Vincent Bugliosi is mad as hell and isn’t going to take it any more. The Charles Manson prosecutor has released The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, a sweltering indictment of the president from one of the best prosecutors in the United States. Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions, and is aiming his sights at one of the biggest targets in the world.
Bugliosi’s book sets up a convincing premise from the outset and follows through with ferocious attention to detail. With stacks of evidence and references, Bugliosi constructs a case in which George W. Bush could be tried for murder as the result of leading the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses.
This is no unsophisticated Bush-bashing routine; this is the real deal. The foundation laid out by Bugliosi in this book could (and should) have real world implications. It isn’t just another Michael Moore-esque construction, and Bugliosi isn’t a simple left-wing busybody.
One of the most striking aspects of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is just how damn angry Bugliosi is. He is exasperated. The book is filled with diatribes and livid tangents, most of which help give the book a sense of structure and personality. At times, however, Bugliosi simply "goes off" a bit too much and is almost insulting to the reader.
The approach is essential, though, and Bugliosi has more than a few good reasons to be pissed off.
The author opens things up with an introduction that explains how people often miss what is right in front of them. Bugliosi relates a few personal anecdotes that explain how he was able to experience and see things that nobody else was able to see, such as a poor tennis performance, or how it seemed that the majority of the world ignored what Saddam Hussein was first prosecuted for at his trial. Bugliosi states, plainly, how important it is to simply shut up and pay attention.
The reasons as to why George W. Bush went to war are examined, with quotations from various sources acting in support. Bugliosi vigilantly outlines the statements from the Bush Administration referring to WMDs and how Saddam was a threat to Americans.
With the preliminary groundwork laid, Bugliosi begins to construct the prosecution’s case against Bush. Before doing so, he explains his anger: "My anger over the war in Iraq, some will say, is palpable in the pages of this book. If I sound too angry for some, what should I be angry about – that a referee gave what I thought was a bad call to my hometown football, basketball, or baseball team, and it may have cost them the game? I don’t think so."
Article comments
1 - El Bicho
Bugliosi has always come across as a guy who knows his stuff whenever I have seen or read him. His book about why Paula Jones shouldn't have been able to sue Clinton while he was President was a good read as well.
P.S. I just created Canadian Bibliophile, but am willing to sell it.
2 - Pablo
Another great read by Bugliosi is "None Dare Call It Treason" about the Bush v Gore Supreme Court decision, that I found to be the most cogent argument why this decision was so abhorrent. Here is a link for anyone interested.
None Dare Call It Treason
3 - annie
Don't you have enough money? Now you as well as others think it's a big thing for your ego to conjure up ugly mean things about one of finest presidents of the U.S. If you hate America, am sure Iran, North Korea, etc. would be happy to take you in. Am so tired of people showing such disrespect for the president of the U.S. as well as the greatest country ever. If you want European values, then go there and leave the president and U.S. alone. There more of us that love the U.S. and it's values than those of you who do not, that includes respect for the president. The reason some countries dislike the U.S., is because they resent our freedoms . If you wrote books about some of these leaders, as you have Pres. Bush you would probably be used for target practice.
No, I have not read your book, nor will I, life isn't long enough to fill it with your and your followers hatred. Try looking for something good about others, you might even find that the world is really a wonderful place to be. I guess it's okey for people to make attacks as well as lies about others. I don't view this as an attack, just pointing out better outlooks in life, so if you don't want to publish this, no problem.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Pablo,
I read your linked article and I also found it very compelling reading. Although Bugliosi does gloss over the obvious fact that the four dissenting justices were just as politically motivated.
It seems to me that for all nine, so much was at stake that personal bias overcame natural jurisprudence.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Annie,
I have to wonder whether you were as passionate and indignant about 'respect for the president' when Bill Clinton held the office.
6 - Andy Marsh
So, from reading the article I see this is Bugliosi's third book against Bush? Or is it just two books and an extremely wordy article dealing with the FL recount? Some might call that a vendetta!
The writer says, "This is no unsophisticated Bush-bashing routine; this is the real deal." I guess that makes it a sophisticated Bush bashing book.
Think I'd rather read Heinlein.
7 - Jordan Richardson
Thanks for letting us know, Andy. I, for one, can now sleep better at night knowing what you'd rather read.
8 - annie
Dr.Dreadful
I respect the presidency, not some of the things Pres. Clinton did and did not do, he will answer for his personal (?) behavior. Maybe if he had been more interested in the welfare of the people he was elected to serve, standing up to the terrorist after the Cole and 1993 attack, 9/11 would not have happened. Saddam had many chances to comply, he chose not too, Pres. Bush told him what would happen if he would not. He is the only president to back up his word in many years. No president has ever had the mean hateful things said about him (Pres. Lincoln)and have the sense of humor when dealing with the media.etc. MANY of the Dems.(speaker of house, past dem. presidents,V.P. ) are extremely disrespectful, and Pres. Bush never treats them that way.
9 - Jordan Richardson
Maybe if he had been more interested in the welfare of the people he was elected to serve, standing up to the terrorist after the Cole and 1993 attack, 9/11 would not have happened.
Two points here, Annie.
