The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

I just finished reading The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. Most may recognize this man as the prosecutor for the Charles Manson cases. He is a very well respected and extremely credible prosecutor/lawyer. I'm sure many right off the bat of hearing that Title or seeing it at a bookstore would immediately cast it off as 'fringe' or ludicrous. Two reasons that may happen: 1.) People find the notion of even prosecuting a President of the United absolutely impossible or for some, it shouldn't even happen. That would hurt America or whatever reason they want to give. 2.) To then prosecute the President for murder and specifically, over four thousand murders seems borderline insanity.

However, dismiss all of those preconceived notions you may or may not have about Vincent, about the Title of the book and about President George W. Bush. The author does a remarkable job of disspelling all of those notions and building a staggering case against the President that seems plausible and feels you with hope that someday it may actually come to frution; even if ten years from now. I myself am going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you read this book in full and aren't outraged, you are missing a heart and a soul (and especially a brain). Now that isn't to say I think you should actually agree with Vincent in that Bush should be charged with the deaths of over four thousand dead American soldiers. However, I believe you would concur with Vincent and with others, that at the least Bush has committed crimes and should be placed in a court of justice to adhere to these crimes.

There are certain points I want to highlight in my review. There is an incredible amount of content here. So I'll try to be quick. And even if you haven't read the book, I do this in such a way where it doesn't matter. Also, some of the later ones are points where I disagree with Vincent's assessment of a given situation.

Starting with page thirteen Vincent starts with the above point I made. He suggests dismissing Thoreau's statement that 'it is very difficult to see what is right in front of our eyes'. Get rid of the notion that just because he is the President, he can't engage in something of great criminality. For some, regular Americans and politicians alike, the Presidency is something of an institution to be protected at all costs or else we harm our image as America and Americans. I would say, we harm our image as America and Americans if we tolerate criminality from a President.

Going to page seventeen makes an incredible point (one of many). After the WMD reason for going to war against Saddam in Iraq was dismissed, Bush and his cronies came up with the reason for going to war was to 'free the Iraqi people from Saddam's despotic rule'. But we all know, we all know we would never have gone to war if that was the main reason from the beginning. No American would have accepted that war. As Vincent says, "If that is justification for going to war; over the last seventy-five years, every day of every year we would be in wars all over the globe." As he goes on to say, "We would have been fighting, in among other places, Russia, China, and Cambodia. At this moment, we'd be fighting in Darfur, Iran, North Korea , Cuba, etc." To further illustrate his point, Vince suggets, "What if we invaded Russia in 1950? To free the Russian people from Stalin's rule? After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a brutal, bloody war, we topple Stalin. We bring him to justice and execute him. We then go home and then proceed to invade China to free the Chinese people of Mao's rule. If this sounds crazy to you, its because it is." I agree Vincent. We don't have the treasure and we certainly don't have the blood to die for all of mankind to be free.

Jumping to page thirty-five. If this section of the book doesn't infuriate you, nothing will. Getting the past (for now) the idea that Bush lied and manipulated the country to go to war, he sent the soldiers to war without the proper equipment. That's abominable as Vincent says. Soldiers were literally writing home asking for loved ones to send body armor.

And getting to the even more infuriating part, if this doesn't make you want to punch Rumsfeld in the face, you're insane. Donald spoke to a group of soldiers December 8th, 2004 and a National Guard Specalist stood up and asked Rumsfeld, "Troops have to forage for 'rusted scrap metal and ballistic glass that's already been shot up, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat'." The soldier goes on to say, "Why do we have to search landfills for armor?"

Rumsfeld responds, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." As Vincent points out, that statement would only apply if Iraq had invaded us in which case we'd have to make due with what we have. But Bush, Rumsfeld and others had all the time in the world to make preparations for the Iraq War.

