Thursday, August 21, 2014

Rightwing Race Hustlers On Ferguson Shooting

The idea that WND somehow has racist motivations is bizarre, especially when fully 20 percent of the site's regular weekly columnists are black – including Sowell, Star Parker, Walter Williams, Eric Rush... ~ Joseph Farah, founder of the website World Net Daily (and head birther) making the Black Friend argument as to why their excessive reporting on Black Mobs isn't racist. (as reported in a 2/8/2014 Gawker story).

As is ALWAYS the case, when some crime occurs in which racism may be a factor, the Right must present incidents where the roles are reversed (AKA "The Fallacious Flip"). As those who follow the news know, a White Ferguson MO cop shot and killed an unarmed Black teenager. So guess what? You probably already know. The Right finds a case in which a Black cop shot and killed a White teen.

Proof that racism wasn't a factor in the Ferguson shooting, right? Whether it was or wasn't I do not believe is clear, but I think at least some (if not many) of the protestors believe it was... and for good reason (it's called "institutional racism"). Whatever the truth is (whether or not racism was a factor), it certainly strikes me that the number of shots fired might have been excessive (the 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot 6 times).

Although CNN reports "dueling narratives in Michael Brown shooting", and, after reading the story, I can report that the witnesses accounts are at odds with one another in key areas. So an investigation is definitely needed, and no conclusions should be jumped to until it is complete.

I do, however still believe there is a problem in general with cops shooting - or by some other method killing - unarmed suspects (a police killing via a choke hold for example). And MANY of the examples of this ARE of a White cop killing a Black victim, so there is cause to believe that race may be a factor (in general and not necessarily in regards to this case). And there is also the fact that a majority of the Ferguson MO police are White, while the community they are policing is majority-Black.

But the Ferguson community protests in regards to problems of (White majority) cops using excessive force (which is how they view this case) - and the problem of the police force not being racially diverse - is spun by WND as lies serving an agenda of the "Leftist Media"... as usual. This time WND reports on fellow racist Limbaugh's take on the subject...

Rush Limbaugh: There's a mindset out there, and the way it works in situations like this [is] only people of color can be victims. A white person can never be a victim. It just can't happen. That's not permitted, that's not allowed because it isn't the case. The whites are the oppressors. They're the majority. In the liberal worldview, every majority is an oppressor... They're all oppressors. The minority is always the victims, and the victims are with whom we should always sympathize, no matter what. And the victims are permitted to do anything precisely because they're a minority... They're outnumbered. The evil majority does horrible things to the minority. And so the minorities... [are] always victims. And so anything they do is justified and we must try to understand the rage.

But in the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor and a white can never be the victim. And that's how you have a corrupt or perverted news business in Salt Lake City, refusing to identify a black cop who may have shot an innocent person. That destroys the whole picture we've been creating here for centuries. That could totally destroy the image that we've been trying to concoct... (Rush Limbaugh comments via World Net Daily, 8/20/2014. "Black cop kills White Man, Media Hide Race" by Joe Kovacs).

The Media was "hiding" the race of the Black cop who shot the White teen? The WND article notes that "Utah's Desert News reported the police chief saying the officer is not white [and] The Salt Lake Tribune noted, the officer involved was not white". Seems pretty clear to me that they said the cop wasn't White. And it did come out that the cop wasn't Hispanic or Asian or whatever. But two papers saying the cop wasn't White (info that came from the police chief) amounts to the Media "hiding" the officer's race? Right.

What this REALLY amounts to, IMO, is (yet more) racism from the Right. As well as opportunism. An opportunity to shamelessly attack the "Leftist Media". This time with bogus claims of hiding the fact that the cop was Black. Similar to what happened with George Zimmerman, that he was "White" was info that came from the cops. In both cases the media reported what the police told them!

As for the rest of Limbaugh's racist tirade, it is complete BS, of course. A White person can be a victim, but Whites ARE the oppressors. They're the majority (police force in Ferguson is mostly White, while community they are policing is majority Black) and we also have a long history (that began with slavery) of racism... against Black people.

