The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Before I ever picked up this book, I'll readily admit I was quite apprehensive and skeptical about its severe anti-Bush content. But after reading Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder", any skepticism I had completely vanished.As Mr. Bugliosi has said many times throughout his lengthy career as a lawyer and true-crime author, he doesn't go around accusing people of crimes or making allegations (of any kind) without having the goods (i.e., the evidence) to back up the charges he makes. To quote Bugliosi directly and verbatim on this point:"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- Vincent T. BugliosiIn "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder", as is the case in all of his books (including the best and most comprehensive book ever written on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,  "Reclaiming History" ), author Bugliosi pulls no punches, takes no prisoners, and lays it all out there on the table--bare--for everybody to look at. It's incredible work--once again--by the king of "CS&L" (which is my little shorthand for "Common Sense & Logic").And as with virtually all of Vincent's books that I've had the pleasure of reading, I'm learning a lot about the law and learning a lot about my country's leaders that I did not know before VB spelled everything out in his very coherent, easy-to-read, and easy-to-understand style.Bugliosi makes it quite clear, via an abundance of evidence (including quotes from Bush's own mouth that were uttered on live television to millions of American viewers), that President George W. Bush should be held accountable for the lives lost in the Iraq war....a war that Bush, himself, ignited for totally-bogus reasons.It seems to me, however, that certain members of Congress (who voted to go to war in October 2002) should also take their fair share of blame as well with respect to the Iraq war*, in that the critical classified CIA report (the one that was ultimately revised and mangled by Bush's people for its "unclassified" version, with the references to Saddam Hussein NOT being an imminent threat to the security of the United States being completely deleted in the unclassified version--an inexcusable act of blatantly altering evidence if there ever was one, IMO) was right there and available for every senator and congressman to examine and scrutinize.But evidently only a handful of Congress members bothered to even read the full NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report that was issued by the CIA on October 1, 2002. They trusted what President Bush and his people were telling them.But, as Mr. Bugliosi quite amply demonstrates in this book, "trusting" anything uttered by George Walker Bush regarding the subject of going to war in Iraq was a very, very grave error.* = To Bugliosi's credit here, in this book's first endnote on page 251, Vince does hurl a (deserved) and sharply-pointed arrow at certain members of Congress when he writes: "Just a few of the many other parents of the Iraq war are the considerable number of spineless congressional Democrats who rolled over and played dead during Bush's rush to war, actually voting to authorize it."One of the things that surprised me the most (as Mr. Bugliosi was "spoon-feeding" [as Vince is wont to say] the facts to me about George Bush's incredible laziness and ineptitude as Commander-in-Chief) is the information that Vince provides the reader beginning on page 176 of the book about how Bush did NOTHING AT ALL when confronted with the various warning signs that were popping up throughout the summer of 2001 regarding Osama Bin Laden and his band of terrorists shortly before 9/11.The complete NON-action on the part of THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when "the system was blinking red" and could not "get any worse", per comments made to the 9/11 Commission by CIA Director George Tenet (i.e., we're likely to be attacked by terrorists within our own shores any day now) is, as Bugliosi says in the book, enough to make your "blood boil" right there!That inaction on the part of this laziest of all Presidents (George W. Bush) in those pre-9/11 days and months is, in my mind, practically criminal activity (or, to state it more accurately--"inactivity") all by itself.And when coupled with what Bush did after 9/11, I almost felt as if I had entered an episode of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" or something -- i.e., I had to keep asking myself "How could these things possibly have occurred?" while watching Vince Bugliosi assemble all of these abominable facts relating to a person who is supposed to be one of the strongest and most-trusted individuals on the face of the planet--the President of the United States.As VB says many times in the book, it's simply "unbelievable". But, incredibly, as Vince has shown with the raw evidence, it's true nonetheless.As I said earlier, before reading the book I had very serious doubts about whether I was going to be able to agree with Bugliosi on this book's subject matter. And I even said that very thing in an Internet message I wrote in February 2008, three months before this book came out. I said at that time: "I know that VB pretty much despises George W. Bush -- well, let me qualify that last statement, though, because I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth....Vince is on record (in [a] September 1, 2001, radio interview) as saying that he thinks Bush is an "embarrassment" as President. .... But I must admit, that the heavy title of that new book really took me by surprise ("The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder") when I first noticed it. .... I'll probably buy the book, but based on its title ONLY, I'm not too sure that I'm going to fully agree with everything in it. (And I'm certainly no GW Bush cheerleader myself.) .... But, then again, I might end up eating those last words I just wrote. You never can tell--because VB is the King of "CS&L", IMO. So he might just be able to convince me that our current President is actually guilty of "murder" (somehow). But that might be taking things a bit too far, in my view. But, we'll see." -- David Von Pein; February 21, 2008Hey, does anybody out there have some ketchup? Because I'm ready to start eating those words I said in February.===========================A FEW VINCENT BUGLIOSI (VB) QUOTES:"No political figures in American history ever so shamelessly exploited a war for political advantage as much as [George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney]. .... Bush is obviously not a man of stature. He's a spoiled, callous brat who became president only because of his father's good name. And Rove is a pasty, weak-faced, and mean-spirited political criminal. ...."These two [Bush and Rove] are human embarrassments, and it's written all over their faces who they are. There's nothing of substance and character on the inside of either of these two "men" for their faces to reflect." -- VB; Page 44 of "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" (Vanguard Press)(c.2008)~~~~~~~~"Because of what [George] Bush said in his State of the Union address [on January 28, 2003], America could only think that there was a strong possibility that [Saddam] Hussein was planning a nuclear attack on us, exactly what Bush and his people wanted them to believe to build up their claim of self-defense...in going to war."The information was phony and the Bush administration had been told it was phony, but Bush and his people decided to lie to the American public to drag them into a horrendous war. ...."Has any American president, ever, engaged in such monumentally criminal and deadly activity? No. Indeed, I don't believe any other president would even have dreamed of doing such a thing."If all of the above, enough to enrage a saint, doesn't make your blood boil, it's only because you are a bloodless wonder, and belong as a feature exhibit at the Smithsonian." -- VB; Pages 129-130 of "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" (Vanguard Press)(c.2008)~~~~~~~~"I must...make an observation about a phenomenon that is terribly vapid and irrational, one that is almost solely responsible for the great favor with which the American people viewed Bush, giving him the Oval Office a second time. Bush's approval rating at the time of 9/11 was around 50 percent. Since 9/11 happened on his watch it should have dropped to 10 percent overnight. That is, if we're talking logic and common sense. ...."But a different reality took over that I've seen over and over again. You see, most everyday Americans don't seem to know, the media doesn't know, even the 'New York Times' editorial board doesn't know that CREDIT NECESSARILY IMPLIES A CHOICE."You don't give anyone any credit for something he had no choice but to do. But apparently not too many people have enough common sense to realize this. ...."All Bush had to say was that he intended to go after those responsible for 9/11...and almost the entire nation swooned, and his approval rating soared to an astronomical 90 percent almost overnight. (In fact, in the Gallup poll's annual survey of Americans in 2001, 39 percent chose Bush as the man they admired most in the entire world, the highest ranking any man had ever received since Gallup started asking the question...in 1948.)"But what else could he have said--that he was NOT going to go after these people? .... Or that he was going to seek justice for 9/11 by going after whale hunters in Alaska?"Obviously, he said the ONLY thing he could say, the ONLY thing that you, I, or anyone else would have said. Yet virtually the entire American public, Republicans and Democrats alike, thought Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread. ...."It's hard to see how Bush could possibly have been more negligent and irresponsible in defending this nation against terrorism prior to 9/11. So when 9/11 happened, the nation should have been thoroughly disgusted with him. .... Instead...Bush miraculously [became] a hero of 9/11. So much of a hero, in fact...he showed footage of 9/11 as part of his television ads for reelection. UNBELIEVABLY, BUSH WAS ADVERTISING HIS BIGGEST FAILURE." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB; Pages 196-197 and 204 of "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" (Vanguard Press)(c.2008)~~~~~~~~"Karen [an angry caller who phoned in during a radio program to rake Bugliosi over the coals] doesn't care....she loves George Bush....she doesn't care whether he committed murder or not." -- VB; May 30, 2008; Via radio interview on KHOW (Denver, Colorado)===========================FINAL THOUGHT:"The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" is a disturbing book indeed. There can be no doubt about that. But it's a book that needed to be written. And I want to thank Vincent Bugliosi for writing it. I applaud him loudly for the immense courage that it took to write the scathing words that appear within the 352 pages of this book.David Von PeinJune 2008

