On Willis Hart Defending Milo Yiannopoulos, A Misogynist Jackass With A History Of Encouraging His Twitter Followers To Harass Women

Willis Hart defends the "journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart.com" in a recent commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Twitter Had to Be Sued Before They Took Down the Tens of Thousands of ISIS Related Accounts but Didn't Hesitate One Second to Ban Milo Yiannopoulos Over Some Racist Tweets that His Followers Were Dishing Out. The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left are really starting to reach critical-mass, I think, with this being a perfect example. I mean, we're talking about fucking ISIS here, for Christ. (7/21/2016 AT 3:58pm).

The lawsuit says Twitter knowingly permitted terrorists to use their network. However, according to Fortune magazine, such lawsuits (there have been a few) are likely to fail.

In any case, Hart's criticism involved Twitter not being vigilant enough in policing their membership and taking down such accounts when they find them. That is likely a valid criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following that story.

But is Twitter part of "the Left"? Willis asserts that Twitter is. A 7/20/2016 Washington Times article describes Twitter as a "progressive-leaning social media company". So, OK, they're part of "the Left". "Proof" they're out to get this Milo Yiannopoulos jackass? Or maybe they just banned him after issuing multiple warnings and suspending him temporarily several times.

The first suspension came in December of 2015 Twitter decided on because of Yiannopoulos' history of encouraging his followers to attack women (via tweet).

[Previously Yiannopoulos] told a female journalist that she "deserved to be harassed" in response to her complaints about threatening messages she had been receiving due to an article Yiannopoulus had written about her. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Clearly his followers got the message after this incident. And, telling someone they "deserved to be harassed" sounds like a violation of Twitter's "speech and harassment codes" to me.

Yiannopoulos was suspended again in (June 2016) after "criticism of Islam [following] the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Then came the 3rd strike less than a month later!

Yiannopoulos was permanently suspended from Twitter on 7/19/2016, after he and other users of the site participated in abuse towards Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos had published a critical review of the film the day prior to being banned. Shortly before the ban, he directly attacked Jones, calling her "barely literate" and describing her as a man. It was also alleged that he was orchestrating abuse. ...Twitter stated that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree". (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Yiannopoulos' response to the lifetime ban was to cry about bias against Conservatives, claiming that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives".

Right. Even though this misogynist jackass had been warned twice previously. This, btw, is a common Conservative tactic. It's called working the refs. This tactic involves "complaining constantly about liberal media bias in an attempt to bully reporters and obtain more favorable coverage for their side".

But Yiannopoulos was banned because he deserved to be banned. According to a 7/20/2016 TIME story his "reputation as a troll on Twitter has long eclipsed his journalism" and [re his trolling] he calls himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet".

Although that Willis Hart would take his side is not surprising, given how Yiannopoulos describes himself ideologically and politically.

He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy (a controversy that concerned issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate). As a self-identified homosexual, "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third wave feminism, Islam, social justice theory, political correctness and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian and regressive. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos).

So he's a hater of Black Lives Matter, Radical Marxist Feminists and SJWs just like the Hartster. There is no "double standard" at play here. All that happened was that a jerk and ACKNOWLEDGED troll who had been warned twice before, broke the rules again (making it clear that he had no intention of behaving himself), and was banned for life. As he should have been. End of story.

The only double standard here is that Willis wouldn't be complaining if it were a Leftist who was banned. Although, IMO, Conservatives are more likely to run into these kind of problems because they're so much more intolerant than Liberals. Most of their whines re "Liberal intolerance" concerning Liberal "intolerance" of Conservative bigotry and hate.

Proof that this is the truth are these "religious liberty" laws that Conservative legislatures have been trying to pass. Anti-gay, anti-transgender laws/sentiments that Willis Hart has defended by the way (with commentaries such as "On Making the Planet Safe from Christian Bakers"). This from a guy who claims that he's "socially tolerant". Bullshit!

Supporting Document
[DSD #30] Fanboy Outrage Re Milo Yiannopoulos (A Hard Right Jackass) Being Banned From Twitter (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he defends a misogynist ass because he agrees with this far right views).

Image: Ben Garrison hearts Milo Yiannopoulos. Because they're both misogynist assholes (would be my guess). In this cartoon Ben depicts knight Milo battling the evil SJW hydra.

