Above image found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog (first image).
ok, so I'd say president Obama made America better. Especially given the fact that the last guy crashed the economy and Obama reversed course, put us back on the right track and started growing the economy again (President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor. NYT 12/2/2016). #thankyouobama.
But if I did think that Obama made things WORSE, that's what I'd say. Also, according to one of the TOMs (1 of 4) "inauguration" is spelled "inorgaration". This idiot complains that "Andre Borchli" won't sing for Trump at his sham swearing-in (a sham because Trump cheated and will be an illegitimate president).
BTW, that Obama caused hatred, social unrest and racism by being Black, is, I think something the dumb-dumbs that voted for the KKK-endorsed Trump are responsible for. As for not helping minorities, not reducing crime and not reducing poverty, they're thinking of the Republican obstructionist Congress. Also, the foreign policy that lead to chaos, instability and terrorism? That would be the last president, gwb. You know, the guy who let OBL go (SWTD #33) and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 after lying about WMD (SWTD #312). Idiots.
The great deceiver? That's hilarious given how suckered by the Orange buffoon the #poorlyeducated#TrumpDupes are going to eventually realize they've been. Or not. They'll probably find someone else to blame, even though the Republicans have complete control.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy ~ Donald J. Trump via Twitter, 11/6/2012.
It has been quite a long time, but I have returned. It is I, the Radical Right-Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy, a writer of guest commentaries for this blog. Although the last time I was published here was way back in 2011. My commentary then concerned how ObamaCare would be repealed. Because the Dems wrote it but didn't read it. So they had no idea how bad it was.
Now (finally) President Trump will repeal ObummerCare and replace it with something terrific. A free-market based solution that will provide healthcare for everyone at a fraction of the cost. Anyway, that isn't what I'm going to be writing about today. Today the subject is the Electoral College. An institution the crybaby losers who supported the losing candidate want to do away with.
According to J. Craig Scherf of Duluth MN (a Historical researcher), "the Founders intended to place a brake on popular opinion alone by the choice of electors who might deliberate on the choice of a chief executive".
Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was in France when the Constitution was written) said "I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election... as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit".
James Wilson, one of the authors of the Constitution, asked "Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?". James Madison, who was the primary author, must have overruled him. Thank God!
Because, as I recently discovered, winning the popular vote but losing the election is a thing only Democrats do. In recent history the fact that we don't elect our president via the popular vote has saved us from an Al Gore and (most recently) a Hillary Clinton presidency.
President Crooked Hillary Clinton? Obviously nobody would have wanted that. Except for a majority of the American electorate. But, as the researcher Scherf points out, the Electoral College is "merely one example of the numerous checks and balances throughout the Constitution that imprint it everywhere as a compact between states and as a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy based on population alone".
Hear, hear Mr. Scherf, I say. Especially since the Electoral College made George W. Bush and now Donald Trump president. Two of our greatest presidents. Despite Bush's presidency ending with a sharp economic downturn. And him getting us involved in unending wars in the Middle East by lying about Saddam having WMDs. Other than that, he was pretty awesome, I think.
As for President-elect Trump, all the signs point to him being a great president. Something the hate-filled Liberals will never admit. No matter that President Trump will likely bring back prosperity for all rich people. He said his mandate was to make America great again, and I believe he will.
If not? Well, he was elected by the Electoral College, so clearly the Founders would have said the popular opinion being that Crooked Hillary should be our next president is an opinion that the brakes needed to be put on. Rednecks and hicks want Trump. As well as some racists and bigots. And, obviously we don't want a break put on their opinions.
Which is that Trump (a man born incredibly wealthy - and also a egomaniac who decided to run for president to get revenge on Barack Obama for roasting him at the correspondent's dinner) is a man of the people who selflessly decided his country needed him. To save us from a charismatic tyrant who could manipulate the will of the people (something the Founders warned us about).
I'm talking about Crooked Hillary and NOT the rubes my man Donald manipulated by lying about building a wall Mexico would pay for and promising to take away their health care subsidies they don't want because they aren't freeloaders.
Soon Donald's fellow millionaires and billionaires will have the burden of over-taxation and overregulation lifted from their shoulders and they will be able to create 3 jobs for every man, woman and child who wants one (at substantially reduced wages once the minimum wage is eliminated).
And the country will rejoice that Donald J Trump is the president! Instead of president Hillary ruining the country and gay marrying Huma Abedin. And lezing it up in the White House (I've heard). Just to rub it in the face of America's hard working rubes. Christians who hate the sin of homsexuality because the Bible says it's wrong to chose to be gay.