Yeah, racist Whites like Limbaugh and those at the Black-mob-obsessed WND find that history inconvenient and work hard to deny that our past influences our present. But it *is* our history. So, no, a Black person can't be an oppressor. A minority can belong to an organization that sometimes acts as an instrument of oppression (the police), but this does not make them an "oppressor", but simply an instrument of the organization (in this case the police) that acts as oppressors for the White majority (again, it's called "institutional racism").

And there is also the fact that the police are becoming increasingly militarized, and what this points to, I think, is a mentality that says excessive force is what is necessary. I mean, another issue that concerns me is the police killing of pet dogs when those pets react to the police busting down doors (sometimes the wrong ones) to arrest people. And surely that has nothing to do with racism.

In any case, a minority is NOT "permitted to do anything precisely because they're a minority". And this "image that we've been trying to concoct" that Limbaugh refers to is REALITY. And YES, the "Leftist media" does NOT want that "image" destroyed, you lying racist tool!

So, in conclusion, I'd say that we definitely have a problem of police using deadly force not as a last resort, but drawing their guns and shooting to kill when they shouldn't be drawing their guns at all, or, if they do, shooting to wound. Racism may be a factor (and I believe it sometimes is), but if it was a factor in the Ferguson shooting is not known.

And I believe it probably won't be a factor in the investigation. Only the question of whether or not the shooting was justified will be asked. But, as you can see from the Limbaugh spin as reported by WND, the Right misses no opportunity to inject race into a news story. Injecting it via false accusations against the Left of "playing the race card" and "concocting" a history of racism for the United States.

"Concocting" being code for reporting the reality of the situation. A reality the Right wishes to deny because it aides THEIR concocted narrative regarding their racism being a "fair and balanced" reporting of the facts. "Facts", that when it comes to WND, often include the violence of "Black mobs".

A 2/8/2014 article from the blog Gawker by Adam Weinstein says that WND is battling Google for "its right to be racist". According to the article, Google "has accused WND of using hate speech and has threatened to block ads on the news site over its use of the term black mobs in news stories and columns.

Yeah, no kidding. As a subscriber to the WND newsletter, I noticed this some time ago. Google cites a figure of 670 "Black mob" stories and bases it's objection on it's AdSense policies against using "derogatory racial or ethnic slurs to refer to an individual or group". Although, over how long a period of time the article does not say. Still 670 is a big number... and kudos to Google for calling out WND. And Google, being a private company, does not have to respect WND's "free speech rights".


Something else the Right likes to complain about in these situations is when Black leaders show up on the scene to offer their support and assistance. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in doing so, are "race baiting", they say. The Reverend Sharpton, I should note, went to Ferguson and discussed the problem of the police force not being racially diverse. His solution was for more Black voters to show up on election day.

Catching the end of his MSNBC program the other day, I saw Mr. Sharpton note the fact that when it was time to elect Mr. Obama a second time, Black turnout was high. But for the next election - one which also had local officials like the chief of police on the ballot - turnout was pathetic (2 percent, if I remember correctly). Sounds like good advice to me and certainly NOT "race hustling". Advising the Black community to vote, that is (which is a good way to at least begin to curb the institutional racism problem).

"Race husting", IMO, is a term used by White racists, or "right-wing white-grievance mongers" who are "stoking racial tension for cash" (wording as per a 7/23/2013 Salon article). People like Limbaugh... and organizations like WND (even given the fact that they have "Black friends") are real "race hustlers", and I think the evidence overwhelmingly shows this to be true. It isn't the Black leaders or Black MSNBC personalities who "race bait", but the racist right and race hustling and racist-pandering Rightwing media.

Video: Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems To Show Brown Paying For Cigarillos (0:42) Link. (H/T to Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions for pointing me to this story & video from Crooks & Liars).

SWTD #270. See also TADM #56.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Not Lying About Muslim Bigotry (Stop The Lesterizaton Of America)

They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy... ~ The Holy Quran, Al-Tawba, 9:74. This is in regards to those who reject the fundamental doctrine of the finality of the Prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad. Such persons are outside the fold of Islam.