Turning to page forty-five now with a fist. Make no mistake about it and as unfortunate as it is, American soldiers have not died for America or Americans. They have not died for this idea of freedom. They have died for President Bush and his cronies. I've felt this for a while, but Vincent definitely makes note of it. And of course, Bush, Cheney, Rove and others all skipped out on going to war during their respective generations time.

And a scary poll shown by Vincent that over '90% of the United States Soldiers as late as 2006 thought they were fighting in Iraq due to Iraq and Saddam being involved in 9/11'. That is utterly grotesque that they are dying for something that doesn't exist.

A funny point (yet also disturbing) on page fifty-seven. Vincent makes note of the fact that out of the 2,535 days of the Bush Presidency, Bush has spent (during a time of war mind you) 908 of those days on vacation (or 36% of his Presidency). That's two and a half years of a less than seven year Presidency (at the time this book was written) on vacation. That's incredible.

Vincent brings up a shocking, but entirely true point (that I'm ashamed of myself) on page seventy-five. A very sad tale is that the only people asked to sacrifice in this country over the Iraq War have been the soldiers and the families of those soldiers. Which makes up a very small segment of the population. That's sad. Vincent shows a quote from an Iraqi soldier that states, "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." I thought that was a poignant quote myself.

Once more, another point you don't want to miss by Vincent on page ninety-two. Some will say, "Bush can't be prosecuted for murder of the soldiers if Congress, by a joint congressional resolution, authorized him to use force against Iraq." He answers that by saying, "The congressional authorization is no legal defense against murder." Consent of the victim is a defense for crimes such as theft and rape. But not murder. Also, even if it was law (consent being a defense for murder) it would be 'fraud vitiates consent'. The Congress were lied to just as much as the American people and the American soldiers.

Just a small quote I want to bring to everyone's attention on page ninety-seven. One that packs a powerful punch and can't be properly answered in my view. The example by Vincent is, "What difference does it make if someone intends to kill person B or doesn't intended to kill B but intends to do an act that he knows will kill B?" Therefore to me and apparently Vincent, there is no difference between being killed by Saddam and being killed by America.

On page one hundred and two, Vincent discusses a question I never before knew the answer to. If the whole country thought that Saddam constituted a grave threat to this country (even if we found he had no WMD's), why is it preposterous that Bush did to? In other words, apologists want to suggest Bush was actually acting in self-defense. But wrong. Bush and his people are the ones that came up with the silly notion that Saddam was a grave threat to this nation.

Also apologists ridiculously say Bush never used the word 'imminent'. He didn't have to as Vincent suggests. From the context of any Bush speech, no other inference could be drawn but that Bush was asserting that American was in imminent danger or harm from Saddam. Furthermore, he used words or phrases that meant imminent like Iraq could act 'on any given day'; that 'before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed'; 'a threat of unique urgency'; 'Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack in as little as forty-five minutes' and so on.

Vincent continues building his case against Bush on page one hundred and thirty-two. Hans Blix that UN's Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq disagreed with Saddam and Iraq that there missiles were not in the appropriate range set by the UN, they were destroyed. Bush then asserted that the destroying of these missiles (as per the request of the UN and obliged by Saddam) was the 'mother of all distractions'. In other words as Vincet says, "We want to go to war. Quit distracting us by proving the war is unnecessary."

Flipping page to one hundred and thirty-four begins with a quote from Blix, "The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. The Americans needed Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction to justify war." So once Bush realized that the inspectors were slowly coming to the conclusion that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush came up with a new demand. He knew Saddam would never comply with it and thus, his haste to get to war would continue without impediment. He ordered Saddam and his family to get out of Iraq. Before all of this though, Bush had only said, "If Hussein were to meet all the conditions of the UN (which he was), that in itself will signal that the regime has changed." Earlier Bush says something even more damning, "By taking these steps to disarm (and they were), the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict..." So comply with UN Resolution 1441 to disarm (something we all know he did after the Gulf War) and avoid war. Nope. Bush through in another rule to try to bring about war. Sickening.

