|
But, this is America; a land where we embrace free speech, right. But it is difficult to fault him for his passion. Most Americans would say the audacity for another American to make such a charge against their President is at the very least unpatriotic if not treasonous. A very tall order even in the current polarized political climate. From the outset, Mr. A man is innocent until proven guilty, however they would have a very difficult time taking down Mr. Bugliosi stands politically and he does get very personal in his attacks of the administration. His case is built slowly and methodically drawing the reader down the path to what he believes is the only logical conclusion.It is very clear where Mr.
Lee Bailey to write "The Defense of George W. Mr. Bugliosi asks the reader to keep his mind open while he presents, what is in his opinion, the legal framework and supporting evidence to prosecute the President of The United of States of America for murder. My wish is for someone like F. Disagree and ridicule his writing style, his tone, his conclusion, but you cannot say his facts are inaccurate. Bugliosi succeeds brilliantly in using the meticulously documented, undisputed facts to build and support his case. Bush on the Charge of Murder". Bugliosi.
The Prosecution of Vincent Bugliosi for Treason would be a much more realistic book. Unless Mrs. Why. Whomever might write it would have ALL the facts. Bugliosi has access to information that he will never have access to, and has actually tested his theories against a vigorous defense, then he should keep his fantasies to himself. Anyone can make a case for anything if there is no rebuttal, which only emphasizes his cowardice treason.
Then and only then, try to reconcile the two. We "Christian" Americans are analogous to King Theoden, Grima is Sean Hannity (and Bill O'Reilly) while Fox News is the dreaded Eye of Sauron - built by Roger Ailes expressly for the advance of greed and power over all attempts to suppress their combined conquest of the Earth. When Gandolf comes to awaken us from our delusions his disposition appears immoderate, hateful, or even violent, but these are all words that Grima would use to describe Gandolf at his approach. Shall we slumber like Theoden. Turn off Fox and read his book. The Patriot Act is the bomb placed under the wall. Our Constitution is like Helm's Deep - the last hope for open, representative government.
The Neocons are the mutant earth-born Uruk hai who beat the drums of war and carry the bomb under the wall. In order to protect themselves, they must keep Theoden stupid, corrupt all his guards and they must destroy or neutralize Helm's deep. Vincent Bugliosi reminds me of Gandolf in the Two Towers scene when he undertakes the task of breaking the spell that Grima has cast on Theoden. Gandolf wants to give Theoden his mind and his soul back.Unlike the movie though, there is no wizard with a stick and magical esoterica. Just a guy with a book who knows a murder when he sees one. Try this. What has it done to us. Think of how many hours we have all spent basked in that terrible glow.
We are like Theoden because we have been talked out of almost every founding ideal and have become religiously "Laodicean"; wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. Ask your self which one, Fox TV or Vincent Bugliosi is more like Grima, and which is more like Gandolf. "Who is HE to so abuse our slumbering king", they might object. Grima would shout "this is heresy, dangerous rebellion or ANARCHY." But Gandolf only wishes to restore Theoden's original perception, abilities, strength and status. But just as Gandolf had to get right up close and in the King's face to speak his words and break the spell, you cannot do this test without reading the book. If Bugliosi seems at first like a madman, maybe that is because we have become like Theoden: dumbed, dulled and insensate to what our country has been doing in our name, and through our collective power.
Very detailed prosecution case with overwhelming justification for prosecution.I like Bugliosi's writing and previous books, but this one seems a bit overdone. Just the opion of a lay person.
According to at least one of them, Bin Laden paid more and so was allowed to escape. Bush's false claim in his State of the Union address that Hussein had tried to get uranium from Africa is a third. invasion was imminent.Yet the White House insisted that Saddam could attack "any day" and that war was an "urgent" necessity. Evidence: for the first several months, the Administration relied on local warlords rather than on the U.S. prosecutor (he got the Charles Manson "family" convicted) and the author of numerous books, including an exhaustive study of the Warren Report and the JFK assassination (conclusion: the Commission got it right).Bugliosi quotes extensively from news reports and the 9/11 Commission to show first that the Bush administration cavalierly ignored nearly eight months of increasingly alarming CIA warnings about an Al Qaeda attack.
Bugliosi also argues that the invasion of Afghanistan was mishandled from the start. Bugliosi unfortunately wastes many early pages on sarcastic judgments of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rove that hardly bear on his case. Vincent Bugliosi is a celebrated former L.A. But the heart of the book is Bugliosi's argument that the Bush Administration lied, knowingly and repeatedly, to Congress and the American people about the supposed threat presented by Saddam Hussein.
That's just one example. He rejects the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job." The accusation of "murder" comes from the evidence that Bush knowingly misled the country into war for no good reason, despite positive knowledge that it would cause thousands of American deaths. military to catch Bin Laden. It also pressured the CIA to justify an attack on Iraq. The final chapter, which castigates the public and for its short attention span and passivity, won't win the author too many friends despite its probable accuracy.
This indictment of ex-President Bush, published early last year, is the most disturbing book I've read in a very long time. The British intelligence memo that U.S. policy seemed to be based on justifying war no matter what the evidence is another. Wisely, Bugliosi refrains from speculating on why Bush was so bent on war with Iraq (though the kindest explanation is that he mostly wanted to fight and win a war against a bad guy). Furthermore, postwar policy was so miserably planned as to virtually insure the chaos that occurred. However, the facts in this book will not go away and it seems impossible to explain them away. One CIA memo suggested that an attack might involve hijacked airliners and target New York; another warned of "calamitous" effects.
As an independent voter who originally supported John McCain, I give Bugliosi's book five stars for bringing the record together and in spite of the angry sarcasm of its presentation. The Administration thus falsely led them into a war for no rational defensive purpose. Just one of the numerous "smoking guns" that Bugliosi presents (all were reported earlier in the media): when the Senate Intelligence Committee requested a declassified version of the CIA report on Hussein that could be released to the public, the White House version erased (among all expressions of uncertainty about Hussein's presumed arsenal) the paragraph explicitly stating the Agency's belief that Hussein even with WMD, would not attack the United States unless he believed a U.S. The photo section, which contrasts pictures of suffering with photos of George Bush laughing and celebrating at various social events during the war's darkest days is a cheap shot. On the other hand, it seems that we all have plenty to be angry about.
|
