Errors of Vincent Bugliosi Case against Bush
July 27, 2008
Unfortunately, I was given Vincent Bugliosi new book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” I appreciate the gift, but the book was so seriously flawed I am shocked someone actually published it. The editor obviously has the same hateful agenda the author does. Bugliosi freely admits in the introduction having trouble finding someone to print his propaganda.
This man has an axe to grind, he’s a far left liberal, who has been whining since the 2000 election. He claims to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that President Bush should be tried for murder. However like many liberals he has very selective reasoning and memory. I’m sure he has no plans to write a book about President Clinton, who attacked Iraq in 1998 to distract the country from his sex scandal (resulting in the death of 600-2000 Iraqis).
He spends much time praising himself and telling his readers about how smart he is. He claims so see things no one else does and thus we need someone wise and sagacious like himself to bring this information to us. And if a newspaper has ever said anything positive about Bugliosi you bet he will spend much time repeating them verbatim in his books, interviews and talk show.
It’s also hypocritical or him not to want to prosecute every member of congress who voted for the Iraq Resolution. Like every other left wing nut case, he is hung up on not finding Weapons of Mass Destruction. They never existed, he reasons because President Bush made them up so he could attack Iraq. This is lazy and inexcusable nonsense. The video below will show you many notable democrats, including President Bill Clinton clearly say he believed Saddam had WMDs. President Bush was not alone and to say he was is ignorant and takes a revisionist view of history.
And by popular demand, I will look at each chapter of the book and expose this garbage for what is truly is.
Part 1; Chapter 1 – Open Up Ones Eyes
- Bugliosi is basically trying to brainwash the reader away from their own common sense. He says we have to get past the notions that a sitting president can be prosecuted or commit a criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence. This is his version of jury selection, however it doesn’t work that way in books. Anyone can read what he writes and see his moronic theories and judge them for what they are. So no, we won’t go away and stop reading just because we believe that is might just be irresponsible to try a president for murder because soldiers died serving a mission ordered by the Commander in Chief. Just think of what would happen if Mr. Bugliosi was successful in charging the President with murder. Every siting president in the future would have to consider this before they made any national security decisions. It’s so idiotic, it’s almost not even worth talking about because it will never happen. But here we are…
- All Mr. Bugliosi is doing is trying to be sensational and sell books. It’s already the first chapter and he has already mentioned four of his other books many, many times.
- He claims he is the only one who believed the D.A. office screwed up the O.J. Simspon case. Yeah okay, no one had figured that out until his OJ book came out. Give me a break. Most americans knew that cased was screwed during the trial when the made the Juice try on the glove (over a rubber glove).
- Bugliosi defends Saddam Hussein. He claims Hussein was justified in prosecuting and killing Iraqis who supposedly tried to kill him in the early 1980′s in Dujail, Iraq. Saddam was justified in attacking the village, which lead to deaths of scores and scored of innocent Iraqi men, some as young as 13 years old! His reasoning, if someone tried to kill the President of any other country, and they were found, execution wouldn’t be seen as an unreasonable punishment. He’s shocked and outraged that this “non-crime” is what the Iraqis would use to charge Saddam.
- Saddam. Wikipedia documents however, Saddam wasn’t just going after the men who tried to kill him, he wanted to wipe out the entire city, “1,500 people were also incarcerated and tortured, while other residents, many of them women and children, were sent to desert camps. Saddam’s regime destroyed the town and then rebuilt it shortly after. In addition to these punishments, 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres) of farmland was destroyed; replanting was only permitted 10 years later. ( The Economist 1982 and Kanan Makiya‘s book, Republic of Fear).”
Chapter 2 - Why George Bush went to War
- Amazing, Bugliosi actual makes the point that while President Bush Senior and President Clinton both thought Saddam was a “troublesome menace,” they never talked about going to war. Bugliosi says it was only President George W. Bush after his election that we started to hear the drums for war. I’m assuming Bugliosi forget that George Bush senior did actually go to war with Iraq, remember that whole invasion of Kuwait thing in 1990?
- And as I mentioned above, President Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998, only to distract the country from his sex scandal and impeachment trial (resulting in the death of 600-2,000 Iraqis). Let’s stop for a moment and just consider Operation Desert Fox. Did Mr. Bugliosi voice any moral outrage at the time toward President Clinton? Luckily, no Americans lost their life in the operation. But many innocent Iraqis died. All to distract the country from the President’s personal problems (of lying under oath and to the american people). This lie didn’t matter because Bugliosi is liberal shrill who praises anyone with a D by their name an attacks anyone with a R. He wrote a book defending Clinton from Paula Jones, this should tell you by itself how trustworthy the man is.
- Why did Bush go to war, Bugliosi says, “Whatever his reason, it was not a good reason.” You might as well stop reading the book right now. It doesn’t even matter to Bugliosi why Bush went to war, he has already pre judged it to be faulty. Whatever else the man writes is tainted and again should not be trusted. He’s biased and will spin whatever happens negatively against President Bush.
- He reports that President Bush’s primary reason for attacking Iraq was it had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and posed an imminent threat to the United States. And since their were no WMD’s Bush must have lied about them. However as a commenter pointed out, “the independent Robb Silbermann report concluded that Bush did not mislead anyone. Specifically: “We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.” And “the US just removed 550 tons of Yellowcake from Iraq” and “although large swaths of other WMD have not been found, Saddam retained the equipment and knowledge to regenerate his program within months.”
- He makes the silly assumption that President Bush was the puppet master with all of the congressmen on strings. Watch the video above, they all make the claim INDEPENDENTLY of President Bush that 1) Saddam HAS WMD 2) He is dangerous 3) He should be removed.
- It also pains him to mention (but he does nonetheless) that President Bush also said a reason to go to war was to free the Iraq people from the rule of a dictator and allow them to have free elections. He ignorantly believes Bush mentioned it only in passing as some kind of get out of jail free card. However President Bush kept his word, Saddam was removed, the country was given back to the Iraqi people, and they held free elections. Check, check, check.
- In President Bush’s ultimatum to Saddam he tells the people of Iraq, “We will help you to be free … The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”
- He then makes himself look stupid by saying, “Should we have freed the people of Russia from Stalin and lose hundreds and thousands of americans in the process? (I love how he makes up fake causality numbers – only to try and scare the reader – why not say a million Bugliosi, that would be more frightening since you are just making them up anyway) Then only to come home from Russia and then go to free the people of China from Mao? He says, “It’s crazy right?” Well, no it’s not. I know it must be to liberals who actually like Stalin and Mao, but these were horrible men should have been removed from power. And perhaps if we had someone with the courage as President Bush at the time we could have freed those people (since we are speaking hypothetically, that is).
- He completely misses the effect of September 11 had on the Bush administration. President Bush never forgot 9/11, like so many others have. He was not going to let anything like that happen again. He was not going to continue the failed diplomacy of the Clinton administration. Iraq was given notice,and over 8 years and he failed to comply. The war in Iraq is the fault of Saddam Hussein and his alone.
- He says the people of the country must have all the facts before we go to war. That for the Bush administration to keep anything secret goes against the original “town hall” way of thinking this country was founded on. What did Bugliosi want to have happen? A nationwide vote every time a national security crises happen? A threshold of 51 percent (maybe even 65%) must approve any military action? Hell, why do we even need a president if we are going to live in Bugliosi fantasy world. We elect representatives to make those tough decisions for us (those people who work in the Senate and the House of Representatives).
- As hard as it is for Bugliosi to accept America elected George W. Bush to be our president. We chose him with the most important job on the planet. We made that choice freely on our own. Yes, Bugliosi lives in liberal looney land that Bush stole the 2000 election. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html But in 2004 (after the start if the Iraq war), more then 62,000,000 million Americans reelected him again.
