What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi has written the most important and thought-provoking book of his prolific career. In a meticulously researched and clearly presented legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial for murder after he leaves his presidency, Bugliosi delivers a searing indictment of the president and his administration.
With what he believes is overwhelming evidence that President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses - a war that has caused great loss of life, cost this nation close to $1 trillion, and alienated most of our allies in the Western world - Bugliosi argues that it is George W. Bush who must be held accountable for what Bugliosi considers to be monumental crimes.
In this groundbreaking book, Bugliosi, in his inimitable style, presents a powerful case against the man in the oval office.
With what he believes is overwhelming evidence that President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses - a war that has caused great loss of life, cost this nation close to $1 trillion, and alienated most of our allies in the Western world - Bugliosi argues that it is George W. Bush who must be held accountable for what Bugliosi considers to be monumental crimes.
In this groundbreaking book, Bugliosi, in his inimitable style, presents a powerful case against the man in the oval office.
Audible Audio
First published January 20, 2008
50 people are currently reading
1401 people want to read
About the author
Vincent Bugliosi
50 books1,132 followersAmerican attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and his followers for the murder of Sharon Tate and others.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
July 29, 2008
i am reading this book in short bursts. i have to put it down for a day or two after reading a portion, because i am afraid it will induce a rage-fueled coronary.
how fucking blind are we as a nation? when you sit back, in hindsight, and take in the narrative of the lead-up to the war in iraq, with all the facts in front of you, it is truly amazing the jumbo-sized okeydoke that was pulled on the american people.
the book so far is maddening, sickening, and engrossing. i only wish that more people were reading it, or that it would help tip the grassroots movement to hold these fuckers accountable.
how fucking blind are we as a nation? when you sit back, in hindsight, and take in the narrative of the lead-up to the war in iraq, with all the facts in front of you, it is truly amazing the jumbo-sized okeydoke that was pulled on the american people.
the book so far is maddening, sickening, and engrossing. i only wish that more people were reading it, or that it would help tip the grassroots movement to hold these fuckers accountable.
June 22, 2008
Is it a rant? Yes, in places.
Is he correct? Yes, he is!
Is he correct? Yes, he is!
July 31, 2008
I used to think George Bush was a sociopath....after reading this book I am convinced he is a true psychopath. Vincent Bugliosi manages to make what could be a law textbook, a genuine page turner; laying out in detail the numerous ways Bush could be tried for murder with arguments hard to argue with.
July 21, 2022
I listened to the audiobook. At the beginning, I was worried that this would be a political slamming of the ex-President, but it is actually a true account of the preamble to the war in Iraq, and how it was based on lies. This interested me, as the UK was involved, and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair was also accused of taking us into an "illegal" war. Was Blair tricked into it, or was he fully aware? The book seems to imply that it was the former, but I am still none the wiser!
July 18, 2008
This is an interesting book, but ultimately diappointing. It contains no real surprises, in terms of the lies and rush to war, but it's useful to have all of that documented in one place. Bugliosi's hatred for Bush is visceral and his arguments that Bush is amazingly lazy, with no love for his country or concern or her people are certainly persuasive. At the same time, though, in the midst of documenting Bush's lies & disrespect for us, lies that Congress fell for, Bugliosi also refers to the American people in quite derogatory terms (e.g. sheep). Liberal journalists are also lambasted.
Essentially, the picture painted is one of Bush & his inner circle twisting facts and flat-out lying, the intelligence community going along with it, Congress being misled through no fault of their own, the libral media not doing their job, and the American people stupidly falling for all of this. I see some flaws in this.
I understand that Bugliosi is making the case that a few folks should be tried for conspiracty to commit murder (and all but Bush can be allowed to trade testimony for leniency, with no great loss to justice). In that sense, I suppose his narrow focus fits. The problem is that the larger system that allowed this to happen is left unquestioned. This is a variation on the "great man of history" approach, one that is inherently dissatisfying, because it doesn't look beyond that one "bad guy."
Part II, which deals with the possible prosecution of Bush (including a fairly lengthy fantasy scene in which Bugliosi gives us his view of some of the courtroom drama), deals with what the title promises. This is the heart of the book. Part III hashes over Bush's ineptitude in handling the war on Terrorism & Part IV is a sort of "what's wrong with America." Both of these latter sections continue to deride the American people. In fact, I got so tired of reading about how stupid the American people are, how only Bugliosi, alone in all of this vast country has the ability to see what was really going on, that I barely skimmed these; I couldn't stand to actually read any more of this rant. Truth be told, Bugliosi only has about 1/2 as much of a book as this appears to be.
Bottom line? I wanted to like this book, wanted to be able to rave about it. I did not like and cannot recommend it. Again, there is useful info pulled together in one spot and the sections on what a heel Bush is are interesting. But wait for the library to free up a copy and use your hard-earned money for coffee.
Essentially, the picture painted is one of Bush & his inner circle twisting facts and flat-out lying, the intelligence community going along with it, Congress being misled through no fault of their own, the libral media not doing their job, and the American people stupidly falling for all of this. I see some flaws in this.
I understand that Bugliosi is making the case that a few folks should be tried for conspiracty to commit murder (and all but Bush can be allowed to trade testimony for leniency, with no great loss to justice). In that sense, I suppose his narrow focus fits. The problem is that the larger system that allowed this to happen is left unquestioned. This is a variation on the "great man of history" approach, one that is inherently dissatisfying, because it doesn't look beyond that one "bad guy."
Part II, which deals with the possible prosecution of Bush (including a fairly lengthy fantasy scene in which Bugliosi gives us his view of some of the courtroom drama), deals with what the title promises. This is the heart of the book. Part III hashes over Bush's ineptitude in handling the war on Terrorism & Part IV is a sort of "what's wrong with America." Both of these latter sections continue to deride the American people. In fact, I got so tired of reading about how stupid the American people are, how only Bugliosi, alone in all of this vast country has the ability to see what was really going on, that I barely skimmed these; I couldn't stand to actually read any more of this rant. Truth be told, Bugliosi only has about 1/2 as much of a book as this appears to be.
Bottom line? I wanted to like this book, wanted to be able to rave about it. I did not like and cannot recommend it. Again, there is useful info pulled together in one spot and the sections on what a heel Bush is are interesting. But wait for the library to free up a copy and use your hard-earned money for coffee.
June 24, 2008
For obvious reasons, I was intrigued by the title of this book, but it's a bit of a letdown. I think Bugliosi needed a better editor as the book is about twice as long as it should be. The crux of the argument declared by the title - that it's possible to prosecute a president for lying to the American public - is laid out pretty early in the book. And once you've gone there, what more is there to say? But for whatever reason, the book goes on for another 100-150 pages during the cohesiveness of the book descends. The conclusion of the book (I don't think this qualifies as a spoiler) is that there are three evils in the US:
* the radical right
* religious fundamentalism
* Hollywood, with its sex and dirty language
The problem with this nonsense is that it detracts from (as someone whose legal knowledge is almost entirely based on Law & Order episodes) what seems like a reasonable legal argument.
Definitely worth a read, but don't feel bad if you stop reading it halfway through
* the radical right
* religious fundamentalism
* Hollywood, with its sex and dirty language
The problem with this nonsense is that it detracts from (as someone whose legal knowledge is almost entirely based on Law & Order episodes) what seems like a reasonable legal argument.
Definitely worth a read, but don't feel bad if you stop reading it halfway through
June 16, 2008
Excellent assessment of Bush's tenacious rush to go to war. Not much new information if you are a political junkie like me, but I promise you will be furious at the insight of this petty, demented man who is leader of the free world.
July 15, 2008
A fascinating and infuriating diatribe against the Bush administration and GWB in particular by a career prosecutor (Bugliosi tried and won the Manson murder trial among others). Its overwritten, needs an editor and gets tiring, but is a well organized review of how Bush and his cronies literally manufactured lies to get us into the Iraq war, and remain blissfully unaffected by the death and suffering that has resulted. He makes a reasonable case for the prospect that Bush could indeed be tried for murder once he's out of office.
September 30, 2008
Well, I read as much as I needed to read, which wasn't much. I avoid preaching-to-the-choir books; that's for weak minds, like Ann Coulter fans, so certain of their own beliefs that they need to be told what their "thoughts" are. I had believed Bugliosi to be conservative-minded. A conservative arguing that Bush should be tried for murder would be something. Alas, I was mistaken. This book will convince only the convinced.
I already know GWB has more innocent blood on his hands than Pilate and more innocent American blood on his hands than Osama. I already know the invented reasons for the Iraq invasion and the invasion itself amount to murder and rise to murder in the legal sense. The flaw in the argument is not the legal logic but its distance from the reality of politics. The Supreme Court, especially in this decades-long incarnation, would simply state that no politician would run for executive office knowing poor choices might lead to criminal negligence charges and purposefully-harmful choices to felony prosecution. Remember to remember that when we say this is a free country, it's really, really free for about two percent of the population, and the rest are free to be screwed by the two percent. The Supreme Court would skitter around the trickiest Constitutional point Bugliosi raises (presidents are liable to felony or other criminal charges once out of office) by stating that the ruling is not binding.
