Only Reason Donald Trump Said gwb Lied About WMD In Debate Was BC He Thought It Would Harm Jeb's Candidacy

We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated ~ Donald Trump responding to the fact that (according to a national CNN/ORC poll) he "runs significantly stronger among less-educated, less-affluent voters".

*As determined by Yahoo which "broke down the results further". Trump's comments about the "poorly educated", made during his victory speech after winning the Nevada caucuses, received applause from the audience, btw.

"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"... is what Donald Trump said at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016. (See Video1 below).

Pretty definitive, right? Trump said bush lied about WMD. They KNEW there were none. So you might find it hard to believe that Donald would attempt to walk this back now. I mean, how could he?

What follows is an excerpt from an interview of Donald Trump by Anderson Cooper that aired on 2/18/2016. The clip of this interview posted to YouTube (see Video2 below) picks up with a question from one of Trump's idiot supporters who confronts him on the "gwb lied about WMD" Trump accusation. The idiot first says that Trump's assertion "really stung me", then the idiot asks if Trump would be willing to "rethink that" (translation: Please tell me what I want to hear so I can vote for you).

Donald Trump: Well, a lot of people agreed with what I said. I'm not talking about lying, I'm not talking about not lying. Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq. It was not Saddam who knocked down the World Trade Center. Anderson Cooper: What you said was "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". Donald Trump: Well, there were a lot of people who think that. Bottom line, there were no weapons of mass destruction. They said there were weapons of mass destruction - I was against the war when it started... Idiot supporter: You think the president of the United States, george w bush, lied to the American people... Donald Trump: Look, I'm not going to get your vote, but that's OK. Idiot supporter: I'm just giving you another shot at it. [Translation: It's OK for you to lie to me. PLEASE tell me what I want to hear]. Donald Trump: Let me tell you something, I'll tell you very simply; it may have been the worst decision - going into Iraq - it may have been the worst decision any president has made in the history of this country. That's how bad it is, OK. The migration that you see today, the destruction of Europe, with Angela Merkel allowing millions of people [Syrian MUSLIM refugees into Germany]. I have people from Germany; they want to leave Germany. ... Everything that's happening started with stupidly going into the war in Iraq. Now, Iraq: We have - and people talk about me with the [nuclear] button, I'm the one that doesn't want to do this. I'm the one from 2000 to 2003 who said "you shouldn't be doing it". ...we have spent 2 trillion dollars in Iraq and fighting Iraq. 2 trillion. 2 trillion. Thousands of lives, right? We have wounded warriors, who I love... We got nothing. We have nothing... Anderson Cooper: But to his question... do you believe he lied? Donald Trump: Do I know? I can tell you this - I don't [know] whether he lied or not. ... I will say this... Saddam Hussein overplayed his hand. ...Frankly I think the son, being loyal to the father, really wanted to go into Iraq. Even if it wasn't the right thing to do. ... I said don't go in. Everything I said turned out to be true. [bashes Obama over the Iran nuclear disarmament deal]. ... Barack Obama, as bad as he is, and he's bad, got us out the wrong way. He should have left people there. ... he gave a specific date to get out, as you know. [Note: specific date set by bush re SOFA, see footnote below]. Anderson Cooper: Just to his question... one more chance. You either believe he [gwb] lied, or did not lie? Are you willing to say... Donald Trump: I don't know what he did. I just know it was a terrible mistake. Anderson Cooper: Was it a mistake for you to say in the debate that he lied? Donald Trump: I'd have to see the exact word. Look, I don't know. I would probably say that something was going on. I don't know why he went in. Anderson Cooper: So you would not say - again - that George W. Bush lied. Donald Trump: I don't know. I can't tell you. I'd have to look at some documents [not sure about "documents" because the video ends mid-word].

Trump is pretending to not know what he said? How dumb does he think his supporters are? That's a rhetorical question, btw. Trump knows his "Trumpeteers" ARE that dumb. I'd be willing to bet that the idiot who was BEGGING to be lied to (with his question) will end up voting for Trump. Despite him being a duped loyal bush supporter (who was "stung" by Trump pointing out that bush lied about WMD).