- Bugliosi lists pull quotes that Iraq had WMD’s he says while he lists them, to think about four things: 1) These are statements responsible for convincing Americans we should go to war. 2) Without these statements American would have never approved going to war. 3) Because of these statements over 100,000 american soldiers and Iraqis have lost their life. 4) All the statements have been thus proved false. Is it just me or are one and two virtually the same thing. While three may be true, it’s very misleading. A very small percent account for American causality. I know a bigger number makes Bugliosi case seem more significant, but all he is doing is trying to mislead the reader. It reminds of the mainstream media’s obsession with “death counts” during the war. Can you imagine what they would have done during WWII where one battle caused the death of over 100,000 American soldiers? And as to number four, who cares? We know the pre-war intelligence was wrong. We also know that everyone got it wrong, not just George W. Bush. The report mentioned above also shows that Bush never mislead or lied to anyone.
- Bugliosi’s Saddam love-in continues - He says Saddam Hussein is more sane then President Bush because he was too busy writing novels then attacking the United States. Bugliosi presents Saddam as a young struggling writer instead of the murderous, dictator that he was.
Part 2; Chapter 3 - Prologue to the Prosecution of George W. Bush for murder
- Bugliosi’s asks ”If Bush lied about going to war what should we, as a nation do?” He answers his question, “nothing.” Really Vinny? Probably because he didn’t lie about going to war!
- Oh no, Bugliosi rants about Kenneth Star. The hate (and jealously) for him is very clear. He has to get his little left wing dig in at the man who took on his hero, President Clinton. Oh, how Bugliosi probably lays in bad at night dreaming of doing what Star did to Clinton, to President Bush.
- He spends sometime talking about Tim, a brave soldiers who lost his life in Iraq. And points out he is not alone, but joined by thousands of other men and women who lost their life in defense of their country. But no, that is not good enough for Bugliosi, He takes that all away and instead of sacrificing their lives as heroes, they are victims of murder at the end of their President. He says each men to died in the war had dreams and Bush saw to it that none of them will come true.
- We have no draft. These brave men and women were not held at gun point and told they had to enlist in the army. They did it because they love their country and wanted to help protect it. It’s a tragedy when just one american solider dies. It has been that way since the revolutionary war and it’s that way now. But for the same reason General Washington wasn’t tied for murder, our current Commander in Chief should not be tried either.
- He complains about lack of armor of troops, when it constantly the Democrats in congress not voting to give the military all the funding it needs. Remember Senator John Kerry’s vote for the funding (before he voted against it). Of course it’s Bush’s fault and his alone.
- He makes the absurd connection that because the President liked to run and ride bikes, it means he doesn’t care about the soldiers.
- He believes Bush could careless about the suffering of anyone, let alone his soldiers who die in Iraq. All he does is vacation, play golf and relax. The accusation is so insane, I refuse to address it.
- He attacks President Bush for being a Christian. Bush said people need Jesus to go to heaven. Duh! What does Bugliosi think Christian’s believe? He then mocks Oswald Chambers and his book “My Utmost for His Highest,” because Bush reads it. His scorn for Christianity is as deep and real as his scorn for Bush.
- President Bush doesn’t loves his country because he was not in the “real” army. He joined the National Guard, “which,” Bugliosi said, “was how you avoided Vietnam in those days.” No, you moron, that is not how people avoided Vietnam. They avoided Vietnam by running to Canada and dodging the draft! President Bush enlisted in the Air National Guard. And had his unit been called to service in Vietnam, he would have served.
- Who hates Bush more? Bugliosi attacks Michael Moore and James Carville because they sucked at attacking the President. He goes after Michael Moore for making things up in Fahrenheit 9/11. Amazing.
- Bush hates America and doesn’t care about our soldiers because he… smiles all the time. Yes, really – that was Bugliosi’s argument. He spends pages saying because Bush smiles when he is home and with friends, it’s proof he hates America. Pure liberal crazyness.
Chapter 4 – The Prosecution of George W. Bush for murder; The Legal Framework
“My motivation is not political.” - Vincent Bugliosi
- Wow, does Bugliosi step in it this time: He makes the claim he’s a straight shooter, and this book is not political! Ha! He says, if a Democrat president had done with Bush did he would write a book about them. That is a lie: President William Jefferson Clinton, in 1998 attack Iraq which lead to the deaths of 600-2,000 innocent Iraqis. He did this only to distract the country from his impeachment trial. Bugliosi worships and adores President Clinton, like I said before even writing a book defending him from Paula Jones.
- Bugliosi is one of the biggest, partisan, hacks in the country. To even claim to be unbiased is reprehensible. He throws in the fact that he supported John McCain in 2000. That means nothing. Everyone has a pony in the race before the primary. I supported Hillary in the 2008 primary against Barack Obama. That doesn’t mean she would get my vote in November. Is he supporting Senator McCain now that he is the GOP nominee for President? Any one who read the first part of this stupid book can see very clearly that the man despises Republicans and conservatives with a passion.
- He says, “credibility has always meant everything to me.” Will say goodbye to that because after this book you have none, sir.
- He makes the straw man argument that if Clinton can be impeached for having an affair, then surely Bush can be impeached for getting us into a war based on a lie. No, you idiot, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury.
- Bugliosi reads op-eds and editorials from Liberal newspapers. Hey, they say President Bush lied, it must be true! He is pissy about them: if only they had the vision and wisdon of Bugliosi.
- Whoa, Bugliosi says since President Bush supported the Death Sentence in Texas, so this means in Bugliosi point of view, that perhaps death is an appropriate sentence for Bush.
- Bugliosi talks about his perfect prosecution rate. He’s going to hurt himself patting himself on the back so much.
- Bugliosi dreams of using the “vicarious liability rule of conspiracy” on President Bush to try him for murder. The same one he used on Charles Manson. To do this, he would like to also try his co-conspirators. Since in Bugliosi fantasy Bush is not alone in his lies that lead us to war in Iraq. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
- Finally we get to the nut and bolts of what Bugliosi would use against President Bush. Bugliosi says:
“If a conspirator, or anyone for that matter deliberately sets in motion a chain of events a third party innocent agent to commit an act (here the killing of American soldiers by Iraqis) the conspirator is criminally responsible for that act.”
- So he has President George W. Bush as the lead conspirator (along of course with his s co-conspirators (since in Bugliosi fantasy Bush is not alone in his lies that lead us to war in Iraq) Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
- Who you wonder are the pure, innocent, pristine innocent agents? Why, Mr. Vincent Bugliosi says the Iraqi soldiers and insurgents are! I mean after all, all they were doing is fighting against the evil, invading US army. Bugliosi actual quote is:
“The Iraqis soldiers (during the brief war) and the Iraqi insurgents since then were innocent of Bush’s crime of murder because they only killed American soldiers to repel an invader, what the American’s represented to them or in self defense.”
- The Iraqi insurgents are not innocent freedom fighters like much of the far left liberal kook fringe believe. The Insurgents are evil terrorists who are not only killing Americans but also trying to destroy their own country. These innocent men as Bugliosi are the ones who should be tried for murder. Bugliosi wants to give them medals.
- How many of these innocent insurgents have killed American soldiers by placing IED’s on the side of the road as they hide in the dark like the cowards they are waiting for our tanks to be blown up? How does Bugliosi really expect us to treat anything he says as sane when he spots this sort of nonsense?
- In Bugliosi’s dark and twisted mind, Bush is responsible for the deaths of American Soldiers because of the legal idea of “Cause.”