OST #162

Men Have Better Brains Than Chicks & Larry Summers, As Prez Of Harvard, Was Fired For Pointing Out This Fact (Misogynist Blogger Sez)

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Women are not as good as men in these fields. That's just genetics. Or so says the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Numerous Researchers; Voyer, Voyer, Bryden, Lytton, Romney, Pinker, etc.) A) Men Appear to Have Better 3-D Mental Transformations (i.e., Spatial Abilities) and Mathematics Problem-Solving Skills than Women Do and B) These Differences Are at Least Partially Genetic. So Larry Summers got shit-canned from Harvard back in 2006 for telling the truth, in other words. Gotta love it. P.S. And yes, these of course are averages. A lot of girls do well in math and the physical sciences and we should appreciate them as well (they also score better than men on many verbal indices and perhaps that's the reason why they gravitate more toward social work and education than the STEM fields). (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

First of all, former Secretary of the Treasury (under Bill Clinton) Larry Summers was NOT fired from Harvard for "telling the truth".

According to the following Wikipedia excerpt, the speech (the one in which he "told the truth") was only one factor (and may actually not been a factor at all).

Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from: Summers's conflict with Cornel West; financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer; and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization (Wikipedia/Lawrence Summers).

I say "may not have been a factor at all" because nobody knows why each individual Harvard faculty member voted the way they did. IMO it was the "conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer" that probably lead to the "no confidence" more than any other factor.

Some people still think Larry Summers got fired from being the president of Harvard because of the ridiculous comments he made about women in math... or because of the comments he made about Cornel West. Actually, the truth is something worse, and for which he should actually be in jail. Summers was directly involved with defrauding the U.S. Government... and Russia. He admitted to not understand conflict of interest issues. ... So why did Summers lose his job at Harvard? It was because of his protecting a buddy, a fellow economist at Harvard named Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer got in trouble, and the US Government sued and won against Harvard and Shleifer... Harvard was required to pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government, Shleifer $2 million... (Why Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard by Cathy O'Neil. Mathbabe 3/11/2012).

You can read the article for the details (my excerpt would have to be a LOT longer to fully explain what happened). The important thing to note is that "Summers was good friends with this criminal [Andrei Shleifer], and used his position to protect him".

Summers was "shit-canned" (resigned after a no confidence vote) for protecting the job of his friend, a friend who had cost Harvard "$26.5 million and legal fees estimated at between $10 million and $15 million for legal violations".

I don't know about you, but I think a 36.5 to 41 million dollar loss is more likely the reason than the speech, regardless of whether or not it was the "truth".

Secondly, as far as the underrepresentation of Women in the STEM fields being due to genetics or not, my judgement is... it could be a factor. But there are other factors. Wikipedia notes that "scholars are exploring the various reasons for the existence of this gender gap in STEM fields. [There are a] number of biological, structural, and social-psychological explanations".

But Willis (in a number of posts on his blog) points only to research from academics who look at the possible biological reasons. "Men have better brains" seems (to me) to be the point he's trying to make. A point that would be in line with the many other misogynistic commentaries he's authored on his blog.

Supporting Document
[DSD #27] Men's Brains Are Better Than Women's Brains (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he makes this implicit argument).

OST #161

Evolving Willis #2: Abraham Lincoln 180 Degree Flip-Flop

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart claims that he hasn't changed. He once authored a post in which he found the suggestion so ridiculous as to be amazed that someone would actually suggest it.

Willis Hart: On the Claim that I've Changed... I've changed? I'VE CHANGED? Wow, huh? (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am).

Wow? No, the only thing I'd say "wow" to is the number of examples one could give that the opinions of Willis have changed RADICALLY. To illustrate this point I have created this series of posts... which I have labeled using the tag "Evolving Willis" (Note that this is only the 2nd one in the series, but there will be more).

The shocking 180 degree flip-flop I examine in this post concerns Mr. Hart's feelings regarding the 16th president of the United States.

Willis Hart: The Five Greatest Presidents in U.S. History IMHO... 5) Teddy Roosevelt (trust-busting, conservation, "speak softly but carry a big stick"). 4) Harry Truman (strong anti-Communist, pro-business, "the buck stops here"). 3) John F. Kennedy (the Cuban missile crisis, cut taxes, "ask not what your country can do for you"). 2) George Washington (yes, he was a slave-holder but he also founded the damned country). 1) Abraham Lincoln (the Emancipation Proclamation, saved the union, "four score and seven years ago"). (9/23/2011 AT 6:58pm).

Wow, indeed! In the opinion of Willis, Abe is the #1 greatest prez ever? Looks like it, me buck.

Or so he used to believe... apparently. At the time, but no more.

Willis Hart: On Lincoln Equating "Departing from" with "Destroying"... Delusional, illogical, and right up there with his contention that the Union preceded the states and his absolute ignoring of the 9th and 10th Amendments (where one could quite readily assert the right to self-determination) and replacing them with one of his own. (12/12/2015 AT 9:32pm).

As per a 12/9/2014 post Abe Lincoln is #1 on Willis Hart's list of "all time least favorite presidents. So Willis went from heralding Lincoln for keeping the Union intact, to condemning him for it. And calling him "delusional" to boot (as per the above quoted commentary).