And you KNOW madame President would have passed the TPP with the help of Congressional Republicans. Which is why I'm strongly in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Because no Republican has ever won the popular vote but lost the election. If it were the other way around, then yeah, I'd absolutely be for getting rid of it.
The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution ~ excerpt from a 11/15/2015 Salon article by Bret Weinstein.
Note that by "the terrorists" I refer to the Saudi Nationals who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as their financiers. In addition, among "the terrorists", I include the accomplices in the bush administration. Accomplices in that george w bush knew a terrorist attack was likely. Knew the likely target. And knew an attack was imminent. Yet he did nothing.
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?
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.
But, instead of taking the warnings seriously, the author of the Politico article concludes that the warnings were actively ignored (referred to by Senator Al Franken in his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them as "operation ignore").
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.
So, while I don't believe that bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC), I do think 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, but 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" (as a Libertarian blogger called my conclusions awhile back). 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).
Which is why I conclude that, given the fact that 9/11 was an evil act, that bush (as a participant in that event) is an evil man. Because of his inactions. BTW, 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).
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".
And that the plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers actually got an assist from the then sitting president? That is why I say the terrorists won. This was the event with which OBL kicked off his jihad against the West. A jihad that rages on today (in the form of ISIS). It also provided the bushies with the excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that they were hungering for.
If not for the "failures" of the bush administration I think that ISIS would probably not exist. Something to think about on this, the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our nation. That a former president HELPED the terrorists and (with his illegal invasion of Iraq) GREATLY empowered our enemies (DSD #31).
Image: gwb and OBL meet prior to 9/11/2001 to coordinate their plans to bring down the Twin Towers. Note that I am not a 9/11 Truther. My commentary from 11/17/2009 titled "Best Friends George and Osama" (SWTD #30) was a work of satire. But only in part.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda ~George W bush (dob 7/6/2016) 43rd USA preznit (unelected).
The Urban Dictionary says "catapult the propaganda" means "to promote acceptance of lies/damn lies/statistics, through repetition and assisted by the blind obedience and willful omissions of the lapdogs posing as independent media".
Regarding BHO's appearance on the Thursday 6/9/2016 airing of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, promoting of the lie that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for American workers was promoted. Although I don't know how much repetition there might be. I've heard that msnbc (1) fired Ed Schultz for criticizing it and (2) "cut away from live coverage of a Bernie Sanders press conference, just as he was condemning the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement".
So, there has been some prior catapulting, but inserting propaganda into a popular late night show is definitely a low point in the Obama presidency, IMO.
MONOLOGUE...
Fallon: ...so much has happened during president Obama's administration. ObamaCare was passed, same sex marriage was legalized, he worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership...
WHICH THEN SEGWAYED INTO A SLOW JAMMING OF THE NEWS...
Obama: I believe it is of the utmost importance to work alongside other world leaders... That's why I negotiated a new trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP.
Fallon: Now hold on there Prez dispenser (laughter) are you saying you're down with TPP?
Obama: Yeah, you know me (more laughter). Look, Jimmy, the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad. The more we sell abroad, the more higher paying jobs we provide here at home. It's that simple.
Fallon: So what you're saying is this trade deal will help put everyday Americans back to...
Obama: (off key, sans music) Work, work, work, work, work (laughter).
Clearly this propaganda was inserted into the Slow Jam The News segment because they knew it would not only be seen by people viewing it live, people viewing in on their DVRs, but also by clip watchers via the internet. Providing maximum exposure to the target viewer, which would be the low-information voter.
And, with Bernie Sanders out of the way and only Trump speaking against it, surely some people will be swayed by a comedic push of this bad trade deal (Trump and Sanders Are Right: Obama's Trade Deal Is a Dud). Yeah, Hillary has said she opposes it in it's current form, but (1) the TPP may be passed by a lame duck Congress and signed by a lame duck Obama, and (2) HRC may referse her opposition to the TPP and go back to supporting it. Remember she said the "TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" and referred to it as "the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia" (in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices). Although, I'm thinking she'd rather Obama sign it. And take the blame on his way out the door.
Even given reporting from the Washington Post that says no.
Hillary Clinton has signaled that if she is elected president in November she would oppose a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord during a lame-duck session of Congress, sharpening her differences with President Obama as he is ramping up his sales pitch on behalf of the deal.
Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: "I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election". (Clinton does not back Obama trade vote in post-election congressional session by David Nakamura. Washington Post 5/5/2016).
It sounds like Chris Matthews thinks HRC is going to flip flop back to supporting it, however. On the 6/15/2016 airing of msnbc's hardball he said "my view is that part of (Bill) Clinton's economic success for the 90s was free trade or trade agreements. I think Hillary Clinton is a trader. Maybe not a total free trader, but she's much more on the side of the importance of trade as part of being part of the international economic community than Bernie Sanders is".