- In a legal sense Cause means “to bring about; to bring into existence.” So because President Bush caused us to war in Iraq; he thus caused there to be Iraq opposition. If this were a math problem, Bugliosi formula would be:
“President Bush + Lies = Iraq War = Innocent Iraqi Soldiers = American soldiers death.”
- However if Bugliosi was honest with himself (HA) he would have to amend his little math problem to include the American people. Because a year after the war had started, and still finding no Weapons of Mass Destruction, the people of the United States of America reelected George W. Bush to a second term. In fact, President Bush got the most votes ever for president, 62,040,606.
- American’s caused President Bush to be reelected. In doing so American’s caused the Iraq war to continue. Which then caused more American Soldiers to be killed.
- Bugliosi keeps repeating the conspiracy of Bush, Cheney and Rice. He keeps failing to mention the scores of Democrats who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war. Watch it again now:
- We have Senator Nancy Pelosi in 2002 saying Iraq “Certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There is no question about that.” In 2002 we also have Senator Jay Rockefeller who says, “there is unmistakeable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Look at the language these two leading Democrats use, “no question about that” and “unmistakeable evidence.” Those are just two of the many voices on the Left. Why doesn’t Bugliosi name them co-conspirators. Oh yeah, Democrats… right. Moving on…
Okay, enough for today. We could really just end this whole debate by just quoting the Robb/Silbermann report.
“We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.”
YOU SIR, NEED TO FIND THE NEAREST LAMP CORD, NEAREST COIL OF ROPE OR TAILPIPE, AND DO THE WORLD A FAVOR!!!
GET MY DRIFT?
IT’S FUCKIN OVER SIR, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER, IN A LONG LINE OF POPPYCOCK AND VACUOUS ATTACKS ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THAT REALLY DON’T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO REVEAL YOUR MENTAL RETARDATION TO THE WORLD.
YOU SIR ARE IN THE THROES OF DOUBLE THINK, AND I WOULD GUESS IT HURTS SO MUCH!?
YOU CONTINUE TO PUBLISH BY WAY OF YOUR BLOG, EITHER MINDLESS ALLEGORIES THAT ARE ILL CONCEIVED OR THESE PSEUDO-ESSAYS THAT REALLY STRETCH THE BOUNDARIES OF COMMON SENSE. I SHOULDN’T DARE CALL YOUR PUBLISHED “WORKS” [ESSAYS], AS THEY’RE THE HAPLESS MUSINGS OF AN IDIOT BUT LET’S LEAVE SYMANTECS OUT OF THE EQUATION.
GET SOME HELP SIR, BUY A PUPPY, AND FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, DON’T TRY TO FUCK IT.
“Ben, you’re not going to kill me are you? …because, you got that look…?”
“No Harry, I’m not going to kill you.”
“Bend your knees Harry.”
“What Ben?”
“Bend your knees when you jump from the train.”
Have a nice ride you drooling insect.
He attacked the democrats by showing a clip of the democrats talking about Saddam’s WMDs? Maybe take your cap locks off, and take some medication buddy.
(I am a democrat by the way – but loons like you need to go away).
Obama ’08
-caps lock
Reserved for ant hills such as this mindless blog.
It is with alacrity, that I tell you to go and get an Rx!
“They never existed…he reasons because President Bush made them up so he could attack Iraq. This is lazy and inexcusable nonsense.”
…blah, blah, blah, blah!
Sounds like the author of this post is quoting Professor Rabkin who appeared before the HJC, how convenient and how %$#$@! disgustingly quiescent!
Umm look, I really hope you don’t actually support this document? This post serves as a document, so that is what I am referring to but ultimately that is a rhetorical question.
…next.
You hate the President. I get that, but you lose any credablity you may of had when your first sentence is, “YOU SIR, NEED TO FIND THE NEAREST LAMP CORD, NEAREST COIL OF ROPE OR TAILPIPE, AND DO THE WORLD A FAVOR!!!”
Are you in third grade? Should you be sitting in the corner for a time out?
The author of this post, the content of this post is laden with the usual flaccid and rather mindless attacks and / or talking points:
“far left liberal, who has been whining since the 2000 election…”
yup still whining and using caps-lock, and will continue to do so…
“However like many liberals he has very selective reasoning and memory”
oh that was a stellar and rather absolute statement I might add but as usual being employed as an underpinning for why the author [and the editor!] have an agenda!
“I’m sure he has no plans to write a book about President Clinton…”
Umm ya, other than focusing on how the right wing spent 6 years of the [2] terms of President William Jefferson Clinton’s presidency attempting to remove him from office by any means necessary!
“Like every other left wing nut case, he is hung up on not finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).”
Umm well see, I don’t know…where to begin with this shit? In some way he’s right, we’re hung up on a red herring…because if you believe that I do, that this entire Presidency is a shell game, you see right through the unreality that is “the road to war”, and any other sub title you’d like to use “yellowcake”, “what happened in Niger”.
This blog is a joke and my eyes just caught the frame on the left of this post. “TV I watch”:
Holy shit, 24 is at the top of the list!?
Ok so then I scrolled up, 2 of this moron’s heroes are:
Rush Limbaugh
Ronald Reagan
Look, you obviously think I am not aware of the likely perceptions of my post, that it was impulsive in nature, etc.
Not in the least, I seriously mean it! I mean holy crap, the author of this blog writes about “far left liberals”, he lists “Rush Limbaugh” [vertigo is coming on...] as his hero, and lastly, the author watches “24″!
Do yourself a favor …do I have to actually repeat my original comments?
I am quite serious! In the meantime, don’t procreate, stay in your little corner [along with you centrist fags who have responded so far...] and like I said, find the nearest multi tasker and do the world a favor.
You are exactly the type of citizens that are eroding everything that is good and decent about this society.
It’s not ok with me, that this blog exists.
Ok this is getting silly, as I compose this my eyes keep darting to the right hand frame!
$%^%$# oh for the love of horatio!
News you trust:
The Catholic League
Politico
…are you for fuckin real?
Timeout. 10 Minutes. No peeking!
Oh and 24 is on top because it’s listed alphabetically.
wow! he speaks!
you are for real! Please take this poppycock and ridiculous blog offline!
…please consider cognitive therapy. Using this site as an indicator, I’d say you’ve pretty much enslaved yourself
taroof…and I promise never to come back! But please sir, don’t take yourself too seriously and for the love of GOD stay out of politics!
Now I shall commence delouse, for if I spend too much time in the nether world of the the blogosphere, I always have to cleanse myself.
Please keep something in mind, if you are indeed a partisan [R], these next 5 months, 24 days, represent the sunset on the Republican party!
You have no idea what’s coming…do you?
Buwahahahahahahahaha!
p.s. I am a partisan Democrat, but a Patriot 1st, and I approve this message.
Thanks for the mini-review Jeff. I was going to pick it up to see what his case would be, but maybe I won’t. Your blog is in my favorites I wanted to say, I love the variety of things you talk about!
Before I read this convincing post I was hoping Bush was going to be impeached. Thank you for correcting my faulty view of the President and his noble Iraq endeavor. Democracy is on the march!
Yes, it is – but I get the sarcasm. Don’t you have little green men to look for?
For anyone who has read Bugliosi’s book, it should be evident to all that Jeff’s non-arguments (as well as fallacies and non-sequiturs) do *absolutely nothing* to undermine the case (starting on page 100) that George W. Bush lied about Hussein being an imminent threat to the security of U.S., and is therefore guilty of murder.
