis supposedly were attacking a US cruiser with a PT boat, and then someone in the back of the room in “The truth will set you free” land said they were saving that one for Iran, that they need to return to the chemical weapons ploy, and oh yeah, this time no messing up. If they don’t have them dig in to US stocks and plant the suckers.

    Would American people be dumb enough to fall for the same scam again? Laughter ensued.

    1. Oh, hey, it’s the smartest man in the world — Mark Tokarski. No chemical weapons in Iraq is proof George W. Bush is a liar, but chemical weapons confirmed by the Iraqi government to the United Nations is proof that the United States planted them there. Or maybe the U.S. gave them to ISIL so you and Jesse Ventura could start a conspiracy theory talk show together? Who knows.

      I love meeting guys like you. Eventually it comes down to this: George W. Bush is the stupidest man on the face of the planet, but yet he’s also capable of pulling off vast conspiracies that would require thousands upon thousands of people to zip their lips and never say a word. Got it.

      Bonus: WordPress trackbacks indicate the smartest man in the world, Mark Tokarski, is writing blog posts about me again. I’m “gullible.” Okay. It’s a good to know that Montana has ace conspiracy theory truth-seeker Mark Tokarski on the scene. Remember that episode of The Brady Bunch where Peter became “Scoop Brady”? Maybe we can start calling you “Scoop Tokarski”.

    2. Bonus: WordPress trackbacks indicate the smartest man in the world, Mark Tokarski, is writing blog posts about me again. I’m “gullible.” Okay. It’s a good think Montana has ace conspiracy theory truth-seeker Mark Tokarski on the scene.

  2. I love meeting guys like you. Eventually it comes down to this: George W. Bush is the stupidest man on the face of the planet, but yet he’s also capable of pulling off vast conspiracies that would require thousands upon thousands of people to zip their lips and never say a word. Got it.

    LOL … precisely, Doug. This is always what I said to the ‘bats during the last administration. I mean, he’s a dope for “lying” about WMD because he invaded Iraq knowing the WMD wouldn’t be there, yet he also managed … to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.

    Go figure.

    1. The things is, I can respect someone who says, “Yeah, invading Iraq was a bad idea. We shouldn’t have done that.” There are legitimate arguments for not having done that. But to say that Bush knew there weren’t WMD in a police state that had already used them on its own people … when basically every major intelligence agency around the globe said there would be a high probability of finding them (remember, Saddam was a dictator who buried fighter jets in the middle of the desert to avoid detection) is just laughable.

      The nature of the work intelligence agencies do deals with probability. If police states and rogue regimes were transparent, there would be no need for intelligence gathering. Duh. But guys like Mark seem to think that the CIA should just put out press releases so everyone knows exactly what its doing, and because they don’t he fills in the gaps of knowledge with conspiracy theories.

      The funny thing is, guys like Mark always claim to know “the truth.” Maybe we can reboot X-Files so it’s Mulder and Scully … and Tokarski.

    2. I don’t recall mentioning George W. Bush anywhere, though I have in the past. He’s a frat boy, not a serious man, but it is the nature of the office does not require any more than what he, or Obama or any of the others offer. They need to be studiously ignored, as the real business of government goes on elsewhere.

      Personally, I think Bush woudl be a good guy to have a beer with. I’d love to get him liquored up and see what he knows about a lot of stuff.

      Regarding the topic at hand, you need to be incredulous of a story like this, as often in news management CIA will plant a story abroad knowing that it will receive more serious attention when it makes its way back here. Obviously they know that the chemical weapon ploy will not work again unless it is tweaked a bit. CIA obviously has moles in Iraqi government, so that this ploy can be seen as a necessary cover for the bombing that is apparently in store for Iraq, once again.

      Keep in mind that by the time we get to eh bottom of this story, it will likely be too late.

      Meanwhile, the ease with which you bought it is frightening.

      I’ll take you on regarding any subject, Doug. Any subject, any time. Try me.

