Vincent Bugliosi has written a new book whose central argument is that George Bush should be impeached and tried for murder for his role in the war in
The Betrayal of America
My first impression of Vincent Bugliosi was his highly dishonest book The Betrayal of America, which tried to build on the widely publicized Democratic argument that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and gave it to Bush. His book was riddled with logical fallacies, self contradictions, hypocrisy, rants, insults, and not much else.
The argument itself never had any merit, but it was widely repeated in the media and then later in a popular Michael Moore documentary. Perhaps this is why so many Democrats still believe it to this day. I even saw Obama a few weeks ago saying that he thinks Gore actually won.
My first hand observations after Bush won were that Democrats became really angry, mean, and hostile, which has dissipated only somewhat since then. Also, the effect of this book/argument has been a powerful drug-like feel-good effect for angry Democrats. They don’t see the fallacies, hypocrisy, etc. in Bugliosi’s earlier book, and yet these leap off the page at me.
Lest you think me naïve, I understand that telling people what they want to hear is the surest path to success.
Clearly Vincent Bugliosi had zero credibility with me.
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Mur der
Now Vincent Bugliosi has written this new book, and it does make some valid points.
On a side note: Some argue that Bugliosi wrote this book because he is so brave and cares so much. However, Bugliosi’s arguments were just as valid 5 years ago when he had just as much popularity and ability to get published, and yet he did nothing. Why did he wait (again) until the vast majority agreed with him? Clearly, he is neither brave nor caring, he is just cashing in (again) on his ability to give the public what they want – and there ain’t nothing wrong with that. That’s just good old fashioned capitalism. He may be an asshole like Henry Ford and many other capitalists, but the lure of profit has motivated him to produce something that provides some value to his customers.
In this book Bugliosi is more honest and admits that he votes for Democrats; whereas, in his earlier book he went to great lengths to convince himself that he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He says he votes for Democrats because the Democratic party is for the little guy and he thus cannot understand how the Democrats in office and in the media are giving Bush a free pass on
These are good questions, and he backs them up with some good anecdotes. Perhaps because I am a real non-partisan, I find it easy to answer his questions, and please, do not interpret my explanations as any kind of defense or justification. The actions of Bush and the Congress are profoundly illegal and unhealthy, and thus these perpetrators deserve whatever punishment they get, but they will not be punished.
Allow me to elaborate:
Bugliosi asks why doesn’t a majority want to prosecute Bush for murder:
- We can say that the war in Iraq is illegal, but the government has been violating the Constitution by a growing amount since it was created. The actions of Bush are just a predictable evolution in the government overstepping its authority. To charge Bush with a crime would thus be both unprecedented and hypocritical of other politicians. Perhaps more importantly it would limit the power of politicians in the future, so why would they do that?
- Americans in the military basically signed a statement that they were willing to obey all orders given to them by a politician – even if it cost them their life.
- Republicans and most humans believe that deaths during war somehow don't count as long as they are the result of any activity that can plausibly be called combat.
- Bush is a kind of front man who is not doing this for personal power and glory as much as just going along with his peers and mentors.
- From the perspective of the majority, which are proponents of big government, the war could potentially result in some significant long term benefit for both Iraqis, Americans, and the world in general.
Bugliosi asks why some people hate the Clintons as much as other people hate Bush:
- The Clintons – as far as we know – may not have actually done anything as bad (if you don't count the 800,000 they let die in Rwanda, or the deaths caused by taking sides in the Serbian/Albanian conflict). People who hate the Clintons are convinced they are the kind of people who would kill thousands or even millions (and laugh about it) for petty reasons, such as if it helped them acquire personal power, protect their power, cover up their actions, avoid personal embarrassment, etc.
Bugliosi asks why the Democrats do nothing:
- In spite of Jews for Jesus and Jews for the Preservation of Firerams Ownership, a significant majority of Israelis and Jewish Americans are aligned with the Democrats and are quick to admit (to me anyway) that “Jews are supposed to vote Democrat” and “Democrats are Israel’s best friend”. Naturally and obviously Jewish people (especially in Israel) really like the way America is at war with their enemies (I would too if I were Jewish), this is helping the Republicans steal Jewish support from the Democrats, so why would the Democrats risk losing more Jewish support by stopping the war?