Instead, Jeff’s post illustrates quite nicely his ignorance of the arguments Bugliosi presents in his book. Where, Jeff, in your “Errors of Vincent Bugliosi Case against Bush” do you *actually* point out the errors in Bugliosi’s case? Where, Jeff, do you even demonstrate having an adequate comprehension of what Bugliosi’s case is? (you don’t)
The following is Bugliosi’s *watertight* argument for the claim that George Bush is guilty of murder – the one that Jeff conveniently didn’t address!
1. If George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S was a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq), then he is guilty of murder under U.S law.
2. George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S. was in fact a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq).
3. Therefore, George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law. (from 1, 2 – modus ponens)
Bugliosi’s support for premise (1) is in several passages from page 86-99; his support for premise (2) can be found in the next section. If both premises (1) and (2) are true, then the conclusion – that George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law – follows necessarily.
So Jeff, are you willing to deal with Bugliosi’s *actual* case laid out in his book, or will you remain content on hurtling sticks against a house of straw-cards?
Bugliosi’s entire argument is little more than a non-sequitor. Oh well. At least he still has his speaking engagements on the JFK assassination…
Maestroh, please elaborate. How is the argument I laid out (which is essentially Bugliosi’s) a non-sequitur?
Spencer, you can and never will prove he lied. You act like President Bush made everything up himself. Hell, just watch the video I posted to show that every major democratic leader believed Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States.
After 9/11 (a game changing event) President Bush wasn’t going to give Saddam a chance to do something like that. Had the president sat on his hands and continued the to try and talk to Saddam (which had failed ever since we the Gulf War) and then he attacked us, you’d be talking a whole different ball game.
President Bush, the US Congress, the UN, many other countries all believed Saddam had WMD and was going to use them. Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors do their jobs. He was given a deadline and failed to meet it.
You are a fool if you believe President Bush’s heart doesn’t break every time an american solider dies. It’s something every president has had to deal with, ever since George Washington was our Commander and Chief.
I’m proud of the president and our men and women fighting every day for our freedom.
Jeff, did you read the book or not? If you did, then will you deal with the evidence Bugliosi presents which proves, *beyond all reasonable doubt,* that Bush lied, or are you content with your hackery?
I’ll even help you out: start reading from page 100.
Jeff, I thought your post was suppose to be about pointing out the erros in Bugliosi’s case against Bush. Given that you didn’t even touch his main arguments, will you admit that the title of your most was misnamed?
You said: “you can and never will prove he lied.”
The Manning memo. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/in…%20Memo&st=cse
“The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to PROVOKE a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.”
“Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.”
“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”
Please, Jeff, explain why Bush who contended that the United States was facing imminent danger from Iraq would consider proposals to PROVOKE the latter into attacking us? I’d like to see if you would really dispute this claim: if Bush *really* thought that Iraq constituted an imminent threat, the thought of provoking Iraq would never have entered his mind.
Jeff said:
“President Bush, the US Congress, the UN, many other countries all believed Saddam had WMD and was going to use them. Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors do their jobs. He was given a deadline and failed to meet it.”
If you ever consider coming out of your bubble, you’d see that those assertions are false.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E2DE1731F935A25750C0A9629C8B63&scp=13&sq=Hans%20Blix&st=cse
I’d like an answer to my original question: Where, Jeff, in your post “Errors of Vincent Bugliosi Case against Bush” do you *actually* point out the errors in Bugliosi’s case?
Presidents send soldiers to war. That’s one of the powers — and responsibilities — of their office. To suggest that the exercise of that power as criminal, murder no less, is ridiculous.
I’m no fan of GWB, but anyone who takes this stuff seriously is crazy.
1-Congress authorized Bush to use force against Iraq with its Authorization for USE OF MILITARY FORCE Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
2-The independent Robb-Silbermann report concluded that Bush did not mislead anyone. Specifically: “We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.”
3-The US just removed 550 tons of Yellowcake from Iraq.
4-Although large swaths of other WMD have not been found, Saddam retained the equipment and knowledge to regenerate his program within months.
5-The US allowed the Iraqi people to install a democracy. We’re winning the war now, so much so that the Iraqi government is asking the US for a timetable for our withdrawal, and Obama is about to do a pivot and support a more gradual pullout. As he told the NY Times,
“”I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
I can honestly say that I’m proud of George W. Bush for sticking it out in the face of relentless criticism. When we win this war, he will deserve the most credit. Can’t be the Dems, whose leader Harry Reid pronounced earlier on that the US had lost it. Nice way to support the troops.
Did you bother to read the article you posted:
“In the book, written in the same judicious and patient style that Bush administration officials disparaged when they criticized his approach to inspections, Mr. Blix concedes that as late as a month before the war, he still thought the Iraqis were concealing banned weapons.”
He thought their were weapons like every one else!
Jeff, when are you going to answer my questions? Here’s a list for you.
1. Where, Jeff, in your post “Errors of Vincent Bugliosi Case against Bush” do you *actually* point out the errors in Bugliosi’s case?
2. Did you read his book or not? If you did, then will you deal with the evidence Bugliosi presents which proves, *beyond all reasonable doubt* that Bush lied?
3. Regarding the Manning memo, can you explain why Bush who contended that the United States was facing imminent danger from Iraq would consider proposals to PROVOKE the latter into attacking us?
Also, regarding the quote of Blix you cited, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. He *thought* (not knew) that Hussein was hiding banned weapons, and this suspicion entered his mind *a month* before invasion. Well, Jeff, do think Blix’s opinion changed during the month leading up to the invasion or not? (Hint: Title of the article is “Ex-U.N. Inspector Has Harsh Words for Bush). (More hints: “the Bush administration convinced itself of the existence of banned weapons based on dubious findings before invading Iraq and was not interested in hearing evidence to the contrary.”)
But here’s some direct evidence for you: Three weeks before the invasion, Hussein invited the inspectors back into Iraq and Blix said his inspection team faced “relatively few difficulties.” “At this junction [ March 2003] we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase [our] aerial surveillance.” “After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation there’s been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side,” and these initiatives “can be seen as active, even proactive.” Then he added: “no evidence of proscribed activities have been found” and “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.”
Do me a favor, Jeff. Read chapter 4 of Bugliosi’s book and then criticize it (that would be the intellectually honest thing to do). Will you do that?
Yes, I will.
You answered one of my three questions directed are you. Will you answer these?
1. Where, Jeff, in your post “Errors of Vincent Bugliosi Case against Bush” do you *actually* point out the errors in Bugliosi’s case?
(Will you admit that you didn’t?)
2. Regarding the Manning memo, can you explain why Bush who contended that the United States was facing imminent danger from Iraq would consider proposals to PROVOKE the latter into attacking us?
“Presidents send soldiers to war. That’s one of the powers — and responsibilities — of their office. To suggest that the exercise of that power as criminal, murder no less, is ridiculous.
I’m no fan of GWB, but anyone who takes this stuff seriously is crazy.”
Envision the following scenario: Imagine a bomb chief orders his squad into a collapsing building to defuse a nuclear bomb about to blow up. Given that the building is highly unstable, the bomb chief knows with a high degree of certainty that some of the squad members will die. Now suppose that the bomb chief, contrary to what he told his squad, *knows* that no nuclear threat in the building exists (i.e. he lied to them). Two questions for you.
1. If the bomb chief sent his squad into the collapsing building KNOWING that no nuclear threat exists, and some of those members die, is he guilty of murder?
2. If yes, then if Bush ordered American troops into harms way KNOWING that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the security of the United States, would his action not be as morally reprehensible as the bomb chief?
Jeff, will you answer my above questions?
Not right now. But I will.
Okay, Jeff. Everyone’s watching–I will hold you to your word.
So, Jeff, what say you?