I am merely a law student studying for the bar, but the two issues that you bring up fall within my perview. The first issue is could the president pardon himself. The second issue is whether the president (or former president) is immune from prosecution for the official acts undertaken while he is serving as the head of the executive branch of our government.In regards to the first issue: Whether the President could pardon himself.... Here is what the fount of knowledge that all those studying for the bar turn to (Barbri) has to say. On page 19 of their Multistate 2007 (MS 2007) book in re pardons: The President is empowered by Article II section 2, "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The power has been held to apply before, during, or after a person is at trial. Also the pardon power, cannot be limited by Congress, and includes the power to commute a sentance on any conditions the President chooses, as long as they are not independantly unconstitutional. [Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)] (( Barbri WS2007 pg. 19 (2007).Therefore, hypothetically, if it was reasonably forseeable that the incoming administration was going to attempt to indicte the former President he could but the kebash on it prior to it ever really getting going.Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the issue of whether the actions that he performs while under the guise of President (and therefore chief executive) most likely would be granted immunity. Again turning to the Bible of Bar prep.... Executive Immunity a. Absolute immunity for the President.... The President has absolute immunity from civil damages based on any action that the President took within his official responsibilities (even if the action was only arguably within the "outer perimeter" of presidential responsibility). [Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)] The immunity is intended only to enable the President to perform his designated functions without fear of personal liability. [Barbri MS 2007 pg. 21 (2007).]The burden of proof is much lower in a civil trial then in a criminal trial. Members of the federal government are immune from legal liability for most actions undertaken within the course of their job performance. For example, something said during a legislative session (by a legislator), in court (by a judge), or by the President to the media (see his Jessica Simpson comments), if uttered by the general public may be slanderous. However, because it is uttered by a government official within the course of their duties the speaker is immune from prosecution.Finally, consider the seperation of powers that serves as one of the cornerstone principles of our Constitution. If members of the executive branch or the legislative branch were generally ameanable to prosecution then it would have a chilling effect on the functioning of our government. People (individual citizens) and states (individual states) could significantly hamper the efficency of the federal government. Essentially, it would be a political question that the judiciary would not want to touch with a 10 foot pole.If we are talking impeachment, first you need a majority vote in the House to invoke the charges necessary for impeachment. The House is currently divided on party lines as follows: 236 Democrats and 199 Republicans. Again, some of these honorable legislators are not going to want to see the office of the chief executive tarnished. However, assuming arguendo that the House passed charges to impeach you would still face a significant obstacle.The second obstacle to face is the fact that you need a 2/3 vote by Congress to impeach. The 110th Congress is split 51-49 in favor of democrats as far as composition. I find it highly unlikely even accepting that G.W. Bush is the most unpopular president ever, that 1/3 of the Republican senators would vote for impeachment (along with 100% of the democrats). All in all it is very unlikely to happen.All that being said.... I consider Vincent Bugliosi my legal idol. He is a brillant man of impecable character. I have read every book that he has written (except for his two most recent offerings but what can I say law school slows down your recreational reading). I know that our government is not functioning in the way it should. I hope many who take the time to surf the internet or blog about the problems with our government will also take the time to vote this November. I hope that the next administration returns the emphasis to taking care of our citizens, as opposed to big corporations.