- The Democrats could impeach Bush or force him to veto popular legislation, but they don't because Democrats don't really want to empower the little guy. For example, they are the party that wants to disarm the little guy. What a bunch of hypocrites.
The Future
Future
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
37 comments:
you are one dumb fuck
Iraq has never attacked the U. S. ever. It was an illegal war you idiot. Bush, Cheney and Rummy all should be tried. found guilty and given the death penalty. They are worthless scum just like the Clintons.
Bugliosi argues that Bush should be put on trial for murder. If we do that, can we also put Bugliosi on trial for treason?
I see you think Mr. Bugliosi has no credibility, and so how much credibility do you have? Did you ever prosecute a major murder case in this country? Did you have to remind the president (Nixon) to silence himself during the Manson trial before Nixon caused a mis-trial? Hmm....I believe Mr. Bugliosi has earned a lot more credibility than you have, and is willing to pubicly make this statement which could land in prison at the very least, and so let's see if the bushies have the guts to come forth and challenge hiim on it, no they probably won't, at least not publicly. They hide in the shadows like cock-roaches, because that's all they have. Mr. Bugliosi has layed out a case, and therefore, let the trials begin, and btw....you're not a chicken hawk are you? I've worn the uniform and appalled by people who do not question everything, and everyone....and mostly by people who want to send our troops into harms way, but would never go themselves!
Hmm ... this seems like a valuable lesson. Although I am clearly against Bush and the war in Iraq, two people seem convinced that I support both. I could have added some direct claims about how and why I am not a Republican and how I am opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq, but that is too verbose and boring to state in every article I write, and even when I do include such explanatory text, many readers still claim that I am lying or in denial. Apparently, America is so polarized that many people are only able to see me as having one entire set of beliefs or the entire opposing set of beliefs, so if I criticize one of their beliefs or leaders, then I must be in that other camp – regardless of anything else I may have said. Clearly many readers are thus being shallow, immature, and conformist – but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to reach them. They are still human and thus at all times have the potential for greatness that all of us possess.
I assume the point that the war in Iraq is illegal, is an argument intended to nullify the usual protections the President might enjoy. Of course, the government violates the Constitution so frequently that the actions of Bush are just an evolution in the government overstepping its authority, and thus other politicians would be hypocrites if they were to try Bush with a crime.
I suspect the poster who recommended trying Bugliosi for treason was actually making the point that Bugliosi doesn’t really care about the lives lost and that what he really cares about is using the courts to punish his political opponents, and that if we can use the courts to punish our political opponents, then no one is safe. For example, if Bugliosi likes the idea of courts with the power to punish his ideological opponents, then what makes Bugliosi think his opponents can’t use the courts to punish him? As for literally trying Bugliosi for treason, that would violate the First Amendment. Also, I believe not just in free markets, but in a free market of ideas.
One poster defends Bugliosi’s criticism of Bush by bashing my criticism of Bugliosi by claiming that I have less credibility than Bugliosi because I have less experience than Bugliosi.
LOL! By that argument, this poster would have to admit that Bugliosi cannot claim that George Bush lacks credibility! (because Bugliosi lacks the experience of the President of the United States.)
At this point, I suspect this poster would argue (correctly) that Bugliosi doesn’t have to have the experience of the President of the United States to catch the President in a lie - and that is my point exactly. After catching Bugliosi in many lies in his earlier book, Bugliosi had thus lost all credibility with me prior to this new book. The level of his knowledge and experience is irrelevant if he is dishonest. Now he has regained a little bit of credibility with me. Perhaps my criticism of his earlier book years ago had reached him and had some positive effect.
I just stumbled over this book at Costco (of all places) today and was surprised to have not heard anything about it from the usual VWRC blogs - note: ;) - even as much as saying it's all hooey. I find this site from your Amazon review; it's interesting how the HuffPo/Daily Kos/Digg herds are smacking down negative reviews and boosting positives.