    3. Regarding the topic at hand, you need to be incredulous of a story like this, as often in news management CIA will plant a story abroad knowing that it will receive more serious attention when it makes its way back here.

      Haha. If you were my friend I’d carefully explain to you off the grid why it’s so funny that you’re telling me how the CIA works…

      Regardless, Obama doesn’t need a “WMD” story to give him “cover” to bomb Iraq. I’m pretty sure that the rising Islamic caliphate there gives him plenty of “cover” to do whatever the heck he wants.

      Meanwhile, the ease with which you bought it is frightening.

      I know. If only I was part of the five percent of the population who are intelligent, like you. Then the world would be just a tad less frightening.

      I’ll take you on regarding any subject, Doug. Any subject, any time. Try me.

      Do you want to meet me at the playground after school? Since I know you like the Rocky movies, I’ll just say that I don’t hate you, Mark. I just pity you. And the prediction for your participation in the comments section? Pain. 😉

    4. This is it? Now you’re inferring an intel background? You’re going to tell me how CIA works? Man, I can’t buy this kind of entertainment!

      They just put out another hook to justify bombing the place yet again, having killed what … 2 million so far not enough? You, as you say, do not need justification. You like bombing places. Other people need to be massaged. That’s why we have false flag operations to begin with, to fool honest people into supporting illegal wars. Jeez! That’s not obvious?

      There are 5% of us who, for whatever reason, are immune from all this shit. I use the 2000 Nader vote to support that notion. We’re off the propaganda grid.

      Another 20% or so are skeptical and can be lured out of the two-party trap – there I use the Ross Perot vote as evidence.

      Those folks, the Perot set, were mostly conservatives, by the way. I have more respect for conservatives than liberals – not right wingers, but thinking conservatives. I tend towards conservatism in my political beliefs, fiscal sanity, limited government, caution in implementing changes, anti imperialism, anti free trade and immigration – I admired Goldwater. In my case, I was not a very good student in high school, and so missed quite a bit of the indoctrination there. Later, because I was self-employed (I’m a CPA) and had time and could think my own thoughts without an overlord, I self educated. That’s been going on since 1988.

      That’s why I say I will take you on on any subject – not a schoolyard challenge, but just with cold hard evidence and thinking, the product of years of trying to understand this crazy effing country. (I was raised a right wing catholic, by the way.)

      Just now in this little flurry, I was able to bring facts to the fore that you have carefully avoided, instead resorting to personal attacks on me as your forte’. I know the history of Iraq, of Saddam Hussein, of the American propaganda system, of false flaggery and aggressive wars in the Postwar era, the communist “conspiracy” and the history of the Soviet Union and the Great Red scares and the intellectual climate here that keeps you occupied with party politics as a distraction. And lots of other stuff.

      And you don’t. I told your friend Andrew that I have tagged you and your buddies here the “Duhbie Brothers.” Seems to work. Duh.

    5. What is more likely: That the military veteran who spent roughly a decade working in Washington, D.C. at a think tank and a newspaper may have met some interesting contacts over the years and knows a thing or two about national security … or that Mark is exposing “false flag” operations from his basement in Montana?

      I’ll let the readers decide.

    6. I have more respect for conservatives than liberals – not right wingers, but thinking conservatives. I tend towards conservatism in my political beliefs, fiscal sanity, limited government, caution in implementing changes, anti imperialism, anti free trade and immigration – I admired Goldwater.

      You might want to try reading ‘The Conscience of a Conservative’ again, because you sound absolutely nothing like Barry Goldwater in any of your previous comments.

      I know the history of Iraq, of Saddam Hussein, of the American propaganda system, of false flaggery and aggressive wars in the Postwar era, the communist “conspiracy” and the history of the Soviet Union and the Great Red scares*

      You know the ‘tinfoil hat history’ of Iraq, Saddam Hussein and America. Sadly, it appears as though Alger Hiss somehow escaped your radar all these years. I suggest reading ‘Witness,’ by Whittaker Chambers. That will get you up to speed. He talks a lot about guys like you… It’s funny how you believe in all sorts of conspiracies, but yet even though it’s a fact that Communists infiltrated the highest reaches of the U.S. government — in a real conspiracy that was exposed for all the world to see — you apparently don’t believe it. Classic.

