VB: I can't think of it. I've got -- progressive radio.
MC: Well, sure.
VB: But what I'm thinking of is, you know, a prominent celebrity or a prosecutor. Or someone at the network or cable or someone at a daily newspaper. I'm talking about a main newspaper, not a small paper or a review of the book. No one that I know of. And that came to my mind just last night, kind of an extension of the cold case thing, and I said to my wife, "Is there someone out there that I don't know about that's come forward?" There's got to be someone out there in this country that's got the courage to say, "Bugliosi is right, and I endorse what he's doing." And if there is that person, I really don't know who that person is. There's only one person who's a member of the mainstream who has come forward to support me, and that hasn't been publicly. I'm talking about the congressman. He's making no secret of it on Capitol Hill. He carries the book around with him. He's been passing the book out. He's contacted several people in the media, high up in the media, and asked them to interview me. I've spoken to one of them already, very high up, establishment media. He's working behind the scenes big‑time, but I think he's coming up for reelection. But he is the only person that comes to my mind in this entire country.
MC: That's stunning.
VB: And the majority of the American people, a poll showed, believe that Bush intentionally misled this country into war. Where is the outrage? Doesn't anyone have the courage to stand up and say, "I support Vince Bugliosi"? So far it's zero, and that just came to my mind last night.
People are always saying how courageous I am, and I'm not courageous. When I tell people, "No, it's all out of anger," they say, "Well, yeah, a lot of people are angry, but they don't have the courage to do anything about it." And I started to think about that, and as applied to me I think this: I have had fears, in taking on the U.S. Supreme Court, taking on the President of the United States, but my anger overcomes that fear. Do you follow?
Permission to reproduce this material in part or whole with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, acknowledgement of images, and faithful representation of Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.
Can you explain 'Authority to Prosecute' and what qualifications this person must have to be considered. Mr. Bugliosi does not have authority? Why? Sorry for my lack here. Seems odd that he would not know where to turn. Must it be within our gov institution?
thanx. Boy, this feels like there's a dam of potential behind it.
peace
by
mikel paul (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 489 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 6:36:06 PM
Sorry I wasn't more precise in the intro. If you are a local district attorney or a federal attorney, you can charge Bush with murder, by this approach. Jurisdiction mean simply - the authority to bring charges and try a case. Bugliosi is retired as a prosecutor. He can only exhort his brethren to do this. The fact that the war was predicated on falsehoods makes the deaths unlawful. Bugloisi points out that this is how murder charges are determined.
If a U.S. soldier form the county where the district attorney resided or the region of the United States Attorney, then they have jurisdiction.
He goes in to more detail in the book. But we have a historical example. Jim Garrison, DA of New Orleans, charged Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the death of John F. Kennedy. He had jurisdiction since, according to his case, Shaw conspired with others in New Orleans to commit the murder.
This case, Bugliosi argues, is much more direct since the falsity of the documents underlying the claim that we had to defend ourselves is agreed up on by everyone. That's probably why it seems like there's a lot of potential. There is and it survives the presidency and the president cannot pardon himself.
Thanks for asking.
by
Michael Collins (112 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 401 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:10:19 PM
Is there any jurisdiction to go after the media and their executives who have yet to publicaaly retract the misinformation and propaghanda which had led the nation to perceive the threat of WMD's? Isn't there some responsibility on their part for deceiving the public as well?
by
Ben Kall (1 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 35 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:17:16 PM
There should be accountability and culpability on the part of the major news media if they deliberately ignored problems while pusing information that they knew was outright wrong. I think that the New York Times is the perfect case in question. They pushed the WMD story very hard. They did it through one reporter, primarily, who had one source - an Iraqi ex patriot who was on the Department of Defense payroll. What can be done? Should they just be ridiculed and castigated for this unforgivable error or can they be prosecuted. Robert Parry wrote a column on this, which I tried to find but can't. It's there, howver, and it discusses news media liablity for war crimes in international courts. But they're liable in the court of public opinion.
by
Michael Collins (112 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 401 comments)
on Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 1:32:09 AM
Except maybe and this is a very small peeve he is to soft on Clinton. I think Clinton's behavior in the White House served as a sort of conscience innoculator reducing still further the expectations that citizens have of their Presidents. I think Clinton psychologically helped set the scene for Bush.
I bet the Southern Congressman hails from Florida.
Thank you for amplifying Vincent Bugliosi's message so well. Please keep up the good work.
I look forward to Part 2.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:53:26 PM
... killed 250,000 or so children 5 years and under. That's obscene. They knew this was going to happen, as indicated by Madeline Albright's flip remark when confronted with the death totals - "It was worth it." The forum for this is the world court. And I hope someone looks at the appropriate law and follows through. One of the big lies about the Bush invasion is the suggestion that U.S. soldiers would be welcomed with flowers and cheers. That, of course, was a lie since the White House had to know that Clinton had bombed Iraq regularly since 1992 causing deaths and that the sanctions had caused excessive deaths.
by
Michael Collins (112 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 401 comments)
on Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 1:45:34 AM
The best thing that could happen to give a prosecutor
confidence that his or her efforts would not be in vain, would be if Obama were to promise NOT to pardon Bush.
