The Prosecution of GW BUSH for MURDER

[Dreadsox]

The man has written what I consider to be the FINEST book ever put together investigating the Kennedy Assasination.

Ex-Prosecutor’s Book Accuses Bush of Murder - NYTimes.com

[Q]As a Los Angeles county prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi batted a thousand in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.

As an author, Mr. Bugliosi has written three No. 1 best sellers and won three Edgar Allan Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers. More than 30 years ago he co-wrote the best seller “Helter Skelter,” about the Manson case.

So Mr. Bugliosi could be forgiven for perhaps thinking that a new book would generate considerable interest, among reviewers and on the broadcast talk-show circuit.

But if he thought that, he would have been mistaken: his latest, a polemic with the provocative title “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers. [/Q]

He prosecutes the president for the murder of American Soldiers.

 

[corianderstem]

Okay, I totally misread what you were saying and thought the book was claiming that Bush killed Kennedy.

 

[Lila64]

So did I

 

[Harry Vest]

Probably an interesting read...I'll have to check it out.
BUT...and it's a big "BUT" - I wouldn't trust anyone who spent the time Mr. Bugliosi did in making the case against conspiracy in the Kennedy assasination...but I digress, this thread is about George W. Bush so let's keep it to that. Funny how Dick Cheney isn't mentioned??? Or is he?????

 

[Diemen]

Probably an interesting read...I'll have to check it out.
BUT...and it's a big "BUT" - I wouldn't trust anyone who spent the time Mr. Bugliosi did in making the case against conspiracy in the Kennedy assasination...but I digress, this thread is about George W. Bush so let's keep it to that. Funny how Dick Cheney isn't mentioned??? Or is he?????

I'm curious - by your statement I assume that Mr. Bugliosi spent a lot of time making the case. Why wouldn't you trust someone who puts a lot of time into making a case for something?

 

[U2DMfan]

I remember when Bugliosi challenged Johnny Cochran to a televised mock trial using the same evidence from the OJ Simpson case. He might have proposed to do it for charity or to benefit the victims family, I can't remember but nevertheless, Cochran didn't take him up on the offer.

 

[maycocksean]

The man has written what I consider to be the FINEST book ever put together investigating the Kennedy Assasination.

Ex-Prosecutor’s Book Accuses Bush of Murder - NYTimes.com

[Q]As a Los Angeles county prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi batted a thousand in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.

As an author, Mr. Bugliosi has written three No. 1 best sellers and won three Edgar Allan Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers. More than 30 years ago he co-wrote the best seller “Helter Skelter,” about the Manson case.

So Mr. Bugliosi could be forgiven for perhaps thinking that a new book would generate considerable interest, among reviewers and on the broadcast talk-show circuit.

But if he thought that, he would have been mistaken: his latest, a polemic with the provocative title “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers. [/Q]

He prosecutes the president for the murder of American Soldiers.

Truth be told, while Bugliosi might be a very accomplished and intelligent man in many other regards, this idea of prosecuting Bush for murder is a lot of nonsense.

I'm mean come on. . . I've always opposed Bush's Iraq policies. . .but seriously. . .murder? I don't think so.

 

[deep]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries.

Dread wrote something about murder of American soldiers?
I don't know what that is about.

I don't think Bush will ever be prosecuted.
But is he guilty of murder?

When Bush approves an air strike on a target, and he knows there will be "other people" killed in that strike,
is he not killing those other people, unlawfully? with malice aforethought?

 

[Harry Vest]

I'm curious - by your statement I assume that Mr. Bugliosi spent a lot of time making the case. Why wouldn't you trust someone who puts a lot of time into making a case for something?

Because Kennedy wasn't killed by just one man. It's so obvious.

 

[Harry Vest]

Truth be told, while Bugliosi might be a very accomplished and intelligent man in many other regards, this idea of prosecuting Bush for murder is a lot of nonsense.

I'm mean come on. . . I've always opposed Bush's Iraq policies. . .but seriously. . .murder? I don't think so.

Exactly...oh and while we're at it let's charge Johnson and Nixon with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese...and oh ya, while we're at it how about George H.W. Bush for the first Gulf War and Bill Clinton for Bosnia.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because Kennedy wasn't killed by just one man. It's so obvious.

You put conclusion before evidence, why hunt for phantom shooters when Oswald was so tied up with potential puppetmasters.

 

[maycocksean]

Dread wrote something about murder of American soldiers?
I don't know what that is about.

I don't think Bush will ever be prosecuted.
But is he guilty of murder?