Hopefully this is one concession that Bernie Sanders can extract in exchange for his support. Perhaps a plank in the Democratic Party platform indicating support for keeping jobs here (tax incentives for companies that bring jobs back, as opposed to the opposite). Fact is, I was thinking that the TPP might have come up during Senator Sanders' 6/9/2016 meeting with the president. Although this Tonight Show appearance was taped BEFORE Obama and Sanders met, Obama might have anticipated that Sanders would bring it up.
Who knows. What I do know is that Obama's disgusting shilling of the TPP (with an assist from willing stooge Jimmy Fallon) made my blood boil. Seriously, when the "slow jam" got to the TPP I said "f*ck you" to our sellout president. WHY he's betraying American workers on his way out the door is a mystery to me. Otherwise he has been an excellent president. For the most part. But this is not something I can excuse. Especially if it is passed by a lame-o Congress and President.
Will HRC (as president) keep her word? Even though there is ample reason to believe that Hillary Clinton's position on trade is total bullsh*t? The reason being the many many many times she has flip-flopped on the issue. I refer not just to her current flip-flop, but to previous flip-flops on other trade agreements (see the linked-to article for an accounting of HRC's shifting position re trade. Seems she was all in re bad trade deals when holding office and against them while running for office).
And, speaking of being against shipping jobs overseas (AKA "trade") while running for office, then breaking promises after being elected, Obama made a campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, then reversed himself as potus. (Obama Reverses Campaign Pledge to Renegotiate NAFTA).
I guess this stance puts me in the camp that says they don't trust HRC. Not that I WANT to be in this camp (and, in the past, people saying that they didn't trust HRC perturbed me). I thought, why? Because of the decades long campaign of lies against her? Because of this BS concerning her email server that she's NOT going to be prosecuted over... not because the fix is in re Obama manipulating things so she is not charged, but because there's nothing to prosecute her for (Report on Clinton Emails Is a Big Nothing Burger).
So, I don't not trust her for any of those reasons... but I do not trust her in regards to the TPP. I hope she doesn't reverse herself, but I think she might. WHY oh WHY couldn't the electorate have gone for Bernie Sanders? Him, I absolutely trust on this issue. He's been consistently opposed to all these bad trade deals for his entire career.
And there is also the fact that the American people are opposed to such trade deals. This explains why Ross Perot, as a result of his warning of the "sucking sound" of American jobs departing for Mexico, garnered 19% of the vote, making "him the most successful 3rd-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election" (his opposition to NAFTA being one of the primary planks of his 1992 campaign).
BTW, when Jimmy Fallon said that Obama "worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership" that was a LIE, as the "signing" was symbolic ("Of course, the signing is a totally meaningless bit of theater"). The TTP has to be voted on by Congress first. Which has not happened yet. A president can't sign legislation INTO LAW until Congress approves it. (symbolic signing took place on 2/4/2016 in Auckland, New Zealand).
I truly hate to say it, but I've GOT to wonder WHY Obama is so eager to put Americans out of work. Is there a BIG payday awaiting him after he leaves office IF he accomplishes this (given that the TPP is SURELY high on the oligarch's wish list)? Or is he just incredibly naive?
Video: Jimmy Fallon and Barack Obama Slow Jam the news. And the TPP propaganda (7:06).
I congratulate my competitors that are remaining on the island -- Jeb! remarks upon the "suspension" of his bid for the White House, 2/20/2016.
On 4/25/2013 Barbara Bush said "we've had enough Bushes". This was in regards to her other son John Ellis (AKA Jeb!) possibly running for the presidency. When Jeb decided he would run, Babs sent an email to prospective supporters asking for money (3/18/2015) that revised that past statement.
Instead of an emphatic NO (which is how I'd describe the "we've had enough Bushes") she says she was "hesitant". What made her change her mind was the "fact" that "our problems are so profound that America needs a leader who can renew the promise of this great nation". IMO the leader who can do that is Bernie Sanders. But, whether it's Bernie or Hillary on the Democratic side, it is now certain that the Republican the Democrat faces off against will NOT be Jeb.
Although, according to Late Late Show host James Cordon "George W bush was a little confused why Jeb quit because he was losing - because as far as George W bush is concerned, you still become president even when you don't get the most votes"... to which I say, good one. Ha ha. Al Gore was elected to the presidency by winning the most votes, but the Supreme Court stole his victory by anointing a man who would go on to ignore the warnings concerning an eminent terrorist attack (Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US) then go on to start two illegal wars (Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War).