      *Note: Bold added.

  3. Surely if you have to tell someone how clever you are, doesn’t this suggest its not apparent from your blog posts and comments?

    1. In Mark’s world, even the Associated Press is in on the conspiracy. George W. Bush’s tentacles still have reach, even this long after he left office. Amazing!

      The Islamic State extremist group has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, where remnants of 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled decades ago with the deadly nerve agent sarin are stored along with other chemical warfare agents, Iraq said in a letter circulated Tuesday at the United Nations.

      The U.S. government played down the threat from the takeover, saying there are no intact chemical weapons and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to use the material for military purposes.

      “Degraded” chemical rockets that would be “difficult” to use for military purposes. That sounds like the president saying that ISIL is a “J.V.” team that would have a “difficult” time taking over large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

      So it’s been years since George W. Bush left office and these rockets filled with sarin gas still weren’t destroyed? Interesting. Again, I thought stuff like that didn’t exist. I thought it was all a lie, and that Saddam Hussein really just kept bunkers filled with Peeps marshmallow Easter candy.

    2. I do love a conspiracy theory. Hope Mark has enough tinfoil to stop the satellites from reading his brainwaves

    3. When I interned for my Congressman years ago I actually read letters from a constituent who believed the CIA was beaming messages into his head. It was hilarious, but terrifying to read at the same time.

    4. Sounds bizarre.

      Back to the Iraq chemical weapons. I always felt that not finding them really took the focus away from anything that Bush was trying to achieve. It would be naïve of anyone to think that Hussein’s regime did not have weapons like this, hidden away in secret.

    5. That’s the thing: he used them before, and then gave the U.N. the runaround for almost a decade. On top of that he was a dictator in a rough neighborhood. Even if he didn’t have chemical weapons, he would have to weigh the consequences of disclosing that to the world. Did he think the U.S. was bluffing? What would be the reaction by Iran if he gave up all of his chemical weapons?

      Again, it’s one thing to question the wisdom of invading Iraq. I get it. I can respect that. It’s another to just say that Bush knew there wouldn’t be WMD in Iraq and invaded anyway. Regardless, it now appears there were at least two bunkers filled with sarin gas in Iraq that have been stolen by Islamic State.

    1. You need to be incredulous about the 1988 chemical weapon attack, ask questions like why did the Iraqis do it, who supplied them the weapons, who provided the coordinates, why was it ignored in the US media at that time – the famous Rumsfeld/Hussein handshake took place after that attack. Saddam remained a darling of the Pentagon until August of 1990. Only then were the US people told about Halabja, and then only because it fit the agitprop narrative leading up to the 1991 attack.

      Further, you need to ask questions like the relative destructive value of chemical weapons versus all of the weapons in the US arsenal used against Iraq – regular ordnance used not just on military targets, but on the civilian infrastructure including the electrical grid and water supply system; the use of food and medicine as weapons in the 1990’s leading to perhaps half a million kids killed … barbaric. The US also bombed schools, hospitals, farms and fields, dams, and famously, an infant formula factory. The attack on Fallujah in 2004 has left many people scratching their heads – war crimes, shutting down hospitals and the like, but in its wake very high levels of radiation leading to the suspicious that nukes were used. Post-battle illnesses and deaths in that city are extremely high.

      Given all that, I think all the focus on chemical weapons as the be-all bad weapon are nothing more than agitprop, a way of saying “look what they do, not what we do.”

    2. You need to be incredulous about the 1988 chemical weapon attack, ask questions like why did the Iraqis do it, who supplied them the weapons, who provided the coordinates, why was it ignored in the US media at that time – the famous Rumsfeld/Hussein handshake took place after that attack.