First of all, what does it say about President Bush's "interest in the welfare of the people he was elected to serve" that he has since done absolutely nothing in regards to bin Laden? It has been almost a full seven years since 9/11 now and there has been little to no progress in regards to the capture, trial, and punishment of the perpetrator. How, then, do you explain Bush's concern for his peoples' welfare in light of that fact?
Second of all, how do you give President Bush a complete free pass during the first eight months of his presidency? Let's not forget, if we intend to play the blame game, that the attacks on 9/11 occurred on President George W. Bush's watch, not on Bill Clinton's watch.
Under Clinton's watch, the focus on tracking down and destroying bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network began. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) started to follow what was known as Presidential Decision Directive 39, which Bill Clinton signed. Directive 39, as you can see if you read it, instructs the CIA to capture foreign terrorists "by force" and "even without the cooperation of host governments."
Then there's the CIA's unit, Alec Station, which opened in 1996.
In 1998, Bill Clinton assigned Richard Clarke to the office of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
There were several efforts to capture or kill bin Laden under the watch of the Clinton administration. Clinton, according to Clarke, authorized the usage of two cruise missile attack subs to sit off of the Pakistani coast just waiting for a glimpse of bin Laden. And on August 20, 1998, Clinton's CIA launched 60 Tomahawk missiles on an Afghan camp where bin Laden was said to be, but he had left an hour or so earlier.
In fact, up until 9/11, United States intelligence sources had picked up literally TONS of information and signs of Al-Qaeda plans, many of which have been discussed in mainstream media and ignored, in large part, by the Bush Administration.
For examples, there is the August 6, 2001 one-and-a-half-page memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that you can even read yourself. If you've read it, give yourself a pat on the back because you've just done all that President Bush did in regards to the memo. In fact, the President didn't return to Washington from "vacation" until August 30, 2001.
Then there's Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission that exposes just how "dedicated" to terrorism the Bush Administration was before 9/11. In fact, the BA didn't even forward a plan to the CIA to eliminate the terrorist threat of Al-Qaeda until September 10, 2001. Before then, they had done NOTHING to follow up on the intelligence that the CIA had gathered.
I could go on and on, of course.
Saddam had many chances to comply, he chose not too, Pres. Bush told him what would happen if he would not.
Comply with what? The UN Weapons Inspections or with simply admitting to having WMDs when everyone else knows they weren't there? Saddam was NEVER an imminent threat to the United States and by now even the most hardened right-wingers know that. He had nothing to do with 9/11 either, and just about everybody but a few info-refuseniks know that fact. I can provide more information on these relatively uncontroversial points if you like.
He is the only president to back up his word in many years.
It must be nice to be so deluded.
No president has ever had the mean hateful things said about him (Pres. Lincoln)and have the sense of humor when dealing with the media.etc. MANY of the Dems.(speaker of house, past dem. presidents,V.P. ) are extremely disrespectful, and Pres. Bush never treats them that way.
We're talking about war, murder, deception, and an incredible human cost. This has NOTHING to do with being "mean" to someone. This isn't high school.
Annie, I highly suggest you read Victor Bugliosi's book or at least a similar book to round out your reading material. What should be noted about Bugliosi's book is that this isn't a partisan issue. It is, rather, an issue of restoring some honour to the office of the President of the United States. Blindly going along with everything the President says might be well and good for Britney Spears, but most Americans should demand more.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Annie,
Respect for the presidency is a quite different thing than respect for the president, which is what you were decrying in your original comment.
There are an alarming (though thankfully dwindling) number of people like you who interpret any criticism of the president as disrespect... but only when the president is a Republican.
11 - El Bicho
Annie, please put down the pom poms. It's your blind patriotism that is one of the things wrong with this country although I will concede you may be joking because even Bush's mom doesn't think he's "one of finest presidents of the U.S."
But I doubt it because your poor spelling, punctuation, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts show that you get your information in eight-minute blurbs from talk radio. I would go into more detail, but I fear you are already a lost cause.
12 - annie
Dr. Dreadful;
So much for NOT using personal attacks! Being a dem. does not mean you are capable of knowing what I read, etc. I happen to watch the best news network, since it's the number 1 in the country! I don't need to comment on the dems., as Nancy and Harry are doing a great job in the polls. It's been fun Dr.
The End
13 - Dr Dreadful
Annie,
Interpreting your views does not constitute a personal attack.
I think the remainder of your comment should have been directed to Jordan and El Bicho, but oh well: Jordan was not presuming to know your reading matter, merely suggesting that you read the Bugliosi book. El B was apparently spot on in his analysis, except that your medium of preference is Fox News rather than talk radio.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Democrat.
14 - SB
People that speak the TRUTH (like Dr Dreadful) are patriots and "Annie" (even if she is blind) is NOT!
15 - tedtee
I’m taken by your obvious omission in your book that is being proven with increasing solid facts every day that 9/11 was a Bush neo-con gang’s “inside job.”
With your masterful take on all the lies that Bush used to justify his monstrous illegal Iraq war, to me, not mentioning his biggest and most insidious false flag crime of them all, leaves me in total quandary: You of all people, why?