Wikipedia notes that "the belief in Muhammad's prophethood is the main aspect of the Islamic faith". But on another blog I was called a "lying bastard" for questioning whether or not the following remark (by the blog proprietor) indicated a bigotry toward Muslims...

rAtional nAtion uSA: When moderate Muslins, in concert throughout the world stand tall and renounce all terrorism, acknowledge that the "prophet" muhammad was a evil man who raped, plundered, and pillaged then maybe I might believe they want to live in peace with non Muslims. (8/10/2014 AT 11:09:00 PM EDT).

Now, I am NOT a scholar of Islam or of the prophet Muhammad. I do, however, think that rejecting THE main aspect of one's faith might cause others practicing that faith to view any individual taking that stand as not a true adherent of said faith. Indeed, (as per the quote at the top of this post) if someone rejects that Muhammad was a prophet AT ALL (as Lester suggests by his use of quotes around the word) are they not also rejecting "the fundamental doctrine of the finality of the Prophethood"?

This is, by the way, a doctrine that says Muhammad is the last prophet. Surely he cannot be the last prophet if he is not a prophet at all, right? And, in regards to anyone who calls for disavowing this main aspect of Muhammad's prophethood, are they not actually calling for Muslims to abandon their faith?

So (given this logic), would it not be a fair assessment of the statement above that [1] the "rAtional" fellow is calling for Muslims to abandon their faith and that [2] if they do not do so, then the United States and any allies that would join us should wage a "jihad" against any Muslim that decided to remain a Muslim?

"Jihad" conclusion based on the following comment...

rAtional nAtion uSA: You put together a coalition of rational western nations along with eastern nations who are sane and want terror stopped. Pool remeasures and plan a concerted strategy to take out the terrorists in their hiding places everywhere...

Then, the sane rational world lets the terrorist states and organizations know that a strike of any kind on any member nation is a strike on all, and any will unleash such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born. (8/10/2014 AT 08:04:00 PM EDT).

This, as I recall, was the rationale for going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. And with the comment above the rAtional guy is calling for more Afghanistans and more Iraqs? Our government has a website called State Sponsors of Terrorism that lists four countries (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria) that qualify for the list. Is Lester suggesting (as soon as his "coalition" is formed) that - the next time either of these four countries does something that qualifies them to be on this list - that we will declare war?

War, or something short of war that would still qualify as unleashing "such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born"? Whatever that might be... I doubt the American people will support more war. Although Lester himself has said in the past that he thought Iraq was stupid. Now he's calling for MORE of the same stupidity?

Sounds like it to me. And what's up with Lester referring to Muslims as filthy or "lice ridden"? Some might be, but I doubt they all are. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised he didn't throw a "towel head" or "sand ni**er" in there. It isn't as if Lester is searching for additional pejoratives to use against the hated terrorists only...

rAtional nAtion uSA: ...the Palestinians are as infested with camel fleas and lice as they were a thousand years ago. (8/10/2014 AT 6:21pm).

So it's not just radicalized Muslim terrorists who are "infested" with fleas and lice, but Palestinians. ALL of them, presumably. Which is why I have a hard time believing the following...

rAtional nAtion uSA: I'm not BIGOTED AGAINST muslims I've friends who are Muslim, wonderful caring people who are NOT CRAZY and who do not call for the genocide of the Jewish people and infidels in general.

I am however most decidedly bigoted against the jihadist that are fueled by their violent, irrational, genocidal, devoted allegiance to the madman :prophet muhammad (piss be upon him) and the organizations the belong to. (8/11/2014 AT 01:02:00 PM EDT).

Lester's "Muslim friends" belong to an imaginary sect of Islam where either: Muhammad isn't a prophet, or one in which it's OK to denounce him as a rapist and plunderer (but still acknowledge him as a prophet)? Either way this sect is completely imaginary... which means Lester has no such friends. I suspect that this claim is similar to the one made by Whites who say they have a "Black friend" but are lying.

So, let's review: Lester wants all Muslims to reject the "main aspect" of their faith (i.e. reject Islam for some imaginary version of Islam that does not exist) or go on the "naughty list". Which means we might declare war on them? Maybe if they live in Cuba, Iran, Sudan or Syria... then some "shock and awe" that kills civilians (which happened/continues to happen in Afghanistan and Iraq) is justified?

