Most of us know Vincent Bugliosi as the man who prosecuted Charlie Manson, Mass Murders, and as the author of the book Helter Skelter. Tomorrow Bugliosi's new book, " The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder", will be released. The shit should hit the fan shortly after that if there is still justice in America. I have spent this morning reading excerpts, watching video, and digesting the information.
If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Bugliosi is not just some journalist, he is a accomplished prosecutor with a success record of "105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss". That is pretty damn impressive. He is also a world renown, best selling writer of "True Crime" books. In his new book he lays out not just the crimes Bush has committed, but all the evidence, the complete prosecution plans right down to the questions he would ask Bush if he choose to take the stand. The book promises to raise many a eyebrow if not much more like swatting a hornet nest. We can only hope it hits the New York Times Best Sellers list quickly, making it impossible of the media to ignore.
Bugliosi does not write this as a partisan Democrat, but as someone with a eye toward justice, the kind of justice that criminal prosecutors across our country pursue daily here in America. He uses the real evidence not the impassioned claims of a zealot. In a article at Common Dreams he lays out that evidence.
According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war." The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.
Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.
On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to "provoke a confrontation" with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly "U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach" of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.
Bugliosi goes on to talk about Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq and his message that Saddam and Iraq "had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the U.S. over the "no-fly" zones." and much, much more. Because of the Fair Use rules here at dkos you should follow the link and read the details for your self. The titles of a next couple paragraphs of evidence include "Hussein Disarms, so Bush ... Goes to War", "The Niger Allegation" and "The 9/11 Lie".
This is the kind of book that had to be done, and done by someone of Bugliosi's standing. Will it be the clarion call we have been waiting for ? Only time will tell, but if we buy enough copies it Will be noticed. The time has come for a book like this to hit the streets. Americans have never thought so little of a sitting President as the polls show, there is a reason for that and it could be that deep under their skin Americans know what Bush has done. Bugliosi points out over and over how both journalists and politicians will over and over point out what Bush has done, yet never call for the consequences of those actions.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.
Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?
It all comes down to this final question and what we are going to do about it. "Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?"
You can both view a video of or listen Bugliosi at his website and I highly recommend both. The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. I will honor our fallen Heroes tomorrow by buying my copy of this book and by urging you to do the same. They deserve no less.