What I want to see from the conservative bloggers is some reaction since they recently praised Bugliosi for his JFK book, so for them to just dismiss this out of hand would be a tad inconsistent - i.e. if he's lying now, was he lying then or what?
As for the commenters slagging you for daring to not cast rose petals in the path of Bugliosi's tome, it's typical fascist liberal behavior. Their juvenile rhetoric has been all you can hear since Gore lost and Bush Derangement Syndrome began. Unless you are goose-stepping along with them and chanting the mantras of impeachment and execution, you are *obviously* a Bush-loving neocon warmonger controlled by Karl Rove.
They are very, very angry and unstable people; intolerant and monomaniacal in their desires to silence detractors while proclaiming themselves to be "diverse" and "tolerant." Then again, their idea if diversity is black, white, straight, gay, rich, and poor people spewing hatred for Bush and tolerance means they'll allow you to suggest that Bush be fed into a wood chipper when they would prefer drawing and quartering.
Leeroy F. Dermit says Bush has "experience" as president? He's joking, right? The guy was golfing or cracking jokes about weapons of Mass Destruction.
Bugliosi has more perspective and smarts than the entire Bush family combined.
Only Bush would have his daughter get married to get a respite from his sinking poll numbers and the fact that he has destroyed the economy and the lives of thousands of people.
Bugliosi for president.
Oh, please, the blog author is "approving" posts. Typical Fox News robot. Yawn.
The excuse that because many politicians get away with murder means that Bush and Cheney should also get away with it does not fly with me and it shouldnt with any of you either. There needs to be some accountability in our country whether you are Republican or Democrat. The accountability needs to start today! We need to show any politician that comes into office that they must be accountable for their actions. Imagine if we didnt hold any of the American public to that standard. Bugliosi isnt the only one who is willing to fight to see Bush go down, Kucinich (Senator from Ohio) amongst others agree as well.
What a fucking brain dead idiot you are. When I think how could "WE" have let something so attrocious like this happen, reading your opinions answers it for me. Making birth control retroactive for people who are as intellectually dense and morally suspect as are you is the answer to "Why should we add chlorine to the gene pool to improve America?"
How, exactly, do you object to "The Betrayal of America"? How is Bush v. Gore read as anything but an extraconstitutional coup?
Bugliosi lays out all kinds of evidence you cant even begin to dispute and the best you can come up with is the tired old ad hominem credability thing?
Come on, try harder than that man.
Don't bring an opinion to a fact fight; even if Bugliosi personally has zero credability, the evidence in his case could very well be dead on accurate.
thoughts from a combat veteran:
Any President that takes the country to war under false pretenses should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Any President who violates the Constitution (denies Habeas Corpus, spies on Americans without a court order, makes signing statements saying he will not enforce the law as enacted) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
. . . but i'm just an old vet, watching the RepubLIECratic Parties destroy our Republic. . .
For those interested in a blog that helps the reader understand Bugliosi's arguments, I will be posting at:
http://prosecutebushformurder.blogspot.com/
Since you asked for comments on your points, here goes:
1. "Acts of Bush are just a predictable evolution".
Please read the book. Bugliosi deals with these deliberate lies as beyond any previous Prseident; they make Nixon's look like a sandlot brawl.
He specifically deals with the imapct of a murder prosecution on future Presidents.
In the end, if I follow your logic, the natural evolution of our government is one towards Facism -- a conclusion that I can see fits nicely within your world view.
2. "Soldier's signed statements"
No, actually, the soldier signs a pledge to his/her country, not a politician or even a murderous, sociopathic Commander-in-Chief, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
As Bugliosi points out -- fraud vitiates consent, and unlike other crimes (e.g. rape, theft) murder carries no "conset of the victim" defense.
3. "Deaths don't count during war."
Your premise is absurd. If this were true, then why hold the Nurembourg trials following WW II?