Essentially only moving to page one hundred and thirty-five and thirty-six, Vincent addresses the silly disdain for France before the Iraq War. France never opposed the idea of going to war with France however. It only opposed Bush's ludicrous haste to war. Who doesn't want to avoid armed conflict if plausible? The President of France three days before war stated, "France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either." He goes on to say an I'm paraphrasing that we simply want to exercise all possibilities of diplomacy first and foremost. After all, we quickly forget that when the world realized Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and Afghanistan was protecting bin Laden France sent thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan to help us. Americans are idiots. Chirac (President of France) simply wanted to wait for the weapons inspections that would merely take a few more months. Cheney responded by saying these were just further 'delaying tactics'. Translation: Let's get on with the ****in' war! 😠

Turning the page to one hundred and thirty-nine. I remember hearing the following story in a documentary (the title of which eludes me) and it still almost brings a tear to my eye. Wilson Sekzer lost his son Jason in 9/11. He said, "After 9/11, I thought, I gotta do something. Somebody has to pay for 9/11. I want the enemy dead. I want to see their bodies stacked up for taking my son. That's when President Bush said 'Iraq'. On the basis of that, I thought we should go there and kick Iraq's ass. And I wanted Jason to have a part in it. So I asked to put his name on a bomb." Later when he watched television and saw Bush in a response to a reporter's question, saying, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11," Wilson recalled saying, "What is he talking about? If Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, then why did we go there?"

Obviously Bush could never come right out and say Saddam was linked to 9/11 because he knew it wasn't true. So like he did earlier with the word 'imminent' he used phrases and words that nobody could infer but that he was linking 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq. If this isn't as Vincent suggests 'circumstancial evidence' that Bush wasn't responsible for lying to the American people to go to war, nothing is.

On pages one hundred and forty-one and forty-two, further evidence of Bush lying about implying a connection between Saddam and 9/11 is that when Saddam was captured, Bush said the Iraqi people, not America, would mete out justice to Hussein. Wouldn't he have been prosecuted in America for the deaths of 3,000 Americans? For the last two years Bush made clear innuendo at the fact that Saddam was linked to 9/11. So what gives?

This next facet of information is new to me. I've never heard it before and it almost floors me in utter disbelief. Page one hundred and forty-nine you'll find a story about Bush and Tony Blair (Prime Minister of Britain) at the White House a few months before the invasion of Iraq. David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a memo detailing the discussion (he was there along with a few others). In it, Bush and Blair discussed doubts that any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq and tension arised between the two over finding justification for war. Manning wrote that Bush spoke of a few scenarios to prove justification for war to other nations; 'provoke a confrontation' with Saddam. Bush stated, "Fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, falsely painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." Bush in speeches kept going on and on about Saddam 'forcing' us to go to War, that we didn't want to. Yet, behind closed doors this ****ing bastard is talking about actually provoking Saddam into war? What the hell?

Jumping to page one hundred and seventy-three Vincent strikes a strong point here against Bush. Bush himself, along with pundits and so forth (even Democrats) always talk about how Bush is 'strong on terrorism'. When in fact, Vincent says, Bush couldn't have been any worse against terrorism. But considering the ignorance of the American people (most of whom don't read newspapers and if they do, they skip the news and opinion sections), this bit of information (that Bush was 'strong on terrorism'😉 remained in the American psyche up until 2006 even.

Going to page one hundred and seventy-six to further illustrate this point, I'm sure many have heard of the CIA memo given to Bush over a month before 9/11 titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." This differed from previous information in that it actually said, 'in' the US not outside of the US. It even spoke of 'hijacking' and federal buildings, even in New York City. Any sane President at that point, would have cut short their five week vacation and return to the White House to have a meeting with the intelligence agencies and so forth to assess the situation and see what was being done about it. The memo was given out on the sixth of August. Bush didn't return to the White House until the thirtieth. He didn't even speak to the head of the CIA (George Tenet) for the entire month of August. What the hell?

Flipping over to one hundred and eighty-two, Richard Clarke the counterterrorism chief for Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush said this about the Bush administration up to 9/11, "Bush ignored terrorism for months, when maybe he could have done something to stop 9/11. Instead terrorism was pushed back and back for months when it should have been top priority." Furthermore, Attorney General John Ashcroft submitted his budget for the DoJ cut counterterrorism by $476 million dollars. A 23% drop from the Clinton Administration.

On one hundred and eighty-six it gets really frustrating. All the Media could do after 9/11 was talk about how the United States intelligence agencies (mainly the CIA) failed to prevent 9/11. No blame was cast on President Bush (you know the man in charge and in charge specifically of the CIA and the other intelligence communities). Now obviously the intelligence communities did have some shortcomings, but they were specifically telling the executive branch that the red lights were flashing over the issue of Bin Laden. It was Bush who failed to act. It was his administration who failed to act on the intelligence given to them. Most Presidents (from Reagan with the issue of Beirut to JFK over the Bay of Pigs) have apologized for acts gone wrong under their watch. Bush didn't.

"Unbelievably," Vincent says, "Bush attempted to become the hero of 9/11 and unbelievably, he succeeded."

Page one hundred and eighty-eight really makes me cringe at how stupid Bush is and incompetent as President he is. Bush was told by his chief of staff Andrew Card after the second plane crashed into the Twin Towers that the 'nation is under attack'. Jesus Christ. Bush sat there with a stupid ****ing look on his face for another five to seven minutes. For godsakes, for all he knows an invasion, a nuke, chemical weapons, God anything could be next. He should have rushed to wherever he needed to go and begin assessing the situation. Even if both the planes in the Towers ended up being an accident, it was still a high level emergency to tend to.

Vincent points out that Bush was simply in a state of 'paralysis' because he had nobody by his side (like Dick) to help him. In his interview with the 9/11 Commission report he told a tremendously stupid lie. He said, "I stayed in the classroom because I wanted to project strength and calm until I could better understand what was happening." A few things wrong with that. 1.) He didn't look strong or calm, he looked frightened and stupid. 2.) Project strength and calm to whom? The seven year olds? 3.) How can you better understand what is happening sitting in a classroom? This incident mostly went ignored by our stupid Media.

Vincent again addresses the issue American stupidity and the Meida's stupidity on page one hundred and ninety-five. Vincent says, "There really was only one essential message for Bush to deliver after the 9/11 attacks. And that was that he intended to bring justice to the perpetrators. Instead Bush also said we'd go after those countries that harbor terrorists. That was stupid because we know he didn't. We went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, created some in Iraq, but didn't go after those Israeli-Palestinian terrorists, Norther Ireland terrorists; or the plethora of other countries with terrorists like Lebanon, Sudan, Uganda, Myanmar, Colombia, Liberia, Sri Lanka and so many more.

Continuing the vein of stupidity, Bush told Congress that they attacked us because they 'hate all our freedoms'. Yeah, people blow themselves up because they hate our freedoms. That's so utterly asinine, I can't even fathom people actually subscribing to that belief. Foreign policy and other reasons play a role that I'm not going to expand on right now.

Vince states, "Credit necessarily implies a choice. You don't give credit for something somebody had no choice but to do. Bush had no choice but to say that 'we'd go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice'. What else was he going to say? What else would any other President or human being have said? Yet amazingly, Bush's approval rating went up to 90% and we all fell in love with him."

A phrase we often heard after 9/11 was, "Aren't you glad now that Bush won?" As if Al Gore, had he won, would have said anything different than Bush. And perhaps though the only difference would be that if Gore was sitting in that classroom and heard that the 'nation was under attack' he would have at least done something (as in get out of the classroom) unlike that idiot Bush.

Page two hundred and six is probably the main section of the book that made me angry. Not just angry. ****ing angry. Angry enough that I'd like to storm into the Oval Office and punch Bush in the face. After 9/11, any logical thing to do would be for Congress to look into the tragedy. See where mistakes were made and hopefully highlight them so something like this doesn't happen again. Bush didn't want this. Repeat: Bush didn't want this. He didn't want an investigation into 9/11. There is no ****ing justifiable reason to withold an investigation into 9/11 by Congress.

My only issue with the 9/11 Commission report (that only came about because the 9/11 widows begged for it to happen -- think about it. The families of 9/11 victims had to beg Bush and Congress to let this investigation happen and continue to proceed. Bush didn't cooporate though. He was withholding precious information that pertained to the investigation) is as Vincent says, "They didn't ask aggressive questions. They are still politicians. They didn't ask the really tough questions."

On two hundred and fourteen comes the issue of Tora Bora. Why the **** where we leaving it up to the Northern Alliance (and the Pakistani military if necessary -- on the chance Bin Laden crossed the border) to do our job? Why weren't we fighting? We sent other people to capture Bin Laden. The guy that was complicit in the deaths of 3,000 American lives. Eight years later, the fact that outrage over Bin Laden still being a freeman is non-existant, bothers the hell out of me. Nobody seems to give a shit any more. So much for 'never forgetting' huh?

An analogy to be made: A man is seated with his wife at a restaurant table. He's armed okay. Someone else shoots his wife dead. Instead of chasing the man with the gun he possesses. He pays a guy at the bar to go do it. That's what we did with 9/11 and Osam Bin Laden in Afghanistan. American soldiers didn't fight the war in Afghanistan technically until five months after the war started.

I take back what I said, this next quote by President Bush on page two hundred and twenty may be on equal footing with the section of Bush stopping the 9/11 Commission. In a March 13th, 2002 press conference (not very long after 9/11 mind you) a reporter said to Bush, "Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk about or mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?" The man who vowed to get Bin Laden 'dead or alive' answers, "This is a fellow (nice word for a criminal) who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide." (Bush coud have been referring to himself considering he committed young soldiers to die for a wrongful, unjustifiable war and he himself, hid out during the Vietnam War thanks to his Daddy's help.) Then he says amazingly enough, "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you...I truly am not that concerned about him."

What the ****? He wasn't that concerned about Bin Laden? The man that orchstrated the deaths of 3,000 Americans? Yeah, I forgot around this time we were already shifting gears towards the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein, resources away from Afghanistan and the capturing of bin Laden. Ridiculous.

Another admission of ludicrous nonsense from Bush on page two hundred and twenty-four, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Normally, you would think the Media would be all over this. Yet, nope. They weren't. You would think Americans would be outraged. But nope they weren't. Congress? Nope. This was the lie perpetrated by Bush and his cronies that Saddam was indeed linked to September the 11th via Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Yet, now six months after the war is started, Bush clearly says there are no connections.

Vincent talks about the claims of 'victory' in Iraq on page two hundred and thirty-one. "What victory? That Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of our country and we eliminated him and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction? That there is a real democracy in Iraq, and this democracy is spreading through the Middle East? That Bin Laden has been captured and executed and his Al Qaeda destroyed and they are no longer a threat to our nation?"

"In other words," Vincent states, "instead of the absolutely horrible and intolerable situation in today's Iraq being viewed as terrible but better than it once was, it is viewed as good because it's not as bad as it once was." The past doesn't matter anymore. The in which we arrived at this blunder doesn't matter. The troops being not equipped doesn't matter. The post-war planning (or should I say lack thereof) doesn't matter. The lies and deceptions don't matter. The 4,000 dead soldiers doesn't matter. The 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians doesn't matter. The thousands left physically and mentally damaged or Iraqi civilians displaced doesn't matter. Why? Victory and honor. Bullshit.

Vincent makes another great observation on page one hundred and thirty-five. Paul Krugman, a liberal columnist for the New York Times in reference to the 2006 elections (where the Democrats gained marginal control over the House and Senate) stated, "the nation has finally, finally turned on the administration of George W. Bush because we are fed up with the excesses of right-wing policies, and more importantly, we finally realize that going to war in Iraq was wrong."