In short, the Supreme Court would rule that Bush might just as well be charged for murder in the case of Katrina, and well he should be. It could easily be argued that the economic rape of the American populace amounted to, at minimum, manslaughter. And it should be. A lot of things should be, and a lot of things shouldn't be. There shouldn't be serial murderers, but I see at least two in the appropriate evil-camouflaging color of the White House. One just found a prize in his cereal box. It's going to be a good day for that one, another bright, sunny day with big fluffy clouds and birdies in the sky and satellites gone up to Mars.
A better case: Bush, as Commander in Chief, should be charged with and found guilty of treason, then shot, along with his cohorts. I'm against the death penalty, but when it's worth a few laughs, well, every exception proves the rule.
I already know GWB has more innocent blood on his hands than Pilate and more innocent American blood on his hands than Osama. I already know the invented reasons for the Iraq invasion and the invasion itself amount to murder and rise to murder in the legal sense. The flaw in the argument is not the legal logic but its distance from the reality of politics. The Supreme Court, especially in this decades-long incarnation, would simply state that no politician would run for executive office knowing poor choices might lead to criminal negligence charges and purposefully-harmful choices to felony prosecution. Remember to remember that when we say this is a free country, it's really, really free for about two percent of the population, and the rest are free to be screwed by the two percent. The Supreme Court would skitter around the trickiest Constitutional point Bugliosi raises (presidents are liable to felony or other criminal charges once out of office) by stating that the ruling is not binding.
In short, the Supreme Court would rule that Bush might just as well be charged for murder in the case of Katrina, and well he should be. It could easily be argued that the economic rape of the American populace amounted to, at minimum, manslaughter. And it should be. A lot of things should be, and a lot of things shouldn't be. There shouldn't be serial murderers, but I see at least two in the appropriate evil-camouflaging color of the White House. One just found a prize in his cereal box. It's going to be a good day for that one, another bright, sunny day with big fluffy clouds and birdies in the sky and satellites gone up to Mars.
A better case: Bush, as Commander in Chief, should be charged with and found guilty of treason, then shot, along with his cohorts. I'm against the death penalty, but when it's worth a few laughs, well, every exception proves the rule.
January 19, 2016
I wrote the following in May 2012, apparently during a very angry time in my life. Of course, election season was heating up, just as it is now. In January. While my vicious tone and inappropriate language is a bit embarrassing, I still, for the most part, agree with just about everything I wrote in it. Bugliosi's book, by the way, is a compelling argument and much of my vitriol is due to his thorough research. Much of what he wrote is public knowledge now anyway. I should say that I don't hate Bush. I never have. My confusion over how so many still defend his decision to invade Iraq has, in some ways, lessened. From a more level-headed standpoint, I will concede that Bush was put into a very difficult position, given bad intel he was receiving at the time and bad advice from his advisors. I also believe, as time goes by and more information is revealed about what went on in the Bush Administration, that Bush's incompetence and easily suggestible and eager-to-please mentality gave the stronger-willed Dick Cheney more power than his office should have afforded. It doesn't really excuse Bush's actions, but it does help to make them a bit more understandable.
I could gush on ad nauseum about how much I think George W. Bush has ruined this country and how we are so much LESS safe than we were pre-9/11, but Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" is probably vitriol and rage enough for several people.
His case is, of course, compelling and logical, but it is the amount of research and documented evidence he cites that is truly damning for the former Bush Administration.
Bugliosi does not pussy-foot his way through his argument, nor is he gentle. We have had eight-plus years of Bush apologists and coddling of this Texas frat-boy who involved our country in an unnecessary pre-emptive war that, at last count, resulted in roughly 104,000 lives lost.
FUCK GENTLE.
Bush is an intellectually challenged asshole with a lack of compassion so staggering it hurts.
Fuck that he is a Christian. It's sociopaths like Bush that makes me ashamed to be a Christian. You can't send thousands of young men and women to die in an illegal war, a war that has resulted in a global anti-Americanism the likes of which this country has never seen, and has helped to make our country less safe and secure, AND THEN PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT YOUR PAST EIGHT YEARS AS PRESIDENT HAVE BEEN "FUN".
How does he even sleep at night? That he can chuckle and make jokes like the retarded jackal that he is after LYING to and MISLEADING the public about Iraq, after the horrible deaths he has caused, and, then, to top it off, NOT APOLOGIZE FOR ANYTHING NOR ADMIT HE MADE A SINGLE MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT, is abhorrent and unforgivable.
What's most disgusting, though, is how so many people still defend him and think he did a "good job" as president. In the short history of our country and the presidency, we have never seen any president do a less good job, and yet it is as if Bush's shit does not, and never will, stink. I am sometimes very ashamed to be an American.
I could gush on ad nauseum about how much I think George W. Bush has ruined this country and how we are so much LESS safe than we were pre-9/11, but Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" is probably vitriol and rage enough for several people.
His case is, of course, compelling and logical, but it is the amount of research and documented evidence he cites that is truly damning for the former Bush Administration.
Bugliosi does not pussy-foot his way through his argument, nor is he gentle. We have had eight-plus years of Bush apologists and coddling of this Texas frat-boy who involved our country in an unnecessary pre-emptive war that, at last count, resulted in roughly 104,000 lives lost.
FUCK GENTLE.
Bush is an intellectually challenged asshole with a lack of compassion so staggering it hurts.
Fuck that he is a Christian. It's sociopaths like Bush that makes me ashamed to be a Christian. You can't send thousands of young men and women to die in an illegal war, a war that has resulted in a global anti-Americanism the likes of which this country has never seen, and has helped to make our country less safe and secure, AND THEN PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT YOUR PAST EIGHT YEARS AS PRESIDENT HAVE BEEN "FUN".
How does he even sleep at night? That he can chuckle and make jokes like the retarded jackal that he is after LYING to and MISLEADING the public about Iraq, after the horrible deaths he has caused, and, then, to top it off, NOT APOLOGIZE FOR ANYTHING NOR ADMIT HE MADE A SINGLE MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT, is abhorrent and unforgivable.
What's most disgusting, though, is how so many people still defend him and think he did a "good job" as president. In the short history of our country and the presidency, we have never seen any president do a less good job, and yet it is as if Bush's shit does not, and never will, stink. I am sometimes very ashamed to be an American.
October 16, 2010
Vincent Bugliosi has an exceptional talent in seeing the truth without being distracted. Anyone who still doesn't understand why some of us despise George w. Bush need only read Part I to learn why he and his adminstration are such a disgrace.
In Part II, veteran prosecutor Bugliosi makes the specific legal case for the potential prosecution of the former president for murder. He demonstrates why and how both federal and state courts have jurisdiction, and reminds us that there is no statute of limitations for murder. He ends the section saying, "Even if this doesn't happen and what I have said receives all of the attention of a new fly in the forest, I do know that someone had to say what is written on the pages of this book.
Part III illustrates why George W. Bush's reputation for being strong against the threat of terrorism is completely undeserved.
The concept of the book is excellent, but the execution needed improvement. Mr. Bugliosi could have used a better editor to handle some of the repetition, and to rein in some of the language. Surely, the topic invites words of disgust, horror and dismay; however, his language often veers into hysteria that threatens to derail the focus on actually prosecuting George W. Bush for the murder of over 4,000 U.S. military personnel in the Iraq war. There were several places where more sober language would have been less disruptive. I also quibble that Mr. Bugliosi always refers to the fallen U.S. service members as fallen young men, and makes no mention of the fallen women.
My hope is that this book doesn't disappear into oblivion, but that it continues to be read, especially by younger people.
In Part II, veteran prosecutor Bugliosi makes the specific legal case for the potential prosecution of the former president for murder. He demonstrates why and how both federal and state courts have jurisdiction, and reminds us that there is no statute of limitations for murder. He ends the section saying, "Even if this doesn't happen and what I have said receives all of the attention of a new fly in the forest, I do know that someone had to say what is written on the pages of this book.
Part III illustrates why George W. Bush's reputation for being strong against the threat of terrorism is completely undeserved.
The concept of the book is excellent, but the execution needed improvement. Mr. Bugliosi could have used a better editor to handle some of the repetition, and to rein in some of the language. Surely, the topic invites words of disgust, horror and dismay; however, his language often veers into hysteria that threatens to derail the focus on actually prosecuting George W. Bush for the murder of over 4,000 U.S. military personnel in the Iraq war. There were several places where more sober language would have been less disruptive. I also quibble that Mr. Bugliosi always refers to the fallen U.S. service members as fallen young men, and makes no mention of the fallen women.
My hope is that this book doesn't disappear into oblivion, but that it continues to be read, especially by younger people.
September 4, 2008
Wow... and people thought I hated the president.
This book, is well, it's something else all right. Since my first reading of To Kill a Mockingbird last month, I've been considering law school. Yes, yes, I know. But this book made me want to do it. The case is clearly laid out that according to legal precedent, George W. Bush is legally responsible for the violent deaths of over 4,000 Americans and that any prosecutor in the country would be within their jurisdiction to bring him up on charges once his term is finished. And that not to, would be saying that being president is a blank check to break whatever laws you like and get away with it.