Bush ordered these young men and women to fight his war and knowingly misled the country, and Congress to create the hysteria that allowed his order.
For this he should be... what? Given the Medal of Freedom and live his life in luxury?
Not if Bugliosi has his way!
4. "Bush as a front man".
Hey, how could I disagree, equating the intellect of this guy with something south of pond slime?
Last time I looked however, he signed the order to kill these soldiers.
As Bugliosi states, you can plea-bargain the driver of the getaway car, but your object is to get the guy who pulled the trigger.
5. "Long-term benefits of the war"
Have you actually read the book?
Look at pre-war Iraq and the condition of the country now. Look at our standing and the very real threat posed by a new generation of Jihadist emboldened by our attack and occupation.
Your long-term benefits argument is as dead as the "Dominoes Theory" of Communism in Southeast Asia and dangerous "The New American" neo-con treatise that got us into Iraq.
6. "Clintons not so bad except for Rwanda and Serbia"
If you are going to make an argument, at least stick to the premise of Bugliosi's book.
HE FABRICATED THE EVIDENCE AND KNOWINGLY LIED IN ORDER TO DECLARE WAR.
Clinton's escapade in the Balcans resulted in many innocent deaths, yet it's a fact that not one American died, because it was an air war. He did what he could, when he made the decision to bomb, to limit the loss of life of American soldiers at the udder ridicule of the Right and even many of his Army (ground-based) advisors.
Last time I looked, Rwanda is still a mess after eight years of Bush. Again, what's your point?
7. "Loss of Jewish support"
AY-yi-yi. Now, I'm sorry I started this reply.
What's your point? I thought you were trying to create a serious discussion on the arguments by Bugliosi.
8. "Impeachment and Democratic hypocrits"
Finally, you may be on to something. Bugliosi writes that it's not about the Dems or the Repubs, it's about one, brave, future prosecutor.
For all souls truly interested in a primer on Bugliosi's arguments and future blogs on the other potential avenues for convicting this criminal, go to:
http://prosecutebushformurder.blogspot.com/
My opinion on why V Bugliosi waited five years to publish is book is because he does his homework and he worked very hard on his book during those years. As to the comment from another who said if Bush can be tried for murder, can VB be tried for treason...my question to you is, don't we live in a country where we have freedom of the press? He should not and could not be tried for treason for saying what he thinks...he is a US Citizen and has the right to freedom of speech. Just because you disagree with him does not make what he wrote treason! BTW, I do not agree with him as much as I have always believed, since the first day we went into Iraq, that it was wrong!
My opinion is, we should have put all of our efforts to go after Bin Laden and his backers. That is why 9/11 took place. When I say his backers, I mean ALL of his backers!
One more comment, I feel that if we were to prosecute Bush for Murder, then we should also prosecute Cheny AND Rice, AND many other cronies of the Bush regime!
Bush himself is mostly a puppet to them anyway!
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments.
In response to mediapro, I improved the clarity of my points by listing them under the question from Bugliosi that they were answering. This should remedy much of the confusion that led mediapro to mischaracterize my answers to Bugliosi's questions. As for mediapro's assumption that my statements about what the majority thinks are actually statements about what I think, I am still thinking about how I can best remedy such confusion in the future.
Hi Leeroy,
I'd like to know whether you agree or disagree with the following argument Bugliosi defends in his book.
1. If George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S was a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq), then he is guilty of murder under U.S law.
2. George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S. was in fact a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq).
3. Therefore, George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law. (from 1, 2)
4. Therefore, George Bush should be prosecuted for murder. (from 3)
If you don't agree with the argument Bugliosi is making, please tell me where you think it goes wrong.
I have already said, “The actions of Bush and the Congress are profoundly illegal and unhealthy, and thus these perpetrators deserve whatever punishment they get, but they will not be punished.”
Also, I am only responding to Bugliosi’s article about his book – not his whole book.
