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.

Willis Hart Unplugged From Reality Re Richard Nixon "Brilliant" Comments On US Democracy Spreading

Bullshit from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he gives undeserved kudos to Richard Nixon. Because Nixon wrote (in 1990) that the US shouldn't be waging war to "spread democracy", ignoring the fact that RMN was preznit while the US was involved in just such a war.

Willis Hart: Richard Nixon, Unplugged... "We should not make the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". That is brilliant, as much as I hate to say it and, yes, the final score; Nixon 1 George W. Bush and Barack Obama 0. (5/5/2016 AT 4:25pm).

Richard Nixon (1/9/1913–4/22/1994) did write this, but it was AFTER he left the presidency (1969-1974) - in the 1990 book From the Arena (according to this source). However, during his campaign for the White House Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for political gain. Then, after being elected, he escalated the war.

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings. Anna Chennault, one of Nixon's aides... was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Eventually, Nixon won by just 1% of the popular vote. "Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968", says the BBC. (Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest).

Wikipedia notes that, "The U.S. government viewed its involvement in the war as a way to prevent... the spread of communism [whereas] The North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were fighting to reunify Vietnam [and] viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against forces from France and then America, and later against South Vietnam".

So, I think Vietnam could be classified as a war were we made "the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". Granted, the war began under Lyndon Johnson, but Nixon prolonged it and escalated it! And, after sabotaging peace talks as a Republican potus hopeful, he then (as president) instituted a policy to end the war "through a program termed Vietnamization to expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces" (which failed).

Although this was after "the Cambodian Campaign [which] was a series of military operations conducted in eastern Cambodia during 1970 by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) during the Vietnam War". Also note that "these invasions were a result of the policy of President Richard Nixon".

So what Nixon wrote later (the Nixon via WTNPH quote) didn't comport with his actual actions. Still "brilliant", Willis? But me asking that question assumes that Willis is unaware of the Nixon administration policies during the Vietnam War. But I'm sure he IS aware. So... what explains the Hartster's "Nixon brilliant" bullshit?

Damned if I know. I'm going to just guess it has something to do with the fact that the dude is becoming more and more unplugged from reality (OST #141). Also the fact that he often acts as an apologist for Republicans. Here Nixon, but he's done the same regarding gwb (DSD #18).

Video: Newly-released recordings from the Oval Office show President Lyndon Johnson knew Richard Nixon tried derailing peace talks with Vietnam, an act for which he could have been charged with treason. Although (according to Willis Hart) Nixon's later hypocrisy was "brilliant" (1:45).

OST #142

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