"It had nothing to do with that," Vincent asserts, "It had virtually everything to do with the fact that we had lost the war in Iraq, with no end in sight." He goes on to stay very poignantly, "Do you really think the perception, polls and opinions of Bush would be the same had we succeeded in Iraq? Would we say invading Iraq was wrong? His approval rating would still be in excess of 50%."

Most Americans don't care. Most when interviewed wish we would have just turned the Middle East into a 'parking lot' with our nukes. Scary.

Finally I arrive at an area of disagreement with Vincent on page two hundred and thirty-eight. Not over Bush or anything. But over his ideas on government and the way government ought to be. He is a liberal. But he presented his case free of partisanship in my view. Nonetheless, he talks about healthcare and helping the poor and various other things should be the main functions of government. I obviously disagree as a libertarian. But I won't divulge into that because I want to keep the main focus on the content of the prosecution of Bush for murder.

Flipping over to page two hundred and forty-one, Vincent takes aim at our 'culture'. He starts with condemning movies with gratutious violence and sex. Apparently he hasn't seen very many foreign films that are far more risque and 'boundary-pushing' than anything Hollywood can fathom. Then he goes on to talk about how teenagers have changed over the issue of oral sex and so forth. Essentially, the usual line of thought from older generations that their generations were different or somehow, more moral and less grotesque and negative about things. Nothing has changed. The past was violent, sexed up and had its mix of bad films and music as today does. Sure certain things in the past are great, but certain parts are also very romanticized greatly. Nothing has changed except the media. The media opens that window into our reality greater than its ever been open creating this misconception that the past was some how the 'good old days'.

Finally, on page two hundred and forty-seven and eight, Vincent makes a contradiction. He talks (rightly in my view) about religion dominating America. About how Europeans are shedding religion while we warm up to it more and more. However, before that he was talking about how are moral compass was slipping. American can't be both more promiscuous and religious at the same time.

Then of course, ending on the above page, he discusses the U.S. Constitution. He actually thinks our Constitution can stop are slide down as a country. Wrong. He just detailed how a President walked all over the Constitution and wiped his ass with it, but thinks in the end, it actually has any power over politicians? Laughable.

Nonetheless, a few questions come to mind as I finish my review of this book. 1.) The Media certainly isn't a liberal media. It is a government media. That is evidenced by how the Media glossed over the early years of the Bush administration and ceased to be journalists. 2.) This misconception that the American Presidency should be protected at all costs should end. Nobody on this earth is above the law and certainly not the President of the United States. 3.) I will lose any semblance of respect I have for Barack Obama if he doesn't persue justice against President Bush at some point in his Presidency. It sets a dangerous precedent that a President can do whatever he wants. 4.) Americans should care more about what happens to their country and what the President is doing and stop feeling so detatched, apathetic and/or ignorant about what is going on. Stop the attitude of 'it's not a big deal' BS. Criminality is a big deal, especially by the government; you know the entity that is supposed to serve us. 5.) Don't forget the other Bush Administration activities. This is only the events circling the Iraq War. Don't forget the issue over torture, Bush hiring friends to important positions, Katrina, the horrible economy and a plethora of other things.

Overall, Vincent Bugliosi did a tremendous job. A superb and excellent and objective job of building his case against President Bush. I can't help but feel pessimistic about it though. Only in that, I know the American people and the American politicians just don't care enough to actually follow through with it. And I know that Bush will die a free man. That arrogant, cocky, God-loving son of a ***** will not atone for his crimes. The fact that this man was never impeached is ludicrous. The fact that Clinton was and hours and millions of dollars was poured into that investigation over something so trivial, is even more astounding.

If more vigor isn't put into bringing Bush and his cronies to justice, I'll lose faith in the very idea of justice and the American people. (By the way, out of four stars, I'd give this book four stars.)