I think it is unlikely that all 4 of your points are 100% true, and 100% provable to the satisfaction of an unbiased US court, but suppose all 4 of your points are 100% true, and are 100% provable to the satisfaction of an unbiased US court. I would still say that because of the points I listed (and many more that I could list) as well as the complexities of this issue, nothing would happen.
Therefore, I see little value in the legal technicalities of Bugliosi’s arguments. I think Bugliosi just wants to be in the limelight and knows that the only effect of his book will be to help Democrats feel even more self righteous than before, which has been profitable for him in the past.
I wish we lived in a country where prosecuting Bush would be a clear, simple, and straightforward process that would have the support of the people, press, and government. Of course, this would never happen in the future I advocate, because the government would not have the power to commit the acts perpetrated by the Bush administration and the Congress. However, enough people want big government, and enough people don’t want to have to think for themselves, so that what we have now was inevitable.
Perhaps once people experience more insult and injury at the hands of government, and perhaps once they become more aware of reality, then perhaps they will actually want freedom.
Leeroy, let me see if I have understand your position correctly.
Your view is that, although the case against Bush laid out by Bugliosi is compelling, and therefore there is no legal barrier to successfully prosecuting him, it simply won't happen (for non-legal reasons). Is this your view?
Also, Leeroy, could you please give a a direct answer to my original question: do you agree or disagree with the argument Bugliosi lays out in his book?
1. If George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S was a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq), then he is guilty of murder under U.S law.
2. George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S. was in fact a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq).
3. Therefore, George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law. (from 1, 2)
4. Therefore, George Bush should be prosecuted for murder. (from 3)
In support of (2), see the following clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I
Thanks for the educational clip. OK, I will address your points more directly.
1. I do not know if this statement is true because I have not studied the relevant specifics of the US code, and the relevant state laws. (Isn’t murder a criminal offense that would have to be tried in a state court?).
On the other hand, I have not detected any logical flaws in this case by Bugliosi in his article or in the clip you sent.
Rather than trying to figure out if there is a way to interpret the millions of pages of laws in the US to build a successful legal case against Bush, I think it is far more valuable to determine whether Bush actually did something that had an unhealthy effect on others, and then decide what should be done about it, and then decide whether the law is effective or not.
Whether, following my approach or studying the millions of pages of laws in the US, I recommend thinking for oneself.
You seem to be assuming that everything is fine with the law, government, media, etc. and that Bush is some kind of anomaly, which can simply be addressed by applying the law. I fundamentally disagree.
2. Based on your clip, I can see many legally successful defense arguments that Bush could use. Bugliosi only refers to the already common knowledge that Bush omitted the conclusion by the CIA that Sadam Hussein was not an imminent threat.
At the very least, Bush has plausible deniability. He can argue that he decided the CIA conclusion was wrong (the CIA is often wrong) and thus irrelevant. Bush can argue that based on his assessment of all the variables (as the “Analyst in Chief”), he felt in his opinion that Sadam Hussein was an imminent threat, or that he was likely to become an imminent threat to American interests if not to America directly. He could say that his real target is Iran, but that if he attacked Iran first, then Iraq would help Iran and pose a formidable and motivated offensive force; whereas, attacking Iraq first to remove Sadam resulted in fighting only Iraq, which would thus pose a weak and demotivated defensive force to defend Sadam.
What you would need for a successful prosecution would be a tape recording of Bush saying that his only reason for going into Iraq was to boost profits for Halliburton. BTW, this is why it is illegal for Americans citizens to own high tech surveillance equipment.
“You seem to be assuming that everything is fine with the law, government, media, etc. and that Bush is some kind of anomaly, which can simply be addressed by applying the law. I fundamentally disagree.”
How am I assuming that? All I’m assuming (claiming, rather) is that George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law. He intentionally caused the deaths of thousands without any adequate justification.
“2. Based on your clip, I can see many legally successful defense arguments that Bush could use. Bugliosi only refers to the already common knowledge that Bush omitted the conclusion by the CIA that Sadam Hussein was not an imminent threat.”