Though Bugliosi swings his anger (justified) like an axe, the most telling part of the book is actually not in what he says as much as in some of the responses I've read to it: That Bugliosi is doing "his country a great disservice," and the such. What's telling is not only that the critiques don't respond to the arguments made, but that Bugliosi actually made the arguments against trying Bush within the text to show why they don't hold up, and predicted that no one would actually be bold enough to make them because they were so weak. That instead critics would sidestep the issue by questioning his motivations and patriotism. Looks like game set and match, Bugliosi.
The real impacts of this book will remain to be seen until after the election.
This book, is well, it's something else all right. Since my first reading of To Kill a Mockingbird last month, I've been considering law school. Yes, yes, I know. But this book made me want to do it. The case is clearly laid out that according to legal precedent, George W. Bush is legally responsible for the violent deaths of over 4,000 Americans and that any prosecutor in the country would be within their jurisdiction to bring him up on charges once his term is finished. And that not to, would be saying that being president is a blank check to break whatever laws you like and get away with it.
Though Bugliosi swings his anger (justified) like an axe, the most telling part of the book is actually not in what he says as much as in some of the responses I've read to it: That Bugliosi is doing "his country a great disservice," and the such. What's telling is not only that the critiques don't respond to the arguments made, but that Bugliosi actually made the arguments against trying Bush within the text to show why they don't hold up, and predicted that no one would actually be bold enough to make them because they were so weak. That instead critics would sidestep the issue by questioning his motivations and patriotism. Looks like game set and match, Bugliosi.
The real impacts of this book will remain to be seen until after the election.
June 2, 2023
I’ve read several Bugliosi books and this is, quite possibly, his worst but may be the worst book I’ve read all year. Not because I am a fan of G W Bush ( I never was), but because this comes across as nothing but a bitter personal vendetta against Bush and against America.
October 9, 2008
60 pages in: WOW - better hang on for this one! Compelling stuff; do I think it well ever happen? I'm too cynical to believe that it would. Would I rejoice? Picture me with a bowl of popcorn glued to the idiot box tuned to CNN.
Just finished this last night. What an eye-opener! If Bugliosi wasn't a respected and successful prosecutor, I would be less apt to pay this any mind. I've never been a fan of G.W. (call me crazy, but I think that the leader of our country should, at the very least, be able to pronounce the word 'nuclear'), but this puts him and his cronies into a whole new category.
Some random thoughts..
- I loathe draft-dodger types who purport to be heros.
- Like Mother, like son, apparently.. the bit about her 'beautiful mind' just blows me away.
- It is incomprehensible to think we let Bush & company : alter the CIA reports to support their case for invading Iraq, keep the troops in Iraq after it was revealed that every reason given for going in was found to be a bold-faced lie. There were never any WMDs, nothing linking Iraq to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in any way, and yet we let this persist even after we know the reasons for going in were bogus! I just don't get it.. I feel like protesting in DC..anyone care to join me?
- How about this whole notion of 'not accepting defeat, we must have victory in Iraq'?.. what a load of bull puckey.. Could someone please define what victory in Iraq is? We've already taken out Hussein and sons and succeeded in killing 100K people - 4k plus of our own soldiers. Do I think it would dishonor all of our soldiers by pulling out? no, I don't, mainly because I don't think we should have gone in in the first place, and I don't think that losing any more to this occupation will prove a damned thing. We should have kept our focus on where the perpetrators of 9-11 were in the first place - Afghanistan.
- The last figure I heard on the total spent thus far in Iraq ALONE is $1,000,000,000,000.00... that's right, 12 zeros, folks.. one TRILLION dollars.. are you kidding me? How about taking care of our own first? There are plenty of Americans out there who could use a meal or some medicine.. but no, let's waste the money (and the lives of our sons and daughters) on Bush's sick little war.
- Awfully brave, isn't he, when sending soldiers over to fight the war on terror (who wouldn't, as president, do the very same thing after 9/11, and his ratings went up why?). When it was time to fight for their generation, where were Bush & Cheney?
Support the troops, not this administration's awful leadership!!
***READ THIS BOOK!!***
Just finished this last night. What an eye-opener! If Bugliosi wasn't a respected and successful prosecutor, I would be less apt to pay this any mind. I've never been a fan of G.W. (call me crazy, but I think that the leader of our country should, at the very least, be able to pronounce the word 'nuclear'), but this puts him and his cronies into a whole new category.
Some random thoughts..
- I loathe draft-dodger types who purport to be heros.
- Like Mother, like son, apparently.. the bit about her 'beautiful mind' just blows me away.
- It is incomprehensible to think we let Bush & company : alter the CIA reports to support their case for invading Iraq, keep the troops in Iraq after it was revealed that every reason given for going in was found to be a bold-faced lie. There were never any WMDs, nothing linking Iraq to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in any way, and yet we let this persist even after we know the reasons for going in were bogus! I just don't get it.. I feel like protesting in DC..anyone care to join me?
- How about this whole notion of 'not accepting defeat, we must have victory in Iraq'?.. what a load of bull puckey.. Could someone please define what victory in Iraq is? We've already taken out Hussein and sons and succeeded in killing 100K people - 4k plus of our own soldiers. Do I think it would dishonor all of our soldiers by pulling out? no, I don't, mainly because I don't think we should have gone in in the first place, and I don't think that losing any more to this occupation will prove a damned thing. We should have kept our focus on where the perpetrators of 9-11 were in the first place - Afghanistan.
- The last figure I heard on the total spent thus far in Iraq ALONE is $1,000,000,000,000.00... that's right, 12 zeros, folks.. one TRILLION dollars.. are you kidding me? How about taking care of our own first? There are plenty of Americans out there who could use a meal or some medicine.. but no, let's waste the money (and the lives of our sons and daughters) on Bush's sick little war.
- Awfully brave, isn't he, when sending soldiers over to fight the war on terror (who wouldn't, as president, do the very same thing after 9/11, and his ratings went up why?). When it was time to fight for their generation, where were Bush & Cheney?
Support the troops, not this administration's awful leadership!!
***READ THIS BOOK!!***
May 26, 2010
I struggled with how to rate this book; famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi lays out his arguments in a convincing and logical fashion, and his evidence is spot-on. In the end, I admit that I took off a star for some of his editorializing; despite the fact that I agreed with his comments much of the time, I found them out of place in an otherwise objective and fact-based book.
Bugliosi examines both the rule of law and and the many ways in which laws were violated by George W. Bush and his administration specifically in regard to the war in Iraq -- including conspiracy, aiding and abetting and outright murder. He admits that it would take a very brave prosecutor to take the case and, to be honest, I wish that someone would indeed do so. The evidence that would be needed for an open-and-shut conviction is laid out in chronological order toward the inescapable conclusion that our former president is indeed guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of US servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
I wish that more people would read this book and see it for what it is: an indictment of the worst president in the history of our country for high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as felony murder. Recommended for those interested in understanding what has gone wrong in the United States.
Bugliosi examines both the rule of law and and the many ways in which laws were violated by George W. Bush and his administration specifically in regard to the war in Iraq -- including conspiracy, aiding and abetting and outright murder. He admits that it would take a very brave prosecutor to take the case and, to be honest, I wish that someone would indeed do so. The evidence that would be needed for an open-and-shut conviction is laid out in chronological order toward the inescapable conclusion that our former president is indeed guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of US servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
I wish that more people would read this book and see it for what it is: an indictment of the worst president in the history of our country for high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as felony murder. Recommended for those interested in understanding what has gone wrong in the United States.
August 20, 2008
My only complaint is that Bugliosi made several arguments referencing the general downturn of the USA culture in a "these kids today" way...like how there was a rap song that won Best Song Oscar a few years ago. He goes on to say something to the effect of: come on people, rap isn't even music! Regardless of what you think of rap, or how dough faced you think Karl Rove looks, it doesn't add to the otherwise devastating case he makes against GWB.
January 5, 2009
Sadly, this is a book that should have been published when Bush was still in office, had just stole the election in Florida and was cynically exploiting 9/11 to pursue an established agenda of Imperialist decline while wrecking the economy at home. The big question now, how long will the Reagan-Bush-W. Bush legacy cast its shadow over subsequent administrations, bearing in mind that Margaret Thatcher is still effectively in office?
September 23, 2008
Although pretty much a rehash of things I already knew, Bugliosi lays out a pretty compelling and logical case for the prosecution of our current president. It details all of Bush's lies and ignoring of truth while taking us into Iraq, which, of course, has led to the death of thousands of people.
November 6, 2010
GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe if the average person wasn't so consumed by nonsense and would READ A DAMN book, then maybe... just MAYBE things would be different in this once great country.
July 4, 2012
Read for OLLI - interesting concept but very left wing! Charles Manson prosecutor author. Too much emotion. LBJ at least agonized over Vietnam apparently. Author's claim of not partisan is laughable.
June 18, 2008
Disturbing, but well written and very insightful.
June 28, 2008
Interesting idea, well written, and gives a good overview of the deception and illegality of the war with Iraq.
August 26, 2018
Enragingly full of evidence, bringing back memories of the confusion, lies, and blatant misguidance of the American public.
May 22, 2017
For the first time, he let his personal feelings get in the way of his rational mind. And his editor let him get away with ranting for far too long. It could have been summed up in a long blog post.