Your two other questions are answered as follows:
1) Yes I did list the errors. I will post more however. His case is all circumstantial. He assumes Bush lied based on a memo, Bush must have read and agreed with. Vinny hates Bush and this book would have been written if Bush had done nothing and Saddam had attacked us. But his reason would have been Bush is guilty of murder because he failed to protect Americans from the evil Iraq.
2) You assume Bush wanted to provoke. It’s all assumptions, that is all the left has and it’s nonsense.
Watch the post, I will be updating it soon.
Amazing work Jeff. Wow, you put a lot of work into that, hat tip to you my friend.
Yeah lets off Bush for these deceiving remarks he made:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Oh, wait that Al Gore. Never mind.
Well then there’s this:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Oh, that Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller. Then it’s okay.
Well this certainly is worthy of the death penalty:
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Oh that was Henry Waxman. Well, it’s okay then; he’s making up for it by holding meaningless hearings to embarrass Bush.
Well this for sure warrants the noose:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Oh never mind. Hillary.
Well, forget all that. The president should be executed for his pointless bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia, murdering innocent civilians.
Oh, that was a different President? Well, let’s just forget the whole thing.
And if Bush were half the “monster” Bugliosi and these other deranged moonbats make him out to be, he’d have Bugliosi arrested for sedition and threats and against the President. Or at least have the IRS audit him.
That’s certainly what the Sink King would have done.
“He says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
Do you disagree? Do you think a president should be immune for the consequences of breaking the law – like murder? If so, what the hell are you ranting about?
“So no, we won’t go away and stop reading just because we believe that is might just be irresponsible to try a president for murder because soldiers died serving a mission ordered by the Commander in Chief.”
So it’s “irresponsible” to prosecute someone for committing if he’s the president? Effectively, what you’re saying is that presidents are “above the law” and should therefore be allowed to murder people and get away with it. Yeah, Bugliosi’s right: we HAVE to get past this “common sense” notion, which is morally depraved and absurd.
“Just think of what would happen if Mr. Bugliosi was successful in charging the President with murder. Every siting president in the future would have to consider this before they made any national security decisions.”
Correct. Every future president seriously considering LYING to the public and congress about there being a national security threat from another country would do well NOT to follow in Bush’s footsteps.
“Bugliosi’s asks ”If Bush lied about going to war what should we, as a nation do?” He answers his question, “nothing.” Really Vinny? Probably because he didn’t lie about going to war! “
What are the pieces of evidence Bugliosi offers to prove his assertion? Will you DEAL with the arguments? (Or perhaps you’re simply incapable).
Obsess much?
so, Jeffy, when will you finish your “critique?” I thought you said there’s “more coming.”
I repeat: What are the pieces of evidence Bugliosi offers to prove his assertion? Will you DEAL with the arguments? (Or perhaps you’re simply incapable).
I went through half of the book, I’ll get to the rest when I have time to stomach his nonsense.
“He says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
Do you disagree? Do you think a president should be immune for the consequences of breaking the law – like murder? If so, what the hell are you ranting about?
“So no, we won’t go away and stop reading just because we believe that is might just be irresponsible to try a president for murder because soldiers died serving a mission ordered by the Commander in Chief.”
So it’s “irresponsible” to prosecute someone for committing murder if he’s the president? Effectively, what you’re saying is that presidents are “above the law” and should therefore be allowed to murder people and get away with it. Yeah, Bugliosi’s right: we HAVE to get past this “common sense” notion, which is morally depraved and absurd. Do you really advocate such a position?
I went through half of the book, I’ll get to the rest when I have time to stomach his nonsense.
by Jeff Lloyd August 8, 2008 at 10:01 am
Here is a comment you posted on my blog:
Jeff Lloyd said, on August 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm (Edit)
I’ve read the book more then once, his evidence is non existent.
http://progrev.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/vincent-bugliosi-bush-administration-guilty-of-first-degree-murder/
You’re not a liar are you?
You are not very smart are you? This is not my first time going through the book. I’ve read it a couple times on my own.
However I’ve half way through dissecting it for my readers.
You have yet to prove your point though. You just keep saying the war was legal because Bush says it’s legal. There is significant evidence that shows that the administration lied to sell the war, if only congress would grow a pair and investigate it. Don’t call me stupid if you can’t win a debate.
What are you talking about? You think a US President should be tried for the murder, someone else committed? You are stupid if you think that is even debatable.
We have a volunteer army dip shit!
“This is not my first time going through the book. I’ve read it a couple times on my own.”
Wow! From the way you pointed out the errors in Bugliosi’s case, one would never know; you show not even an inkling of understanding regarding his main arguments.
“However I’ve half way through dissecting it for my readers.”
Can’t wait!
Stop censoring my comments, Jeff. Why are you doing that?
You deleted a post I just made. Why?
“He says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
Do you disagree? Do you think a president should be immune from the consequences of breaking the law – like murder? Yes or no?
“So no, we won’t go away and stop reading just because we believe that is might just be irresponsible to try a president for murder because soldiers died serving a mission ordered by the Commander in Chief.”
So it’s “irresponsible” to prosecute someone for committing murder if he’s the president? Effectively, what you’re saying is that presidents are “above the law” and should therefore be allowed to murder people and get away with it. Yeah, Bugliosi’s right: we HAVE to get past this “common sense” notion, which is morally depraved and absurd. Do you really advocate such a position?
Are you going to address my points, Jeff? Or will you continue to cut and run?
You need to go outside buddy. Get some fresh air.
Already did–went running this morning. I take on clowns like you on my lunch break. So, are you going to address my points or not?
Take on clowns like me? Little self important aren’t you?
No, not now – I have better things to do. But keep posting your nonsense. You are very credible.
I will. But stop deleting my comments (btw, people, many of my recent comments did NOT appear).
Should jeff get a PPO against you?
Jeff isn’t going to respond, because he knows he has no argument. He’s using the Nixon train of thought that a president can’t commit a crime. It’s a typical conservative authoritarian concept. For a group that claims to be against government control and abuse of power, they sure are okay with their leaders doing whatever they please.
Bush lied, manipulated intelligence reports, and blatantly made things up. Look at the anthrax case for an example of this, Bush & Co. told the FBI to investigate an Iraqi connection even though it was likely a case of domestic terrorism (although it could have been a conspiracy, but I won’t get into that right now).
I will respond, but on my own time. I’m not a monkey who has to dance when you say go. Your posts sit there, I’ll respond to your nonsense in good time.
Jeff, are you afraid to debate or something?
Also, how is it that someone running for mayor is so incapable of making non-fallacious arguments?
Jeff,
I am starting to waver in my ardent support for your pro-Bush reasoning. Please do not allow me to be siphoned back to the dark side. The Christian Conservative Republican base desperately needs a compelling Bush apologist argument with some meat. I know you will come through with your deft critical analysis and sound reasoning backed with solid facts,
Yours in Christ,
Johnny
Listen, I don’t think this is a serious subject. I don’t plan on spending a lot of my free time on it. I will finish my “review” of the book sometime soon, but I have no plans to rush to it. I’d like to address the idiots who believe the US government planned 9/11, but I’m not losing sleep over it.
As to some of your questions: Yes, I believe it is possible for a sitting US president to face criminal charges. However, they have to actually commit a crime. Like lying under oath to a grand jury for example.
What about lying to the public and congress about a foreign country being an imminent threat to rally support for invading it? IF Bugliosi is right, and Bush did in fact lie about Iraq being an imminent threat, do you think he would be guilty of murder? Or, at the very least, would that be grounds for impeachment?
“He says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
So, by your own admission, you AGREE with Bugliosi on this point – that presidents can (and should be) prosecuted if there’s evidence that they’ve committed a crime.
