Today we visit Vincent Bugliosi’s book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Tomorrow we visit Vincent Bugliosi himself as he talks about his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee appearance and his book.
As you may have heard by now, the mainstream media has been giving Vincent Bugliosi’s latest book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, the cold shoulder. Never mind that he authored what was, at the time, the bestselling crime book in history, Helter Skelter, about his successful prosecution of the Manson family. Nor that he’s written numerous bestsellers since. His 2007 book, Reclaiming History, a 1,600-page attempt to dispel alternative histories of the Kennedy assassination, is being made into a mini-series by HBO and Tom Hanks.
In the only mainstream media article addressing The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and its reception, New York Times reporter Tim Arango writes: “The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, said he had not read the manuscript, but he offered a reason why the media might be silent: ‘I think there’s a kind of Bush-bashing fatigue out there.'”
The main reason though may be Bugliosi’s agenda: Impeach Bush? Convene a truth and reconciliation commission for him and his gang? Forget all that. Once Bush is out of office, let’s drag his butt into a court of law. But the media’s perception that much of the public can’t conceive of prosecuting a president in a court of law is probably accurate.
Most Americans are too invested in whatever remains of the myth of the presidency and fear that a trial would subvert a president’s authority. Besides, as Bugliosi himself said in an interview with the Nation, “Americans just can’t believe an American President would engage in conduct that smacks of such criminality, and thus the whole notion of taking the President to court for murder is a revolutionary one.”
Myth-busting aside, and however out of fashion Bush-bashing may be, Bugliosi summons up a depth and breadth of rage that shames those of us who have been reduced to ennui and cynicism by the Bush years. You’d never know that not only is he 73 years old but still on the rebound from the monumental task of researching and writing his Kennedy tome.
For instance, he has no compunctions about pulling the rug out from under soldiers’ rationalization of last resort –- that they fight over there to keep from fighting here. To Bugliosi the question isn’t why but who. He writes: “If you say our young men didn’t die for Bush, Cheney, and Rove, then whom did they die for?”
Nor does he pull any punches on Bush’s character. “What I strongly believe (without absolutely knowing) is that this man has no respect or love for this country.” What makes him think that?
For starters, Bush put our young people in harm’s way for no good reason, avoided the draft when young himself, and experiences no apparent concern for the carnage in Iraq. Furthermore, he spends much of his time in Crawford, neglects to read reports, and is guilty of blatant cronyism. What really sticks in Bugliosi’s craw is the cheerfulness and insouciance that Bush exhibits in a time of war.
For instance, Bugliosi cites an August 2005 day Bush spent in Crawford in the midst of a two-week period during which 42 Americans were killed. With Bush’s only work-related activity lunch with Condoleezza Rice, he called it a “perfect day.” Bugliosi writes: “I don’t know about you, but if I ever killed just one person, even accidentally, like in a car accident, I’d never have another perfect day as long as I lived.”
At one point Bugliosi even declares: “Bush is a grotesque anomaly and aberration.” If, even in the service of rallying us to prevail upon the Justice Department to bring charges, such exclamations seem over the top, look at this way. The least we could do is allow Bugliosi to vent since much of this book is essentially a turnkey project for a federal attorney to start the ignition on the prosecution of Bush and put it in gear.
A crime is an act that’s not only prohibited, but accompanied by criminal intent. In the case of murder, this is known as malice aforethought, which comes in two varieties. The first is express malice — the specific intent to kill. In the second, implied malice, the intent is not to kill but to commit a dangerous act with wanton disregard for the consequences as well as an indifference to human life.
Bush, Bugliosi writes, not only fulfilled the second requirement, implied malice, but he started the Iraq War “without any lawful excuse of justification.”
Bush’s defense would be self-defense –- that he needed to carry out a preemptive strike on Saddam. But lying that Saddam possessed WMD and conspired with al Qaeda to commit 9/11 shows that Bush wasn’t acting in self-defense, but, instead, in a criminal state of mind. Hence, every American killed as a result of his actions are murders on Bush’s part.
In most states implied malice is second-degree murder. But, Bugliosi writes, “Bush’s alleged crime is. . . on such a grand scale that it would greatly dishonor those. . . who paid the ultimate price because of it if he were not to pay the ultimate penalty.”