False. He doesn’t “only” refer to the common knowledge that Bush omitted the conclusion that Hussein was not an imminent threat—he also refers to Bush’s public statements which directly contradicted the 2002 NIE report. Hence, the fact that Bush DID omit the 2002 NIE conclusion from the White Paper (thereby misleading congress), and the fact that he contradicted the NIE conclusion in his public speeches, strongly suggests that je wasn’t *merely* ignorant of the finding that Hussein was not an imminent threat.
“At the very least, Bush has plausible deniability. He can argue that he decided the CIA conclusion was wrong (the CIA is often wrong) and thus irrelevant.”
Ridiculous. If Bush thought that the CIA (+15 US intelligence agencies!) was wrong, then what was he basing his opinion on? Divine revelation?
“Bush can argue that based on his assessment of all the variables (as the “Analyst in Chief”), he felt in his opinion that Sadam Hussein was an imminent threat”
Again, based on what? Which “variables?”
“or that he was likely to become an imminent threat to American interests if not to America directly.”
Again, based on what? (Btw, the Manning memo, which Bugliosi also presents in his book, refutes this possibility).
“He could say that his real target is Iran, but that if he attacked Iran first, then Iraq would help Iran and pose a formidable and motivated offensive force; whereas, attacking Iraq first to remove Sadam resulted in fighting only Iraq, which would thus pose a weak and demotivated defensive force to defend Sadam.”
1. What was the evidence that Iran was an imminent threat? 2. Iraq and Iran were enemies, so why would Iraq “help” Iran?
"
What you would need for a successful prosecution would be a tape recording of Bush saying that his only reason for going into Iraq was to boost profits for Halliburton."
False. Unless one is insane, intentionally causing the death of American citizens without any adequate justification is murder.
READ THE BOOK. READ THE BOOK. THINK ABOUT IT DEEPLY. READ THE BOOK. READ ABOUT HITLER. READ ABOUT THE NAZIS. READ THE BOOK. READ ABOUT THE REICHSTAG. READ THE BOOK. WHY DID HITLER BLOW UP THE GERMAN PARLIAMENT? WATCH THE LOOSE CHANGE FILM. READ BUGLIOSI'S BOOK. GOOGLE AMY GOODMAN AND LISTEN. READ NAOMI WOLF'S "THE END OF AMERICA'. READ "GIVE ME LIBERTY". LISTEN TO THE PHYSICISTS TALKING ABOUT THE TRADE TOWERS BEING AN INSIDE JOB. WHY DID BUILDING 7 HAVE TO BE "PULLED"? READ AND LEARN.
It sounds like the author of this most recent post would love my article about 9/11, but hasn't discovered it yet. Here is the link: The Truth About 9/11
I haven't had a chance to read either the book you mentioned nor all of the comments posted here. I would say that there is some truth to both sides in this debate. To try Bush for murder? I don't think it would ever happen and I am not sure if it should ever happen. However, the disaster of the Bush administration should make every American, both Republican and Democrat, think seriously about creating a new system of checks and balances against an "imperial" presidency. At every turn, at the onset of the war, officals in the administration refused to give a timeline, refused to establish clear and reasonable goals in launching a war, and failed to specify the costs or to give an estimation. Meanwhile, all of our long-time allies in Europe warned us IN DETAIL- what would occur if we went through with the war. And those predictions have been surprisingly accurate. Our response- to call French fries Freedom Fries. Is this mark of a superpower? We will now have to set a new definition of the word,"superpower" by having the courage to reform a broken system. This would show to the world that the USA really does have to moral integrity to lead.
To blame Bush- or Bush and company- for this fiasco is to miss the point. We should all examine our own role, the role of Big Business, the role of the politicians that supported the rush to war and the news corporations. In any case, the murder charge would never stick because it would be argued that his actions were not done with malicious intent.
War-profiteering and abuse of power, failure to adequately equip soldiers sent into battle, illegal imprisonment and torture, and failure to abide by the constitution he sworn to uphold? That would be a more certain verdict, I believe.
Jesus Christ- You haven't read the book. What are we arguing about? YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK.