I say the idiot will still vote for Trump because NOW Trump is saying he "doesn't know" if bush lied. It doesn't matter what he said before. In fact, Trump doesn't even remember, and neither should his "poorly educated" supporters.

My conclusion? Donald Trump is an opportunistic liar who will say whatever he thinks will benefit him at the time he says it. And his supporters are too dumb to realize that they're being played. So, while I might be "your average partisan stooge blogger whose entire existence is one mindless and gratuitous anti-Trump post after another" (according to this individual), I actually did give Trump credit for telling the truth about bush lying about Iraq having no WMD (in this post).

But I'm retracting my kudos. Because Trump retracted his "bush lied about WMD" comments (by pretending not to remember he made them). The ONLY reason the liar said what he did was to hurt the liar's brother (the first liar being Trump and the 2nd liar being gwb. And the liar's brother being Jeb!).

Although, as for Trump's supporters being solely "poorly educated", there is obviously more to it than that. Many of these people are White racists who see Trump as the only presidential candidate in their lifetime that speaks to them. As Chauncey DeVega points out in a 2/28/2016 Daily Kos article, Trump's appeal "has to do with white racism, xenophobia, and the fear of small minded people".

Even smart people can be small minded. Fact is, these crackers are so desperate to hear what Trump is telling them that they will overlook these inconsistencies. Like the idiot bush supporter who was "stung" when Trump said the former preznit bush lied about WMD. Now Trump says he doesn't know. And, if not good enough for the dude who asked the question, I'm positive that answer will be good enough for legions of Trumpeteers, many of whom are likely the kind of person who'd get offended by the suggestion that W got us into Iraq dishonestly.

And, in the General, they're likely be many Republicans who'll hold their nose and vote for Trump. Better than see Hillary or Bernie get elected. But I doubt it will be enough to get Trump to the White House. We'll see. Apparently Trump thinks he can do it, and so far he's been right. In regards to the tactics he's employing and the type of voter he's winning over using them. God help us if he's successful. But again, I doubt he can win. Maybe he'll get close?

Clearly Trump realizes that the American people are sick of war, and believe we should not have gotten mixed up in that quagmire to begin with. Which is why he's spinning this BS about him being opposed to the Iraq war from the get-go. However, back in 2002, during an interview with Howard Stern, when asked by the host "are you for invading Iraq", Trump said "yeah, I guess so".

So, Trump insists that he opposed the invasion before we went in on 3/20/2003, but the audio evidence (see Video3 below) says otherwise. Another inconsistency his supporters are willing to overlook, no doubt. He says he was against it then... now, and apparently that's good enough. Remember, Trump is the only candidate not the only candidate who is pandering to their anger. But Cruz and Rubio? They're Hispanic, for crying out loud! And, don't forget that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father, and Rubio is an anchor baby (Marco Rubio Is An Anchor Baby and Not Eligible To Run For President).

Trump, on the other hand, is a REAL American (White guy) who promises he'll "make America great again"... by keeping out as many of the brown people as possible. With his wall (that Mexico will pay for) and with his ban on Muslims entering the country. Although, only until we can figure out "what's going on". Hmm... maybe the Trumpeteers think that what's going on is that those Muslims hate us and we should keep them out forever? And that's what The Donald is going to end up finding out?

Who knows. Trump has made it clear, however, that he's with them. More so than any candidate they've ever had the opportunity to vote for. Which is why he's getting endorsements from the likes of David Duke, who says that "voting against Trump is treason to your heritage".

So now Trump says that going into Iraq was just "terrible mistake". Which is a lie, even if many people believe it. I don't happen to be one of them, however. I am 100 percent convinced that when bush said Iraq had WMD he was lying and he knew it.

Which is what Trump originally said. But now it's a "mistake". So, kudos to Trump? Definitely withdrawn. The only purpose of him saying W lied was to hurt Jeb. And now that Jeb has dropped out? Well, it's time for a little revision that the bigoted Trumpeteers won't mind. Not too much or for too long, in any case (they'll still vote for him).

