On A Liar's Recent Claim That "My Opinion Has Always Been That... George Bush May Indeed Have Lied About WMD"

Can you believe the balls on this f#cking liar? Although he may believe this BULLSHIT, given the fact that nobody reads his blog (but me). So who the hell is he lying to?

I refer to this 100 percent false commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart (the portion where he claims that he has "always" held an opinion that he previously did NOT hold).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that In the Months Just Prior to the 9/11 Attacks, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice Are Both On the Record as Saying that Saddam Hussein Did Not, DID NOT, Have WMD [Youtube Video]. My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD, until there was a smoking-gun, I was much more comfortable saying that the Iraq conflict was more along the lines of a major fuck-up than it was some sinister plot. This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING (the fact that they apparently did a 180 just to start another stupid war). (5/9/2017 at 4:31pm).

I know Willis lies because I distinctly recall the conversation I had with him on his blog (several years ago) in which he vigorously defended gwb from my accusation that the former preznit lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.

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

And the Hartster lied back then too. I did give him evidence. The IAEA told bush that Saddam was complying that that they inspections would be completed shortly. And they were finding no WMD (see SWTD #154 for further details).

Now he's claiming that it's ALWAYS been his opinion that gwb may have lied?!! Give me a f*cking break. Either Hart is delusional, is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's, or is lying through his teeth. The proof is on his blog that he did not ALWAYS say gwb may have lied. Fact is, there are numerous other comments and posts in which he disagrees that any lying occurred.

I could dig them up and present them, but I think this one comment is enough to prove that Willis Hart LIES. To his readers (of which there are none) or to himself. I don't know which one. I do know that what he wrote is complete bullplop, however.

As for "This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING"... that is bullpucky as well. If that were the case I'd have heard about this on the news. As opposed to Youtube via Willis Hart's blog.

Video: Video WTNPH links to, titled "Awoken: 9/11 - Truth Or Treason". Note that (given the fact that I have a data cap) I have not watched this 2+ hour video. Maybe later. Not that it matters, as nothing has changed. NOTHING. By which I mean that I am 100% certain that there will be no charges forthcoming from the Hague in which this Youtube is cited as evidence against bush. Or a US trial in which bush et al are charged with treason. Nor will anything else that falls far short of that occur. Certainly nothing that would fall into the "this changes everything" category. Willis Hart = Dope!

OST #206

It's A Strange Ignorance Coming Down (Re WTNPH Discounting Evidence That gwb Allowed 9/11 To Occur)

Note that in this commentary the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart refers to me as a "colleague". This was before he banned me from his blog. Now I'm a psychotic troll, and he's restricted his commenting policy so that only team members can submit anything.

Willis Hart: It's a Strange Hate Coming Down... Our colleague, wd, is on the record as saying that President Bush MAY (yes, he gave himself a little wiggle room) have known in advance that 9/11 was going to happen, and let it happen as a pretense to start a war in Iraq. An interesting theory, isn't it? I do have to wonder, though. Is wd aware that, had those planes struck a little differently and the evacuation not gone so smoothly, it wouldn't have been 3,000 human beings dead? It would have been 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 human beings dead. Does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme? Hm, I guess that only he can answer that, huh? (8/28/2011 AT 8:11pm).

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB (dashes denote redacted words).

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip* Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in --, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks... Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip* We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ... A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black]. Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months. "The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

The Politico article conclusion fits with Willis Hart's "strange hate" description, in that the author concludes that the warnings were actively ignored.

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan" "And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility". However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. [Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

When WTNPH says "does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme" he predicates it upon his assumption that I said bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC). But, while the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate". Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad". He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton. While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

So, bush evil? Yeah, I think so. Because of his actions. Most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah). But would Willis Hart say OBL wasn't evil? I really, really doubt it.