In the interest of prosecuting Bush for first-degree murder, Bugliosi writes that a “very credible argument could be made that in a real sense he did intend to have American soldiers killed in his war.”
Say what?
Bugliosi explains. A typical example of implied malice is a high-speed chase though a school zone, in which “not only didn’t the defendant intend to kill, but he had no way of knowing whether someone would die or not. [But] while Bush never specifically intended to kill any American soldier, he absolutely knew American soldiers would necessarily die in his war.” (Italics are Bulgiosi’s.)
He continues. “Therefore, a case could be made that unless Bush intended to have a war without any casualties, which is. . . an argument that would make Bush sound absurd. . . he did, in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed.”
In other words, as everyone knows, in war, casualties come with the territory. If the “natural tendency” of an act is to take another’s life, the law can’t help but conclude that was intentional.
As for his chances of success, “. . . as a former prosecutor with twenty-one murder convictions without a loss. . . I am probably in a better position than the average person to know what type of evidence is necessary to go to trial with.” If he’s rusty, he sure doesn’t sound like it. In fact, he’s begun to arouse the interest of current prosecutors.
Much of the rest of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is given over to cataloging Bush’s crimes. Bugliosi brings some to our attention that have gone unnoticed by many of us. For example, who remembers Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, stating before the invasion that Iraq’s cooperation in the inspections, “can be seen as active, even proactive”?
For more on Bush & Co.’s crimes, see. . .
The 935 lies of George Bush (and friends) by Martin Bosworth
Mission accomplished, part deux by Dr. Slammy
Bush golfing again, says “long nat’l nightmare” over by Brad Jacobson
Categories: Arts/Literature, Media/Entertainment, Politics/Law/Government, War/Security, World
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 
First of all- I do think the country has “Bush Fatigue” and prosecuting him personally would be such an undertaking that the natural question will arise “Don’t we have more pressing issues to worry about” if it were undertaken.
If anything I would prefer issues like corruption and cronyism explored following his term in office. We, as a nation, need to learn from the last eight years. We need to learn what happened in the back rooms, so that we (as a whole) can demand more of our government.
As it stands now, only a select few partisans really get down in the weeds on what’s going on Washington. These groups look at everything through such a prism that it is difficult see the real truth through the partisan take on the truth.
My hope is that Bush represents rock bottom for this era in history. Many believe this feeling is reflected in the large number of voters turning out in the primaries. When things are going well, the electorate will disengage. A disengaged populace provides the void allowing government to become more tyrannical. Now is the time to push the pendulum back. Large scale prosecutions will hurt, more than help, in my opinion, however.
The answer to this issue will be found by keeping our eyes on the future, while remembering the past, not by wallowing in it.
Bob,
You could be right, and I’m certainly open to any data that becomes available supporting your contention that average US citizens have any knowledge whatsoever of the corruption and cronyism (and misuse of the Justice Department) of the Bush years, or if they know, that they have a clue about the danger to the Republic. I’d guess that the average American couldn’t give a flying happy about those things. If he’s not worried about a terrorist showing up in his backyard and nuking his Kentucky Blue, and if he has a job that keeps him in beer and Big Macs, he’s happy as a pig in Texas.
I think we have to decide, as a country, when we’re just going to say, “OK. You broke the law many times, but WTF?” I’ve heard the same argument, “let bygones by bygones,” about the guy who killed Medgar Evers because, after all, it was a long time ago, and “it stirs up too many bad old memories.”
Is there no deterrent value in punishment? I’ve made a small study of that rhetorical question I just asked you, and it appears to me that the deterrent value is quite small among petty and violent criminals, but quite strong among white-collar types. So, if I’m right, it would follow that we might just deter the next freakin’ guy (or gal) who thinks the Presidency is a get out of jail free card if we throw the current one in jail for any crimes he may have committed (let’s do the innocent until proven guilty thing, here).
As usual (*grin*), we’ll have to disagree. I think people who break the law should be accountable for that, and I don’t think we should let them off just because it seems like too much trouble to try them. Moreover, I believe that those who are in positions of public trust who break the law should go to prison for a very, very long time. Longer, in fact, than people who take a toke off a joint.
JS- I respect your point of view and don’t feel like we disagree to very large extent.