When Bush approves an air strike on a target, and he knows there will be "other people" killed in that strike,
is he not killing those other people, unlawfully? with malice aforethought?

No, he's not guilty of murder. . .unless we're not going to make a distinction between murder and warfare. Now, if he ordered an air strike on a village where there was no target of military value, just because he wanted to "take some out Iraqis for the hell of it" well that would be murder in my view. Unlawful and with malice aforethought.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Vincent Bugliosi is a genius, if anyone could make a case for that it would be him. It's an attention grabber, but realistically couldn't you have to go after other world leaders for the same thing? Certainly he isn't the first to wage what some consider to be an unjust war. I'm sure it's interesting reading.

 

[U2girl]

Because Kennedy wasn't killed by just one man.

 

[Dreadsox]

My understanding is that the premise of the book would be that the war was illegal and the murder is not of Iraqi citizens, but of US Soldiers.

 

[Dreadsox]

Because Kennedy wasn't killed by just one man. It's so obvious.

Someday mabe, just maybe, there will be a shred of physical evidence that proves you right. The reality is, that in thirty years, every conspiracy theory presented has been successfully debunked.

 

[maycocksean]

My understanding is that the premise of the book would be that the war was illegal and the murder is not of Iraqi citizens, but of US Soldiers.

I still don't think you could make the case. His goal was not to kill U.S. soldiers. You might have the "unlawful" part certainly no "malice aforethought." Manslaughter maybe?

 

[Harry Vest]

Someday mabe, just maybe, there will be a shred of physical evidence that proves you right. The reality is, that in thirty years, every conspiracy theory presented has been successfully debunked.

You know what...I've had just about enough of you and your "every theory has been debunked" crap. It has not. Just face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you (as there are with me) and get on with it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You know what...I've had just about enough of you and your "every theory has been debunked" crap. It has not. Just face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you (as there are with me) and get on with it.

Don't produce the evidence, don't try to refute the refutations of conspiracy "theories" just go for the ad hominem against Dread.

You want there to be a conspiracy and have a faith in it that is independent of reality, my understanding is that Dread changed his mind on the basis of researching different sources and has a justified position.

Your only critical to one side of any argument, and seem to characterise the other as malicious, that isn't critical thinking and it's a weakness that you can fix. Employ the method of multiple working hypothesis about an issue, don't become emotional about it and don't reject facts that falsify your contentions.

Not to mention that how many people believe has no impact on reality; lot's of people believe in Allah but that doesn't make that entity true. People think that having dead bodies around makes the living sick, again not true. People thought that objects of different mass fell at different rates etc.

Just because people believe in a conspiracy (after decades of talk shows, pseudo-documentaries and blockbuster movies) that doesn't mean that there was an orchestrated plot to kill Kennedy from within the government.

Dread is in the minority of those that was interested, researched and reached conclusions. I am not sure if they are different than the ones he started with or if he had a problem changing his ideas on the basis of evidence, but given his apparent character I doubt that he would shy away from changing his mind on dearly held issues if he recognised he felt that he was wrong before.

 

[BVS]

You know what...I've had just about enough of you and your "every theory has been debunked" crap. It has not. Just face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you (as there are with me) and get on with it.

Dread has brought facts.

Harry has brought speculation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not just speculation, recycled and refuted speculation; I'm waiting for umbrella man and the three railway hobos to make an appearance.

 

[financeguy]

You want there to be a conspiracy and have a faith in it that is independent of reality.

The problem with this reasoning is that it can also be used against lone gunman believers - i.e., it could just as easily be said that those who believe in the lone gunman theory want that theory to be true.

Not to mention that how many people believe has no impact on reality; lot's of people believe in Allah but that doesn't make that entity true. People think that having dead bodies around makes the living sick, again not true. People thought that objects of different mass fell at different rates etc.

Irrelevant.

Just because people believe in a conspiracy (after decades of talk shows, pseudo-documentaries and blockbuster movies) that doesn't mean that there was an orchestrated plot to kill Kennedy from within the government..

Again, the corollary is also applicable. Just because people believe in the government approved theory (after decades of pro-lone gunman theory propaganda), that doesn't mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person involved.

I am not sure if they are different than the ones he started with or if he had a problem changing his ideas on the basis of evidence, but given his apparent character I doubt that he would shy away from changing his mind on dearly held issues if he recognised he felt that he was wrong before.

If you think a committed Muslim or Christian is of good character, does that make you as an atheist more likely to reconsider your position? Of course it doesn't.

 

[financeguy]

Not just speculation, recycled and refuted speculation; I'm waiting for umbrella man and the three railway hobos to make an appearance.

And I'm waiting for proof of the magical power than transformed a notoriously poor shooter to the world's most clinical assassin, albeit for one day only.

 

[Dreadsox]

And I'm waiting for proof of the magical power than transformed a notoriously poor shooter to the world's most clinical assassin, albeit for one day only.

What is your evidence that he was a notoriously poor shooter? The conspiracy community has won the PR battle in this area, despite the evidence to the contrary. Oswalds rifle qualifications in the military show he was above average. Take that and compare it to the average citizen, he is a more than average shot. Take into account that the conspiracy community does not like to reference the fact that Oswalds weapons qualifications show that he was a better shot at moving targets than he was a stationary ones. The vehicle traveled from left to right making the shot easier, the vehcle was less than a football field away from him, and actually slowed down after the first shot was fired.....

Yes - it is sad to think that the consiracy community has us all convinced he was a sucky shot.

People also seem to forget that he attempted to assasinate General Edwin Walker a few months prior to the assasination, and missed due to the bullet nicking the window pane.

He managed to gun down the police officer with no problem at all after the assasination.

Yep.....terrible shot.

 

[financeguy]

What is your evidence that he was a notoriously poor shooter? The conspiracy community has won the PR battle in this area, despite the evidence to the contrary. Oswalds rifle qualifications in the military show he was above average. Take that and compare it to the average citizen, he is a more than average shot. Take into account that the conspiracy community does not like to reference the fact that Oswalds weapons qualifications show that he was a better shot at moving targets than he was a stationary ones. The vehicle traveled from left to right making the shot easier, the vehcle was less than a football field away from him, and actually slowed down after the first shot was fired......

Anything I have read indicates that he was a poor shot.

People also seem to forget that he attempted to assasinate General Edwin Walker a few months prior to the assasination, and missed due to the bullet nicking the window pane.

He managed to gun down the police officer with no problem at all after the assasination.

Yep.....terrible shot.

An awful lot of valid questions have been raised regarding Oswald's involvement in BOTH of these incidents.

Apart from anything else, where is the logic in Oswald attempting to assassinate the right wing Walker, and then successfully assassinating the liberal leaning Kennedy? Unless he was just a complete nut, but actually there is no psychiatric indication that would substantiate that claim.

But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that he DID attempt to assassinate Walker, well, as you said, he obviously missed.

Officer Tippit was gunned down at close range if I remember correctly.

So really, these incidents aren't very helpful in attempting to show that Oswald was an expert marksman!

 

[Dreadsox]

Don't produce the evidence, don't try to refute the refutations of conspiracy "theories" just go for the ad hominem against Dread.

The fact is there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support more than one gunman.

You want there to be a conspiracy and have a faith in it that is independent of reality, my understanding is that Dread changed his mind on the basis of researching different sources and has a justified position.

I think that Lee Harvey Oswald was some type of government agent. I think eventually, history will prove this out on some level. He may have been a double agent. I used to believe there was more than one shooter. I no longer believe this. I strongly believe he was indeed the shooter.

[Q]Your only critical to one side of any argument, and seem to characterise the other as malicious, that isn't critical thinking and it's a weakness that you can fix. Employ the method of multiple working hypothesis about an issue, don't become emotional about it and don't reject facts that falsify your contentions.[/Q]

The problem is, that the theory of badgeman that he holds to, has been disproven many moons ago.

Dread is in the minority of those that was interested, researched and reached conclusions. I am not sure if they are different than the ones he started with or if he had a problem changing his ideas on the basis of evidence, but given his apparent character I doubt that he would shy away from changing his mind on dearly held issues if he recognised he felt that he was wrong before.

If you look at the theories - Badgeman, Umbrealla Man, The Three Tramps - many of these theories were hatched due to the sealing of evidence to protect sources, governement operations, and in my opinion, the fact that the government - like on 9/11 new enough but did not connect the dots.

After Oliver Stones movie - which was a success by getting documents unsealed and revealed - has come revelations that disprove MANY of the theories that had circulated for years. Unfortunately due to the web, the conspiracies that have been disproved in subsequent research since 1993 due to the release of said documents (the names of the three hobos - not E Howard Hunt and Frank Stugis) still carry vailidity.

My research right now leads me to Oswald being the shooter. Oswald in my opinion HAS to have been an agent of the US government, the Soviet Government, or the Cuban Government. I think he was a double agent. I think he was turned. There are TOO many people with intelligence background in his life.

AS for conspiracy, evidence was hidden to protect the agents of the government, be it they fucked up, or their guy went bad.

 

[Dreadsox]

Anything I have read indicates that he was a poor shot.

Bugliosi and Posner have demonstrated plenty of evidence to the contrary.

An awful lot of valid questions have been raised regarding Oswald's involvement in BOTH of these incidents.

Apart from anything else, where is the logic in Oswald attempting to assassinate the right wing Walker, and then successfully assassinating the liberal leaning Kennedy?

Well, it depends on who he was trying to impress. He spent plenty of time trying to develop readical left wing credentials throughout his time in New Orleans.

Yet, he was also (Sylvia Odio) attempting at the same time trying to infiltrate Right Wing organizations who wanted to kill Castro.

If you believe like me that he was attempting to build credentials to enter Cuba, something he attempted to do weeks before he killed Kennedy, there could be a pretty good case that he was sent to defect to the Soviet Union by our government, returned and attempted to build his left wing radical credentials, to get into Cuba to kill Castro.

[Q]Unless he was just a complete nut, but actually there is no psychiatric indication that would substantiate that claim.[/Q]

Have you researched this? There is quite the psychiatric trail, including the psycholigist who worked with him. He did not have a pleasant childhood.

[Q]But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that he DID attempt to assassinate Walker, well, as you said, he obviously missed. [/Q] Not by much. But did he miss on purpose? I believe he was not alone that night. I believe he was in the process of building his credentials.

[Q]Officer Tippit was gunned down at close range if I remember correctly.

So really, these incidents aren't very helpful in attempting to show that Oswald was an expert marksman![/Q]

I disagree, and you discout the fact that a shot at less than a football fields distace is not that hard on a target moving left to right. You discount the fact that his marksmanship in the military was proven to be better at moving targets.

Although - haha - he did shoot himself in the foot if I remeber correctly while in the service - hahah

My point on Tippet, is why shoot a police officer if you did not shoot the president.

FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy. That was my theory when I believed he was a bad shot. Connoly dishonorably discharged him as Secretary of the Navy, so my old hypothesis was that due to his "POOR MARKSMANSHIP" he hit Kennedy.

Again, Bugliosis and Posner have WELL documented books with actual historical research to back the his marksmanship.

 

[Dreadsox]

You know what...I've had just about enough of you and your "every theory has been debunked" crap. It has not. Just face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you (as there are with me) and get on with it.

Bring EVIDENCE and stop personlizing. Thousands if people have been wrong before.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The problem with this reasoning is that it can also be used against lone gunman believers - i.e., it could just as easily be said that those who believe in the lone gunman theory want that theory to be true.

Oswald as the shooter doesn't imply that Oswald was a lone nut acting entirely alone. I am perfectly comfortable with the contention that the CIA was a rogue agency at the time and there were those in the government with an interest in eliminating JFK. I think that it is more important to establish those connections than continuing to go down the road of multiple shooter hypotheses which haven't stood up.

Irrelevant.

Half of all Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old, it doesn't make it so. What happened on that day in Dallas has little to do with what people believed happened. Appealing to what people believe is what is truly irrelevant.

Again, the corollary is also applicable. Just because people believe in the government approved theory (after decades of pro-lone gunman theory propaganda), that doesn't mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person involved.

Your right about the possibility of other people being involved involved, I think you are wrong about multiple shooters. I think that by spending decades trying to refute the best fit model of a single shooter with sometimes zany conspiracy theories those pushing a conspiratorial explanation have allowed themselves to get discredited.

Oswald was involved with parties that had an interest in getting Kennedy out of the way, establishing those links would be much more productive than going down the dead end of trying to make a multiple shooter model fit when a single shooter model works.

If you think a committed Muslim or Christian is of good character, does that make you as an atheist more likely to reconsider your position? Of course it doesn't.

Dread makes an argument that appeals to evidence, he takes the time to refute specific claims and comes to the argument with an open mind.

 

[Dreadsox]

FYI - There will be a show on the Discovery Channel on November 4th I believe that will be dealing with the physical evidence of the presidential limo. There may be physical evidence presented that may support more than one gunman.

There certainly is enough evidence that LBJ certainly wanted the public to believe that there was one gunman.

I would also say, that Posner and Bugliosi do not make much reference to the physical evidence surrounding the limo. It troubles me that they stripped it down so quickly after the assasination - within a week I believe. Is it incompetance? I am looking forward to this show.