That is a promise that Obama will be reluctant to give but that progressives should be seeking anyway. There is such a thing ultimately as the right thing to do. And putting war criminals out of the reach of the law to get elected isn't it.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 2:09:20 AM
It seems to me that the discrepancies between the White Paper and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 are the keys to Bugliosi's case. Other than that, there is little if any other direct evidence of an effort to deceive Congress and the American people. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate a tendency to exaggerate the WMD intel against Iraq such as the reliance on unreliable sources such as "Curveball" and Chalabi, but I don't know that these rise to the levels of evidentiary strength needed for a successful prosecution.
Other than Bush leaving out of the fact that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't use WMD's absent a US invasion from the White Paper, there is little else direct evidence (Bugliosi would probably point out I'm not using that term correctly) apart from perhaps the Downing Street Memo (if that would be determined to be admissible evidence). So I'm not sure Bugliosi's case is a strong one. And for the record, I just finished reading his book and plan to read it again and take notes so I'm not just talking off the cuff.
Anyone who's read the book care to comment on the perceived strength of Bugliosi's case?
by
Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:03:54 AM
I find it utterly devastating. To begin with, we know now that there were no WMD's and we have Bush on tape admitting that there was no connection between Hussein's regime and 911.
If Bush presented doctored or altered information that influenced the authorization for war, then he's responsible for the deaths and therefore the crime involved in causing those deaths.
This is all you need. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (provided to the White House on 10/1/2002, altered and released to Congress shortly thereafter).
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
• The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
There is no mention of imminent danger of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. There is a judgment expressed. The condition that might lead to an Iraqi attack is a US attack on Iraq that threatens Saddam's survival. The report says that there is "no specific intelligence" of even this occurring.
The White Paper released to Congress leaves this out. No mention of the case where Iraq would be a threat and imminent danger. Without that, there's no justification for war on the basis of "self defense."
The war was based on the threat to the U.S. by Iraq. The NEI clearly failed to support that. It said just the opposite - Iraq was a threat if we attacked them - and it said it with the qualifier that there was no direct evidence.
Bush sent a report to Congress that left this out. GUILTY with malicious intent based removing the original language.
The second part of the justification was that Iraq had WMD and would be selling them to al Queada. Setting aside the prior knowledge of WMD, there was NO evidence, none, that there was such a relationship. You don't have to prove a negative, you just have to note that there is no support for second pillar of self defense:the miscreants who perpetrated 911 were shopping in Iraq for WMD. But there was the intent to mislead Congress and citizens in the White Paper prepared by the White House.
This is how the war was justified and approved, funded and supported. It is a pack of lies based on doctoring the NEI to remove the key statement and judgment and absent any real proof of a connection between 911 and Iraq.
That's utterly devastating and it is indisputable. We have the original NEI that Bush had and we have no proof that the administration ever had intel connecting bin Laden's group with Iraq.
There doesn't need to be any more evidence. This is the whole ball game. It's air tight.
by
Michael Collins (112 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 401 comments)
on Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 2:16:34 AM
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, by Vincent Bug
Comment from Ratings: Mr. Bugliosi,
Although your book and public speeches have been praised, read and listened to by millions, the iron doors of the Establishment elite, who blindly support Bush, including AIPAC, have been shut in a conspiracy of silence that the organized Bar allows. This is the shadow government that controls our nation, and bought the White House for its puppet, G. W. Bush. Eisenhower, and earlier presidents gave fair warning about the sinister plans of the "military industrial complex", whose captains of industry, acting in concert with the media barons,want you silenced because they know you are right. And they dare not speak because they know there is no defense of the indefensible conduct by Bush that has ravaged and destroyed the lives of millions. If one courageous prosecutor came forward to present your case to a jury, he or she would be likely vilified, even by members of your profession who are lackeys to their rich, and often corrupt, clients.
I have reason to believe that Congressman Robert Wexler is the courageous member of the House Judiciary who spoke in your support, having actively advocated impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Although I am not his constituent, I am outraged and angry at the recent attacks on him, seeking to defeat his re-election, in the same way that I am furious that the mainstream media refuses to allow you to appear on prime time programs.
Speaking in behalf of many, I hope and pray that you will continue to speak out, and find a prosecutor of your character and integrity who will urge fellow lawyers to come forth and join you in burning a mark in Bush's soul that will forever wipe that smirk from his face. And Cheney with him for their unconscionable massacre of humanity.
Sincerely,
Joan Crosby Tibbetts
by
Joan Tibbetts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 11:33:38 PM
17 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