Regarding the "please clap" moment (see video below) Host of the Late Show, Stephen Colbert, remarked (on the 2/22/2016 airing of his program) that Jeb should have said "please vote for me". Actually, I think that if you watch the video it's clear that Jeb ended his speech abruptly and the audience simply did not know he was done. They might have clapped if they had.
Still, even if the media misrepresented this moment (the author of the Colbert article writes that Jeb "received no applause after a speech on national security") and mercilessly mocked him for something he didn't deserve to be mocked for, I surely do not care one iota re the "unfairness" of it.
Frankly, I'm thinking that *if* one of the Republicans were to be elected, a president Trump might be the least worst option. Out of those who could conceivably win the nomination, that is. Otherwise I guess I'd go with Kasich, even though he'd still be pretty bad (Myth of the "moderate" John Kasich).
I was in agreement with Bab's initial comment regarding American not needing another bush. Surely the electorate would reject another after the economy crashing war criminality of the last one. It isn't as if Jeb was honest with us instead of spinning a ridiculous and patently false narrative that his doofus brother "kept us safe", Donald Trump told the truth during the last debate about how gwb LIED about WMD.
Even if he's now walked back his "bush lied about WMD" truth-telling, saying, in an AC360 interview "I don't know what he did". Clearly he only confronted Jeb on the lies of his brother to destroy the bush brother's candidacy (swtd-326). And Jeb dropped out shortly after the debate.
So perhaps the strategy worked? Now he can deny he ever said the bushies lied about WMD and his idiot "Trumpeteers" will go along with the Donald's revisionism. Because they're so gaga over his xenophobia and jingoism they really don't care if he lies to them. Apparently they don't realize that he might be lying about the wall, deporting illegals, the Muslim registry, banning Muslims from entering the country, etc, etc. Because he's promising a bunch of stuff he can't deliver, I think it's clear he's simply telling the rubes what the want to hear (Donald Trump Secretly Told The New York Times What He Really Thinks About Immigration).
Anyway, remember that Jeb did say he would rather lose the primary in order to win the general? Looks like he succeeded with phase 1 of his master plan. I wonder what phase 2 is going to entail? Obviously the end result will be that Jeb is elected president, but how's he going to do it?
Video1: Speaking at the Hanover Inn near the Vermont border on [2/2/2016], Mr. Bush finished a fiery riff about protecting the country -- "I won't be out here blow-harding, talking a big game without backing it up", he said — and was met with total silence. "Please clap", he said, sounding defeated. The crowd laughed — and then, finally, clapped. (excerpted from a 2/3/2016 NYT article by Jonathan Martin and Ashley Parker) (0:33).
Video2: Jill Sobule reveals the truth about the Trumpeteers in song -- when they say "Make America Great Again", they mean by getting rid of the black and brown people (4:49).
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.
You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton's electability in the general election ...the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem ~ Robert Shrum AKA "Dumb Shrum" (dob 1943) an American political consultant, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including the losing presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.
Regarding Robert Shrum's nickname of "Dumb Shrum", my memory tells me that I heard this on Al Franken's Air America radio program. I might be wrong, however, as I could not confirm this via a Google search. In any case, the nickname comes from the fact that "in eight elections (for either the presidential nomination or for the presidency itself), Shrum's candidates have never won". (Wikipedia reports).
Regarding the quote at the top of this post; it is via the far-Right website 9/9/2009 Newsmax story "Democrats Eyeing White Knight If Clinton Implodes"... which is complete nonsense, as there is almost nothing to this so-called scandal. Despite deluded Righty fantasies of Hillary (and perhaps Obama) ending up behind bars... for their fictional "lawlessness".
Hillary did SOMETHING wrong. As long as the Republicans keep looking, eventually they'll find a transgression with substance. Although they've been looking for the last 35 years and both Hillary and Bill are still free. Not imprisoned for their many imaginary crimes, much to the chagrin of the (real) vast Rightwing conspiracy.
The latest imaginary crime of Hillary Clinton involving her emails, being yet in another in a series of desperate attempts by the Right to derail her POTUS candidacy. Another attempt that will fail, despite what Dumb Shrum sez. Those who do not trust HRC or find her "likable" did not trust or find her likable to begin with. They would not be voting for her even if Congressional Republicans were not continuously investing fake/overblown Clinton misdeeds.
Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #1: Used Personal email & Server Which Was Either Illegal Or At Least Shady
This allegation concerns Hillary doing something wrong by using a private email and server. Perhaps even illegal! Except that... no. "Clinton and her staff have stated that her use of the private email account was above board and allowed under State Department rules" and this is indeed the case.