Does this mean that Willis was delusional when he proclaimed Abe to be the #1 greatest prez because he "saved the union"? Or maybe Willis is delusional now, given the fact that Lincoln generally IS considered one of our best presidents?

New ranking of U.S. presidents puts Lincoln at No. 1, Obama at 18; Kennedy judged most overrated. (article except) ...in 2014 we surveyed 162 members of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section and asked them to rate the U.S. presidents. ... Abraham Lincoln was rated the greatest president, with an average score of 95 out of 100. (Washington Post 2/16/2015). How experts determine if Obama, others are "best presidents". (article excerpt) In 2014, NYT columnist Paul Krugman's claims that Barack Obama should be considered one of the best recent presidents has generated a lot of debate. But how do historians and political scientists rank leaders over a long time span? ...historian Arthur Schlesinger, who decided to poll other historians about the past performance of presidents. Schlesinger polled 55 historians about 5 rating categories for an article in Life magazine. ...his list included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. (Constitution Daily, blog National Constitution Center blog).

Note that the "The American Political Science Association (APSA) is a professional association of political science students and scholars in the United States" and the "National Constitution Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to explaining the US Constitution and what it represents [which] regularly hosts government leaders, journalists, scholars, and celebrities for public discussions including presidential debates".

Groups with some authority to produce these rankings, in other words. Although rankings produced by public polling produce similar results. here is one such ranking that puts Abe in the #1 position (The Top Tens), and here is another that rates Washington #1 and Lincoln #2 (Ranker.com). Point is, Willis is in the minority with his assessment of Lincoln.

Negative opinions of Lincoln aren't generally seen until you look at what Libertarians and far-Right nutjobs say. And that's where they get EXTREMELY negative.

Mises Daily (Libertarian think tank) Confronting the Lincoln Cult by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 6/3/2002. World Net Daily (A Far-Right extremist website know for indulging in conspiracy/racism/bigotry) Lincoln's Legacy of Corruption by Ilana Mercer, 2/13/2002.

Note that if you go to Wikipedia and enter "Lincoln cult" you will be redirected to the page for Thomas J. DiLorenzo. BTW, that people who promote the idea that Abe Lincoln was one of our best presidents are members of a "cult" is a meme that Willis subscribes to.

Willis Hart: A Very Simple Question for the Cult of Lincoln... If Mr. Lincoln was so opposed to slavery, then why did he not abolish it in those places where he had the power to; the northern and border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland, numerous counties in West Virginia, and the northern occupied parts of the Confederacy (New Orleans and other sections of Louisiana)? That, and why did the dude wait until it looked like the South was winning before he put forth this wonderful Emancipation Proclamation (which, again, only made slavery illegal in the Confederacy)? Da' ya' think that maybe it was because he was trying to stir up a little bit of trouble down there? That's my theory. (3/19/2014 AT 9:26pm).

I have a very simple question for the Willis, which is, is the belief that Lincoln was one of our best presidents held by people in a "cult" or is it more of a mainstream consensus? To me it definitely looks like the latter and not the former.

For the record, I understand the (Libertarian-informed) argument Willis is making. I just don't think it's accurate. That argument being that "if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably".

The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Civil War (excerpt from a review of the 10/21/2008 book by Mother Jones author Nick Baumann)... I find the idea of the slave states voluntarily giving up their slaves to be really, really dumb. The Southern states seceded largely because they didn't want to be ruled by Lincoln, who had argued against expanding slavery into new territories. The Confederate constitution says, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed". But in case you don't believe me, I asked retired army Lt. Colonel Robert Mackey, author of The UnCivil War and bona fide Civil War geek. Dr. Mackey, a combat veteran who was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, says it's "a heaping pile of bullshit" and offers up a few reasons why... [including the fact that] Slaves represented real property value. The South's biggest asset wasn't cotton, it was human beings. [Post Civil War The South's] entire economic system... was based on sharecropping. Sharecropping only worked because the "New South" replaced [actual slavery] with [virtual slavery]. It was a form of slavery as well - just one in which "the owners" had no moral or ethical responsibility to care for the slave... since they had no "property rights" [ownership of their slaves]. There is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended. There was no antebellum abolitionist movement in the South. On the contrary, the entire social system was set up to reinforce slavery. Lastly, just imagine how easy it would have been for anti-labor industrialists to move factories South, where you not only did not have labor unions, but could contract for workers from their "owners" at a set, low rate. It would have been horror, and the death of any hope of democracy in America.

Frankly I'm more inclined to agree with this opinion than disagree with it. The Civil War, as horrific as it was, was what ended slavery. Slavery would not have ended without it. Although Willis disagrees.