June 18, 2009
As you can obviously tell, this book is by a lawyer (a really good one at that) who builds a case on why President George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder by sending our troops to Iraq. What makes him different? After all, many presidents in the past have sent our troops to war, how come they don’t get prosecuted? Bugliosi’s case is that Bush purposely lied to get the American people involved in the war in Iraq. It’s a bold statement. Bugliosi uses Bush’s speech to Congress on October 11, 2002 as evidence on why Bush should be prosecuted. The speech basically said that the war was for the purposes of national security, nothing else. Again, before the war started, Bush spoke about how Hussein had WMDs and that he was a threat to our national security. That was all that was mentioned.
However, the message changed. We couldn’t find the WMDs, and links between Hussein and al-Qaeda showed to be false. Thus, the message changed from national security to a real purpose: giving birth to democracy in the Middle East which would spread throughout. Bugliosi brings his first point: if that was the real reason, then Bush has no right to keep this reason a secret from the American people. But with this, many conservatives agree that the real reason was to spread democracy and not to find WMDs or that it was a national security issue. Ok. But if that’s the case, isn’t that an implicit admission that Bush lied to the country initially? Also, even if the point was to bring democracy, a major problem with this is that democracy isn’t just having elections. Bugliosi brings up something that I believe is a good argument but everyone seems to miss: before you can have a political democracy, you must first have a democratic culture. If you don’t have that first, you cannot have a democracy. What’s a democratic culture? Bugliosi says that it’s “a tradition of voluntary associations, a tolerance for nonconformism and pluralism, a shared belief in the dignity of the individual, separation of political power from religious authority and a belief in the legitimacy of the dissent” (p. 265). Now a democracy has a hidden corollary that the majority usually wins. Well, the Shiites are the majority. If a democracy holds out, wouldn’t this mean that the Shiites would be the ruling power? They are extremely religious, much like Iran. Wouldn’t this suggest that this would eventually turn into a theocracy? Indeed, many analysts predict that Iraq is going to be even more hostile to us and become friendly with Iran. Wouldn’t Islamic extremists much more likely to go to a state like this instead of a secular Islamic nation like Saddam Hussein’s was? And shouldn’t the Bush administration known about this?
Now this is just the first chapter. Next, the US was ready to fight Iraq (for whatever reason), but Bush wanted the rest of the world to get involved. Bush knew (notice that italic there) that he couldn’t get the world involved if it was a national threat to the US, thus Bush brought in the motivation of bringing in WMDs so that the world could see that it was a worldly threat, not just a US threat. (Whether this motivation was a lie or not is another thing, however. If it turns out to be a lie, then it seems that Bush could be tried in an international tribunal rather than just a national one, but that’s a tangent.) With that, Bush didn’t use WMDs primarily to get the US motivated for war, he used the WMDs to get the world involved. In other words, Bush is being (or at least trying to be) a realist. Not a good one at that, but mainly it’s because I find neoconservativism a bad strategy, both pragmatically and ideologically.
In the next part, Bugliosi makes a prologue about the prosecution. It’s kind of like the opening remarks in a trial. What does he say? There were many statements that the Bush administration have said that makes one wonder about their preparedness or their seriousness about the war. For example, when Rumsfeld went to Iraq to visit the troops, a lot of the military personal complained that there wasn’t enough armor or protection. Rumsfeld reply was “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” This seems odd. That reply only works if you’re caught off-guard and you have to fight with whatever resources you scrounge up. In the case of Iraq, they had a lot of time to prepare. Thus, Rumsfeld is mistaken. You should not go to war with the Army you have, you should go to war with what is needed and you better prepare yourself for that need.
But Bugliosi makes another interesting claim: Bush wanted war. The previous presidents resent or doubt whether the war they were involved in was the right thing to do. Bush never had any doubts. His concern is that America will win this war. But Bugliosi notes that in previous wars, all of the presidents have asked its citizens to make some sacrifice. Bush never asked. With this, “the president can say we’re a country at war all he wants. We’re not. The military is at war. And the military families are at war. Everybody else is shopping, or watching American Idol.” No one else is sacrificing. And sorry, donations and putting that lame yellow magnetic ribbon on the back of your car doesn’t count. Remember in WWII, everyone contributed to the war cause. No one is contributing to this war except the military. The citizens don’t do anything.
The Prosecution:
Impeachment won’t do it. It’s not enough. The murder of 4,000 Americans is too much just to allow impeachment. Even if Bush somehow apologized or realized that he made a mistake, that’s not enough. He must be prosecuted for murder. So how can Bugliosi do this?
First, the prosecution must show that Bush did have an intent to kill Americans (having a criminal state of mind). Perhaps one of the first things that Bush could do is claim self-defense. However, Bugliosi shows in the previous chapter that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country, therefore self-defense won’t work.
What this means is that if the president goes to war under false pretenses, he intended to fight. With the intention to go to war, he knew that American soldiers would die. Thus, the intention holds. But hold on here, does this follow? Again, it falls to ignorance. Bush did not know that this was a false war. His intention was that this was a proper war. Because of his intentions, this isn’t murder.
At best, Bugliosi could probably go for second-degree murder, but that’s pushing it. Bugliosi doesn’t think so:
Bush’s taking the nation to war would constitute implied malice, that is, an intent to do a highly dangerous act with reckless disregard and indifference to human life, and hence, at least second degree murder in every state, as well as under federal law. (p. 97)
The best we could go for is manslaughter if it comes down to ignorance. But that’s something I never thought before. Ignorance still implies negligence and under the law, you could prosecute someone for manslaughter.
However, Bugliosi does say that even though we can’t really see into someone’s mind and find his or her intent, in a criminal case, we don’t need to. We have to look at the conduct and statement to infer what was on his mind. That’s all that’s needed in a prosecution. (He sites various cases where this is true.) So what is the evidence that Bugliosi provides that not only Bush lead this country to war, but mislead us to war?
First Evidence: The White Paper
In October 15, 2001, Sec. of State, Colin Powell told the press that “Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They’re sad. They’re contained.” Indeed, at the Gulf War, we could see that they were a weak military. We defeated their army on the ground in about 100 hours. Only 128 Americans died, and 44 of those were by accident or friendly fire.
Here’s the thing: no idiot is going to fight the US head-on. So you do one of two things: you can use propaganda (which is what the Taliban and al-Qaeda does) or you just don’t fight at all (which is what Hussein did). Hussein wanted to live and attacking the US or helping someone to attack the US won’t help Hussein’s survival. Bush knew this, but he went ahead and came up with the idea that Hussein was still an imminent threat to the nation. Thus forms the lie.
Another piece: we went after bin Laden, the person responsible for 9/11, but then we went to Iraq and diverted our country’s military and resources to go after Hussein. In the words of my realist professor on Radical Islam: “Big Strategical Error.” Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 (and we officially knew this in 2007 after a study from the Pentagon) and this just shows circumstantial evidence that Bush wanted to go after Hussein all along and 9/11 was the excuse to do so. Indeed, many neoconservatives before Bush came into office have commented that the Bush administration had been dreaming of invading Iraq for years. About a month after 9/11, the CIA concluded that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US and wouldn’t use any weapons against us unless we attacked him first; that is for self-defense. (On another note, I found it odd that Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein has WMD, but he wasn’t worried that he’d use them against us if we fought him.) Bush had to have known this since the CIA briefs him on important matters such as this. But Bush also said that he’ll be deciding based on the latest intelligence. Well, in Oct. 2002, the latest intelligence at the time was Hussein was not an imminent threat. Phrasing Bugliosi:
So when Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.
Bush, it seems, was pushing his own agenda and the media gave him the pass to go to war under false pretenses. With this, this was not an attack based on self-defense.
The hard evidence that Bugliosi provides is what is known as the “White Paper.” In the original classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), there were major differences when it became declassified (which is known as the White Paper): deletions, insertions, and manipulations of words to make it look like Iraq was more menacing that it actually was. Things like:
* Hussein was purchasing aluminum tubes. (Turns out that based on the length, strength, and width, these were more suited for rockets rather than nuclear weapons.)
* A source from Niger telling us information. (Turns out the information wasn’t true.)
* Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. (Turns out that if left unchecked, Iraq could have gotten one in about five years.)
A British official who was the chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (their equivalent of our CIA) told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Bush Administration “wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy.” The Bush Administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq, now they just needed the justification to do so.
When the weapons inspectors went to Iraq and Saddam complied, Bush got worried. Bush originally said that he won’t go to war unless there was a regime change. But now that the inspectors were in and they were saying that there no WMD, Bush changed his words and said (two days before the war) that there’s no need to go to war unless Saddam and his sons leave the country, something that the Bush Administration knew that Hussein wouldn’t comply to do so.
Of course, a reply could be that Hussein didn’t allow the inspectors into everything. The answer is simple: in Arabian culture, you have to look tough. If not, you’re seen weak and you can easily be taken over. He wasn’t trying to look tough to the Americans (because we could easily defeat him). He was trying to look tough to Iran. At the same time, there were Shiites in Iraq and if they knew that Hussein didn’t have weapons, there would surely be an uprising. In the end of this segment, Bugliosi is concluding that Hussein did not have WMDs. I’m not so sure about that as you can see here. (You’ll probably have to right click and “save link as. . .”. Admittedly, Sada does say that Hussein did have chemical and biological but was not making nuclear, which may help Bugliosi’s case, but ironically will hinder him as well.)