I am leery of any pyrical victories, however. Regarding accountability, I believe holding one person accountable is a bit simplistic in regards to the problems of the past eight years.
The system of checks and balances was designed to be the deterrent and right now it is WAY out of wack. The Congress should have done a better job of checking the executive branch. This means the Republicans should have had the nuts to question the moves of the president. It also means the Dem’s needed to recognize the difficulty in calling Bush on the carpet without looking partisan (difficult for sure, possibly unfair to ask, but essential for success, absolutely).
Kind of like the old phrase- the enemy of my enemy is my friend, we need to get back to that. I’d love to see the day that Nancy Pelosi and my representative Walter Jones (R) are working together to keep President Obama or President McCain in check, instead of trying to obstruct each other.
The system was designed to foster distrust amongst the branches of government, not political parties.
The safety net to that is “we the people” holding the entire government accountable, which we collectively have not done. Until we get that to happen, going after the executive branch will only cause the cycle of divisive politics to spin with greater speed and greater force.
We cannot heal until we give them over to world court.. We have to set the example we are not above the law. Cons have become criminals ..They did it to themselves, and if we had done what they did, we would go to prison. They should too..Maybe we can make a family values prison just for them..
“Most Americans are too invested in whatever remains of the myth of the presidency and fear that a trial would subvert a president’s authority.” And it would actually stain the American people themselves..they’ve let it happen, over and over again inspite of ‘rumblings’ in the last few years..the American people themselves would be on trial.
AMEN!
It’s the same as with the German people after WW2; how could they let it happen? It will also be an indictment of the complicity of a ‘few’ news outlets who basically walked in step with the White House disinformation machine as if they were good little aparatniks..
Americans are very good at telling like it is, but when it comes to introspection and self analysis.. the majority are too collectively insecure and afraid..
“Bugliosi explains. A typical example of implied malice is a high-speed chase though a school zone, in which “not only didn’t the defendant intend to kill, but he had no way of knowing whether someone would die or not. [But] while Bush never specifically intended to kill any American soldier, he absolutely knew American soldiers would necessarily die in his war.†(Italics are Bulgiosi’s.)”
Of course! I keep saying this; you want to impeach a President for a sexual affair (really, it was about undermining the Democrats but what’s good for the goose..) but not for causing the death and destruction of people and property??
He needs to be impeached although the argument’s been made that impeaching will ultimately not have that much of a repercussion for him. What do you think? (and of course, he shouldn’t be the only one on trial)..
Ingrid
Failure to hold Bush and his coconspirators liable in a court of law makes a mockery of the claim that the U.S. is a nation of laws, not men. Bush hasn’t committed misdemeanors or bent laws that bound him politically. He’s committed hundreds of thousands of felonies in the death of Americans and Iraqis and he’s committed treason many times. He’s guilty of theft, dereliction of duty, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Saying that bygones should be bygones posits that no law needs to be enforced; all crimes are negotiable and potentially without penalty or repercussions; that some people are above all law. Failing to hold Bush legally accountable will render moot all the laws in the U.S. Why should anyone obey the law if any single person is allowed to be above it?
If followed, Bob’s suggestion above will be fatal to what’s left of the rule of law, of any kind of public control, in this republic.
I’d also point out that the American Revolution, abolition, the civil rights movement, and most other campaigns that have made the world bearable were undertaken by a minority of the population, while the majority stayed away for whatever reason. The feelings of greater part of the American public, as well as its lack of interest or concern, aren’t that important when the survival of the country is at stake.
Of course they should all be tried and prosecuted, but of course that would entail the roundup of a lot of criminal Democrats as well. They have descpicably protected these neo-fascists the entire time. Blood is on a lot of hands. That’s why it won’t happen, in all likelihood.
Regarding Kennedy: Bugliosi is completely full of shit. He takes the Warren Report at face value, ignoring what wasn’t in the cover-up. His take on JFK is nonsense.
The hospital witnesses refute his 1,600 page lie:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Apparently, George H.W. Bush “of the Central Intelligence Agency” has some connection to the ordeal, as fingered by J.Edgar Hoover, head of FBI for half a century:
http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/Jfk/HooverFbiMemo.htm
(Note the subject of the memo.)
Oh, Ingrid, I adore you.