For the love of God, people, spend time debating with someone qualified.
In the past I wouldn’t bother to respond to any post such as the previous one that relies solely on bully tactics; however, it occurs to me that some readers may be intimidated into not posting or not creating their own blogs because they fear getting posts from such bullies. Still other readers may think this bully tactic is a legitimate argument and be tempted to use it themselves when they are really mad because it is so negative, so easy, and requires so little thought.
First note that I have been accused with this fallacy before, and for some reason it has always come from the authoritarian left. It is a fallacy because anyone can obviously discuss an argument without reading an entire book about it. For example, I had already provided the link to the article I read where Bugliosi makes his main argument. I comment on his argument and his past work because I read this article, several reviews of his book, and one of his previous books. Also, any content at all, even a single sentence, can be used as a catalyst to discuss related ideas.
To say that one must read Bugliosi’s entire book before commenting on Bugliosi’s main thesis would be like demanding that every poster read my entire web site and read every article hyperlinked through my site before responding to one of my articles. I say that even if you have read nothing relevant, I want your feedback because you bring us a unique lifetime of experiences.
It sounds like the previous poster may not have even read my entire article because he certainly didn’t try to counter any of my arguments.
In the past, I have received replies on the Internet where the poster claimed that I was not qualified to criticize the author’s article because I had not read several of his previous books, and yet that poster had clearly not even read my entire critique.
So do not fear bullies – even if they have the majority on their side. Know that their mean and irrational words are just more proof that the world needs us to save it.
Your treatment of "Jewish support" is sloppy and racist. Jews are in fact a spectrum of people who have varying political opinions.
The previous poster is referring to a single bullet point in the article.
I agree with the statement that Jewish people are a broad spectrum. For example, I am familiar with Jews for Jesus and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. This is entirely compatible with my other statements.
On the relation between Jewish support and the war in Iraq, I provide two observations, two quotes, and three opinions. I have made minor clarifications, but I cannot make others unless the previous critic actually responds directly to one of these observations, quotes, or opinions rather than simply calling names.
For example, the poster could have said, “I am Jewish, and I don’t think most Jewish people agree with those quoted in the article.” And then the poster could go on to tell us what opinions and values are held by what percentage of Jewish people. The poster could say that in his opinion politicians don’t care about Jewish support.
However, in the absence of any argument by the previous poster, it is hard to see the previous post as anything other than a mean-spirited bully tactic intended to intimidate me and others into censoring ourselves.
Why don’t religious people ever try to intimidate me given that I am openly atheist. Are religious Americans simply better people than those on the left?
I consider myself a political conservative, but I happen to own this book. In fact, it's sitting in my bathroom because that's the only time I get to read something other than school books and SOPs at work. And as much as you may find this hard to believe, I think Mr. Bugliosi makes some very valid points. There is a "but" here. . .
On page 248, the last paragraph begins with, and I quote DIRECTLY, "The principal enemies I see to a brighter America are the right-wing. . ." This is the ONE THING I take issue with, because history has proven, and will continue to prove, that the left-wing is just as guilty for f**king this country up as the right-wing.
Furthermore, this could potentially undermine Mr. Bugliosi's credibility with a jury if he were to pursue the prosecution of Mr. Bush, or if his points--however valid--were brought up in a court of law, as that line clearly shows that he has more than the inherent bias a prosecutor had towards the defendant, and could put him (or his points) on shaky ground with a judge, whether that judge was right-or-left wing, and I say that because thankfully there ARE impartial judges out there. You just have to look for them.
I don't support prosecuting Mr. Bush, but I'm not exactly totally against it, either. All I'm saying is, don't be so quick to blame the right-wingers for our problems, and don't be 100% certain any of Mr. Bugliosi's points would hold water in a court, given that particular statement.
Just heard Bugliosi on Rosanne Barr's public radio program. Bugliosi is a hero and it's telling that there is such a media blackout over this.
Dog bless the Mighty Wurlitzer!