Sounds like a "convert or be killed" ultimatum (convert to some imaginary form of Islam that either says it's OK to believe Mohammed was a terrible person, or one that says he wasn't a prophet). But didn't the radicalized Muslim terrorists issue a similar ultimatum? I'm pretty sure they did.

Given this, am I out of line to think that [1] suggesting we "unleash such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born" for not rejecting the "main aspect" of their faith and [2] suggesting that people who live in this part of the world are "lice infested" - ALL the people and not just terrorists... that these views might be indicative of a person who harbors some bigoted thoughts in regards to all Muslims and not just "the terrorists"?

I think so. But Lester was so offended by my pointing out his bigotry that he said I "no longer exists in [his] consciousness".

That must be worse than being banned, which Lester did just previous to wishing me into the cornfield. OK, so Lester has banned me before, but now? I must REALLY be banned this time! Although it's my own fault for "lying" about Lester's bigotry. A bigotry that has him calling for Muslims to convert to some imaginary form of Islam or not be trusted by him to really be desirous of peace.

Although it is possible that Lester won't believe they want peace even then - he only said he MIGHT believe them. Regardless he'll probably go on being convinced that they are flea and lice infested. That was one point I think he was crystal clear on, that they all have fleas and lice... the Palestinians (at least). I don't know about other Muslims.

Now, for stating this obvious conclusion based on Lester's own words, Lester says I am a "lying SOB". But I did not lie. I told the truth. And surely it is not my problem if Lester does not see the bigotry in his own words.

Update, 5/14/2015: I was not aware of it when I originally authored this post, but I just found a commentary from the Lester blog (dated 2/26/2011) in which Mr. Nation defends Muslim bigot Pamela Geller. According to Lester, SPLC Slanders Pamella Geller.

Lester's commentary says "The Southern Poverty Law Center has just named Pamella Geller... and her group, Stop the Islamization of America a hate group". Lester disputes this.

However, the Anti-Defamation League, which "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all", says SIOA is guilty of "consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam".

Lester says SIOA's "work to educate people on the dangers {and evil} of extreme Islam should be applauded", but SIOA demonizes all Muslims, which is why they're CORRECTLY classified as a hate group! I mean, the name of the organization says it all... there is NO "Islamization" of America taking place! This is nothing but irrational fear mongering, and that Lester actually defends Geller is shameful. Although it does point to me being absolutely correct when I originally authored this commentary. Lester does harbor at least a tiny amount of bigotry toward Muslims (and it looks like it is even MORE than what I originally thought, given his defense of Geller).

As for Lester's call that "moderate Muslims, in concert throughout the world stand tall and renounce all terrorism"... this will absolutely NOT happen. Not to Lester's satisfaction, anyway. First of all, most moderate Muslims have already taken this stand. Secondly, a lot of moderate Muslims realize that all the droning we're doing around the world is creating this problem, and they (if this has not caused them to become radicalized) are more likely to hold the opinion that the increasing radicalization is our fault... that radical Islam was a small problem to being with and we helped it grow. These people are not likely to be eager to "stand tall" in regards to a problem they believe the US caused.

But these facts won't stop people like Lester for calling for them to "stand tall and renounce all terrorism" (the Lesters aren't referring to the terrorism perpetrated by the US). They will continue to do it despite it being illogical (for the reasons I just laid out). This is what I have decided to call the "Lesterizaton of America". And if we are to come to an accord with moderate Muslims, it MUST be stopped!

See also: TADM #54 and OST #42.

SWTD #269, lDel #20.

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

That Massive Sucking Sound and Its Echo

Because murder is like anything you take to; It's a habit-forming need for more and more ~ Lyrics from the song "Murder by Numbers" written by Sting & Andy Summers.

There wasn't anything that Brabender and Workman ever could have done to save Slade Leeds. They knew it and so, too, did Leeds. But being that the latter was a persistent bugger (not to mention one that was totally lacking in pride) and his protectorate malleable, damned if that sucker didn't seem to last for decades and decades. In fact, it's probably still going on!