      Here we see Mark acting as if events happen in a vacuum coupled with the idea that the Middle East is filled with “good guys” vs. “bad guys,” when most people realize that it’s a dysfunctional region generally filled with “bad guys,” “really bad guys” and “guys who are probably decent but their population is filled with radical Islamic nut-jobs.”

      The funny thing about Mark is that he’s probably one of those guys who urges world leaders to talk have negotiations with everyone, just so he can turn around years later ands say, “Remember when you shook hands with a dictator? Gotcha!”

      Further, you need to ask questions like the relative destructive value of chemical weapons versus all of the weapons in the US arsenal used against Iraq […] the use of food and medicine as weapons in the 1990′s leading to perhaps half a million kids killed … barbaric.

      Here we see the “all carrot and no stick approach.” In Mark’s world you simply ask a dictator like Saddam to comply with “x,” and when he doesn’t you ask him really, really nicely. Military action is off the table, but so are sanctions. Instead of blaming a dictator for the plight of his people, it’s America who harms “the children.” Hollywood actors who were given choreographed tours of Iraqi hospitals, like Sean Penn, tend to agree with Mark’s politics.

      The attack on Fallujah in 2004 has left many people scratching their heads – war crimes, shutting down hospitals and the like, but in its wake very high levels of radiation leading to the suspicious that nukes were used. Post-battle illnesses and deaths in that city are extremely high.

      Here we see guys like Mark who conveniently talk of “shutting down hospitals” without adding any links or mentioning that al Qaeda in Iraq and others used hospitals as weapons depots, did the same thing for mosques, etc. Why did they do that? Because they knew that the Marks of the world almost always blame their own country before the those with a predilection for chopping of heads in the name of Allah.

    3. I wrote that when I assumed you were going to do that thing you did last time, where you talk about how smart you are and then disappear. I didn’t know you’d be sticking around, so I was talking about you instead of to you.

    4. Huh? You know where I live. Why you no call?

      I can tear apart your answers above, but I’ll stick to the projections, one that I am “one of those guys” who thinks the world’s leaders need to have negotiations with everyone, and two that Saddam is an evil dictator and I think he needs to be appeased.

      One, you’re kinda stuck in the Cold War – I judged you to be younger. Two, you are short of facts and deep in US propaganda.

    5. I can tear apart your answers above, but I’ll stick to the projections, one that I am “one of those guys” who thinks the world’s leaders need to have negotiations with everyone, and two that Saddam is an evil dictator and I think he needs to be appeased. One, you’re kinda stuck in the Cold War – I judged you to be younger. Two, you are short of facts and deep in US propaganda.

      You totally got me, Mark. Great job.

  4. One of my readers sent this along to my private email account. I normally wouldn’t share this, but I figured Truthwillwin1 will get a kick out of it.

    Apparently the smartest guy in the world commented on Lizard19’s blog somewhere:

    “So much of education in our empire consists of not just believing, but buying into the lies with heart and mind and soul. Real education is the ability to see through the lies. Only a few can. Generally, it’s about 5% who are not fooled from the beginning, and perhaps another 25% can be brought into movement politics, if Ross Perot is a gauge. PThat’s enough to scare them. Keeping that 25% dumbed down is the key, and the Democrat Party is usually the tool,” — (Mark ‘Scoop’ Tokarski of the new X-Files reboot ‘Mulder, Scully and Tokarski’).

    Here is what my reader said:

    “This is what he posted on lizard’s blog in a discussion stemming from current issues in Gaza….now for a guy who attacked Truth about scientific method, I’m not sure how he came up with these percentages, but I’m sure he’d love to tell you he is among the five percent enlightened ones.”

    1. Nice, I found out Mark is nothing but a troll. After I had to ban him for going crazy (talking about fetishes and other non-sense) he removed my posts to cover his butt. Good thing is that I took screen shots before hand because I guessed he was that type of person. Any person that makes conspiracy judgements on a study before even getting information on how it was collected is clearly not to bright. Mark just wants to sound wise and fails. I am certain Mark falls in the lower quintile of wisdom.