Second Evidence: No Link Between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
In this next section, Bush admits on Sept. 17, 2003 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. But the damage was too late. As of June 2006, 90% of American soldiers believed that there was a link and in Sept. 2006, 43% of Americans still believed there was a link. With the knowledge that Bush received from the CIA and the NIE, he had knowledge that there was no link, but he still went to to the American people and said that “we’re taking the fight to those that attacked us.” There’s no other way to interpret that.
Next, when we captured Saddam Hussein, we turned him back to the Iraqi government. That was odd. Granted, we couldn’t give him an international tribunal because it wasn’t a UN fight. However, if the Bush Administration stated that Hussein was responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11, then legally speaking you can bring him to America for murder charges. After all, we had the 20th highjacker (he’s not American) and we still tried him on American soil. I can guarantee you that if we capture bin Laden, we will bring him back to America to try him. It would seem odd that if we capture bin Laden, we turn him to Afghanistan for a trial. So why would Bush let Hussein go to Iraq for a trial? It would seem that letting him be tried in Iraq is an implicit admission that the Bush administration knew that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. When Hussein was captured, there was a document on him that told his supporters to not join other foreign Arab forces in Iraq. This was because he wanted to Ba’ath Party to be powerful again (wishful thinking, I know), but this document implies that he wants nothing to do with al-Qaeda or bin Laden. Al-Qaeda wanted a holy war against the West whereas Saddam and the Ba’ath Party only wanted political power in Iraq. CIA reports also indicate that al-Qaeda had the opportunity to work with Iraq, but bin Laden immediately turned down the proposal. Bluntly speaking, Hussein and bin Laden hate each other.
The 9/11 Commission and Richard Clark (the counter-terrorism adviser from Regan through Bush Jr.) have both stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Clark even told Bush this the day after 9/11 but Bush still told Clark to go find a link.
Bush supporters might say that Zarqawi was in Iraq seven months before the war. That should indicate some link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. While it’s true that Zarqawi was in Iraq (and even in Baghdad), Hussein was unaware of his presence. As soon as Hussein was aware of it, he ordered his intelligence service to capture Zarqawi.
Bugliosi asserts that the Manning Memo shows that, far from making serious efforts to avoid war, Bush considered the possibility of provoking Saddam into starting a war by sending U2 reconnaissance aircraft, falsely painted in UN colors, on flights over Iraq along with fighter escorts, and if Saddam ordered them shot down, it would constitute war. With this, if Bush is serious about Hussein being an imminent threat, why would you go to the enemy and provoke the enemy to fight?
Now who else would be a coconspirator in this? The circumstantial evidence points to Cheney and Rice. Bugliosi believes that if they go down, he would be able to convince them of a plea bargain. With this, the truth will fully come out against Bush. Rumsfeld is a maybe, same with Rove. Powell is probably innocent.
As soon as the prosecutor asks Bush what intelligence agency gave him the information that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US, Bush couldn’t respond because the intelligence was a lie.
Finally, Bugliosi ends the book commenting that Bush was horrible at the war on terror. How so?
1. On Aug. 6, 2001, there was a memo and the title of it was “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” What did the Bush Administration do about it? NOTHING! As the Clinton Administration left the White House, they even recommended to the Bush Administration that Al Qaeda should be their top priority. The CIA and the FBI kept giving out warnings throughout August. But Bush and Rice commented that they did nothing to add new additional steps even to counter that. There wasn’t even a meeting on what to do about it. Indeed, when Bush came into office, Rumsfeld didn’t relaunch the Predator drone that was used by the CIA to track bin Laden, and Wolfowitz shut down the disinformation program to create dissent within the Taliban. Under the Clinton Administration, the counterterrorism budget went up since 1999. It went up from 22.7% in 2001 (and Clinton was only in office for 21 days in 2001!). Ashcroft immediately cut the budget. This shows that the Bush Administration did not take terrorism seriously.
2. Amazingly, he was considered a hero after 9/11. Why? He did nothing! Why should he be considered a hero? No one even blamed him when people should’ve been. He was the guy to stop this, and instead, people were praising him. Here’s the thing: if there was another huge terrorism plot under Obama’s watch, I can guarantee you that people would blame him for it. If counterintelligence showed there was a terrorist attack but Obama did nothing, you can bet that I’d be mad too. But amazingly, no one blamed Bush for 9/11. Even with the information coming out that Bush knew beforehand. Sounds inconsistent to me.
3. When Bush was told that the nation was under attack, he was in a Florida classroom in the second grade. He sat there for five minutes. Any rational person would immediately excuse himself and asked to be briefed. Bush, however, didn’t do that. Indeed, he didn’t make a public announcement about 9/11 until Sept. 20th, 11 days later! Even FDR made the attack on Pearl Harbor two days after that.
4. Bush had the audacity to tell the American public that the reason why bin Laden hates us is because of our freedoms. That’s not actually true. Bin Laden announced on Nov. 24, 2002 on why he hates America: it’s because we support Israel, we were stationed in Saudi Arabia near the holiest places to the Muslim world, and because we put economic sanctions on Iraq where it starved 1.5 million children but left Hussein unharmed. With this rhetoric, Bush just uses his speech to get people on his side.
In the end, the result is startling: either postmodernism is route to go for, or Bush is a liar. Bugliosi goes for the latter.
Overall, it’s an interesting paradigm shift on the thinking of how Bush handeled 9/11 and the War in Iraq. I don’t think any prosecution will come out, however, but I still think that Bugliosi does a fine job of building up a case. It’s worth a read, but be prepared to add in marginal notes like I did. Also, do not read with any political bias. Read it simply as a case and see where reason (and not your emotions) take you.
However, the message changed. We couldn’t find the WMDs, and links between Hussein and al-Qaeda showed to be false. Thus, the message changed from national security to a real purpose: giving birth to democracy in the Middle East which would spread throughout. Bugliosi brings his first point: if that was the real reason, then Bush has no right to keep this reason a secret from the American people. But with this, many conservatives agree that the real reason was to spread democracy and not to find WMDs or that it was a national security issue. Ok. But if that’s the case, isn’t that an implicit admission that Bush lied to the country initially? Also, even if the point was to bring democracy, a major problem with this is that democracy isn’t just having elections. Bugliosi brings up something that I believe is a good argument but everyone seems to miss: before you can have a political democracy, you must first have a democratic culture. If you don’t have that first, you cannot have a democracy. What’s a democratic culture? Bugliosi says that it’s “a tradition of voluntary associations, a tolerance for nonconformism and pluralism, a shared belief in the dignity of the individual, separation of political power from religious authority and a belief in the legitimacy of the dissent” (p. 265). Now a democracy has a hidden corollary that the majority usually wins. Well, the Shiites are the majority. If a democracy holds out, wouldn’t this mean that the Shiites would be the ruling power? They are extremely religious, much like Iran. Wouldn’t this suggest that this would eventually turn into a theocracy? Indeed, many analysts predict that Iraq is going to be even more hostile to us and become friendly with Iran. Wouldn’t Islamic extremists much more likely to go to a state like this instead of a secular Islamic nation like Saddam Hussein’s was? And shouldn’t the Bush administration known about this?
Now this is just the first chapter. Next, the US was ready to fight Iraq (for whatever reason), but Bush wanted the rest of the world to get involved. Bush knew (notice that italic there) that he couldn’t get the world involved if it was a national threat to the US, thus Bush brought in the motivation of bringing in WMDs so that the world could see that it was a worldly threat, not just a US threat. (Whether this motivation was a lie or not is another thing, however. If it turns out to be a lie, then it seems that Bush could be tried in an international tribunal rather than just a national one, but that’s a tangent.) With that, Bush didn’t use WMDs primarily to get the US motivated for war, he used the WMDs to get the world involved. In other words, Bush is being (or at least trying to be) a realist. Not a good one at that, but mainly it’s because I find neoconservativism a bad strategy, both pragmatically and ideologically.
In the next part, Bugliosi makes a prologue about the prosecution. It’s kind of like the opening remarks in a trial. What does he say? There were many statements that the Bush administration have said that makes one wonder about their preparedness or their seriousness about the war. For example, when Rumsfeld went to Iraq to visit the troops, a lot of the military personal complained that there wasn’t enough armor or protection. Rumsfeld reply was “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” This seems odd. That reply only works if you’re caught off-guard and you have to fight with whatever resources you scrounge up. In the case of Iraq, they had a lot of time to prepare. Thus, Rumsfeld is mistaken. You should not go to war with the Army you have, you should go to war with what is needed and you better prepare yourself for that need.
But Bugliosi makes another interesting claim: Bush wanted war. The previous presidents resent or doubt whether the war they were involved in was the right thing to do. Bush never had any doubts. His concern is that America will win this war. But Bugliosi notes that in previous wars, all of the presidents have asked its citizens to make some sacrifice. Bush never asked. With this, “the president can say we’re a country at war all he wants. We’re not. The military is at war. And the military families are at war. Everybody else is shopping, or watching American Idol.” No one else is sacrificing. And sorry, donations and putting that lame yellow magnetic ribbon on the back of your car doesn’t count. Remember in WWII, everyone contributed to the war cause. No one is contributing to this war except the military. The citizens don’t do anything.