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

The Hartster's response (when I quoted these figures to him) was that people who responded YES are crazy. But wasn't it MORE crazy to ignore the clear warnings the bushies were presented with? I mean, if bush had done the job he was elected to do as CIC, which was to keep America safe, then 9/11 ABSOLUTELY could have been prevented.

In any case, and to my reason for writing this commentary, I'm not attempting to convince anyone that bush knew and purposefully ignored 9/11 warnings (as people in that camp will likely never be convinced), but only to point out that there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests bush knew. And that I'm not crazy, suffering from a "strange hate", or "as far outside the mainstream as it gets" (another WTNPH assertion).

For the record, when I say that Willis Hart's ignorance is strange, I mean for someone as politically aware as he is. I don't mean that such an opinion is out of the mainstream, as many people are (either unaware) or don't believe that bush ignored 9/11 warnings. Willis' ignorance is strange because he knows these things (as I pointed them out to him in the comment thread of the post quoted above). Yet he still discounts the probability entirely. And berates anyone who gives it any credence as crazy.

So, it's a WILLFUL ignorance. This from someone I'd wager would accuse others of being willfully ignorant (him viewing himself as someone whose eyes are wide open, politically).

OST #168. See also SWTD #350.

Thoughts On Libertarian Blogger's Butt-Hurt Re Film Script 4 "Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy"

This commentary was prompted a post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he speculated that a potential upcoming movie would prompt LOLs from yours truly. A post in which he expresses his hate for a progressive president while defending a Conservative one (hating on Progressives/defending Conservatives while laughably claiming to be "Moderate" being something he is a maestro at).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hollywood Is Apparently Kicking Around the "Idea" of a Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy... Yeah, and if you get enough of these brain-dead progressive bloggers (Tao, Octopus, wd, etc.) to screen the thing, you won't even need a laugh-track. P.S. Of course the truly offensive part in my book is the fact that they would never do such a thing like to a liberal Democrat (even the loathsome ones like FDR) 'cause they're so in the tank for them. You gotta be even-handed. You gotta be. (5/10/2016 AT 5:28pm).

I have heard of this movie. It was supposed to star Will Ferrell, but he pulled out. Likely because the premise might be considered offensive by some. Not that Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's while president, because he likely was. Three years into his 1st term, according to his son Ron Reagan's book.

But there are people who think Reagan was a good president (for reasons that baffle me, given the fact that I consider him one of the absolute worst presidents. Unlike FDR, who was one the best). They likely would be upset and whine about such a project. Or even issue threats (Producer Adam McKay: "There were scary messages left at our office. Stuff like, How dare you say anything bad about Ronald Reagan, you better watch your back").

Also people who think that making a "comedy" based on someone suffering from a horrible disease would be in extremely bad taste. Me, I'm inclined to agree about such a film being in bad taste. But, heck, I'd be willing to give it a shot (not by watching, but by monitoring reviews before deciding if it might be something I'd like to see). Because, like I said, I think Reagan was a terrible president, and no, I do not think "you gotta be even-handed".

So, who knows if I would have LOLed as much as Willis speculates that I would. I'm thinking probably not, however, as I usually don't care for lowbrow comedies (which many of Will Ferrell's films are). In any case, I think Willis is totally full of shit with the implication that he is even-handed (despite him saying "you gotta be").

First, everyone has their biases. Second, the Hart's biases are more intense than the average persons. Take, for example, his hatred of the "loathsome" FDR. A president who was (and still is) quite popular.

FDR was the best-loved and most hated U.S. President of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man" (and woman), for the "third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished". He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future. But he was hated too - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order. (The 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time by Time Staff. 7/24/2012).

I acknowledge that FDR was responsible for some loathsome things. Things WTNPH discusses ad nausea on his blog (internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden); while NEVER discussing the "warts" of Republican presidents (or discussing them infrequently at least). And, even if he does, it's usually in the context of downplaying them (gwb's Iraq war was "ham-handed and ultimately tragic").

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that Willis hates FDR so much because "the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order". This has got to be the most loathsome thing that FDR did. At least in the mind of a wealth-worshiping Libertarian like Hart. Remember that FDR said "they are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred". Clearly that hatred persists to this day.

The oligarchs and wealth-worshipers (people like WTNPH) wish to ramp up the dismantling of FDR's New Deal because it's policies built the (now disappearing) Middle Class.

The creation of the world's largest middle class is the legacy of FDR, and explains his popularity (during his presidency and to this day).

It's not uncommon for presidents to leave office less popular than when they entered. In fact, very few achieve the opposite. Presidential approval rating polls go back to FDR's second term, and only two of the 13 presidents since then have left office with higher ratings than when they came in: FDR and WJC. ... [The most popular president, FDR, had an] approval rating when he left office [of] 70%. [His] average approval rating [was] 64%. (Presidential Approval Ratings Ranked From First To Worst Benzinga article, 11/22/2014).

Ronald Reagan comes in 5th place with an average approval rating of 52%, while Richard Nixon (whom WTNPH calls brilliant in a recent commentary) earns last place with a 25% approval rating (average 49%).

Note that Nixon's brilliance (as per WTNPH) concerned something Tricky Dick wrote in a book AFTER leaving the presidency regarding US democracy spreading. He said he was against it post-presidency, even though he acted contrary to that credo BIG TIME while president. Only "brilliant" if you think hypocrisy is a quality to be praised.

Or, if you don't want to term it "hypocrisy" but "evolving"? Surely Nixon evolved when it no longer mattered (whereas it would have mattered GREATLY) if he had reached the same conclusion before sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. Or even while president, when he could have broken precedence by rejecting the idea that the US should spread democracy. Perhaps this precedence breaking would have made it harder for gwb to go to war in Iraq? (Who knows). But he didn't.

Anyway, the Reagan Alzheimer's movie will likely NOT be made now, so there will be no test screening during which my LOLing for a laugh track could be recorded. Nor the laughs of Tao and Octopus. As for the truly offensive part in the brain-diseased Hartster's book being the "fact" that they would never do such a thing to a liberal Democrat... I seriously do not give a crap that this movie was (or might still be) kicking around Hollywood causes Willis great "butt-hurt" (to use a Willisism).

Actually, that is the truly hilarious part, IMO. That this script "kicking around Hollywood" re a very bad Republican president causes Willis such enormous butt-hurt. As well as eliciting some totally unbelievable "gotta be even-handed" bullplop. Although, like I said, he's a maestro at it. Deluding himself into believing he's "Moderate", that is.

OST #143

Willis Hart Virulent Idiocy Has Him Referring To Civil War Atrocities As "Ethnic Cleansing"

I'm thinking that the Libertarian Willis Hart must have been a Southerner who lived during the Civil War era in a former life. Likely one that strongly supported seceding from the Union due to his desire for slavery to continue. Although he no doubt lied about the reason being tariffs (OST #5 & SWTD #241).

I say this because the dude blogs about it with regularity. Likely hundreds of posts by now. And all of them concern his belief that the South had the right to leave the Union and Lincoln wanted them to stay so he could pass out tariff money extracted from the South to his cronies (DSD #20).

Willis Hart: My personal theory is that he [Abe Lincoln] just got so addicted to the tariff revenue which had fallen disproportionately on the Southern states and with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself. (3/15/2014 AT 7:23am). [Also] Willis Hart: ...from 1832 to 1857, the tariff was actually quite low (Andy Jackson having caved in prior to Lincoln). But it was more than doubled by the Morrill Act... (3/21/2014 AT 9:41pm).

Both of these assertions are hogwash, given the fact that "the passage of the [Morrill] tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession". The Morrill tariff (the tariff that really jacked up the rate) wasn't in place before succession! Prior to that tariff the trend was for cutting the rate. The fact is that the Morrill tariff "replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South". A FACT Willis acknowledges!