"Sorry it has to end this way for you, my friend" William Hartenbaum remarked as Slade whined yet again. "You simply can NOT do this to a fellow Societyman" a frantic and disbelieving Slade declared. But, after staring into William's eyes, it became apparent to him that Hartenbaum had made up his mind.

"Help me Brabender" he cried with tears in his eyes. "Help me Workman" Slade pleaded. But Slade's employees ignored him. William had had enough of this so he gagged his friend. Then, with great sadness he shoved the bound Slade into the wet concrete. Slade dropped approximately 10 feet into the open pit and landed with a wet thud in the concrete that would become the foundation for Vanderschmidt towers, a new luxury apartment complex being constructed by William's buddy Vincent Vanderschmidt (AKA "Voltron").

A look of horror overcame Slade's face as he sunk into the hardening slurry that would soon be his rock solid tomb. Slade sunk slowly, the weight attached to his ankles dragging him down. But his suffering did not go on for that long, despite it likely seeming to last decades for the poor fellow! "I really hated to do that. Killing one of your best friends is a hard thing to do" William remarked.

"Stop, you can't do this, Dennis!" the one called Workman screamed after William and his accomplices had subdued the three men, bound their hands and feet, and then made it apparent they would soon join the dead body of Cliff Thesage in the freshly poured cement mixture. But why the hell was Workman addressing his pleas to Dennis?

"Nobody's going to save you now" Russ Teafeur, one of William's accomplices and a member of the four friend's murder club, growled. "Dennis will save us... and he knows why" Brabender squealed, shaking his head as Voltron attempted to gag him.

"Do you know what he's talking about, Dennis?" William querried the recent inductee into their murder club (an addition that made the trio a quartet). "Workman is talking about the evidence he has against me that will automatically be released if he should be killed or go missing" Dennis reluctantly informed the group.

"Evidence of what?" Voltron demanded, grabbing Dennis by his lapels and getting in his face. "Evidence of embezzlement by Brabender, Workman and myself from The Quarry" Dennis squawked. "I had no choice, after running up a large amount of debt in anticipation of my rich uncle kicking off. An uncle who then went into remission".

William remembered the conversation in which Dennis told him he'd be joing William, Voltron and Russ in the 1 percent when his uncle died from terminal brain cancer, leaving him everything in his will. "That's tough" an angry William replied. "But that does not entitle you to thieve from my best friend".

An intimidated Dennis started whimpering. "This means Brabender and Workman will keep their mouths shut about them walking in on us disposing of Thesage's body" Dennis explained desperately. "Surely it would be much more suspicious if they disappear as well" Dennis concluded, suddenly afraid that William might decide to murder him too.

"He has a point" Russ Teafeur interjected. "I guess that means they are malleable to not squealing to the cops" Voltron concluded, releasing Dennis from his grip. "Absolutely" Brabender enthusiastically agreed. "Especially given the fact that we were stealing from Mr. Leeds. The cops will likely conclude we were in on it" Workman added, assuming he had just been saved from joining Leeds in the concrete.

Just then there was a massive sucking sound as the squirming body of Slade Leeds finally disappeared beneath the surface of the pool of cement, rock and water. William turned and silently bid his friend adieu. "The Society has lost a valuable member", William ruefully observed. "And now Slade's wife Sassy is a widdow" Hartenbaum added sorrowfully. "A shame, given what a good woman she is".

"But this was Slade's own fault. What the hell was he doing here?" William demanded, turning to face Brabender and Workman. But he was met with silence. "Come on, answer Mr. Hartenbaum's question" an angry Voltron demanded. "You do want to make it out of here alive, do you not, Workman", Voltron added as he drew a wicked looking dagger from his belt and approached the two bound captives.

"You're going to talk" Voltron growled, holding his sharp blade to the neck of a frightened Workman. "Or I'll slit you from ear to ear. I don't give a damn what you have on Dennis".

SWTD #268, PIF #23, Murder Club #3.