Of course we can get behind impeaching a President for lying to Congress about a blowjob – we’re a country of sex-obsessed, guilt-ridden porn addicts. Pointing the finger o’smut is our national pastime, plus it makes for great TV and a million jokes about stained dresses and cigars.
Mass murder, treason, torture: not so funny. You’re exactly right, Ingrid. Holding the criminals responsible, both instigators and collaborators, would mean a long, terrifying look at ourselves. You know something else? We don’t have the history with the word “collaborator” that Europeans do; as a military and economic superpower, we’ve never been sufficiently taken to task on the world stage for our crimes. We’ve never had to ask ourselves on a personal level precisely where ignorance becomes willful or when failure to act becomes as evil as acting wrongly.
Every time I see one of those damn “W’04” bumper stickers on someone’s SUV I think,”How proud you must be of that particular choice…” and then I realize that they probably are. Still. But I hope not.
Nothing is more important than reestablishing the rule of law and the Constitution by impeaching and prosecuting Bush/Cheney and all their criminal minions who worked together to hoodwink the naive American public into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is plenty of credible evidence to have a successful prosecution of G W Bush for MURDER. He is the most corrupt president that has ever occupied the White House. The best way to describe the Bush administration is a mafia style cabal with no regard for the rule of law or the citizens of the country. They are in it for the corporate elite and the sickeningly wealthy only. Fascism has arrived during the 8 year reign of Cheney/Bush. Our standing in the international community has been permanently besmirched. America as a country is now justifiably viewed as an imperialistic bully.
Impeachment and prosecution are the only ways for the American people to separate themselves from the actions of the corrupt criminal leaders. It is essential that Cheney/Bush and their minions like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, CondaLIEza Rice, David Addingtion, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey and many many more are held to the same legal standard as the rest of us. They should be prosecuted and punished for their countless crimes which literally caused millions of needless deaths of innocent people. They must answer for their crimes.
This all started with the attacks of 9/11/01. After 7 years it is important for all Americans to take another look at what happened that day. The official conspiracy theory that we were sold from day one does not add up. Review the evidence now and get a clear view of a false flag psyop perpetrated by factions of the Bush government. The neocons needed a new Pearl Harbor event to get approval for beginning wars and removing civil liberties domestically. Google WTC 7. Watch videos of WTC 7, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage. Open your eyes and see the Truth. 911 was indeed an inside job.
Ed. Note: some typos cleaned up.
“Every time I see one of those damn “W’04″ bumper stickers on someone’s SUV I think,â€How proud you must be of that particular choice…†and then I realize that they probably are. Still. But I hope not.”
I for one am not proud that I voted for him. Yet another reason I don’t put stickers on my car.
“The system was designed to foster distrust amongst the branches of government, not political parties”
Actually, the system was designed to allow the will of the people to be exercised while allowing the people to avoid the day to day bothers of exercising that will. And parties were never meant to exist in this model. The original workings of the electorate (if I recall correctly) was that the person with the most votes was President, and the runner up was vice. Period. Not a “party” who had a Pres and VP to be voted on. The party system came with the system, but it’s the bad part that was allowed to creep in by those who wished to divide and conquer.
And hiding behind “bygones” allows that party mentality to thrive. If you commit a crime, you should be convicted. Period. The ones that need to be watched the most are the ones abusing the decency of everyone else the most. Partisan is when you spend $60 million on a witch hunt and end up with a blow job. When document after document, scandal after scandal says “dirty lying bastard that’s getting people killed and pissing away trillions of dollars”, that’s clearly not partisan. That it will be called such is the same old game “they” have played for hundreds of years now.
That Pelosi took impeachment off the table implies she has some direct complicity in all of this.. Which is why we’re not hearing anything about it. While the 2 party system used to be semi-functional, if not mostly dysfunctional, today it’s just a ruse to keep the masses at each other’s throats and provide venues for name calling instead of debating.
Bob said: “Yet another reason I don’t put stickers on my car.”
Did you see the report a month or so ago that people with stickers on their cars are more likely to be associated in road rage incidents? And the more stickers, the more likely it was. Interestingly enough, the increased incidents was associated with the presence and number of stickers, but not with what was actually on the stickers – Priuses plastered with environmentalist stickers were just as bad as pickups with NRA and Soldier of Fortune stickers.