Another complaint of Mr. Hart's is the fact that the Northern armies committed atrocities against the people of the South.

Willis Hart: On the Warped Logic that, Since the South Fired the First Shot in the Civil War (the Truth Being that Lincoln Maneuvered Them Into this a la Polk with the Mexicans), this Gave Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler, etc. the Right to Ethnically-Cleanse and Dispossess Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Civilians and Starve to Death Three Year-Olds and the Elderly... If any other nation or leader on earth had perpetrated these atrocities, it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror. But because it was us (and especially because it was Abe Lincoln), yeah, not so much. I really think that we need to reexamine our history and, yes, especially those "good wars". (3/9/2016 AT 8:51am).

OK, so I agree with Mr. Hart that war crimes were committed, but none of this was "ethnic cleansing"!

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. (Wikipedia).

People living in the North were NOT ethnically different from people living in the South, therefore the term "ethnic cleansing" DOES NOT APPLY! I suspect that Willis using it has something to do with his strong racial biases. White people killing other White people is "ethnic cleansing" in the White-centric world he resides in. A reality created by a delusion so strong that it has the Harster wondering how many Black people voted to secede! Here is some real warped logic for you!

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that any Civil War war crimes were A-OK, btw. For the record, what I find most disturbing about the Harster's obsession with Civil War war crimes is that these war criminals are all LONG dead. Their crimes occurred over 150 years ago. More recent war crimes that still living presidents are guilty of? Those he dismisses. Clearly he's only for reexamining ancient history and not recent history.

Maybe in his NEXT life he'll be advocating we reexamine the Iraq war and proclaiming that, if any other nation or leader on earth had illegally invaded 2 countries, killed tens of thousands (shock and awe [1]), locking away (without trial) many innocent people (and justifying it by labeling them "unlawful combatants") it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror?

Remember that ex-preznit bush "claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq" (George Bush: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq")? And remember when he referred to the "war on terror" as a "crusade", implying that this was a Christian war against Muslims? Given that the Crusades were holy wars initiated by various Christian Popes to capture the Holy Lands, which were held by Muslims.

No doubt, certainly from a Afghan or Iraqi point of view, the US was perpetrating some "ethnic cleansing", no? I mean, with bush's wars there was forced removal (by death) of a people who were ethnically and religiously different than the more powerful invading force. SURELY the mass murder that took place in Afghanistan and Iraq fits the definition of "ethnic cleansing" WAY better than what happened during the Civil War (where both sides were ethnically and religiously very similar).

Footnote
[1] According to Iraq Body Count, "on a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces, reaching 7,286 by the time of President GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech of 1st May 2003". (Iraq Body Count report: how many died and who was responsible?).

Video: preznit doofus refers to the "war on terror" as a "crusade" implying that the US is carrying out a religious war of Christianity V Islam (0:12).

OST #118

Consistent bush Apologist Despicable Defense of Torture

I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.

Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).

So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.

Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.

And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).

Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...

In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).

Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.

Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).

This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.

Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".

Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".

OST #32

On Willis Hart's Idiotic & Islamophobic Assessment of Blowback

In a 3/9/2014 post the blogger Willis Hart addresses Ron Paul and says "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". 9/11 was cited by bin Laden as his rationale, but a LOT more has happened since then, like the illegal invasion of 2 countries and sustained drone strikes that have killed thousands. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

Mr. Hart goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and he has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation, as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back.

bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to push his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. And it also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to loot the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts.

And that Mr. Hart consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he says 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he say "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence is not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the blowback surely would be much less than it is today. The Boston bombers specifically stated that the motivation for their actions was our killing of Muslims in our "war on terror".

That Willis Hart only cites Saudi Arabia as the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. The main point of his commentary is to push his Islamophobic POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. (for the record WH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to).

OST #2. See also TADM #21 and SWTD #239.