The Prosecution:
Impeachment won’t do it. It’s not enough. The murder of 4,000 Americans is too much just to allow impeachment. Even if Bush somehow apologized or realized that he made a mistake, that’s not enough. He must be prosecuted for murder. So how can Bugliosi do this?
First, the prosecution must show that Bush did have an intent to kill Americans (having a criminal state of mind). Perhaps one of the first things that Bush could do is claim self-defense. However, Bugliosi shows in the previous chapter that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country, therefore self-defense won’t work.
What this means is that if the president goes to war under false pretenses, he intended to fight. With the intention to go to war, he knew that American soldiers would die. Thus, the intention holds. But hold on here, does this follow? Again, it falls to ignorance. Bush did not know that this was a false war. His intention was that this was a proper war. Because of his intentions, this isn’t murder.
At best, Bugliosi could probably go for second-degree murder, but that’s pushing it. Bugliosi doesn’t think so:
Bush’s taking the nation to war would constitute implied malice, that is, an intent to do a highly dangerous act with reckless disregard and indifference to human life, and hence, at least second degree murder in every state, as well as under federal law. (p. 97)
The best we could go for is manslaughter if it comes down to ignorance. But that’s something I never thought before. Ignorance still implies negligence and under the law, you could prosecute someone for manslaughter.
However, Bugliosi does say that even though we can’t really see into someone’s mind and find his or her intent, in a criminal case, we don’t need to. We have to look at the conduct and statement to infer what was on his mind. That’s all that’s needed in a prosecution. (He sites various cases where this is true.) So what is the evidence that Bugliosi provides that not only Bush lead this country to war, but mislead us to war?
First Evidence: The White Paper
In October 15, 2001, Sec. of State, Colin Powell told the press that “Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They’re sad. They’re contained.” Indeed, at the Gulf War, we could see that they were a weak military. We defeated their army on the ground in about 100 hours. Only 128 Americans died, and 44 of those were by accident or friendly fire.
Here’s the thing: no idiot is going to fight the US head-on. So you do one of two things: you can use propaganda (which is what the Taliban and al-Qaeda does) or you just don’t fight at all (which is what Hussein did). Hussein wanted to live and attacking the US or helping someone to attack the US won’t help Hussein’s survival. Bush knew this, but he went ahead and came up with the idea that Hussein was still an imminent threat to the nation. Thus forms the lie.
Another piece: we went after bin Laden, the person responsible for 9/11, but then we went to Iraq and diverted our country’s military and resources to go after Hussein. In the words of my realist professor on Radical Islam: “Big Strategical Error.” Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 (and we officially knew this in 2007 after a study from the Pentagon) and this just shows circumstantial evidence that Bush wanted to go after Hussein all along and 9/11 was the excuse to do so. Indeed, many neoconservatives before Bush came into office have commented that the Bush administration had been dreaming of invading Iraq for years. About a month after 9/11, the CIA concluded that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US and wouldn’t use any weapons against us unless we attacked him first; that is for self-defense. (On another note, I found it odd that Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein has WMD, but he wasn’t worried that he’d use them against us if we fought him.) Bush had to have known this since the CIA briefs him on important matters such as this. But Bush also said that he’ll be deciding based on the latest intelligence. Well, in Oct. 2002, the latest intelligence at the time was Hussein was not an imminent threat. Phrasing Bugliosi:
So when Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.
Bush, it seems, was pushing his own agenda and the media gave him the pass to go to war under false pretenses. With this, this was not an attack based on self-defense.
The hard evidence that Bugliosi provides is what is known as the “White Paper.” In the original classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), there were major differences when it became declassified (which is known as the White Paper): deletions, insertions, and manipulations of words to make it look like Iraq was more menacing that it actually was. Things like:
* Hussein was purchasing aluminum tubes. (Turns out that based on the length, strength, and width, these were more suited for rockets rather than nuclear weapons.)
* A source from Niger telling us information. (Turns out the information wasn’t true.)
* Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. (Turns out that if left unchecked, Iraq could have gotten one in about five years.)
A British official who was the chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (their equivalent of our CIA) told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Bush Administration “wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy.” The Bush Administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq, now they just needed the justification to do so.
When the weapons inspectors went to Iraq and Saddam complied, Bush got worried. Bush originally said that he won’t go to war unless there was a regime change. But now that the inspectors were in and they were saying that there no WMD, Bush changed his words and said (two days before the war) that there’s no need to go to war unless Saddam and his sons leave the country, something that the Bush Administration knew that Hussein wouldn’t comply to do so.
Of course, a reply could be that Hussein didn’t allow the inspectors into everything. The answer is simple: in Arabian culture, you have to look tough. If not, you’re seen weak and you can easily be taken over. He wasn’t trying to look tough to the Americans (because we could easily defeat him). He was trying to look tough to Iran. At the same time, there were Shiites in Iraq and if they knew that Hussein didn’t have weapons, there would surely be an uprising. In the end of this segment, Bugliosi is concluding that Hussein did not have WMDs. I’m not so sure about that as you can see here. (You’ll probably have to right click and “save link as. . .”. Admittedly, Sada does say that Hussein did have chemical and biological but was not making nuclear, which may help Bugliosi’s case, but ironically will hinder him as well.)
Second Evidence: No Link Between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
In this next section, Bush admits on Sept. 17, 2003 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. But the damage was too late. As of June 2006, 90% of American soldiers believed that there was a link and in Sept. 2006, 43% of Americans still believed there was a link. With the knowledge that Bush received from the CIA and the NIE, he had knowledge that there was no link, but he still went to to the American people and said that “we’re taking the fight to those that attacked us.” There’s no other way to interpret that.
Next, when we captured Saddam Hussein, we turned him back to the Iraqi government. That was odd. Granted, we couldn’t give him an international tribunal because it wasn’t a UN fight. However, if the Bush Administration stated that Hussein was responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11, then legally speaking you can bring him to America for murder charges. After all, we had the 20th highjacker (he’s not American) and we still tried him on American soil. I can guarantee you that if we capture bin Laden, we will bring him back to America to try him. It would seem odd that if we capture bin Laden, we turn him to Afghanistan for a trial. So why would Bush let Hussein go to Iraq for a trial? It would seem that letting him be tried in Iraq is an implicit admission that the Bush administration knew that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. When Hussein was captured, there was a document on him that told his supporters to not join other foreign Arab forces in Iraq. This was because he wanted to Ba’ath Party to be powerful again (wishful thinking, I know), but this document implies that he wants nothing to do with al-Qaeda or bin Laden. Al-Qaeda wanted a holy war against the West whereas Saddam and the Ba’ath Party only wanted political power in Iraq. CIA reports also indicate that al-Qaeda had the opportunity to work with Iraq, but bin Laden immediately turned down the proposal. Bluntly speaking, Hussein and bin Laden hate each other.
The 9/11 Commission and Richard Clark (the counter-terrorism adviser from Regan through Bush Jr.) have both stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Clark even told Bush this the day after 9/11 but Bush still told Clark to go find a link.
Bush supporters might say that Zarqawi was in Iraq seven months before the war. That should indicate some link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. While it’s true that Zarqawi was in Iraq (and even in Baghdad), Hussein was unaware of his presence. As soon as Hussein was aware of it, he ordered his intelligence service to capture Zarqawi.
Bugliosi asserts that the Manning Memo shows that, far from making serious efforts to avoid war, Bush considered the possibility of provoking Saddam into starting a war by sending U2 reconnaissance aircraft, falsely painted in UN colors, on flights over Iraq along with fighter escorts, and if Saddam ordered them shot down, it would constitute war. With this, if Bush is serious about Hussein being an imminent threat, why would you go to the enemy and provoke the enemy to fight?
Now who else would be a coconspirator in this? The circumstantial evidence points to Cheney and Rice. Bugliosi believes that if they go down, he would be able to convince them of a plea bargain. With this, the truth will fully come out against Bush. Rumsfeld is a maybe, same with Rove. Powell is probably innocent.
As soon as the prosecutor asks Bush what intelligence agency gave him the information that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US, Bush couldn’t respond because the intelligence was a lie.
Finally, Bugliosi ends the book commenting that Bush was horrible at the war on terror. How so?
1. On Aug. 6, 2001, there was a memo and the title of it was “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” What did the Bush Administration do about it? NOTHING! As the Clinton Administration left the White House, they even recommended to the Bush Administration that Al Qaeda should be their top priority. The CIA and the FBI kept giving out warnings throughout August. But Bush and Rice commented that they did nothing to add new additional steps even to counter that. There wasn’t even a meeting on what to do about it. Indeed, when Bush came into office, Rumsfeld didn’t relaunch the Predator drone that was used by the CIA to track bin Laden, and Wolfowitz shut down the disinformation program to create dissent within the Taliban. Under the Clinton Administration, the counterterrorism budget went up since 1999. It went up from 22.7% in 2001 (and Clinton was only in office for 21 days in 2001!). Ashcroft immediately cut the budget. This shows that the Bush Administration did not take terrorism seriously.