HRC, in using/maintaining a private server broke no laws that existed at the time.
...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).
Frankly I think it should have been law long ago that government employees were legally required to communicate using government (and not private) systems. However, until recently it has not been. Hillary Clinton followed the law and is guilty of nothing, nor has anything been uncovered (via the release of these emails) that show she was trying to hide something. At most she could be "convicted" of falling "short of the Obama administration's preferred best practices". (A Crystal-Clear Explanation of Hillary's Confusing Email Scandal).
Which differs significantly with what happened during the bush administration. In 2007 it was discovered that preznit bush (and underlings in the office of the preznit) corresponded "via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government... in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act". (Wikipedia/Bush White House email controversy).
What the bushies were attempting to hide was that their Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases.
Investigative journalist Greg Palast: David Iglesias of New Mexico was one of seven U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House for their refusal to bring voter fraud prosecutions. [According to Iglesias] "We took over 100 complaints... We investigated for almost 2 years [and] I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case in the entire state of New Mexico".
Specifically, Attorney General Gonzales... wanted him to bring what the prosecutor called "bogus voter fraud" cases. In effect, US Attorney Iglesias was under pressure from the boss to charge citizens with crimes they didn't commit.
(Gonzales "wrong and illegal and unethical" by Greg Palast. GregPalast.com 8/28/2007).
The purpose of prosecuting phony-baloney "voter fraud" cases? According to Greg Palast, Karl Rove "convinced Bush to fire upright prosecutors and replace them with Rove-bots ready to strike out at fraudulent (i.e. Democratic) voters". This was another example of bushie election thievery antics, in other words... which is why this (genuine) controversy was viewed as a possible violation of the Hatch Act... which is a law that says the president or VP can't direct their underlings to engage "in some forms of political activity".
The firing of the US attorneys who wouldn't investigate bullpucky "voter fraud" cases to help Republicans win via cheating (preventing legitimate voters from casting ballots by scarring/harassing them away from the polls) was a purely political act... so here we have actual violations of the law, coordinated via email that the bushies tried to hide... and the only thing that happened was that Gonzales fell on his sword (took the blame and resigned).
With HRC, no wrongdoing of any kind has yet to be shown. Should she have used a private server? No, she absolutely should not have IMO. But did she break the law or do anything shady? There is no evidence she did.
Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #2: Classified Info Was Sent/Received Through Private Server
Here there appears to be a little more substance, in that Hillary may have actually sent or received classified information. Although, it should be noted that nothing HRC sent/received was marked classified at the time. "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." according to Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).
It appears, however, that it is possible that some of these sent/received communications should have been treated as classified (even though not marked as such).
...foreign government information [is defined by] The US government... as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts. This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions...
"It's born classified", said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. (Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest by Jonathan Allen. Reuters 8/21/2015).
If HRC is "guilty" of anything, it appears as though this may be the smoking gun. Although I would say this, if it occurred, is most likely an oversight and not due to any nefarious intentions on Clinton's part. Quite unlike bush's email scandal, where the intention was to hide illegal politicking (in the form of election thievery) using the office of the White House (in violation of the Hatch Act).
So we are clearly not dealing with anything of an illegal nature re the Hillary email non-scandal, although a Libertarian blog I read sez that if HRC asserts that she did not know the emails were supposed to be treated as classified "she looks like a total incompetent and a moron".
Personally I do not agree with this assessment. Smart competent people make mistakes all the time. In any case, HRC's team destroyed a large number of communications they deemed "personal", so if there is any incriminating evidence, it's likely gone. "Incriminating" her in regards to what, I do not know. Unlike with the bushies. With this genuinely lawless administration I know they covered up and escaped prosecution in regards to their election thievery.
This is why I predict the Republican investigations will go nowhere (the same direction they've been going thus far). Congressional Republicans know this, of course. They simply want to firmly plant the idea in the gullible base voter's noggin that HRC is getting away with unspecified illegalities. And spread that false meme into the general electorate as widely as they are able. There is no real "investigating" in other words. What is going on is all political in nature.
Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee as well as our next president... in my estimation. This so-called scandal will not be "devastating" to campaign as the aforementioned Libertarian asserts.
The bottom line here, I'd say, is that I just do not f*cking give a shit. Barring me hearing (at the very least) some sane sounding conspiracy theory concerning ACTUAL wrongdoing by HRC. WHY did she (or her underlings) destroy thousands of emails they say were "personal"? What is she hiding/what is the REAL crime? I mean, the bushies got away with fricking election fraud shenanigans simply by having Alberto fall on his sword and resign.