    2. Looks like the reader was right.

      Words of Mark
      “There are 5% of us who, for whatever reason, are immune from all this shit. I use the 2000 Nader vote to support that notion. We’re off the propaganda grid.

      Another 20% or so are skeptical and can be lured out of the two-party trap – there I use the Ross Perot vote as evidence. ”

      So Mark thinks he is in the top 5%…only in his mind.
      FYI Marks own logic failed again…I voted Perot…..but I am “a right wing authoritarian”
      Swing and a miss again!

    3. “There are 5% of us who, for whatever reason, are immune from all this shit. I use the 2000 Nader vote to support that notion. We’re off the propaganda grid,” (Mark “Scoop” Tokarski)

      And here is where the problem lies. If Mark is the smartest guy in the world and everyone else is stupid, why is he even commenting here other than to troll? It would be one thing if he actually showed an interest in having a productive conversation, but all evidence indicates he’s just a massive troll. From his very first comment on my blog to his weird glee at the thought of being banned, I’m not sure why anyone would believe he’s here for any purpose other than to make snide comments about my intelligence or the intelligence of my regular readers.

      If I ban Mark it’s not because I’m an “authoritarian,” it’s because I gave him enough rope to hang himself and he took care of the rest.

    4. Agreed, and as you see that is why I banned him for 30 days. I am sorry that I polluted the comments section as I did. I will be more careful to stay on topic.

    5. No problem, man. Like I said, it was amusing…up to a point. 🙂 Sometimes a ref will let two guys duke it out for a bit before he breaks it up. You need to do that once-in-awhile.

  5. You’re being just a tad disingenuous here. I had no desire to continue any repartee with you, but did learn that you ah banned me – a trolly kind of thing to do, as in so doing you are freed to say that it was because of anything you want it to be about. In this case, you say I wrote about “fetishes and other non-sense” [sic]. What nonsense. You simply didn’t like the content of my remarks,

    You ahve 21 comments in the comment queue at my blog, and I can restore them any time. I simply took them down because you got all authoritarian and banned me. I’ll put them back when you behave yourself. Honest, there’s nothing in them to warrant any indignation. It’s just right wing talking points more or less, some valid.

    1. “I simply took [Truthwillwin1’s comments] down because [he] got all authoritarian and banned me,” (“Scoop Tokarski).

      Speaking of “authoritarian,” didn’t you initially say that I would ban you, Mark? It’s strange how that didn’t happen. Perhaps it’s because, to an extent, your X-Files-like fantasies and the belief that you’re one of the smartest guys in the world exposes liberalism in ways that I never could. I’ll often say, “Liberals believe ‘x’,” and the response will be “You’re exaggerating, Doug. There’s no way they would say that.” And then a guy like “Scoop Tokarski” comes around and within moments there is no longer any question that my assessment was incredibly accurate.

      Thanks, Mark. I appreciate that.

    2. Small point, but conceded. You have not yet banned me. I do see your weaknesses, I will get under your skin, as you are extremely vulnerable.

      People ban people for several reasons – there are genuine trolls. But there are other reasons … Truthwillwin1 was not forthright about his behavior. He walked backward through our exchange and decided after the fact that his best hope for a win was to defame me. The best way to do that was to put himself in a position where he could attack without fear of reprisal. So he banned me and made up reasons why.

    3. Small point, but conceded. You have not yet banned me. I do see your weaknesses, I will get under your skin, as you are extremely vulnerable.

      I don’t even know what this means. Again, if you’re trying to get banned just tell me so I can ban you. If you’re just a really weird guy, that’s fine too. I’ll just wait until your weirdness starts causing my regular readers to stay away. Then, I’ll warn you. And if you don’t reel it in I’ll ban you so that the atmosphere becomes inviting again.

    4. “Small point, but conceded. You have not yet banned me. I do see your weaknesses, I will get under your skin, as you are extremely vulnerable.”

      Sounds like this troll is auditioning to become the next James Bond villain.