2. Amazingly, he was considered a hero after 9/11. Why? He did nothing! Why should he be considered a hero? No one even blamed him when people should’ve been. He was the guy to stop this, and instead, people were praising him. Here’s the thing: if there was another huge terrorism plot under Obama’s watch, I can guarantee you that people would blame him for it. If counterintelligence showed there was a terrorist attack but Obama did nothing, you can bet that I’d be mad too. But amazingly, no one blamed Bush for 9/11. Even with the information coming out that Bush knew beforehand. Sounds inconsistent to me.
3. When Bush was told that the nation was under attack, he was in a Florida classroom in the second grade. He sat there for five minutes. Any rational person would immediately excuse himself and asked to be briefed. Bush, however, didn’t do that. Indeed, he didn’t make a public announcement about 9/11 until Sept. 20th, 11 days later! Even FDR made the attack on Pearl Harbor two days after that.
4. Bush had the audacity to tell the American public that the reason why bin Laden hates us is because of our freedoms. That’s not actually true. Bin Laden announced on Nov. 24, 2002 on why he hates America: it’s because we support Israel, we were stationed in Saudi Arabia near the holiest places to the Muslim world, and because we put economic sanctions on Iraq where it starved 1.5 million children but left Hussein unharmed. With this rhetoric, Bush just uses his speech to get people on his side.
In the end, the result is startling: either postmodernism is route to go for, or Bush is a liar. Bugliosi goes for the latter.
Overall, it’s an interesting paradigm shift on the thinking of how Bush handeled 9/11 and the War in Iraq. I don’t think any prosecution will come out, however, but I still think that Bugliosi does a fine job of building up a case. It’s worth a read, but be prepared to add in marginal notes like I did. Also, do not read with any political bias. Read it simply as a case and see where reason (and not your emotions) take you.
February 7, 2020
Beyond needing some heavy editing to remove some of the ranting, this book provides an interesting way to look at the events around the war in Iraq. I never talk about or share my political views because no one cares, so I naturally don’t care about the more opinionated parts of the book. But when Bugliosi states facts, quotes, and reliable sources in his witty way it’s an extremely disturbing read. B+
January 5, 2017
"I have "read" one book by Vincent Bugliosi before (I say "read" because it was an audio book) and in that book Bugliosi impressed me with his rather ruthless rigour of thought about an issue that was clouded by too many books and opinions. (His treatment of the Kennedy Assassination is a must-read.)
But this book is a pale imitation. Instead of a rigorous, thorough prosecution of Bush - and there is that in part - we get character assassination, out of control hyperbole and personal attacks against the press...and the reader! It is a very angry polemic. Bugliosi spends tons of time just ripping on Bush as a person. I agree with him about Bush, but that's not the point. The point is that character assassination shouldn't be part of proving Bush did something deplorable. Nor should Bugliosi's endless hyperbole, nor should insulting members of the media, nor should claiming practically all Americans - especially conservatives - are idiots.
Bugliosi is not for a second concerned about why the media and the American public went along with this farce - which to me is the more interesting question - he just thinks they are all idiots for it. I do think Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes at the very least, but I am under no illusions that he ever will be. Bugliosi does lay out a good case for an American prosecutor to go after him, but it is buried in the mess of anger and ranting. This kind of thing might work well in a trial - I don't know, I have never been to a trial - but it doesn't work in book form.
For me, the question for history is how the worst president in US history got re-elected. For Bugliosi, the issue is that some great injustice has been done and we are all idiots for letting it happen. Bugliosi appears to view the world in discredited black and white moral terms that I thought he would be too smart to fall into. He doesn't understand that by claiming that practically everyone else is insane makes the concept of sanity meaningless.
All of this might be somewhat bearable - given that he does lay out many, many compelling reasons to put Bush on trial - if it weren't for the last chapter, a bizarre, unnecessary and frankly embarrassing rant on how the US has declined immeasurably. Now, I would agree that the US is no longer the power it was say 20 years ago, but Bugliosi does so much more than this: the era of his childhood and young adulthood was roses and now everything has gone to shit. When he was young, men were men and leaders were leaders and there were no morally dubious decisions from the US government. This chapter is revisionist nostalgia at its worst and it would have no place in any trial of Bush and therefore should have been excised.
The last chapter takes what is a frustrating but at least fairly accurate rant and turns it into a sermon, and not a very good one. Preaching to the converted doesn't work: if Bugliosi really wanted Bush to go to trial for his actions as President, he should have written something to try to convert those who don't already think Bush is the devil. But this book will convince no one: Bugliosi comes across as so angry that he is far too easy to dismiss, no matter how right he might be about Bush's conduct.
Not worth your time.
Incidentally, to give you an idea of how much of rant this is: the book has well over 100 pages of notes - I think - and rather than just discussing sources the notes are used for additional rants about Bush, Cheney, Rice, the media and the American public."
But this book is a pale imitation. Instead of a rigorous, thorough prosecution of Bush - and there is that in part - we get character assassination, out of control hyperbole and personal attacks against the press...and the reader! It is a very angry polemic. Bugliosi spends tons of time just ripping on Bush as a person. I agree with him about Bush, but that's not the point. The point is that character assassination shouldn't be part of proving Bush did something deplorable. Nor should Bugliosi's endless hyperbole, nor should insulting members of the media, nor should claiming practically all Americans - especially conservatives - are idiots.
Bugliosi is not for a second concerned about why the media and the American public went along with this farce - which to me is the more interesting question - he just thinks they are all idiots for it. I do think Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes at the very least, but I am under no illusions that he ever will be. Bugliosi does lay out a good case for an American prosecutor to go after him, but it is buried in the mess of anger and ranting. This kind of thing might work well in a trial - I don't know, I have never been to a trial - but it doesn't work in book form.
For me, the question for history is how the worst president in US history got re-elected. For Bugliosi, the issue is that some great injustice has been done and we are all idiots for letting it happen. Bugliosi appears to view the world in discredited black and white moral terms that I thought he would be too smart to fall into. He doesn't understand that by claiming that practically everyone else is insane makes the concept of sanity meaningless.
All of this might be somewhat bearable - given that he does lay out many, many compelling reasons to put Bush on trial - if it weren't for the last chapter, a bizarre, unnecessary and frankly embarrassing rant on how the US has declined immeasurably. Now, I would agree that the US is no longer the power it was say 20 years ago, but Bugliosi does so much more than this: the era of his childhood and young adulthood was roses and now everything has gone to shit. When he was young, men were men and leaders were leaders and there were no morally dubious decisions from the US government. This chapter is revisionist nostalgia at its worst and it would have no place in any trial of Bush and therefore should have been excised.
The last chapter takes what is a frustrating but at least fairly accurate rant and turns it into a sermon, and not a very good one. Preaching to the converted doesn't work: if Bugliosi really wanted Bush to go to trial for his actions as President, he should have written something to try to convert those who don't already think Bush is the devil. But this book will convince no one: Bugliosi comes across as so angry that he is far too easy to dismiss, no matter how right he might be about Bush's conduct.
Not worth your time.
Incidentally, to give you an idea of how much of rant this is: the book has well over 100 pages of notes - I think - and rather than just discussing sources the notes are used for additional rants about Bush, Cheney, Rice, the media and the American public."
October 29, 2012
I'm three chapters into this book, and I can only conclude with horror that George W. Bush is a complete psychopath. No, worse: A psychopath who doesn't believe the Constitution and rule of law applies to him. Here I was thinking maybe he'd have sense enough not to attack Iran and/or Syria before he gets out of office. Now I'll be really surprised if he doesn't, along about September or October.
In the first three chapters of this book, Bugliosi juxtaposes the words and behaviors of our smirking, self-made "war-time president" with events and commentaries happening at the same time that he would have been aware of. These juxtapositions completely dispel the myth that this president "suffers" over the Iraq war or that he deeply "loves America." (Metaphorically, I'd say it's more like he derives sadistic pleasure from blowing up countries, including America, just like he enjoyed blowing up frogs as a kid.)
My only criticism of Bugliosi's writing so far is that he refers to all the troops as being male. (That's probably a particular cohort bias that, nevertheless, should have been caught by his editor.) We have lost female soldiers, too, to the carnage in Iraq. His outrage at Bush does come through in places in a less than dispassionate way. I have no problem with this, however, because it mirrors my own outrage and the outrage that we as a nation must feel at what Bush has and has not done. (I would suggest that those who are not feeling outrage are insulated from reality, asleep, or dead.)
[UPDATE: Another reader pointed out that I had not read far enough into the book to realize that Bugliosi does include female soldiers. In my Kindle edition, up through the first three chapters that I'd read when I posted my review, his mentions did not include the women. But he rectified that later on. I'm sure it was just a slight editorial mishap that will be corrected promptly.]
I want to see this man, George W. Bush, and those who were complicit in engineering the invasion of Iraq (Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, especially) prosecuted as the heartless, gutless criminals and traitors that they are. I want to see them bent to their knees before the rule of law and the Constitution they so arrogantly thought they could ignore or dismantle. Before reading the legal argument, however, I have to put it down for a day or so to get over this strong feeling of revulsion I have at reading the name "George W. Bush."