Now, that's a lot of puddin'.

I'm not reading all that shit but anyone that wants G Dubya prosecuted for murder is a moron.

Originally posted by KidRock
I'm not reading all that shit but anyone that wants G Dubya prosecuted for murder is a moron.

Why? Why are they a moron for bringing someone that broke the law to justice?

I think in time GWB will be proven right and vindicated a little by history.

Originally posted by BigRed
And I addressed that very ridiculous attitude in the first few paragraphs and substantiate it throughout with the help of Vincent's book.

Why? Why are they a moron for bringing someone that broke the law to justice?

Who did he murder, I wanna hear it in your own words..if I wanna read the book I will go buy it.

I think the point he's making is who's death he's caused.

Bush acted in the best interests of the nation with the information he was given. CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence all said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that is why Bush went to war.

If he was prosecuted for that what you would find is future presidents would not act decisively in urgent situations- all fearing prosecution upon leaving office.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Bush acted in the best interests of the nation with the information he was given. CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence all said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that is why Bush went to war.

And most of the British were against the war unlike Americans. And Russia wasn't in haste to go to war. It seems you are chalking this up to an intelligence failure.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who did he murder, I wanna hear it in your own words..if I wanna read the book I will go buy it.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

Originally posted by BigRed
Good point and one addressed specifically in the book. Iraq wasn't an urgent situation.

And most of the British were against the war unlike Americans. And Russia wasn't in haste to go to war. It seems you are chalking this up to an intelligence failure.

Most of the British didn't want to go to war with Hitler either.

Russia didn't want to go to war because it wasn't a target of any possible Iraqi violence. Fact is three leading intelligence services said Iraq had WMDs. I suspect the MOSAD probably did too- though they would ofcourse.

If Bush didn't act and Saddam had the WMDs and used them (lets remember the time Saddam said he was going to sail Nukes up the thames and destroy London) then you would be here right now demanding Bush was prosecuted for inaction.

Originally posted by BigRed
I make plenty of my own words throughout the course of the posts.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

murder = unlawful killing.

Killing someone during a war is not murder.

Should we charge all 100,000 soldiers in Iraq as accomplices to murder? If we can charge the Manson Family with it why shouldnt we the soldiers?

Originally posted by GGS
I think in time GWB will be proven right and vindicated a little by history.

I don't think that he will be as much proven right and vindicated, but that he will be shown not to be the God-aweful presedent that everyone thinks he was.

I mean you have to admit, he had some pretty bad policies in his time. (IE: NCLB)

Rather than argue the definition of murder, you should be arguing the reasons he lead the US to war, which resulted in the deaths of 4000 plus soldiers. No one has said he pulled any trigger himself and killed anyone, but rather that he knowingly lied to push the US to war.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Rather than argue the definition of murder, you should be arguing the reasons he lead the US to war, which resulted in the deaths of 4000 plus soldiers. No one has said he pulled any trigger himself and killed anyone, but rather that he knowingly lied to push the US to war.

Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Should presidents not trust their intelligence services now? Like someone else said should we make it known to presidents that if they make the wrong decision based on information that they will be prosecuted for it?

Originally posted by BigRed
I make plenty of my own words throughout the course of the posts.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

Do you really want to open that flood gate?

If killing during war = murder then lets not only charge Bush but all soldiers, but lets also charge FDR (Got us into WWII) Lincoln (Civil War)... Heck, lets even give this country back to the British because of our murderous revolution.

Originally posted by KidRock
Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Pretty sure it was the CIA, British intel, and Russian intel...

Originally posted by KidRock
Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Should presidents not trust their intelligence services now? Like someone else said should we make it known to presidents that if they make the wrong decision based on information that they will be prosecuted for it?

Don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out that you likely know what you should be arguing and are clouding the issue with the semantics of murder.

No one is saying he pulled out a knife and stabbed someone behind the White House.