    5. “I had no desire to continue any repartee with you,”

      Really that is not what you said in the email you sent me with another crazy rant. I will not share that here since it was in a personal email.

      “In this case, you say I wrote about “fetishes and other non-sense” [sic]. What nonsense. ”

      Really Mark, please read below where I share the post that got you a short ban, I have that with a screen shot as well.

      Now who is not telling the truth?

  6. No Mark, I have the comment saved I can share it. You go on rants and use things like fetishes and other false character attacks and that is silly. Did I like your remark, no it was childish and beneath posting . You removed my comments to hide your shame, I can supply the screen shots. I removed your post because it was a shameful rant. You use the excuse of getting authoritarian to cover the fact that you do not know how to behave, no wonder you get banned. I did not even bother responding to your email because it was more of the same silly stuff. You are not as smart as you think you are.

  7. Mark, you know that is a lie, if not why did you remove my comments? I have the screen shots maybe I should post them. It was clear that you were proven wrong. I got tired of giving you chances, every reply I would make you would try to come off with a rude attempt at being witty. I would then let you have another chance until I was tired of your games. I mentioned a study and you judged it without even having any facts on how it was conducted and I called you on it. Notice how deep you were thinking when you automatically judged a study (that I just provided a little info on) that has been approved and conducted by several universities, just because you did not like the results. You are about as deep as a puddle in a drought.

  8. This is the post that I gave Mark a 30 day break for:
    “Well, you brought up the study, which is stupid on its face. That speaks volumes. And I know what lay at the heart of this Randian fetish, which is her notion that human charity is merely a personal matter, and not something that can be attempted on a societal level as it leads to destruction of individual rights. This confounds the notion that we achieve a greater good (which does not exist, according to her) by pooling of resources, elimination of the profit motive in running public utilities and infrastructure – in short, she confounds economies of scale with personal charity, classic economic projection.

    So in your study, and this is very clear, your conclusions are contained in your questions. You take something that by definition cannot be shared (grades) and use it as a base point to compare to something that can be shared, universal health care. You’ve got other objectives too, as you want to build tax structure into it, as you are obviously miffed at the notion of progressive taxation. You’re about as subtle as a kid who wants a lollypop in these matters. Your “study” is a foregone conclusion. You’re merely massaging your personal Randian biases.

    Rand was most likely a psychopath, devoid of human feelings. She should have slipped into the dustbin of history along with Marx, another person who imagined unworkable economics as a remedy for human suffering. They deserve each other. Every time tried, Randiasm, like Marxism, leads to manipulation of the masses by people with malevolent motives who see the stupid followers as easy marks.

    Your ‘study,’ whether it succeeds or fails, fails by lack of intelligent design.”

    Let’s review
    1) You have no data on a study but you can judge its validity….Bull
    2) Randian fetish….yes see you did say that! Busted
    3) Grades can be socialized and they have been for years it is called the curve
    4) You assume the results were what I wanted yet you do not even know me.
    5) Massaging your personal Radian bias…I think you have Radian issues
    I will not even go into the crazy in your email rant after I banned you.
    As I said this is not the rant of a sane or intelligent person.

    1. I have 21 of your comments in the queue. Oh hell, I’ll put them back up. I just did that because you got all dickish and banned me for no good reason. I’ve met you a thousand times over the years. You are a right wing authoritarian. You need to read up on that, but the funny thing is that since you are a RWA, by definition, you won’t read up on that, or anything. You’re not moved or inspired by evidence and logic. You get your opinions from authority figures above you, and at the same time like to pay it out to anyone you have authority over below you. Ergo, banning, a sad expression of the powerless man.

      It’s all you got, so you use it.

      I stand by my comments below, the one for which you pulled out the ban card, by the way. Every word. I was wondering what your problem was. Now I see. Your problem.