So why did you say “It’s so idiotic” if you agree?
Oh you’re exhausting.
IF you are right (which you are not) and Bush lied about the eminent threat Iraq placed on the United States, President Bush would still not be guilty of murder. He may be guilty of other things, but murder would not be one of them.
LA Times – President Bush did not lie.
1. Since you have yet to deal with Bugliosi’s arguments in chapter 4, you continue to sound like a fool when you insist he’s wrong.
2. Excuse me? Ordering the invasion of Iraq with the full knowledge that (a)it posed no imminent threat, and (b) US soldiers will certainly die in the conflict is not equivalent to sending men to their deaths unnecessarily?
Envision the following scenario: Imagine a bomb chief orders his squad into a collapsing building to defuse a nuclear bomb he claims is about to blow up. Given that the building is highly unstable, the bomb chief knows with a high degree of certainty that some of the squad members will die. Now suppose that the bomb chief, contrary to what he told his squad, *knows* that no nuclear threat in the building exists (i.e. he lied to them). Two questions for you.
a) If the bomb chief sent his squad into the collapsing building KNOWING that no nuclear threat exists, and some of those members die, is he guilty of murder?
b) If yes, then IF Bush ordered American troops into harms way KNOWING that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the security of the United States, would his action not be as morally reprehensible as the bomb chief?
I didn’t get an answer to this question (as well as others).
You said:
“He [Bugliosi] says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
By your own admission, you AGREE with Bugliosi on this point – that presidents can (and should be) prosecuted if there’s evidence that they’ve committed a crime.
So why did you say “It’s so idiotic” if you agree?
Okay, I will get to all that when I finish reviewing chapter 4, until then I can continue to look like a “fool.”
Should President Clinton be tried for murder for killing innocent Iraqis when he attacked Iraq to distract the country from his sex scandal? Are you at least constant?
I don’t know if the assumptions in your question are true. But I would say: if Clinton ordered an unjustified invasion (one he knew at the time was unjustified), then he would be criminally responsible for the deaths in that conflict.
Yes, if there is evidence of a real crime, a President opens himself for prosecution. The timing of that prosecution a whole other debate.
And I’d like an answer to this question.
You said:
“He [Bugliosi] says we have to get past the notion that a sitting president can be prosecuted or a President can’t commit criminal crime. He says if you think this way, then you won’t believe his “common sense” evidence.”
By your own admission, you AGREE with Bugliosi on this point – that presidents can (and should be) prosecuted if there’s evidence that they’ve committed a crime.
So why did you say “It’s so idiotic” if you agree?
“I don’t know if the assumptions in your question are true. But I would say: if Clinton ordered an unjustified invasion (one he knew at the time was unjustified), then he would be criminally responsible for the deaths in that conflict.”
Okay, I have more respect for you now. I appreciate consistency.
Read my context. It’s not idiotic to try a President. It’s idiotic to try a President because soldiers die in a war.
Well, this goes back to the following scenario.
Envision the following scenario: Imagine a bomb chief orders his squad into a collapsing building to defuse a nuclear bomb he claims is about to blow up. Given that the building is highly unstable, the bomb chief knows with a high degree of certainty that some of the squad members will die. Now suppose that the bomb chief, contrary to what he told his squad, *knows* that no nuclear threat in the building exists (i.e. he lied to them). Two questions for you.
a) If the bomb chief sent his squad into the collapsing building KNOWING that no nuclear threat exists, and some of those members die, is he guilty of murder?
b) If yes, then IF Bush ordered American troops into harms way KNOWING that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the security of the United States, would his action not be as morally reprehensible as the bomb chief?
“It’s not idiotic to try a President. It’s idiotic to try a President because soldiers die in a war.”
That isn’t Bugliosi’s claim (hence, you’re attacking a straw man). It’s not MERELY the fact that soldiers die in a war–rather, it’s the fact that Bush sent soldiers into a highly dangerous situation knowing full well that doing so was unnecessary.
I wrote this on my review at amazon.com. I just found this site and want to repost it here:
If the Vincent Bugliosi that wrote this book was the same one that prosecuted Charles Manson, Manson surely would have been found Not Guilty and would probably be a major recording star for years, if he could keep himself from killing anyone.
Where to begin with this silly book? The book would better serve as Exhibit A in getting Mr. Bugliosi committed for suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. What he calls evidence is pitifully, laughably weak.
George Bush is guilty of murder because…he had a hearty breakfast….because he enjoyed himself at his daughters wedding. This is what Mr. Bugliosi cites as evidence of George Bush’s guilt.
He actually believes that every other president that declared war was somber 100% of the time. This is ridiculous. Only one example will suffice. FDR was giving it to Lucy Mercer during WWII. Obviously, FDR didn’t care about the soldiers. What moron would make that case? If you buy Mr. Bugliosi’s arguments, you would have to make it, though I doubt any of the suffers of Bush Derangement Syndrome would pick on FDR for this.
John, John, John…your hack “review” suffers from the same flaws as Jeff’s original post, the main one being: you don’t DEAL with Bugliosi’s *actual* case against Bush.
Have you read chapter 4? Can you present Bugliosi’s case first before attempting to knock the strawman you set up?
Jeff, will you admit that you didn’t adequately represent Bugliosi’s case against Bush (found in chapter 4) in your original post?
If you deny that you haven’t adequately represented Bugliosi’s case, then will you point out where in your original post you addressed it?
I think it’s pointless arguing with people who are like this. Conservativism and religion are based on ignorance, they are based on what is essentially grown people covering their ears and saying “I CAN’T HEAR YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” They only look at what they want to look at, they only read what they want to read. Evidence and facts are inconsequential when you have your gut feeling or your holy book to tell you the “truth”. They are willfully ignorant because ignorance is bliss.
Imagine if you could just choose to act like everything’s okay. Innocent people are raped and killed everyday in Darfur. Who cares at least it’s not happenin’ in ‘Merica. Pakistan may be harboring Osama Bin Laden. No that can’t be true, they are our friends and we sell them F-16s. Billions of dollars in no-bid contracts were given to Halliburton, a company Vice President Dick Cheney sat on the board of up until he became the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. That’s okay, he probably got an employee discount and saved us a lot of money.
These people don’t care about reality they live in a warped world were everything is good, except brown people, liberals, and the queers. They don’t appreciate our lives on Earth fully because they think this life isn’t as important as the “next life”. You can’t reason with those who intentionally ignore reason.
I agree.
Jeff, when are you going to stop dodging my questions and actually address them?
It may be a while, just got home from bowling and I’m whipped. And like I said before, I don’t take this topic as seriously as you apparently do.
Let’s start with this one.
Envision the following scenario: A bomb chief orders his squad into a collapsing building to defuse a nuclear bomb he claims is about to blow up. Given that the building is highly unstable, the bomb chief knows with a high degree of certainty that some of the squad members will die. But the bomb chief, contrary to what he told his squad, *knows* that no nuclear threat in the building exists (i.e. he lied to them). Two questions for you.
a) If the bomb chief sent his squad into the collapsing building KNOWING that no nuclear threat exists, and some of those members die, is he guilty of murder?
b) If yes, then IF Bush ordered American troops into harms way KNOWING that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the security of the United States, would his action not be as morally reprehensible as the bomb chief?
“It may be a while, just got home from bowling and I’m whipped. And like I said before, I don’t take this topic as seriously as you apparently do.”
Maybe that’s because you don’t understand the significance of the charges or the evidence Bugliosi puts forth (as you have demonstrated, you lack even a basic comprehension of what the case against Bush actually is.
That could be it, or it could be I would rather watch the Tigers game waiting on my TiVO for me. One of the two…
Jeff, will you admit that you didn’t adequately represent Bugliosi’s case against Bush (found in chapter 4) in your original post?
If you deny that you haven’t adequately represented Bugliosi’s case, then will you point out where in your original post you addressed it?
“It’s not idiotic to try a President. It’s idiotic to try a President because soldiers die in a war.”
That isn’t Bugliosi’s claim (hence, you’re attacking a straw man). It’s not MERELY the fact that soldiers die in a war–rather, it’s the fact that Bush sent soldiers into a highly dangerous situation knowing full well that doing so was unnecessary.
Will you admit that you misrepresented Bugliosi’s position?
This book is an obscenity. For Bugliosi, one of the foremost legal minds of the century. who performed no less than three great public services in his long and illustrious career, viz., putting Manson away for life, vindicating the victims of O.J. Simpson, and driving a stake through the heart of JFK conspiracy theorists — for this man to pretend to put the President of the United States, executing the military policy of his country with imperfect information in novel circumstances under unique threats from terrorists all over the world — on trial for “murder” is an act of pure hatred and malice for his country. Vincent Bugliosi, join Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr in the lower depths of anti-American self-aggrandizement.
In the wake of my review, which originally posted on amazon.com and a few other book review sites it only included the above paragraph, many have written to defend Bugliosi, citing this or that tidbit of information in support of the idea that Bush was well aware that Iran did not harbor WMDs. A full rebuttal of this rewriting of history can be found in books such as Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, which documents the information that the Administration had, and didn’t have, and establishes the rather large room for error with which reasonable minds could have disagreed (and did disagree) on the issue.
So, in the long run, these questions of “what Bush knew and when he knew it” pale beside the obvious disloyalty and self-promotion inherent in Bugliosi’s work. If Bugliosi were serious, he’d write a book calling for the President’s impeachment. But instead of writing such a book, which much more likely would have fit within the bounds of civil discourse, Bugliosi elected to sensationalize the issue by framing it as a “prosecution” of the president for “murder.” Under this standard, we could as easily “try” every other wartime president who made decisions with which we disagree and which had a toll in human lives — Reagan for allowing the Marines to be bombed in Beirut — George H.W. Bush for not deposing Hussein in 1991 — Carter for the ineptitude of the Iran rescue operation (and for allowing the hostage crisis to last as long as it did) — Nixon for the bombing of Cambodia — JFK for the Bay of Pigs — Truman for Nagasaki and Hiroshima — FDR for failing to save the Jews — Grant for carrying out “total war” in Georgia to assure Union victory — Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus and for tolerating a series of incompetent Union generals resulting in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of Union and Confederate soldiers — Jackson and Washington for summarily executing soldiers for dereliction of duty as an example to others.
The list goes on and on. The reason we don’t is alluded to in my review: the Commander in Chief operates in a shifting, dangerous world, with imperfect information, but often facing the highest possible stakes. At no point in history was this more true than in the immediate wake of 9/11, when virtually the entire country viewed another catastrophic terror attack as imminent and the President judged Iraq, after Afghanistan, to present the most immediate threat.
Beyond certain members of the Lunatic Left, I have not heard anyone argue that 9/11 was an insignicant event that required only a middling response, but with books like Bugliosi’s rising to the top of the charts and having their inevitable impact on our national morale, perhaps we will all begin to hear this argument more often. (This is superbly ironic, in that it is due in no small part to President Bush’s vigilance that we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.) That corrosion of our national will in the face of deadly Islamist terror is the only lasting result of self-aggrandizing books like Bugliosi’s.
“I never make an argument unless I think it has substantial support,” writes Bugliosi in his introduction. How very comforting. Make no mistake, this is just an effort by another pompous ex-prosecutor to sell book.
Myers writes:
“A full rebuttal of this rewriting of history can be found in books such as Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, which documents the information that the Administration had, and didn’t have, and establishes the rather large room for error with which reasonable minds could have disagreed (and did disagree) on the issue.”
Like all hacks, your ignorance of the subject matter you’re commenting on could not be more plain–in this case, it is the central claim at the heart of Bugliosi’s case against Bush.
THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT WMDs, SO STOP ATTRIBUTING THIS CLAIM TO BUGLIOSI.
Rather, the issue is whether or not Bush lied about Hussein being an imminent threat! Can’t you hacks see the difference? Of course, Bugliosi does accuse Bush of lying about Hussein being an imminent threat, and he supports his accusation with the evidence presented in in chapter 4.
Tell us, Myers, and without side rant if possible: what is the flaw in Bugliosi’s case against Bush?
“Vincent Bugliosi, join Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr in the lower depths of anti-American self-aggrandizement. ”
More idiocy. When did being anti-Bush become equivalent to being anti-American? When did writing a book accusing a president – rightly or wrongly – of being guilty of murder become equivalent to “an act of pure hatred and malice for his country?”
Is your thought process this immune to logic?
I just finished this book. It is, without a doubt, the most glorious collection of hyper-judgmental tripe I’ve ever read. Going by the theses outlined in the book, every president, prime minister, king, or queen can be prosecuted, but no credence is given to the actual monsters- the dictators, tyrants, or murder-machines.
Was the war in Iraq a good thing to do ? I am not sure, but I think so. Were lives lost tragically ? Of course. Does either of those questions support the need for such a vile and- yes, I will say it- treasonous attack on the Commander in Chief of this nation ? I say without question the answer is no.
There is a long line of left-wing lawyers, professors, and journalists who trot out these books from time to time, and the media, in their constant struggle to socialize the US, tout them as “the new hero”. We saw it with the Pentagon papers, we saw it with… the list is long.
My advice- start hiring judges (which the Senate refuses to do under Harry Reid) and get ready for every politician in the country to be brought up on charges. Bill Clinton bombed camps in Afghanistan. George H. W. Bush went to war to save Kuwait. Jimmy Carter allowed the middle-east to grow into a conflagration. By Bugliosi’s standards those are all war crimes. Not to mention every SecState or national security adviser alive for the last 75 years.
We need more judges because we are going to have a lot of cases to prosecute.
On a more prominent point- why is this clown even considered an expert on anything ? He prosecuted Manson ? A one-armed chimp could have prosecuted and convicted Manson. The weight of the evidence and the public mood was enough to convict Manson.
Bugliosi is a media whore who needs some money. That is the only reason this book exists, and it’s the only reason Vincent is any more than a footnote in history. Consider this book fiction and fantasy. If this coward had any real resolve he wouldn’t tout his “105/106″ record in the DA’s office. I have friends who are DA’s. They clear 100 cases a year.
As a last aside- I’ve read “Helter Skelter” about three times. It’s well written, and informative. But the LA Times and the Sac Bee need to see if the statute of limitations has run out on plagiarism. A large part of that book is lifted directly from newspaper reports without proper credit.
History is a weird beast sometimes, but for this “author”, the fact is simple. Were there no Manson, Vincent would be practicing tax law in Topeka. He has little talent, has fame but no reason for it, and enjoys a national stage because he is a nutcase. Simple as that.
Jeff, will you admit that you didn’t adequately represent Bugliosi’s case against Bush (found in chapter 4) in your original post?
If you deny that you haven’t adequately represented Bugliosi’s case, then will you point out where in your original post you addressed it?
“It’s not idiotic to try a President. It’s idiotic to try a President because soldiers die in a war.”
That isn’t Bugliosi’s claim (hence, you’re attacking a straw man). It’s not MERELY the fact that soldiers die in a war–rather, it’s the fact that Bush sent soldiers into a highly dangerous situation knowing full well that doing so was unnecessary.
Will you admit that you misrepresented Bugliosi’s position?