Willis Hart: I'm also strongly of the opinion that we could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without 3% of the population being murdered (a substantial number of them being civilians as a part of Lincoln's "total war") and half of the country's total net worth being destroyed. Literally every other country in the world (Haiti being the exception) did it that way and so, why not us? (3/20/2014 AT 9:57pm

Would getting rid of slavery without a war have been possible? I'm not 100 percent sure, but (like I said) I'm inclined to believe with the statement that "there is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended". As for Hart's other anti-Lincoln arguments, I'll leave them for possible future posts, although I have rebutted some of his arguments previously (see OST label CIVIL WAR and SWTD label CIVIL WAR).

The point of this post was to point out the RADICAL flip that the Hartster made regarding his opinion of Abe Lincoln. I mean, the guy takes umbrage at the suggestion that he's changed, but he clearly has. In that the "small L libertarian" has become much more Libertarian. In that it's the Libertarians who hold the opinion that Lincoln was a crappy president. As opposed to the mainstream opinion, which is that Abe was our greatest prez (or highly ranked among the best).

Supporting Document
[DSD #20] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Bought The Out-Of-The-Mainstream Libertarian "Lincoln Cult" Lincoln Hating Argument With Gusto. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he attacks Abe Lincoln as a president who committed "atrocities" and was "majorily insane").

OST #130

On Donald Trump Defender Willis Hart Lying About "What The Video Clearly Shows" Re Trump Lackey Roughing Up A Reporter

The Libertarian blogger, and frequent Trump defender/apologist, Willis Hart spins a bald-faced lie in defense of Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On Breitbart's Michelle Fields Claiming that She Was Roughed Up by a Trump Lackey When the Video Clearly Shows that She Wasn't... How many more of these ludicrous incidents do we have to endure before we can finally conclude that women are just as capable of lying as men are and that we should probably be a tad more skeptical when these accusations (and worse; the Duke lacrosse case, for example) are thrown around? Me, I'm already there. (3/27/2016 AT 5:03pm).

When Willis says he's "already there", I assume by "there" he means a place where facts don't matter and he believes what he wants to believe. Because Fields is a liar and the video "clearly shows" she wasn't roughed up MUST be why the "Trump lackey" Corey Lewandowski was charged and arrested for misdemeanor battery by the Jupiter FL police.

This must also be why The Daily Beast has reported that "Video shows Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing reporter Michelle Fields".

Despite the Trump camp's outright denial that any such altercation occurred, viewers can see at the 10-second mark that Lewandowski reached with his left arm for Fields's left arm, briefly grabbing her. Lewandowski's grasp then broke before he reached again, this time on her left arm, which is where Fields showed she was bruised the day after. (3/11/2016 Daily Beast article by Andrew Kirell & Justin Miller).

And, because the video shows Fields lies must explain why Washington Post reporter Ben Terris said "I had been a witness to the incident between Fields and Lewandowski".

Ben Terris: As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's 41-year-old campaign manager. Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm. "I'm just a little spooked", she said, a tear streaming down her face. "No one has grabbed me like that before". She took my arm and squeezed it hard. "I don't even want to do it as hard as he did", she said, "because it would hurt". (Inside Trump's inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally by Ben Terris. 3/10/2016 The Washington Post).

Ben Terris is obviously lying as well. And how stupid to do so when the video "clearly shows" they are! Although it doesn't. And the video showing that Lewandowski does grab Fields, and that there was a witness likely explains why Lewandowski was arrested. In my opinion. Fields being female having NOTHING to do with why she should be believed or not. Although the misogynist Hart apparently thinks Fields is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for being female (despite the fact that there is a male witness).

And, YES, I'm correctly labeling this as misogyny... because Willis is bringing up the Duke LaCrosse case due to his strongly held belief that women FREQUENTLY lie about being raped. When what he thinks actually happened (90 percent of the time) is that two drunk people had sex and the lying slut regretted it (OST #81).

Anyway, that Willis ludicrously says the video shows Fields is being dishonest (when it shows she is being honest) is proof (IMO) that the Hartster is a man that is VERY capable of lying.

Video: Jupiter police release video showing Corey Lewandowski grab Michelle Fields (0:11).

Supporting Document
[DSD #19] The Libertarian Trump Defender. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he defends Trump, acts as an apologist for Trump, downplays Trump comments, or goes after Trump protestors).

OST #126

Willis Hart Lies Re Trump Comments On Iraq War, Downplays, Spouts BS About Left Not Acknowledging Trump Truthtelling, Pats Self On Back

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". *Crowd boos louder* (New Trump Booed for Reminding GOP of Bush's 9/11 Failure and Iraq War Lies by Jon Queally. Common Dreams 2/14/2016).

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).

OST #113