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Apology Owed By Spinning Liar Re LBJ/Tonkin Vs GWb/WMD

Fifty years on we know the trigger for war with Vietnam was a fiction. Will it be another 50 before we know the truth about Iraq? ~ DD Guttenplan, writing for The Guardian in a 8/2/2014 piece titled "When Presidents Lie To Make A War".

Many "love letters" from a blogger named Willis Hart concerning yours truly on his idiotic Libertarian blog as of late. And by "love letters" I mean lies targeted at someone this blogger dislikes intensely.

But the disliking is mutual. Specifically due to the lies this dude spins, such as the following...

Willis Hart: wd is one of those people who claims to be against war, war crimes, and empire but who constantly spins for then when its his fellow's doing (the asshole even spun for LBJ and Vietnam which was quite possibly the most moronic war of them all). (7/30/2014 AT 9:40pm).

I never said a damn thing in support of the Vietnam war, you liar. And, yes, it was one of the most moronic wars of them all. Until preznit bush came along, that is. As for my "spinning" about LBJ, all I said was that "whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq".

Initially I do not believe LBJ lied about what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, although I do believe he latched onto the initial reports of what happened and used that to justify the actions he (and Robert McNamara) wanted to take. And, then when he found out the initial reports were inaccurate? Then he did keep that info under wraps. So, yes, he did lie. Later.

That would be a little different than what bush did, which was to lie right away, even though he knew the truth from the get go concerning WMD that Iraq did not have. And THAT was the point I was trying to make to the Hartster. That the lies of bush were worse for this reason. That is even *if* Iraq having WMD was a good justification for invasion (which they did not, but assuming they did). I say no.

But Willis rewrites the discussion that took place on his as me "spinning" for LBJ and him holding firm to his principals (the a-hole says he's "intellectually honest" while I'm the MOST "intellectually dishonest" person he's ever encountered).

Willis Hart: And, yes, just like a lot of the conservatives did with Bush and Iraq. (7/30/2014 AT 9:41pm).

What is ironic about this comment is that Willis is one of those conservatives. In regards to the lying about WMD, Willis spun and Willis spun HARD.

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).

Notice that he basically agrees that Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam removed, but only starts disagreeing when it comes to the "de-baathification" and disbanding the military (things that happened AFTER we invaded). Previously he said he was against the war, but would absolutely not call bush a war criminal and insisted (wrongly) that bush never lied.

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).

But there MOST CERTAINLY IS a paper trail. And the George W bush most certainly lied.

First, the lie...

In remarks preceding the invasion by one day (6/21/2003), the former president said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". (Wikipedia page: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, footnote #93).

And now the proof/paper trail that proves bush was lying...

The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked".

Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997". (Excerpt from a 5/23/2013 SWTD post titled "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies").

The IAEA told bush via written report (PAPER TRAIL) that there was no WMD. Yet Willis defended the ex-preznit on this matter. While sticking his fingers in his ears and humming (figuratively) so he was didn't have to hear about any proof of bush lying. At one point he even said he was convinced that "Saddam had to go". Spinning? In my opinion... absolutely.

But now (apparently) the hypocrite has changed his mind? The following excerpt from a Willis post seems to suggest he has. In this instance he blogs about the Zimmermann Telegram.

Willis Hart: ...the fact that the American people bought this shit (a la the Maine, a la the Gulf of Tonkin, a la WMD, etc.)... (7/26/2014 AT 4:00pm).

Here Willis argues that the Zimmermann Telegram (a 1917 diplomatic proposal from Germany for Mexico to join the Central Powers, in the event of the United States entering World War I on the side of the Entente Powers) was used by president Woodrow Wilson as a rationale for US involvement in WWI. Willis says this is a lie comparable to The Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and... wait for it... the LIE by bush concerning WMD that Iraq did not have!

Although, I should note that Willis does not call the idea that Mexico might go to war with us a "lie", he calls the telegram a "rationale". Indeed, the telegram was published and the public was angered, but Wilson did not suggest Mexico was going to attack us. The fact is that (in 1917) "as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram" we recognized the government of Venustiano Carranza (who came to power via a 1914 revolution) "in order to ensure Mexican Neutrality in WWI".

