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]

Originally Posted by 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?????

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

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]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

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]

Originally Posted by deep

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]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

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]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

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]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

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]

Originally Posted by Harry Vest

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.