Perhaps you should remove your head from your rear! I would expect and article like this from a right-wing, conservitive republican. Maybe you should remove your head from Bushs' rear, not your own. All the facts are there, read them, understand them if you can. Turn off Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity just once and listen to the american people, and what they want.
2000 Election Theft.
You are articulate and I appreciate the forum you created but seems to me you are completely uninformed.
1) Bouliosi' books are relatively unknown and if you ask most people who SAW or believe in the theft of the election, most will have never heard of him.
2) Since he speaks fact based truth, what he says is not disputed by millions and millions who know what happened.
I did not read his book, did hear him speak about another topic. I followed events mostly live on C-SPAN and CNN.
In 2000 the Republicans fought like vicious dogs to stop the recount of the popular vote.
But their actions began beforhand and included:
1)Florida Attorney General and Bush's brother paid a company 4million to create a list of people who had been incarcerate and could therefore not vote. And a majority of people incacerated were African American (who vote primarily Democratic) this group was the disenfranchized.
In addition to the fact that Bush's brother refused to spend $100,000 on voter educations.
And everyone I know who moved to Florida. If you are Republican you are registered immediately. Democrats suffer 4-6 month delays.
On the 4 Million dollar list, Testimony under oath
I saw and investigative repors showed thousands whose names resembled the fellons were prevented from voting.
I also saw court cases like where the inventor of the IBM "chad" machines testified that the cause of chads not disconnecting was that the spots under the them were full of chades (where Gore's name was punched out).. Nevertheless the Republican judge refused to allow a recount of 10,000 votes in that locality.
in another locality paid Republican aids flew down (on ENRON's PLANE...largest contributor), rioted outside the recount room so recounters gave up and went home to Thanksgiving.
Yet another when Fla Attorney General (head of the Bush Campaign) refused to give 1 hour to allow recounters to finish.
Or a country with 4,000 absentee ballots. Republican Operatives were allowed to go into a closed room and do what they wanted. There were many Democratic ballots missing from that group.
On a daily basis James Baker would blatently lie about the IBM cards etc.
But the worst was that Saturday when vote counters began. All had short sleaves, camera showed nothing under the table.
It was then that the Republican ideologs on the Supreme Court superceded the order to recount by the Florida Supreme Court (even though up until 5 minutes before their ideology involved repeated shouts on behalf of "states right")..
They stopped the recount and absurdly ruled on behalf of Bush (Vs Gore).
GWB's civil rights. Against W's civil right because he was not contesting the vote count.
A brain "f", And added that their decision was a one time thing. not to creat a precident for the 1st time in history.
Afterward a recount PRINT media counted everything. Not only of the places that Gore conested... Gore was found the winner which was sparsely reported.
As for the case against Bush for lying to the congress and to the American people to take us to a war of choice....I reserve the right to comment..
worldly bullshit nevers makes it better. FACT is, God will come. therefore, I support Bugliosi all the way and also, support him as far as in condeming the supreme court also for all thier insubordinate actions, including bad law makings. The southern states in this country, still have a whole bunch of racists that work for the policing political system. That means, if they dont like your looks, you go to jail. NOW< do we let such a crook as Bush, same type, run around this world in his pack of lies, killing and stealing things that never belonged to him? Doing no penance??? Freemason bastards, a regligion against true christianity, For if we do, we are no better than the devil himself. My last quote to all "God will come" No one, gets out of it.... Not even you.
- - - Obedience, ha, thats an understatement. In the US court system, they change the laws right at the same moments of the court hearing itself. Reminds me of Rome today. If that is not hipocrite, I dont know what the word means?
Sir you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, preaching apathy and allowance of the actions of these global criminals, and then the other hand making comments about how it would never happen in your utopian world view.
Your allegiance to the global elite is obvious, it must make you sleep well at night. your arguments hold no water in the work that is needed to right the wrongs and correct our future path to peace, freedom and prosperity for all.
Your are in no way helping humanity to forge a better world, but rather trying to convince us to just deal with status quo of global enslavement by the global elite and their murderous puppets.
i have compassion for your soul.
Post a Comment