Is publishing a telegram and then using public outrage to get us involved in WWI a "lie"? Surely not a deception on the same level as the other (actual) lies Willis mentions. Although I don't know if the situation with the Maine qualifies either. Seems to me to be another case where confusion about what happened was used by some to get the American public to accept war.

Of the bunch I would say that bush's declaration that we were invading to "disarm" Saddam is the CLEAREST cut example of a president outright and bold-faced lying. And with the commentary I quote above, Willis is (ostensibly) acknowledging the fact that bush did lie. If so, then I say Willis owes me an apology. Or at least an acknowledgment that he's retracting his previous statements like the one I quoted above regarding there being "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

As well as other statements that are now at odds with his (apparent) new stance regarding bush lying about WMD. Statements like the following from 5/6/2012...

Willis Hart: And I don't even really dislike the guy [George W. bush]. I just wish that he had listened more to Powell and less to fellows like Wolfowitz and Perle. And in terms of his motivation, I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader like wd. In Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (which wasn't exactly a flattering read for Mr. Bush), he states that the regime change advocates were actually LOSING the debate early on and that it wasn't until 9/11 that guys like Perle and Wolfowitz finally started getting some traction.

If you were to force me to give an opinion on this, I would say that the decision to invade Iraq was probably more a function of group-think (I believe that this was Scott McClellan's assessment in his book, too) than it was the result of some sinister, diabolical cabal. I'm sure, though, that wd would disagree. (Link).

As well as this one from 8/1/2012...

Willis Hart: There was at least SOME ambiguity regarding WMD. (Link).

If Willis is retracting these earlier statements - then I think he needs to own up and show some intellectual honesty. Admit he was wrong instead of trying to paper over his past incorrectness by falsely painting himself as "consistent", which is something he PRIDES himself on... his SUPPOSED "consistency". I mean, back when I was making my case that bush lied (on Willis' blog - before he banned me) Willis responded by saying it was "almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush".

I had a "sick pathology" in regards to the ex-preznit because I - well before Willis did - acknowledged the truth about bush's lying about WMD to scare the public into accepting an unnecessary war? F*ck you Willis. And f*ck you again for continuing to lie about my positions on these matters. I do not CLAIM to be "against war, war crimes, and empire" but "constantly spin" when "my fellow" is the guilty one. I'm against these things, PERIOD. No matter what party the president belongs to.

LBJ lied and kept us in, and escalated Vietnam, costing many American lives in a pointless war. bush lied about WMD and many innocent Iraqis were killed, many American soldiers were killed and maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted (much of which went into the pockets of bush cronies. A fact I have YET to see Willis acknowledge!).

So, while it is good that Willis is now acknowledging the fact that bush lied about WMD - that he presents himself as "consistent" on this matter is utter BULLSHIT. And that he lies about my positions (to distract his readers from his inconsistencies on this topic?) is deplorable. And, so long as this lying about yours truly is celebrated on the blog of the lying Willis, I will NOT cease irritating him (downgraded from harassing him, I guess). So long as I notice Willis lying about me - and encouraging others to lie - the irritating will continue.

As for how long we might have to wait before it is know that bush lied us into Iraq? We knew the minute the falsehood about why he was invading Iraq escaped his lips. Although, for some of us, the getting to the point where the truth could be accepted took a little longer. And, it is, of course, not AT ALL widely accepted that bush intentionally deceived.

50 years before the truth concerning bush's WMD untruths are established fact? Perhaps. I suppose we have to wait for him to die first. Accepting uncomfortable truths seems to be easier if the truth to be accepted concerns someone who is no longer with us.

Video1: A clip from the documentary The Fog of War by Errol Morris. In this YouTube video Robert McNamara says "It was just confusion. And events afterward showed that our judgement that we had been attacked that day was wrong. It didn't happen". (3:33).

Video2: Official trailer from Errol Morris film The Unknown Known, a documentary focusing on Iraq war liar Donald Rumsfeld... bush's McNamara? (2:56).

See Also: Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies (SWTD #154) 6/23/2013.

SWTD #267, wDel #70.