    2. Well well…mister know it all mind reader decides to put them up when he gets called out. You have never met me and you know nothing about me, yet you can read my mind and you even know what I have and have not read. Notice I warned you several times about your comments such as the following:

      ““I do wish you would all just go Galt on us, so that we can get on with the business of making things work in a complex interdependent society. You won’t be missed, no one will come looking for you””

      You stand by this? I gave you a lot of slack and you only proved that you are far from sane. If you think your posts were rational and civil you clearly have issues. I got tired of your childish rants.
      You see everyone’s problems don’t you, it must be with your super powers or is it with your tin hat.

      In the mind of Mark unless you agree with him you are intolerant and stupid.
      Mark the only place that you are as smart as you think you are is in your head.

      Mark it must be hard being you.

    3. Just a heads up: It’s been fun to watch, but if you guys want to continue this specific debate, then take it to another blog. At this point everyone has basically had their say, so … feel free to take it to another platform.

  9. I was a twenty-year subscriber to National Review, a Buckley admirer, though I grew out of that – the magazine, that is. The man was a national treasure. I only mention that because you brought up Whittaker Chambers, and I thought it cannot be, Nixon, Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers … I am home again. You Cold Warriors never learn anything new, never move forward, so that indeed we can go home again.

    I live in Colorado, by the way, not Montana. I suggest Facebook in these matters. You’ve not written anything that makes me think you got much in the way of real creds.

    1. Do you believe in synchronicity? I just watched a Simpsons clip in a reporter’s feed, saw this one next in the playlist, and thought of you. Then I came here and you’ve given me the perfect opportunity to use it.

      Everyone is stupid except Mark.

      Buckley? You “grew out” of his child’s play logic. Whittaker Chambers? What does that former-Communist-spy-turned-American-patriot know about Communism? Why, if he just met Mark Tokarsi decades ago he would have gotten his head on straight. You’re hilarious, Mark Simpson. I won’t be looking you up on Facebook anytime soon, either.

      Here’s a newsflash for you: I don’t care whether you think I have credibility or not.

  10. Couldn’t get it to run. You keep running this “I think everyone is stupid except me” meme at me. It’s interesting to to try to see things from your viewpoint. But I don’t run in to “everyone” at this blog. I fit in somewhere in the picture, not stupid, not a genius. The attitude is intriguing.

    The Chambers/Hiss thing is interesting in that you have it down as evil communism rather than mere spycraft. The Russians are a worthy opponent, and planted and turned spies in the US just as the US did there. This notion that it is some large morality play, that Chambers saw the light, is self flagellation. Could care less. There was no good/evil in that game. Just evil.

    I merely suggested Facebook so that you know where I live. But you didn’t even need to that. WordPress would tell you I live in Colorado. I’m curious why you placed me in Montana.

    You do care if I think you have credibility. I don’t think you expected to encounter a man who first subscribed to national Review at age 22 in 1972, worked all of the a acrostics all those years, and still walked away thinking that the magazine ain’t terribly bright, even if Buckley was.

    1. I merely suggested Facebook so that you know where I live. But you didn’t even need to that. WordPress would tell you I live in Colorado. I’m curious why you placed me in Montana.

      You talked about Lizard19’s blog. He’s from Montana and blogs on Montana politics. I don’t study your blog or look for you on Facebook, Twitter, etc. so I didn’t know you were from Colo. Again, that’s because I don’t care.

      You do care if I think you have credibility. I don’t think you expected to encounter a man who first subscribed to national Review at age 22 in 1972, worked all of the a acrostics all those years, and still walked away thinking that the magazine ain’t terribly bright, even if Buckley was.

      To quote Ronald Reagan: “There you go again…” with your weird delusions of grandeur. You’re right Mark: I actually care what some old guy who thinks he’s unearthing “false flag” operations from his basement in Colo. thinks of me. What did I do before you ever found my blog? Now every time I make a move professionally I’ll think, “Would Mark approve?” Like I said: go read ‘Witness’. Even if nothing clicks, maybe you can further convince yourself that everyone is evil and stupid (except the 5 percent who are as intelligent and gifted as you).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s