Finally, I want to thank the author for shaking me out of my reluctance to look at "the situation on the ground," both here and in Iraq. I've been fighting hard against this war well before we even went into it, but I confess that I've become totally numb and haven't wanted to think about it at all. Like many, I've been hoping that maybe I could just close my eyes for a while and the nightmare would soon be over. But that numbness is a complete betrayal of our spirit as a nation and our troops. Our troops don't get to close their eyes, then wake up from the nightmare when it's over. For them, it will never be over. The least we can do is give them justice and end this God-forsaken war.
In the first three chapters of this book, Bugliosi juxtaposes the words and behaviors of our smirking, self-made "war-time president" with events and commentaries happening at the same time that he would have been aware of. These juxtapositions completely dispel the myth that this president "suffers" over the Iraq war or that he deeply "loves America." (Metaphorically, I'd say it's more like he derives sadistic pleasure from blowing up countries, including America, just like he enjoyed blowing up frogs as a kid.)
My only criticism of Bugliosi's writing so far is that he refers to all the troops as being male. (That's probably a particular cohort bias that, nevertheless, should have been caught by his editor.) We have lost female soldiers, too, to the carnage in Iraq. His outrage at Bush does come through in places in a less than dispassionate way. I have no problem with this, however, because it mirrors my own outrage and the outrage that we as a nation must feel at what Bush has and has not done. (I would suggest that those who are not feeling outrage are insulated from reality, asleep, or dead.)
[UPDATE: Another reader pointed out that I had not read far enough into the book to realize that Bugliosi does include female soldiers. In my Kindle edition, up through the first three chapters that I'd read when I posted my review, his mentions did not include the women. But he rectified that later on. I'm sure it was just a slight editorial mishap that will be corrected promptly.]
I want to see this man, George W. Bush, and those who were complicit in engineering the invasion of Iraq (Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, especially) prosecuted as the heartless, gutless criminals and traitors that they are. I want to see them bent to their knees before the rule of law and the Constitution they so arrogantly thought they could ignore or dismantle. Before reading the legal argument, however, I have to put it down for a day or so to get over this strong feeling of revulsion I have at reading the name "George W. Bush."
Finally, I want to thank the author for shaking me out of my reluctance to look at "the situation on the ground," both here and in Iraq. I've been fighting hard against this war well before we even went into it, but I confess that I've become totally numb and haven't wanted to think about it at all. Like many, I've been hoping that maybe I could just close my eyes for a while and the nightmare would soon be over. But that numbness is a complete betrayal of our spirit as a nation and our troops. Our troops don't get to close their eyes, then wake up from the nightmare when it's over. For them, it will never be over. The least we can do is give them justice and end this God-forsaken war.
April 23, 2017
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder provides conclusive evidence for prosecuting George W. Bush for Murder!
Author Vincent Bugliosi outlines the legal course that can be taken to bring not only George W. Bush on charges of murder but also Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice!
Bugliosi provides evidence of Bush’s involvement with Al-Qaeda and 911, and evidence that Bush knew Sudan Hussein never had WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
Bugliosi provides evidence of how George W. Bush gave $1.3 trillion tax break for the upper 1% while under-funding and understaffing military medical facilities for the soldiers who came back with missing limbs, blind, or in a casket for George W. Bush’s made-up war.
Bugliosi provides evidence of how George W. Bush converted a country free of terrorists into one with many; how American soldiers gave their lives to serve the political interest of George W. Bush, Carl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Bugliosi describes George W. Bush as a spoiled callus brat who became president riding on his father’s coattail; Carl Rove as a pasty, weak faced and mean spirited political criminal and how neither he nor George W. Bush are of stature, honor and gravitas.
Bugliosi provides evidence that Bush used his father’s influence to get into the National Guard so he wouldn’t be sent to Vietnam; Rove got a deferment and Cheney got five deferments stating he had other priorities.
Vincent Bugliosi provides evidence that Hussein was an enemy of George H. Bush and George W. Bush and not an enemy of the American People.
Author Bugliosi will provide evidence how George W. Bush, with the help of Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice made our country unsafe and made our country a target for terrorism!
I do not recommend this book to those who voted republican but who are financially poor, have lost their jobs; those who have lost their homes and are now living in shelters, automobiles, in cardboard boxes, on park benches, or in doorways; those who profess to be Christian but will turn a blind eye to the crimes George W. Bush has committed war crimes against The United States of America and the American people.
If I were asked what I’d like for my birthday, I’d say I’d like for the American people to stop voting rich psychopaths into office. My gut tells me that George W. Bush will be prosecuted for murder but not until years after his death because that’s how things work in this country.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and Condoleezza Rice, what a legacy to leave for your family for generations to come.
Author Vincent Bugliosi outlines the legal course that can be taken to bring not only George W. Bush on charges of murder but also Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice!
Bugliosi provides evidence of Bush’s involvement with Al-Qaeda and 911, and evidence that Bush knew Sudan Hussein never had WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
Bugliosi provides evidence of how George W. Bush gave $1.3 trillion tax break for the upper 1% while under-funding and understaffing military medical facilities for the soldiers who came back with missing limbs, blind, or in a casket for George W. Bush’s made-up war.
Bugliosi provides evidence of how George W. Bush converted a country free of terrorists into one with many; how American soldiers gave their lives to serve the political interest of George W. Bush, Carl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Bugliosi describes George W. Bush as a spoiled callus brat who became president riding on his father’s coattail; Carl Rove as a pasty, weak faced and mean spirited political criminal and how neither he nor George W. Bush are of stature, honor and gravitas.
Bugliosi provides evidence that Bush used his father’s influence to get into the National Guard so he wouldn’t be sent to Vietnam; Rove got a deferment and Cheney got five deferments stating he had other priorities.
Vincent Bugliosi provides evidence that Hussein was an enemy of George H. Bush and George W. Bush and not an enemy of the American People.
Author Bugliosi will provide evidence how George W. Bush, with the help of Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice made our country unsafe and made our country a target for terrorism!
I do not recommend this book to those who voted republican but who are financially poor, have lost their jobs; those who have lost their homes and are now living in shelters, automobiles, in cardboard boxes, on park benches, or in doorways; those who profess to be Christian but will turn a blind eye to the crimes George W. Bush has committed war crimes against The United States of America and the American people.
If I were asked what I’d like for my birthday, I’d say I’d like for the American people to stop voting rich psychopaths into office. My gut tells me that George W. Bush will be prosecuted for murder but not until years after his death because that’s how things work in this country.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and Condoleezza Rice, what a legacy to leave for your family for generations to come.
October 13, 2016
When it comes to the disgraceful chapter in U.S. history that was the two-term (!) administration of that warmongering buffoon George W. Bush, every American, every human being, should feel the same anguished rage that darkens almost every page of Mr. Bugliosi's Prosecution.
The author does do his best to remain dispassionate when describing that administration's criminal war against the people of Iraq, but despite his stature as one of this country's better-known prosecuting attorneys and legal experts, he is after all only human and shouldn't be judged too harshly for losing his professional cool at so despicable and unnecessary a disaster.
Where he maintains that cool is in the way Bugliosi builds his case charge by charge against not only the felonious Bush but his neocon accomplices. No lie or dirty trick of theirs is left unexamined as we watch in horror while Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest lead a gullible electorate down the dark path of an unjust and immoral war. Upward of a quarter-million dead, 2.5 trillion dollars down the rabbit hole, the birth of ISIS coupled with the death of much of America's prestige in the eyes of the world.... I say charge the bastard with not only murder but treason.
And to think our 43rd president could have, lawfully should have been Al Gore, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, humanitarian, prophet, genius, gentleman. Instead we get some smarmy, under-educated, religiously fundamentalist frat-boy who Bugliosi quotes in his book as stating, even as the Iraqi war raged and American men and women in uniform were dying, that being president was a lot of fun, and "I'm having the time of my life."
Mass murder, high treason, a callousness to make the blood run cold.... if it was anyone but that walking catastrophe who managed to steal the White House in the 2000 election, people wouldn't only be demanding an arrest and conviction but the death penalty.
The author does do his best to remain dispassionate when describing that administration's criminal war against the people of Iraq, but despite his stature as one of this country's better-known prosecuting attorneys and legal experts, he is after all only human and shouldn't be judged too harshly for losing his professional cool at so despicable and unnecessary a disaster.
Where he maintains that cool is in the way Bugliosi builds his case charge by charge against not only the felonious Bush but his neocon accomplices. No lie or dirty trick of theirs is left unexamined as we watch in horror while Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest lead a gullible electorate down the dark path of an unjust and immoral war. Upward of a quarter-million dead, 2.5 trillion dollars down the rabbit hole, the birth of ISIS coupled with the death of much of America's prestige in the eyes of the world.... I say charge the bastard with not only murder but treason.
And to think our 43rd president could have, lawfully should have been Al Gore, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, humanitarian, prophet, genius, gentleman. Instead we get some smarmy, under-educated, religiously fundamentalist frat-boy who Bugliosi quotes in his book as stating, even as the Iraqi war raged and American men and women in uniform were dying, that being president was a lot of fun, and "I'm having the time of my life."
Mass murder, high treason, a callousness to make the blood run cold.... if it was anyone but that walking catastrophe who managed to steal the White House in the 2000 election, people wouldn't only be demanding an arrest and conviction but the death penalty.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews