If this were to happen, my dream trial would involve each bush administration member being stuffed into the same cubicle Adolf Eichmann had to stand in at the same time and to have the sentencing include the complete liquidation of all the guilty party's assets into a stimulus package distributed among all taxpaying americans making below 200k as compensation for all the money they stole and for the danger their policies put us into.
Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Originally posted by BigRed
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.
[B]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. [/B]
Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims. It's not murder; they put those uniforms on knowing they could be killed. Soldiers are supposed to be willing to risk their lives. If it was my grandma in her nightgown then I'd think it was murder. Soldiers dying isn't murder, they're soldiers. They're supposed to get shot at. It's like saying an Olympic swimming athlete isn't supposed to get wet. If Bush must be prosecuted for murder then it's not for any terrorists who die, either, but for the 100s of 1,000s of civilians who died due to American actions. And if any of those civilians were adult males with guns then I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for their deaths either. Please, for God's sake, cut the PC bullcrap already. I'd never put on a uniform and go and die, but if I did put on a uniform, I wouldn't do it with the attitude that I couldn't or shouldn't get killed.
Re: Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Originally posted by UKR
Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims. It's not murder; they put those uniforms on knowing they could be killed. Soldiers are supposed to be willing to risk their lives. If it was my grandma in her nightgown then I'd think it was murder. Soldiers dying isn't murder, they're soldiers. They're supposed to get shot at. It's like saying an Olympic swimming athlete isn't supposed to get wet. If Bush must be prosecuted for murder then it's not for any terrorists who die, either, but for the 100s of 1,000s of civilians who died due to American actions. And if any of those civilians were adult males with guns then I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for their deaths either. Please, for God's sake, cut the PC bullcrap already. I'd never put on a uniform and go and die, but if I did put on a uniform, I wouldn't do it with the attitude that I couldn't or shouldn't get killed.
No. They put that uniform on for the Commander in Chief thinking they were dying for American freedoms and for justice over 9/11. Bush lied to them. And they died over that lie.
And I hate PC probably more than you do.
Re: Re: Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Originally posted by BigRed
Okay. I'm not a liberal. So before you get your Republican panties in a bunch, relax.No. They put that uniform on for the Commander in Chief thinking they were dying for American freedoms and for justice over 9/11. Bush lied to them. And they died over that lie.
And I hate PC probably more than you do.
Thank you for the clarification. And I must break it to you...no man hates political correctness more than I do.
This is a great thread based on the material of the title itself-- a summary of eight years of the most atrocious presidency in the young history of the United States of America.
When British pundit David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon in that fateful interview and the Tricky Dick claimed that any actions perpetrated by the president publicly viewed as bad, disconcerting, and harmful to the society and well-being of American citizens is not illegal sealed the deal for future administrations both in the White House and Congressional/Senate houses. George W Bush and Dick Cheney would later reminisce on Nixon's nonchalant words to justify their eight years of ass-wiping the Constitution.
Murder involving casualties of Americans in uniform probably should not be classified as "murder" since the very definition of uniformed Americans constitutes this thing called "obedience" or "loyalty" or whatever. If you want to call it serving your country to fight the evildoers, whoever these evildoers might be, then that's what it is. The raw statistics of the death tolls (and it seems Americans are more fascinated about death than the Egyptians ever were) of this desert blundering is over 4200 dead Americans and roughly 50000 wounded Americans. "Wounded" refers not only to visible physical injuries like torn limbs and bleeding gashes, it refers to more the deadlier Post Tramautic Stress Disorder that has affected thousands in exponential numbers every year since 2003. Bear in mind, the 4200 dead does not include the suicides linked directly to PTSD. These gungho Americans fresh off from sucking the **** of violent video games and movies actually see the aftermath of dead Iraqis and the aftermath of their dead friends whom they were just talking to five minutes prior.
Big deal right, according to any detractors of my little detailed war paragraph. It's war, isn't it? That's what happens in a war. Yet, this isn't a war. It's a hostile takeover of a country that was wiped clean eighteen years ago.
In the pages prior to this post, people seem unclear of the motives of monkey-ears and coke-addict Bush as to why he chose to lay siege upon poor Iraq. Well, in 1991, Saddam Hussein was a bigshot and a bad man in his own right. The world rightfully frowns on genocide and nobody likes seeing 1 million Kurds perish in phosphorus gas. Neither do people relish invasion as what happened to Kuwait. Well, Iraq is quickly decimated. Desert Storm rips more bombs on its land than the entire Vietnam War three times over. Saddam's military might (what little there was) crumbled to nothing-- no airports, no air fields, no depots, no armories, no biological weapon facilities, not one damn thing survived. Much graver abominations occurred in the aftermath: Baghdad lost all electricity in over 90% of its neighborhoods, cholera affected every water supply, the only country in the Middle East with the exception of Israel that was the pinnacle of healthcare and educational institutions fell into desolate ruin and destitute poverty. Saddam was in defeat but unwilling to be taken into custody. Yet, Geneva Conventions and the United Nations saw no need for the United States to overthrow Hussein and his country for he was in no violation to have that treatment fabricated. George Herbert Walker Bush smartly pulled his troops out, but dumbly kept sanctions on Saddam Hussein keeping the man in power but not allowing the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country and infrastructure to its pre-1991 days.
