Most of us know Vincent Bugliosi as the man who prosecuted Charlie
Manson, Mass Murderer, and as the author of the book Helter Skelter. Tuesday Bugliosi's new book, " The Prosecution Of George W Bush For Murder", was released. The shit
should hit the fan shortly  if there is still justice in
America. I have spent Monday morning reading excerpts, watching video,
and digesting the information.

If Bush were impeached, convicted in
the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free
man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his
cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning
paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong
to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to
speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being
responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in
true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush
did. www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.

Bugliosi is not just some journalist, he is a accomplished prosecutor
with a success record of "105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including
21 murder convictions without a single loss". That is pretty damn
impressive. He is also a world renown, best selling writer of "True
Crime" books. In his new book he lays out not just the crimes Bush has
committed, but all the evidence, the complete prosecution plans right
down to the questions he would ask Bush if he choose to take the stand.
The book promises to raise many a eyebrow if not much more like
swatting a hornet nest. We can only hope it hits the New York Times
Best Sellers list quickly, making it impossible of the media to ignore.



 Bugliosi does not write this as a partisan Democrat, but as someone
with a eye toward justice, the kind of justice that criminal
prosecutors across our country pursue daily here in America. He uses
the real evidence not the impassioned claims of a zealot. In a article
at Commondreams.org he lays out that evidence. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for
now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks
with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the
United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide
Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report
concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass
destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass
destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is,
he would only use them in self-defense.


Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which
became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration
edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed
its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and
ominous.

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office
with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the
meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor
David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq,
and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some
justification for the war that would be acceptable to other
nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN
inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about
three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with
Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft
with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam
fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would
justify war Bush was calculating to create a war, not
prevent one.

 Bugliosi goes on to talk about Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief
weapons inspector in Iraq and his message that Saddam and Iraq "had capitulated to all demands for professional,
no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased
aerial surveillance by the U.S. over the “no-fly”
zones." and much, much more. Because of the Fair Use
rules here at dkos you should follow the link and read the details for
your self. The titles of a next couple paragraphs of evidence include "Hussein Disarms, so Bush ... Goes to War", "The Niger
Allegation" and "The 9/11 Lie".



 This is the kind of book that had to be done, and done by someone of
Bugliosi's standing. Will it be the clarion call we have been waiting
for ? Only time will tell, but if we buy enough copies it Will be
noticed. The time has come for a book like this to hit the streets.
Americans have never thought so little of a sitting President as the
polls show, there is a reason for that and it could be that deep under
their skin Americans know what Bush has done. Bugliosi points out over
and over how both journalists and politicians will over and over point
out what Bush has done, yet never call for the consequences of those
actions.

 Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that
George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq
is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this
merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their
columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it
Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush
should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's
almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than
impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for
having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If
we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country
to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible,
violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including
women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously
has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush
were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd
still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his
cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning
paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong
to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to
speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over
100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true
justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush
did.

Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of
course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few
recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for
Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about
"the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an
unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the
next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war
where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how
can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that
Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For
doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished
commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a
crime of colossal proportions?

 It all comes down to this final question and what we are going to do
about it. "Are there no consequences for committing a
crime of colossal proportions?"

 You can both view a video of or listen Bugliosi at his website and I
highly recommend both.  I will honor our fallen Heroes
by buying my copy of this book and by urging you to do the
same. They deserve no less.
 Bugliosi's website http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/index.php