Although preznit doofus defended him, saying that Gonzales' "good name [was] dragged through the mud", and that he stepped down only because he received "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department". Right.
Now we have Hillary-haters who are calling for her head on a pike for significantly lesser transgressions? I am NOT going along with it. She isn't an "incompetent moron" nor a brilliant criminal mastermind who has evaded successful prosecution for 30-plus years for her many (imaginary) crimes... committed as a part of her husband's administration, via the charitable Clinton Foundation, and as a member of the "lawless" Obama WH.
Congressional Repubs just can't seem to get anything to stick. Perhaps because there is (and have been) no wrongdoings by HRC? Call me a partisan, but I say f*ck these Rightwing idiots who think there is even the remotest chance that HRC will end up behind bars for this nothing-burger. Or the even bigger non-scandal of Benghazi.
Which, by the way, was one of the conspiracy theories floated back in March. That a Benghazi stand down order might be found among the HRC emails. A conspiracy that is leagues away from sane sounding, you poor deluded desperate Repub-identifying halfwits.
Video: Alberto Gonzales said "I don't recall" 72 times during his January 2007 Senate hearing. Gonzales resigned on 9/17/2007 (0:52).
George W. Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda according to a 1/22/2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. In total the Bush Admin made 935 false statements in run-up to war.
According to the gwb administration, the purpose of the vote on the Iraq War Resolution was to pressure the UN and Iraq into getting inspectors back into the country. At least that's what Hillary Clinton has said when defending her vote on the matter.
Hillary, before voting, asked "If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job". She was told that, YES, that was the goal. To show the UN and Iraq that the bush administration was serious, Congress needed to authorize war if the inspectors were not allowed back in (Hillary Clinton Never Supported the Bush/Cheney Invasion of Iraq).
Well, it worked. Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed back into Iraq... and so bush, realizing that the threat worked, allowed the inspections to do their job and the UN to decide what to do if Iraq again balked and did not cooperate (as the UN charter stipulates).
No, wait... that isn't what happened at all. Saddam did drag his feet (as before) and not cooperate fully. Although the inspectors thought progress was still being made. None-the-less the bush administration (already having the Congressional authority it needed) launched an attack.
And the bush administration launched it's attack in spite of (1) telling members of Congress they were voting to get inspectors back in and that war would be a last resort, and (2) The UN charter saying "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced".
bush, in deciding to go ahead with the invasion despite the UN not voting for war, violated articles 33 and 39 of the Charter (33 says disputes are to be resolved peacefully and 39 says that the UN "decides what measures shall be taken" when the resolutions it makes are violated).
Because UN charter does not allow individual countries to act unilaterally a number of UN and IAEA officials condemned the US invasion of Iraq. (Condemned it, or pointed out why it was unnecessary).
Six UN & IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary
1. Kofi Annan: The UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006 said (in regards to the bush invasion of Iraq) "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal". This, according to a statement made to the BBC in September 2004. According to spokesman Fred Eckhard this "has been the Secretary-General's longstanding view [because the UN charter] does not allow pre-emptive attacks".
2. Mohamed ElBaradei: The IAEA director from 1997 to 2009, in regards to bush's claim that Iraq had WMD and the invasion was needed to "disarm" Saddam, said, "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (this is a quote from his book Age of Deception).
3. Hans Blix: The former head of the IAEA (1981–1997) who was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and was in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq said that his inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". Iraq was not complying or having difficulty complying (because of misplaced stockpiles) but Mr. Blix was confident that everything would be resolved. The only thing that was needed was time ("a matter of months").
Furthermore Blix said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's preemptive, unilateral actions have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere". (For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS).
Although, according to Blix, US President george w. bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair did not act in bad faith, but only exhibited "a severe lack of critical thinking".
4. David Kay: The Chief weapons inspector said "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them" when he resigned on 1/23/2004.
I should note, however that Kay defended the Bush administration, saying that even if Iraq did not have weapons stockpiles, this did not mean it wasn't dangerous. Was Iraq dangerous? Perhaps, but there are many countries with "dangerous" regimes, and the US isn't invading them all. That Kay also blamed "faulty intelligence gathering" for the prewar WMD conclusions (even though this is pure bullplop) explains why he defended the lying bush administration.
Although the conclusion of the Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (that the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent) wasn't released until 5/25/2007, so perhaps Kay's idiotic partisan statement is understandable? The US government had not yet confirmed that the bush administration blatantly lied. Even though the IAEA had.
But, and this is the important point, Kay knew Iraq had no WDM because he was one of those on the ground in Iraq who was looking for it (and did not find it). Thus confirming that the war was (if not illegal/based on a lie) unnecessary as per the bush administration reasons for waging it (to "disarm" Iraq).
