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!
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).
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart may be a weak bush apologist, but he's still a bush apologist. This time he misrepresents what Trump said during the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016, in am effort to downplay "one of the most scathing denunciations of Bush & GOP on Iraq of any major presidential candidate ever" (which is how Glenn Greenwald described what Trump said).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Is the Only Republican Candidate Who's Had the Cajones to Bitch-Slap George W. Bush for His Ham-Handed and Ultimately Tragic Iraq War Policy... I'm not a big Trump supporter but I, unlike your average partisan stooge blogger whose entire existence is one mindless and gratuitous anti-Trump post after another, am willing to give credit where credit is due. And, yes, on this particular issue, Trump deserves some credit (not just for being right but for standing up to his own party and withstanding the boos - and, yes, there were many). Boom, done. (2/15/2016 AT 8:33pm).
Ham-handed and ultimately tragic?! No, Willis, Trump's words were not that mild!
Donald Trump: Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? George Bush made a mistake, we can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty.
*Crowd boos*
Donald Trump: They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction".
The bush administration LIED! There were no WMD and the bushies KNEW it! Trump says nothing about the Iraq war being "ham handed" or "ultimately tragic", Willis! Geez, if you're going to give someone credit for a "bitchslapping", how about giving them credit for what they ACTUALLY said? Instead Willis uses his own (much more mild) words (in the "both sides do it" apologist mode). Obviously Willis can't bring himself to address the fact that bush LIED.
BTW, I ABSOLUTELY am willing to give credit where credit is due... despite the fact that Trump has now walked back his "bitch slapping".
Trump: I Didn't Say George Bush Lied To Invade Iraq, But It's A Fact He Did Not Keep Us Safe On 9/11 (2/15/2016 Real Clear Politics article, excerpt) Trump said Bush lied about the existence of WMD... but did not explicitly say the former president lied to the country into war. "You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction", Trump said...
bush lied about WMD, but he didn't lie us into war? Here I thought the entire rationale for war (or most of it) was that "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud". If you say the bushies lied about WMD you're saying they lied us into war, I say.
But back to Willis Hart... while he gives Trump kudos, he obviously can NOT bring himself to say that bush lied about WMD himself!
Willis Hart: On the Fact that No High Profile Elected Democrat (Save for Possibly Dennis Kucinich) Has Ever Gone as Far as Trump Has in His Full-Throated Condemnation of George W. Bush (Calling Him a Liar, etc.)... Say what you want about Donald. He does have cajones and on this particular example, I say, amen. (2/23/2016 AT 8:36pm).
OK, so (this time) Willis mentions that Trump called gwb a liar, but does he AGREE with that statement? One might infer that Willis agrees, but he doesn't out-and-out say it. Why not? Perhaps because he doesn't think gwb lied?
Willis Hart: As for Mr. Bush "lying", I don't know if he lied or he didn't. (5/23/2012 AT 10:28am).
Willis Hart: You say that he lied but maybe he actually believed that Saddam had wmd and was simply wrong. (5/26/2012 AT 3:36pm).
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).
Willis Hart: you've given me absolutely ZERO hard data that President Bush lied. No documentation, no inconsistent statements... nothing (8/2/2012 AT 8:38am).
Sounds pretty definitive to me that WTNPH rejects the idea that gwb lied about WMD. And I'm never read a retraction on Willis' blog. And, not only does Willis not think bush lied (at least at the time he made the above comments), but he previously stated strong support for regime change.
Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).
(Note: Willis thinks we should have gotten rid of Saddam via assassination. The 2 things he says should not have been done are his criticisms of how the war was conducted after the invasion and do not indicate support for going to war in the first place).
Yeah, those comments vociferously defending bush against lying accusations are all a few years old - and it's possible that Willis has since changed his mind. But, like I said, I've never seen a retraction. And, add to that this the FACT that Willis NEVER explains WHAT he's giving credit to Trump for. He only mentions a "bitch slapping" for an "ultimately tragic Iraq war policy" (without even mentioning the fact that Trump said bush lied) in his first post.
In his 2nd Trump-crediting post WTNPH does mention the fact that the Donald says bush lied. But does Willis agree? Who knows? Because Willis doesn't have the cajones to say BUSH LIED himself. Which is why I call bullshit on WTNPH for BOTH his praising of Trump AND his assertion that a "partisan stooge blogger" (a category I am positive he'd place me in) wouldn't/couldn't give Trump any credit.
I'm doing it right now myself. Boom, done. And I've heard others on the Left doing the same thing (see here for one example).
One last point regarding the Hartster patting himself on the back re his superiority to "your average partisan stooge blogger"... That just about makes me want to barf.
Video: Trump "bitch slaps" Jeb at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016 by pointing out that his brother did NOT "keep us safe" (1:30).
Supporting Document
[DSD #18] The Crappy bush Apologist. (A catalog of MANY comments by WTNPH defending bush re his invading of Afghanistan and Iraq).
2/28/2016 Update: I am retracting the credit I gave Trump for "bitch slapping" Jeb! with the truth about his brother. Which was the W lied about WMD in Iraq. Why? Because Trump has revised what he said at the debate. Now he doesn't know whether or not W lied (see SWTD #326).