I like Vincent Bugliosi’s books and this one had a great message to convey regarding the reckless decision making in initiating the Iraq war. It is well researched and has sound legal arguments, but the anger laced into the writing detracted from the message. He didn’t need it, all the facts were there to show that the decisions made led to a huge loss of life and were unconscionable.

Just to verify that I received this book.

Ein hervorragendes, spannendes Buch, das schonungslos mit dem ehemaligen mächtigsten Mann der Welt ins Gericht geht und die Verfehlungen dieser Regierung aufzeigt und anklagt. Leider hat noch kein US-Staat die berechtigte Anklage gegen G.W. Bush erhoben, - aber vielleicht hat mal ein Staat den Mut….Man sollte das Buch weiterempfehlen und verschenken.

Not received as yet please try again

Vince Bugliosi's book is a passionate argument for why GWB should be prosecuted for the crime of murder. It's articulate, intelligent and based firmly on the facts and if you've had any doubts that calls for his prosecution are just sour grapes, this book will remove them.Read it and weep for the hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed. Maybe, after GWB's brought to task for what he's done, we'll be able to prosecute Blair too.

著者のビンセント・ブリオーシ氏は、106件の重罪刑事事件を106件起訴し、105件で有罪判決を得て、またチャールズ・マンソン事件等で、殺人事件を21件起訴して21件とも有罪判決を得た検察官だそうです。実務的な人物なのは経歴が示しています。「私は民主党支持だが、もし民主党の大統領がブッシュと同じことをしたとすれば、私は全く同じ内容の本を書くであろうことを100％保証する。証拠と客観性だけでこの本を書いた。これは政治的な内容ではない。女こども老人赤ん坊を含む10万人のイラク人を殺し、米国人兵士を路上爆弾で吹き飛ばさせながら『楽しく』人生を送るテキサスの特権階級の息子ブッシュ。徴兵逃れ・無知蒙昧なブッシュ。かつて尊敬を受ける国であった米国は、文明国から軽蔑の目を持ってみられるようになった。」とかなり激越な調子。・ブッシュが大統領職を退任した後なら、いつでも、第一級殺人罪で起訴可能である。連邦での起訴も可能。各州での起訴も可能。一都市での起訴も可能。・起訴すれば現在揃っている証拠だけで確実に、ブッシュを有罪（死刑、保釈の可能性のない終身懲役）にすることができる。・ディック・チェニー、コンドリーザ・ライス、カール・ローブも共犯として第一級殺人罪で起訴できる。ただし、司法取引によって死刑を免れさせて、犯罪の全容をしゃべらせる。がこの本の結論です。いわゆる左翼などではない著者がこのような本を書くまでに、イラク戦争の被害が米国民の中にも広がっているということなのでしょう。読む価値のある本だと思いました。