5. Charles Dulfer: Dulfer, who replaced David Kay as Chief weapons inspector, said "it turns out that we were all wrong [and] I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there".
6. Scott Ritter: A United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, while not a participant in the 2002 inspections, has remarked that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated". The nuclear program was eliminated and there was no evidence Iraq had retained chemical or biological weapons according to Ritter.
The Republican-identifying Ritter who says he voted for gwb was later (in 2001 and 2010) accused of "soliciting minors for sex on the Internet" (the 2001 charges were dismissed and the 2010 charges resulted in a conviction). For this reason Ritter's critics discount his statements re Iraq having WMD. Obviously the two aren't connected, but still the crime he was convicted of calls his character into question. He desired sex with minors, so he obviously lied about finding no WMD (so say his critics... see SWTD #232 point "5A" for more info concerning what one specific critic said when I brought up Ritter's name in a discussion re the illegality of gwb's Iraq invasion).
**End list of 6 UN and IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary**
In regards to ex-preznit bush saying (on 3/19/20013, in an address to the American people notifying them of the beginning of the illegal invasion of Iraq), "my fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger"... we knew/know bush was lying and he knows/knew he lied/was lying.
How do we know for certain that bush lied? Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Please note that this report was delivered on 3/7/2003 and bush ordered the invasion on 3/19/2003. So bush said "invade to disarm" AFTER the head of the IAEA told the world that the inspections worked and that Iraq was already disarmed!
A fact that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as everyone at the IAEA (listed above) confirms (despite Kay going along with the "faulty intel" BS). My conclusion is that bush CLEARLY lied. And it was a blatant bold-faced lie.
This is something our own government concluded with a bi-partisan majority report issued by the Senate (on 6/5/2008) that said "the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent".
Yet the bush apologists continue to lie... both about bush lying about Iraq having WMD (it was an "intelligence failure", they say), as well as Iraq having WMD. Iraq really did have WMD these liars/dumbshits say! Wikileaks documents prove Saddam had WMD!
Sorry, but no. bush claimed that we needed to invade to "disarm" Saddam, not that we needed to invade to clean up old, forgotten, buried and degraded chemical weapons. Which is what was actually claimed, and this was NOT what bush hyped (in order to scare the American people into accepting war). According to Wired's Noah Shachtman "Saddam's toxic arsenal [was] largely destroyed after the Gulf War". (WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches).
What we found after the invasion was "remnants". Remnants are what the Wikileaks documents revealed were found in Iraq post invasion. Would the American people have agreed to war over "remnants"? We all know the answer to that question is NO. Which is why bush ignored what the IAEA was telling him about Iraq having no WMD and lied about "disarming" Saddam.
Wikipedia notes that "In a White House Iraq Group meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a smoking gun/mushroom cloud metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein".
The "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor was just one of the 935 false statements, (including 232 lies that bush himself disassembled) the administration used to SELL us the Iraq war. "Intelligence failure" my ass!
Video: Terrorist leader bush scares the shit out of Americans with BS about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons and using them to attack us. Clip from a 10/7/2002 TV address broadcast from Cincinnati's Museum Center at Union Terminal (0:07).
Notes [1] From an 8/28/2011 discussion on the blog of Willis Hart: When I pointed out that HRC said the gwb WH told her a YES vote wasn't a vote for war, but a vote to pressure Iraq to agree to "complete, unlimited inspections", Willis Hart responded by saying, "My God, wd, what do you expect her to say, I screwed up? You know as well as I do that, if the war had gone better, the lady would have been patting herself on the back till the cows came home. She (and Kerry and Biden) knew exactly what they were voting for".
We can't go around telling people we're a free country when either the government or the corporate world knows every damn thing about you - that's not really freedom ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) the Junior Senator from Vermont and 2016 Presidential candidate on the 6/1/2015 airing of of Late Night With Seth Meyers explaining his NO vote on the USA Freedom Act.
America's Surveillance State is a six part investigative documentary series currently airing on Free Speech TV[1]. During part 2 of the series, "Inside the NSA: How Do They Spy?" (which examines who is watching whom and why) retired CIA employee Ray McGovern says he became disillusioned and retired early.
According to McGovern the CIA conducted themselves "with respect to what they called the first commandment out there at Fort Meade, the NSA [which was] thou shalt not collect information [or] eavesdrop on Americans without a court warrant".
But McGovern says that changed after the election of gwb, "when Cheney came in he called [former Director of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005] General Hayden and said "I know about that first commandment at the NSA. Forget about it". And that was before 9-11.
Then the interviewer asks, "so the decision for the NSA to begin collecting information on everyone and everything started with an order from above?", McGovern answers "oh sure, it was Dick Cheney and George Bush".
So this massive expansion of the surveillance state started before 9-11 and before passage of the Patriot Act. And it was so ordered (before 9-11) by bush and Cheney. Yes, Barack Obama has continued this unconstitutional (under the 4th amendment) collection of data, but that is hardly surprising, given that presidents rarely give up power. Not that this, in any way, excuses Obama, but still... I think it is noteworthy that it was bush and Cheney who began this unconstitutional data collection... and did so not in response to 9-11 (as many probably think).
Yet more proof that bush was one of America's absolutely worst and most lawless presidents!
The USA Freedom Act (legislation that modified the Patriot Act) supposedly puts an end to bulk data collection. However...
...the USA Freedom Act... gives the government a six-month period to transition to the new system, under which telecommunications companies would hold onto the data, only handing information over if the government has a targeted warrant. (Thought bulk data collection was gone? Think again by Jeremy Diamond. CNN 6/2/2015).
So the NSA will continue to bulk collect data for the next 6 months (so, to the end of 2015), and then the bulk data collection will continue... but be stored with the telecommunication companies and only handed over with a court order. But the data is still being bulk collected in violation of the 4th amendment. I mean, so what if it isn't the government directly that is collecting the data, but the telecoms at the direction of the government?
The Patriot Act is now repackaged with a new name, The USA Freedom Act and unfortunately government's unwarranted and indefinite storage of private records and communications continues. The new spy law, as was its predecessor, remains an attack on the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately for big government advocates, collecting and storing data on its citizens is not cited or even alluded to in Article I, Section 8 where the powers of the federal government are itemized. ...
Actually such activity is specifically forbidden in the 4th Amendment which reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The amendment was specifically designed to prevent government spying on its own.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated" is the strongest possible language conceivable. ... Moreover, the new USA Freedom Act violates the 5th Amendment as well in that the accused is, in a very real sense, forced to be a witness against himself... (The USA Freedom Act is an attack on the 4th Amendment. From the website Before It's News 6/19/2015)
Wikipedia says that "Before It's News" was started by Jake Kettle, and that Kettle is "self identifies as a social democrat, advocating for a combination of direct democracy and socialism", but this particular article is categorized under "Opinion, Conservative" (BIN is "a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world which anyone can join").
But that this article is written from a Conservative/Libertarian viewpoint is obvious, given the insertion of an "enumerated powers" argument (in purple). The enumerated powers argument says what the government does is limited to the "list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution".
Although, being a Progressive Democrat, I reject that argument. As a Progressive I believe in an expansive interpretation of the General Welfare clause. An interpretation we are currently operating under and which the Supreme Court has upheld (DSB #6).
So, given that reality I think the reference to "Article I, Section 8" in the BIN article is not relevant. It is Conservative/Libertarian baloney that has no bearing on whether or not data can be bulk collected. One only need look to the 4th amendment for WHY the Patriot and USA Freedom acts both violate the Constitution [2].
Randal Paul, who voted NO on the USA Freedom Act, said "Congress may just be replacing one bulk collection program with another". This he is correct on, given that now it the telecoms bulk collecting our data (and storing the info if the government requests it).
Note that this would be one extremely rare instance when I would agree with Mr. Paul, although (my choice for our next president) Bernie Sanders also voted NO. (see final roll call here).
Hillary Clinton, the other major Democratic candidate for US president, tweeted her support, writing "Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act - a good step forward in ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties".
Clinton voted for the initial Patriot Act during her time as a senator from New York in 2001 and again in 2006. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act as House member in 2001 and 2005, then again refused to back its re-authorization when he arrived in the Senate. (excerpted near-verbatim from here).
Footnotes [1] View the entire documentary miniseries America's Surveillance State (2:45:14) here. To watch individual episodes, follow this link. [2] The USA Freedom Act does not violate the 4th amendment says the editorial board of the Washington Post. They say that Randal Paul "is the one misstating constitutional law. [T]he phone records of law-abiding Americans are none of the government's business! his campaign Web site declares. Actually, the Supreme Court held 36 years ago that there is no constitutional right to privacy in phone records (as opposed to phone conversations). The court reasoned, realistically, that customers willingly convey numbers and times to the phone company each time they dial, knowing that the company retains the information for business purposes (excerpt from Rand Paul should stop stalling the USA Freedom Act. 6/1/2015).
Video: Bernie Sanders on the 6/1/2015 airing of Late Night with Seth Meyers (3:51).
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).