Footnote
[1] FactCheck.org: Question: Who's responsible for withdrawing all US combat troops from Iraq at the end of 2011? Answer: Bush signed an agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, on 12/14/2008, that said: "All the US Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than 12/31/2011". However, some say that Obama should have renegotiated SOFA to allow the presence of some troops & that he failed in that respect. This doesn't make Trump correct, however. The date of withdrawal was set by bush, not Obama.

Video1: Trump "bitch slaps" Jeb at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016 by pointing out that his brother did NOT "keep us safe" (3:17).

Video2: Trump challenged on "Bush Lied" claim by idiot supporter and AC360. Trump refuses to acknowledge that he said gwb lied; now claims "I don't know". 2/18/2016 (5:56).

Video3: Donald Trump says he supports Iraq invasion in 2002 Howard Stern Interview (2:41).

See Also: Willis Hart Lies Re Trump Comments On Iraq War, Downplays, Spouts BS About Left Not Acknowledging Trump Truthtelling, Pats Self On Back (OST #113) 2/25/2016.

SWTD #326

On The Inevitability Of Donald Trump Winning The gop potus Nomination (& Then Losing In The General)

Latin people for Republicans are like roaches for raid ~ John Leguizamo (dob born 7/22/1964) a Colombian Puerto Rican American actor, voice actor, producer, comedian, playwright and screenwriter. Remarks made during a 2004 Democratic Party fundraiser.

The following is an excerpt from a 2/22/2016 conversation between David Schuster and the host of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program concerning the possibility of Donald Trump securing the GOP potus nomination. (Note that I have edited Schuster's and Hartmann's comments for brevity and clarity).

Thom Hartmann: You said that you think that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. You seem to be saying this with some confidence. It seems to me that the Republican Party, institutionally, is going to do everything they can to keep Donald from becoming the nominee. He doesn't have a majority, only a plurality. If a couple more people drop out of the race, and it becomes him versus fill in the blank, I think fill in the blank is going to win, don't you?

David Schuster: You're right, I sense a certain certainty about Donald Trump getting the nomination. The reason being that, in order arrive at the point where there are two men standing, you need either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz to pull out. In my reporting the Republican establishment hates Ted Cruz far more than they hate Donald Trump. We've seen a number of Senators like Orin Hatch and former senators like Trent Lott suggest that Washington can work with Donald Trump - he's a deal maker. We cannot work with someone like Ted Cruz, who simply does not want Washington to get anything done.

I'm starting to see a number of establishment Republicans warm to the idea that OK, maybe we can work with Donald Trump if he's the nominee. So, I'd bet that there's a greater effort to deny the nomination to Ted Cruz than to Donald Trump. But there is still the idea that a more Republican insider establishment person like Marco Rubio can become Trump alternative and the party can coalesce behind him. I'm not so sure that Rubio can pull that off. In some of the polling and analysis that has been done of Rubio supporters and Trump supporters, I think many of the Cruz supporters would go to Trump.

Thom Hartmann: Because so much of Ted Cruz's base is fundamentalist Christian/misogynist/racist/generally freaked out.

David Schuster: Exactly. And making matters worse for the Republican Party is, while there is a proportional count now, starting on March 15th (just over 2 and a half weeks from now), it's winner take all [non caucus states]. Let's assume that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio decide, hey I still have a legitimate shot - if they go into those contests and we're still looking at 3 candidates, Donald Trump with 35 or 40%, he can still win 100% of the delegates in some of these states.

I also look at history - nobody on the Republican side has ever won New Hampshire and South Carolina and NOT won the nomination. I just don't see anything that might change that this time around. To me, it seems that the Republican Party is going to come around try to find a way to work with Donald Trump. ... The cynic in me is telling me that is Donald Trump is a shrewd tactician who is doing this just to get elected. He isn't as crazy or hateful as he comes across. He simply realizes that there are a lot of Republicans voters out there who so angry at the Republican establishment that he can exploit that dissatisfaction and anger to get elected.

My sense is that Donald Trump will get the nomination, but I can't see how he'd win in the general election, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. Even if it's Hillary and she's indicted [over her emails].

[End 2/22/2016 Hartmann/Schuster Discussion Excerpt]

Wow! Schuster thinks that even if HRC is indicated she'll win. If that happens it's sure going to cause many Republican heads to explode (although I doubt there will be an indictment). I'm still hopeful that the nomination and presidency goes to Sanders, however. If so I believe his presidency will be transformational (and turn back the plutocratic tide). The only thing that could impact the inevitability of a Trump nomination and loss would be an economic crash (which is being predicted by Hartmann, the only question is how soon it will happen).

Otherwise I think David Schuster's analysis is correct. Mostly because "the GOP won't win back the White House in 2016 without garnering substantially more support from Hispanic voters than it received three years ago".

...the eventual Republican nominee needs to earn at least approximately 35% of the Hispanic vote in both Colorado and Nevada to compete for their Electoral College votes and at least 40%, if not 45%, of Hispanics in Florida. In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to hit these numbers, and lost all three states (How well must GOP do among Hispanics to win in 2016? by David M. Drucker. The Washington Examiner 9/3/2015).

Anyone think Trump is going to get more Hispanic votes than Romney did? Don't forget that Trump is in favor of ending birthright citizenship and wants to forcibly round up and deport 11-12 million illegal immigrants. I'm thinking that Trump's stand on these issues might have the opposite effect of endearing him to Latino voters.

SWTD #325

WND Bullshit: Donald Trump Has 40 Percent Support Among African Americans & 45 Percent Among Hispanics

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community", which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality". ... That's not the way the world really works anymore... ~ Karl Rove, 10/17/2004

Donald Trump is receiving this support according to the FAR Right website World Net Daily (AKA World Nut Daily, AKA "Black Mob" Central).

...a new poll, which still has Trump leading the race, shows 40 percent of blacks are lining up behind Trump, as are 45 percent of Hispanics, and even nearly 19 percent of Asians. Blacks and Hispanics, in fact, even support Trump at a higher level than whites. ... Trump [also] wins... 47 percent support among women. The results are from a new WND/Clout poll by Clout Research, a national opinion research firm in Columbus, Ohio. The telephone survey of registered voters was taken Dec. 18-27... (Minorities Line Up Behind Donald Trump by Bob Unruh. World Net Daily 12/28/2015).

This commentary prompted a response from one commenter as follows...

Kevin Brookshire: Wait, 45% of Hispanics support or in favor of Trump? When a "poll" about a month ago had stated that an overwhelming 80% disapprove or dislike him nationally. Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn't. Trust these "poll" numbers? Yeah, I wouldn't!

This commenter is talking about (I'm pretty sure) the poll that showed disapproval for Trump nationally. That one shouldn't be trusted. The duped nutter trusts the WND poll that says minorities love Trump. What this clearly shows is just how delusional those who reside on the far Right are. Polls that don't agree with what they want to believe receive quote marks ("polls") and are attributed to the government, whereas polls from FAR Right fringe sites reflect reality (not the reality that exists only in their minds, but the reality the Left attempts to hide).

In the "minds" of these people African Americans support Trump because he tells the truth about how 81% of White homicide victims are killed by Blacks (Trump's Pants on Fire tweet that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims).

Possibly also because he's one of the leading proponents of the birther theory that says our first African American president (who has 84 percent approval rating among African Americans) isn't qualified to hold the office of POTUS because his birth certificate is a forgery. Presumably forged because he's concealing the fact that he was born in Kenya (Trump: I'm still a birther 7/10/15).

And Hispanics must like it that Trump tells the truth about people crossing our southern border illegally. That "truth" being that they are mostly criminals, drug dealers and rapists SENT by the Mexican government (Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border).

Muslims are probably drawn to Donald because he is honest with the American people regarding the US having "absolutely no choice" but to close down some mosques. And Muslims likely strongly agree with Trump when he speaks about barring other Muslims from entering this country via "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". I mean, how could they not? The "good ones" surely realizing just how many of their fellow Muslims are susceptible to radicalization.

Yes, the radicalization (and potential for radicalization) is so bad and so widespread that American Muslims know that it's necessary to conduct surveillance against mosques and to establish a database for all of them living in the US. The very fact that Muslims in New Jersey were seen on TV cheering the 9/11 terrorist attacks (as seen by Donald) is proof that this is all necessary. American Muslims are sick of "political correctness" and know that the bad ones among them rooted out. Which is why they so strongly support Donald Trump.

And finally, in regard to female voters; members of this demographic were no doubt impressed by the way Donald stood up to Fox Nooz's Megyn Kelly when she asked ridiculous questions about how Trump has referred to women as "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals". Trump pointed out that he'd only said such things about Rosie O'Donnell. Women got the joke, but not Kelly. Trump latter remarked that Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever", and females everywhere concurred that Kelly's attacks on Trump were consistent with a bitch on her period. Although Trump later clarified that he was referring to Kelly's nose, proving that everyone who thought he was talking about menstruation are disgusting anti-Trump sickos.

Obviously, given the fact that Trump rejects political correctness and is instead honest with voters, it makes perfect sense that minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and women) would line up behind him. Minorities clearly prefer the truth to the lies the other Repubs and the (especially) the Dems are guilty of telling.

Whereas Donald tells only the stark truth. No matter how un-PC it is. Blacks are violent. Hispanics? The ones here illegally are violent too. And they rape. So many Muslims are on the verge of becoming radicalized. Women? It's because the Donald loves them so much that he chastises them when they're fat pigs (to motivate them to lose weight). Or for being bitchy (they know they need to keep that in check). It's tough love, which these voting demos know is needed to make America great again.

My conclusion? Either (1) the Donald being portrayed in the lamestream media as a bigoted racist misogynist lout is a conspiracy to derail the campaign of a straight shooter who will bring back the greatness... or (2) the Donald is being gifted with a TON of free/nonstop coverage in an effort by the drive-by/corporate media to attract eyeballs/drive up ratings. But minorities aren't being fooled. They won't be voting for him in large numbers because "ethnic minorities are strongly opposed to Donald Trump's presidential campaign (Fact Check: Does Donald Trump Have Strong Minority Support?".

BTW, it turns out that the way Clout Research determined that there was 40 percent support for Trump among African Americans was to survey 10 Black people (who are Republicans)... and 4 of them said they were for Trump. And such is the case for all the other "percentage" support figures they cooked up (Trump Touts Bogus Poll From Birther Conspiracy Site World Net Daily to Show Minorities Support Him).

Looks like WND knows it's readers are morons who reject discernible reality.

SWTD #324

If You're Sick Of Unending War You Should Vote For Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton

All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal ~ John Steinbeck (2/27/1902 to 12/20/1968) author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Grapes of Wrath.

Because Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War some ask - how can be possibly be Commander In Chief of the US military? Me, I say that is a question that someone supportive of the MIC and unending war would ask. Apparently a Sanders spokesman confirmed that "as a college student in the 1960s he was a pacifist" but that he isn't now. Perhaps he isn't now because, even though the American people are sick of war, they still wouldn't elect a pacifist?

On the Republican side the front runner responded to (and repeated the words of) one of his supporters... who said Ted Cruz is a pussy because he said he'd bring waterboarding back (allbeit in a limited capacity). [Video]. The "you're fired" guy says we need to torture even harder!

Ted "Carpet Bomb" Cruz is (at least in regards to torture) the best it gets on the Republican side (with Randal Paul out of the race). For me (on the subject of who should be the CIC), I'd go with Bernie over any Repub, including Randal (ABSOLUTELY including Randal, given his opposition to the Obama Admin's deal to nuclearly disarm Iraq).

But, of the two candidates running on the Democratic side, I'd greatly prefer Bernie to Hillary.

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine [excerpt from an article by Jeffrey Sachs] The idea that [Hillary Clinton] is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA. ... It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger. ... Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. ...Hilary was a staunch defender of the MIC at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria. ... ...her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. (Published on The Huffington Post 2/5/2016).

Foreign policy might be a weakness for Sanders; surely that is what HRC has (and will) continue to hit him on. And if he's the nominee, you can bet the Repub will attack him on this front. But I say the candidate who signed on to Dennis Kucinich's idea for a Federal Department of Peace, got the vote on war with Iraq right (whereas HRC got it wrong), and who has been a steadfast advocate for veterans (he is very aware of the human cost of war) is the right person for the job of CIC [1].

A dove instead of a hawk is JUST what we need, IMO. And Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a hawk. Which is why I agree with what Sanders said on 12/19/2015 at the 3rd Democratic debate.

Bernie Sanders: I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of (former Libyan dictator Muammar) Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of (Syrian dictator Bashar) Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after. (Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders voted for regime change in Libya by Lauren Carroll. PolitiFact 12/22/2015).

BTW, that HRC claims that Sanders "voted for regime change" (and PolitiFacts says "Mostly True") is mostly very misleading. As PolitiFact points out "the resolution [Sanders voted for] called for peaceful regime change". He didn't vote for military action. But, whatever he thought at the time, clearly he realizes now that when we kill dictators the result is not good. In fact, it creates worse problems. Hillary, on the other hand, hasn't come to this realization and would likely order more of the same as CIC.

Which means that under HRC (or any of the Republicans) we'd get more war and more destabilization (which so far has made terrorism worse). Obviously, given these facts, an informed person should conclude that the sane choice is to vote for Sanders (Gary Johnson will NOT be our next president). Problem is, most people don't bother to get informed. Or (worse), go out of their way to get misinformed (Fox Nooz viewers). Many more don't get informed, but also don't vote.

IMO, if everyone got informed and if everyone voted... the result would be a decisive victory for Sanders. Unfortunately we don't live in that world. IF Sanders wins it will be close. Although it's more likely we'll end up with a president HRC, which will still be a better result than if any of the Republicans win. But I'm convinced she will be another BHO. Mostly good, sometimes great. But also sometimes terrible (Obama's deal to extend the bush tax cuts, the so-called grand bargain that thankfully never came to pass, and now his pushing of the job killing TPP... all of which Bernie has consistently opposed).

Footnote
[1] Tyson Manker of Veterans For Bernie Sanders: [Bernie Sanders is] the only candidate who talks about, let alone understands, the "true costs of war". Frankly, he has demonstrated a genuine concern American Veterans and the issues we face. As President, I know Bernie will never rush to judgment on foreign policy issues, or lie about his intentions. I know that he'll never put troops into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary to keeping America safe. (Why the anti-war candidate is so beloved by former soldiers by Zaid Jilani. Alternet 10/24/2015).

Image: Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger. According to Dan Froomkin (writing for the Intercept, "the sparring during [the 6th] Democratic presidential debate between HRC and B-S over whether Henry Kissinger is an elder statesman or a pariah has laid bare a major foreign policy divide within the Democratic Party. HRC and B-S stand on opposite sides of that divide. One represents the hawkish DC foreign policy establishment, which reveres and in some cases actually works for Kissinger. The other represents the marginalized non-interventionists, who can't possibly forgive someone with the blood of millions of brown people on his hands".

SWTD #323

On Peyton Manning Kissing Papa John After The Superbowl, Then Saying Several Times He Was Going To Drink A Lot of Budweiser

Peyton cheapened his personal brand for products during what was likely his last shining moment. That is, of course, only until his Hall of Fame induction ensues, and Peyton... whips out a Sham Wow to extoll its virtues as he shines his bust ~ What Peyton Manning Lost After Winning Super Bowl 50 by Stephen Rosa, 2/9/2016.

First of all, let me note that I did not learn of this by actually watching the Superbowl. I have zero interest in football, or any other televised sport. I can not imagine anything on TV more boring which some people consider "entertainment".

No, I skipped this event entirely, and am confounded that (according to what I've heard) the ratings/viewership set records. As for the Peyton/Pappa love affair, Peyton isn't the guy who cheated by deflating balls, nor is he the guy who went to prison for animal cruelty (and then was rehired by another football team). And I just recently saw a rerun of the time he appeared on SNL (and did a decent job).

My point is that he seems to be someone that people like. So I guess I couldn't say anything bad about him, except for his association with the Papa John jerk. I've seen the commercials and wondered why Manning would want to be associated with a company founded by such a dick. And, remember, Peyton isn't just shilling for Papa's crappy pizza (so I've heard), he also appears alongside Papa in these commercials.

...the political firestorm - when [Papa John] Schnatter warned that Obama's health care changes would raise pizza prices and could cost workers their jobs. Most famously, Comedy Central's Steven Colbert, responding to Schnatter's claim that the insurance law could add as much as 14 cents to the cost of a pizza, said: "That's three times the value of a Papa John's pizza". ...pundits and late-night comedians have mocked and vilified him for saying the health care overhaul might add 14 cents to the cost of each pizza - and that some franchisees might cut workers' hours to avoid paying insurance costs. ... Though conservatives cheered Schnatter for telling it like it is, Trout, the former consultant, said it was a horrible public-relations error. "Why upset half your market?" Trout asked. "Why would you even go there?" ... Unlike former Godfather's CEO and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, Schnatter says he has no desire "right now" to run for office, though he adds, "You never want to say never". Schnatter is a registered Republican but says he grew up in a staunch Democratic Southern Indiana family.He said he supported Romney — he and his wife gave $120,800 to Romney and the Republican National Committee last year - because of his support for balancing the budget. (Papa John makes no apology for wealth, Obamacare remarks by The Louisville KY Courier-Journal. NYT 1/14/2013).

On the other hand the article says Papa John added that it was "good news [that] 100% of the population is going to get health insurance". Apparently he's "cool with that [because] "we've always wanted 100% of our employees on health care". Yeah, I don't quite buy that, given the fact that he originally said "we're not supportive of Obamacare".

If he REALLY wanted "100% of our employees on health care", he could have spoke about how good a deal the ACA is for him at 14 cents per pizza. At the very least he could have kept his mouth shut instead of fear mongering over 14 cents (and avoided the bad press). Sounds to me like he is/was against the ACA and - after the negative publicity over the remarks - backtracked. If he does get into politics (and hopefully he does not) we'll probably see his true (Republican) colors.

As for Manning, a link within the quoted story says "Peyton Manning to own 21 Papa John's locations". And the Denver Post reports that "Peyton Manning rolling in the dough with Papa John's profits".

Which explains the smooch. Republican love being based on money. Not that I know whether or not Manning is a Republican. I wouldn't be surprised if he was, however. As for the Budweiser plug, the Washington Post (The real story of Peyton Manning's weird love for Budweiser, Papa John's and Gatorade) notes that the quarterback (?) "owns a stake of two of the mega-brewer's distributors in his native state of Louisiana".

So, no, he wasn't paid by Bud for his endorsement, but he did benefit financially. Was this Manning's way of circumventing the fact that "the National Football League bans players from officially endorsing alcohol brands"? Can he not be paid for an endorsement or not endorse period? Is this something the NFL at least issue him a warning over?

The WP notes that "companies paid an average of $5 million for 30 seconds of super-saturated airtime during Super Bowl 50", yet with Manning's mention Bud got free airtime which some marketing firm says amounted to 3 million dollars in "in brand recognition value". Given the fact that I really don't give a crap about anything Superbowl related, I am not seriously outraged... but I do see this as another example of the rich getting richer. Because the wealthier one becomes the easier it is to make money (I'm going to drink beer = 3 million $).

And Mr. 47 percent Romney was a terrible candidate that exemplified the Right's contempt for the poor. That Papa John supported him (with a fundraiser at his mega mansion) is just another reason for me to not like the guy. Or Manning for his association with him.

Image: A gif of Peyton smooching his money honey Papa. btw, WHY was Papa allowed on the field?

SWTD #322

On Chris Matthews' Unending Efforts To Smear Bernie Sanders As A Soviet-Style Socialist

Chris Matthews is trying to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in capitalism or the market, which is a complete lie. Either Chris Matthews is profoundly ignorant - which I don't believe for a second. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there. Or this is the leading edge of the establishment/insider spear thrown against the outsider Bernie Sanders ~ Thom Hartmann (Progressive talk radio host) on his eponymous program, 8/3/2015.

It's getting ridiculous. Yes, Matthews is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton, but his constant distorting of Bernie's politics is really pissing me off. Right now I'm watching the "pre-debate" (ahead of the 5th Democratic debate) and this a-hole breaks out the dictionary definition of "Socialism". Of course he definition-shopped and chose the one that says government owns the means of production.

And, even though Howard Dean is a Hillary Surrogate (as well as a sell out), he still had enough integrity to correct Matthews, saying NO, Berie isn't a (Soviet-style) Socialist, but a Social Democrat like in the UK.

This is one of the reasons I've largely given up on msnbc. Up until Bernie showed that he is a viable contender (with his virtual tie in Iowa and his likely upcoming win in New Hampshire) msnbc was all Trump all the time. Now I expect more of the Bernie bashing (although I'm sure they'll continue with the Trump coverage as well unless he implodes).

The voters are so hungry for the genuine populism of Bernie Sanders that he's pushed Hillary to the Left. But I'm wondering that if Hillary is elected... how long will her populist views last? Remember in 2008 Barack Obama said he'd renegotiate NAFTA? Now he's pushing the job-killing TPP. And Hillary, before being pushed to the Left by Sanders, said the TPP was the "gold standard" (Politifact says HRC is guilty of a "full flop").

Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz (for crying out loud!) said she thought either of the two could beat the Republican. This she said in spite of an incredulous Chris Matthews' disbelief at what he was hearing. I've been hearing that the Repubs will break out the Hammer & Sickle if Bernie is the nominee, but Chris is practically doing that already. Proof the Corporate Dems are afraid of Bernie's populism, I think.

2/11/2013 Update: Thom Hartmann, in a discussion with Chris Matthews on the 2/2/2016 airing of his eponymous program said "Bernie doesn't believe that government should be involved in the means of production and supply. He isn't a Marxist"... to which Matthews replied "Uhhh, it hasn't come up yet. I don't know him that well. I just know that everytime I hear him talking it's a government solution". So Matthews apparently genuinely believes that Bernie is a Soviet-style socialist?

This despite the fact that Bernie himself has said (in a speech on democratic socialism at Georgetown University on 11/19/2015) "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production". OK, so shouldn't Matthews, as a political commentator know this? Chris either has his head in the sand re "it hasn't come up yet", or he's lying.

SWTD #321

On Planned Parenthood Not Only Being Vindicated, But The Anti-Choice Liars Who Targeted Them Being Indicted

These same people who accuse Planned Parenthood of 'targeting' African-American children, they care about you only while you're in the womb. The minute you crown, you're on your own ~ Gwen Moore (dob 4/18/1951) the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 4th congressional district, serving since 2005.

When this story broke I read a number of outraged comments from the Right. Bullshit such as accusations of PP "chopping up kids and selling the pieces" as well as other claims regarding "none of the left leaning blogs... getting near this issue". Because, you know, Lefties KNEW that PP was in the wrong. Lefties who, according to this source, hoped that "if they don't mention it maybe it will go away".

Nothing could have been further from the truth, of course. Those of us on the Left knew that, not only was PP innocent of the charges, they were actually doing good work by providing fetal tissue for research.

Now comes the vindication.

Last week, a Harris County TX grand jury empaneled to investigate whether Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue cleared the group of wrongdoing, instead indicting two anti-abortion activists behind the undercover recordings. The indictments - for tampering with a governmental record and unlawfully offering to buy fetal tissue - surprised Republicans and Democrats. The investigation was initiated by Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson, a Republican, at the urging of Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. "We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast", Anderson said in a statement. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us". Republican state leaders largely brushed off the indictments while some activists accused the grand jury of going rogue. (Texas GOP v. Planned Parenthood: A scorecard by Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune. Feb 2016).

Good news, except for the last line. Congressional Republicans of course ignore the facts and press on with their bogus investigation of PP in a futile attempt to harm Democrats politically (same as they are doing re their unending Benghazi hearings). Of course their dim-witted constituency will continue to believe that PP engaged (is engaging in) illegalities.

Because they're so supid they believe that "performing abortions are by far the majority of their services" despite the fact that the "majority" is "3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report". (Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?).

Rember that f*cking liar Carly Fiorina was so convinced she could get milage out of spinning BS about PP murdering babies that she insisted that she "saw the footage" (of "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain") even though this footage does not exist.

She knew she could get away with it (which she has, even though, unfortunately for her, her blatant lies didn't translate to a rise in the polls) because so many Republican voters are gullible imbeciles. I mean, would anyone SERIOUSLY be talking about Donald Trump possibly securing the GOP nomination if that were not the case?

SWTD #320