Threats of violence against anyone are against the official S&R comment policy and all comments doing so will be deleted. Two comments already have been, and repeat offenders may be banned without notice.
– Admin
It is very simple . . . failure to prosecute Bush, and those in his administration who were complict, guarantees that all of this (and probably far worse) will happen again. This is not about revenge, but about securing a future in a country we might recognize.
Bob, I don’t have any stickers, either. We should be able to safely co-exist. 🙂
Suggesting that George Bush be “LAWFULLY executed” for his crimes is NOT a threat of violence, Moderator.
George Bush is a war criminal, he has committed treason against America, he is no better than Saddam Hussein, and he deserves the same fate.
Is Administrator taking the position that advocating the LAWFUL execution of George Bush is a threat of violence?
Administrator is DEEPLY mistaken, and owes some of us an apology.
Bush deserves as fair a trial as Saddam Hussein got.
Administrator should be much more careful about characterizing comments that advocate justice as a threat of violence.
Actaully I thought about this while I was out. My Jeep does have some stickers, just not political. (Sigma Chi, US Navy, Rancid and the local Soccer Association). My wifes car will never get stickers.
So what I meant to say was no political stickers. But I am happy to coexist with everyone.
I am almost done with this book and I can tell you he lays out a very clear case. The most difficult part is that of accepting the notion that a president could be a criminal…and this is coming from someone who believes Bush to be criminal, but the evidence is there. bush and co. created, manipulated, lied all to get us into a war of their choosing. Iraq was not a mistake, it was designed and it was designed by lies and that is provable.
The bush crimes shouldn’t be looked at as isolated incidents. Going back to at least the 1934 coup against FDR, there has been a long history of those who would subvert the republic for their own ends, be it for capitalist profit, fascism, whatever. The characters involved (though often from the same families, like the bushies, Duponts, Morgans, etc) have changed, the goals have not. FDR chose to let the conspirators off the hook in 1934; we are paying for that now. If we don’t bring these people to justice, republicans and democrats alike, then future generations will be in great peril. The message to them will be: they can plot against the constitution and get away with it. So they will continue to do so. Has Obama sold out to the “powers that be?” Only time will tell. There is no question where McCain (and his wife) direct their loyalties.
The President has committed crimes. Serious crimes. Why should he and his accomplices get away with them? He should be vigorously prosecuted and it should start now.
If we do not, then the next President will think that he (or she) could get away with even worse crimes. Do you really want that?
-OR, does crime really pay? It comes down to that, doesn’t it? Not prosecuting the President demeans our entire system of Justice and leaves us with one question: Why arrest and prosecute anyone? Why?
America needs to be deBushified, just as Germany was deNazified following World War II.
Our national agony goes back to the HUGE mistake not to prosecute Nixon to the fullest extent of the law.
Nixon´s crimes should have been exposed fully for every American to see, not papered over for the sake of a fraudulent, fictitious national unity.
Nixon should have paid a criminal penalty for his crimes. Nixon should have done prison time. This clown Bush is far, far worse than Nixon.
If NIxon had been prosecuted, Americans would have seen the truth, finally, and seeing the truth would have been healing, not divisive.
The agony America is going through today with the loathsome fool in the White House is directly attributable to Gerald Ford´s DEAD WRONG and arguably corrupt decision to pardon Richard Nixon in 1974.
Remember Gerald Ford´s unconvincing explanation of his finances during his vice-presidential confirmation hearings. Ford WAS corrupt.
Anyway, if Nixon had paid the full price for his crimes, America would not have have an idiot criminal president like George W. Bush today.
HIstory shows time and again that leaders improve markedly after the worst ones are punished severely. Every country should execute a bad leader every fifty or hundred years or so. I´m sure Thomas Jefferson would agree.
¨A harmful truth is better than a helpful lie¨ — Thomas Mann
And yes, once again — and this is NOT a threat of violence — Bush deserves to pay for his crimes with his very life.
In a fit of pathological whining and in the spirit of Randi Rhodes , Ralph said:
“Every country should execute a bad leader every fifty or hundred years or so. I´m sure Thomas Jefferson would agree.”
What are you smoking, and who cares what Jefferson would have thought….
I certainly hope that your opinion isn’t shared by a majority on your side of the aisle.