The son Bush always felt disturbed and perplexed by his father's decision. He was incompetent on his own to make any sense of the matter, and his posse began building up a plan that ultimately became known worldwide as the PNAC-- a plan to dominate the Middle East in securing strategic oil pipelines connecting Dubai to the Caspian Sea to Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf. A clause in the project also guaranteed more free passes to the Zionist Jews of Israel to annex and occupy more regions of Palestinian and Arabian land, a move that thrilled AIPAC and most pro-Israeli members of Congress and the Senate. That whole project is what the young, blinded, foolish American soldiers and Marines are fighting for whether they know it or not.
This thread is about murder and talks about war. People here have mentioned previously all the "wonderful" bloody messes American rulers have gotten ourselves into. In my opinion, America has had only two justifiable wars: the American revolt against the British (it was not a Revolution) and World War II. The first World War was us collecting European debt and selling it off to bankrupt countries and makes us top dogs financially, a move that backfired on Wall Street ten years later. The Civil War was pathetic, race-littered, and brotherly love all in the same bowl. Vietnam was shameful and bombastic. The hundreds of battles that decimated the Indians and Mexicans leaves us still with suspician and doubt about them even after so many decades. Our endless twentieth century coups and assassinations of foreign leaders is enough to make your head spin.
Bush is merely following his predecessors, but he is taking more glee in them, and his only contribution to the maltreatment is standing in front of us with a sly carsalesman grin and lying to us and smiling because he's lying. The Iraq and Afghanistan War has murdered at least 100000 and displaced permanently over 5 million-- the people cannot return to their land because they will die if they do.
A far more sinister event has been perpetrated by Bush himself that convicts him truly of murder. A blatant, most foul act that past presidents could only dream of getting away fully with... and one person of the biased American media fully extrapolated upon before others of his ilk helped him carry the torch. Alternative media in America had long since known about this, but MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann was the first man of the Big Three networks to first break the truth to dumbfounded Americans about waterboarding methods OK'd by the Oval Office-- an OK straight from the mouths of Cheney and Bush. Now is torture murder? Well, not unless the victim dies people might say. Ha, ha... waterboarded victims have perished under Bush's watch and many Muslims and Muslim-Americans have been detained in abominable places such as Gitmo and black cells in Georgia (the country) and have perished. You want acts of murder? Pat Tillman, the man who gave up his football career to "serve for the common good of all" died of friendly fire... or was it so "friendly"? Bush used his underlings to hide the truth from the man's parents who dredged for years before the truth was finally revealed reluctantly. How about the haphazard equipment as our threadstarter reported? Not significant grounds of murder but of negligence.
If you don't want to prosecute this piece of refuse for murder, there is plenty of prosecutable pieces to stick. Some of the biggest crimes have hit our finances that shrivel Iraq to pieces. The man is guilty of heinous proportions and he is not the only one.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Especially with a camera on them.No matter how delicious Mr. Parker looks, they would never eat a human on camera.
god,for the last freaking time,stop saying that I share Deanos beliefs that there are lizard people walking amongst us. 😠 I have told Deano many times to stick to facts instead of theorys,that he makes himself look bad when he says there is Lizard people amongst us.Thanks again robtard for showing your lack of credibility you have aound here.Not only do you defend that foolish kid A.C no matter how childish he acts,but you cant even get the user name right here on who believes what.way to go.same goes for you as well Dadudemon. 😛
Originally posted by Mr Parker
god,for the last freaking time,stop saying that I share Deanos beliefs that there are lizard people walking amongst us. 😠 I have told Deano many times to stick to facts instead of theorys,that he makes himself look bad when he says there is Lizard people amongst us.Thanks again robtard for showing your lack of credibility you have aound here.Not only do you defend that foolish kid A.C no matter how childish he acts,but you cant even get the user name right here on who believes what.way to go.
TL and crappy writing: DR
You also quoted the wrong person, buddy.
Re: Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Originally posted by UKR
Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims.
what about the female soldiers who are being gang raped and murdered by other soldiers while the defense administration looks the other way and tells the families the women were suicide victims?