Envision the following scenario: A bomb chief orders his squad into a collapsing building to defuse a nuclear bomb he claims is about to blow up. Given that the building is highly unstable, the bomb chief knows with a high degree of certainty that some of the squad members will die. But the bomb chief, contrary to what he told his squad, *knows* that no nuclear threat in the building exists (i.e. he lied to them). Two questions for you.
a) If the bomb chief sent his squad into the collapsing building KNOWING that no nuclear threat exists, and some of those members die, is he guilty of murder?
b) If yes, then IF Bush ordered American troops into harms way KNOWING that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the security of the United States, would his action not be as morally reprehensible as the bomb chief?
Jeff, why are you going to start addressing Bugliosi’s case against Bush? When will we hear a rebuttal to the contents in the Manning memo?
Great job Jeff.
Great job misrepresenting Bugliosi’s case against Bush? I concur!
“I think it’s pointless arguing with people who are like this.”
I agree.
by Jeff Lloyd August 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I’m glad you agree you I am irrational
there are many holes in your argument Jeff you live in a media and self opinionated “Bubble”
your country has turned in to a police state right under your nose! who would defend such a FAKE ADMINISTRATION ?
anyone who pushes along with his power mongering father for a NEW World Order openley under the noses of many nieve citizens is worry if i was american it would and surley does it not worry you that indeed that little “Foreskin” pretty much owns the air you breath, your supportive pro bush view clearly would denote that you are of like minds – EVIL!
let me ask you a question How much where you PAID to debunk the facts, America is percieved that it has a terrible administration that is affecting the lives of the mass’s negitivley, not caring at all about the individual and the apparent pro Life ? well intrest in life what with your quite literally “stupid” gun laws – would denote the Low respect for life generally by your nation , so tell me trusting a care free Jovial Idiot called George to run your country is just a farce fisrtly judging by the expression on his face he cant quite beleve he holds This Position of Power! I mean which idiots voted for that !
Isnt vote Rigging Great!
and oh how wonderfull is it when one man hood winks a nation
I personally wouldnt trust that Idiot with a “wheel barrow! he would probabley if left long enough turn it upside down with the handles and attack the ground shreiking “EVIL” let alone be responsible for the lives of all the trusting Americans who believe in him and your ramblings, you wont be laughing when your pro bush attitude turns sour, and its your son or daughter who dies as a result of the BUSH Tyranny! Many soldiers have died! And you know that he’s negligable and you know what i really hope you experience first hand the pain of all those families that lost people whether in Iraq , Afghanstan – 911 – 7/7 – as that is the truth! im BRITISH ive never visited the states and probabley wont, is it any wonder why?
As for Bugliosi’s Book – he deserves a Nobel Prize as with out people like Him Fools like you and Bush would dictate your version of the truth and we wont have a kind world for or children to grow up in without guns and violence ! maybe you should read 1984 AGAIN and realise that you are the Enemy along with the Administration – and this is the perception
of the rest of the world just keep tuning in to CNN and Fox and just keep thinking God Bless us sweet Americans! because you are all being led up the path by your d i c k s ! and good luck in Iran as at
the expense of the American citizens once again !
this time it will be the biggest can of worms the american government has ever opened so i can assure you, its only time before who feel what we have else where in the world! GOOD LUCK F U C K O! make the most of your life it will become fragmented soon and all because of GWB!
you will wake up! and when you do you will realise you could have been out having a Laugh!
More to the Point would you nominate the Bush Family for a Nobel Peace Prize? peace full resolution of world conflict zones ? Humanitarians all Aye?
Would you Nominate Donald Rumsfeld for a Nobel Piece Prize? for contributions to the eugenics movement globally and the dulling of free thought in the USA.
Would you Vote Dick Chainey for a Nobel Peace Prize
i dont beleive they do them for people who shoot others in the face and get away with it i need to look into that .
for there contribution for the preservation of mankind and life generally??????
I beleive you suck your own C O C K! pal!
oh your skills in double speak! are astonishing!
You are a fool if you believe President Bush’s heart does break every time an american/english solider dies. It’s something every president has had to deal with only you are his gimp!, ever since George Washington was your Commander and Chief? and every President since has had gimps! YOUR COMMANDER AND CHIEF IS DEAD Many many years ago – and im sure he’ BUSH bleeds!
conscript dodging mother f u c k a! he bleeds expensive brandy, cocaine, and your seaman!
keep sucking jeff it’ll go off in your face! time and time again until you realise that aint a POPcicle! its a diseased pizzle poisoning you and your country!
You are living PROOF of the BRAINWASHED! genoside has been taking place in your country way before you breathed politics! and your beloved leader is guilty of infecting the rest of the world with his beliefs.
what makes him any different to Saddam or Osama or pol pot , idi amin , mussolini ,franco, mugabe!
Oh he wheres the suit and speaks as you do.
you are a broke administration war is all you have !
Keep putting those flags in your garden , god bless america,
you are conspiring and supporting a crooked regeme
how do you sleep at night – neo con scum -
your leading your country to total anialtion and arnarchy!
I have American Blood! this is why your blinkered veiw alarms me! and you just small fry!
First, in this age of the internet, we no longer have to wait for 2nd editions to get it right, we can edit it as we see the problems. So please Mr. author, take a look at your piece and correct the grammar and spelling. It’s 2009 and your work is still alive on the internet. You may as well have it represent you better. FWIW: you have my email addy, ask, and I’ll pass on specifics that caught my attention. My grammar isn’t perfect, but I know some and would be glad to help.
About the content:
I applaud you for the piece. I want to point out the most important part which is the included video. That video has yet to be rebutted, and stands as the single best response to Bugliosi’s book.
We have very short memories. We are so tied up in hating Republicans and hating Democrats, that we forget that in 2002, almost to a man, we stood united as a country. Our enemies were before us and we wanted blood.
I ask you to think. Think about how absurd it is to believe Bugliosi’s arguments. Do you really believe the base argument that President Bush had the desire and ability to orchestrate a conspiracy so great that he fooled 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, PM Blair, the President of France, leaders from around the world, and the United Nations? Do you realize that it would require that all the people who wrote the reports that President Bush is to have edited have remained quiet with only Bugliosi to stand for them? Watch the video again. See that even before the 2000 election our elected leaders believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our country. I hope I’m applying Occam’s Razor correctly when I say, either President Bush is a genius, as demonstrated by his perfect conspiracy plan and execution, or he’s a blithering idiot as so many of you would gladly say, but you can’t have it both ways.
Again, we have short memories. In the Clinton era Saddam was a threat to our country but we didn’t “take him out.” Why didn’t we? Could the answer be as simple as a date? Could 9/11 have changed how we dealt with threats? Isn’t that the moment when we said we would no longer react to attacks, but prevent them from happening? President Clinton is on record saying Saddam had WMDs. If 9/11 had happened on President Clinton’s watch, would he have not acted on that knowledge?
I don’t question that you have a conscience and I believe you if you say you’ve always objected to military action in Iraq. But please be honest with yourself and others and acknowledge that the Republicans AND the Democrats we elected to represent our interests on the world stage got it wrong, or right (depending on your position), but they did it concert in 2002.
The injustice isn’t that we look back and second guess decisions. We SHOULD do that. But let’s not all stand together and take action on Monday and then blame each other on Friday. We won’t learn from our mistakes, but we will learn not to work together.
Almost two years since the last post on this board, but I really have to get this off my chest.
Whether Iraq was or was not an imminent threat was a matter of opinion. The President formed an opinion that it was, and exercised his authority accordingly. There is simply no basis in law for a criminal prosecution simply because you disagree with that opinion.