In this country, people are presumed to be innocent until found guilty. You want to be the judge, jury, and executioner all in one.
Jeff
By all means, give George a fair trial — like the prisoners get at Guantanamo, like Saddam got in Baghdad.
He deserves nothing more and nothing less, Jeff.
I´m simply predicting the proper outcome to the trials of George Bush for treason and war crimes.
Sorry, Jeff.. but Ralph is mostly “on” on this.
First, anyone that cares about this country should care what Jefferson would say. He’s one of those people that dedicated his life to making sure we were free people. He clearly was someone that understood the cost and benefit of being “free”, which makes his writings and thought process, if nothing else, worth taking note of in matters of Government.
And the entire point of this thread is that, like you, unfortunately, the “majority” don’t even think a murderer should be looked at meanly, let alone punished for his crimes. The reason? They are a member of the “ruling elite”, and we all know they deserve more in life than the rest of us, right? Even deserve to not have to be subjected to the very laws they write and execute on the “lowly masses”? …… think about it.
The Shrub and his Administration (and various other people) are guilty of trying to use the “Nation” for their own ends, not the ends of the “people”. These are facts that are supported by documentation, logic, and reason. No one wants to be “judge, jury, and executioner all in one”, we want him on TRIAL for CRIMINAL CHARGES (to wit there are MANY pieces of evidence to warrant such a trial).
The charges are of the greatest magnitude. The kind of charges that fall in the line of “treason” and “traitor” and “war criminal”. Those charges, in most of the world and the United States in most of our history, warrant a death sentence. We’re talking real world here, not right-wing word games or left-wing coddling. In the military you can be shot on the spot for treason during war. The Shrub is the head of the military, and while this isn’t a time of “war” (despite the misnomer always tossed around), treason is still a capitol offense only we offer a trial first (more than what the Shrub is willing to do for anyone he deems “a threat”).
This thread and the book it discusses is about how the people don’t want to “face reality” these days. We’re back to being a ruled people, not a free people. A free people would arrest and charge a Criminal, no matter his position or stature. But, in the right-wing bizzaro world, we’re serfs and our masters never suffer unduly, especially just because the “law” demands it. …….. that’s a dangerous line to tow since it’s a stutter step before we’re Communist America living under the dictatorship of a small group of people looking to dominate us.
Or perhaps Bush will die in prison as a war criminal in The Hague.
I´d settle for that.
Or perhaps he´ll go hide out in Paraguay and learn to speak German.
I hope he takes his supporters with him.
Jeff — you´re simply a Republican troll — an apologist, witting or unwitting, for one of the worst criminals the world has ever known.
Ralph:
I think your attack on Jeff is out of line. He is not a troll. A troll likes to pop in to start a fight for the fun of it. Jeff stated his opinion. You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t have to disagree with it. Jeff should not have attacked you with the “pathological whining” comment, either. Ad hominem attacks are easy to slip into, but that doesn’t make them useful.
“…for one of the worst criminals the world has ever known.”
How do you work that one out?
Ralph:
Sorry for the “pathological whining” comment.
You have so much hate….that’s not cool.
Savanster: No, I’ll stick with not caring what Jefferson would think. If it were Madison, then I would care
Far Left= Far right……..Opposite thoughts but same mindset.
Jeff
“Far Left= Far right……..Opposite thoughts but same mindset.”
Except, left is social, for people.. right is for individual to the disregard for everyone else if needed. Left is about lifting everyone up, Right is about lifting “self” up, even if you step on lots of people to do it. One is gracious and caring, one is callous and cruel.
Opposite thoughts, indeed. Not sure about the “same mindset”, though… since on the right-wing it’s ok to lie and cheat and steal and abuse to get what you want, and on the left-wing those things are frowned upon as a matter of course and policy. People cause problems with the philosophy because individuals are corruptible. Hence you have “bad people” in both camps, but only one camp actually looks down on it.. the other celebrates and cheers it.
Interestingly, this ties right back into the article.. There is an entire segment of our population (and growing) that figures “if you can get away with it, more power to ya”. Those people don’t want to prosecute King George because they relate and wish they could crap on people with impunity. Those of us with real morality and honor find something entirely disgusting with that mentality.
Here’s more math for you:
(yesterday’s)Republican=Liberal/Democrat=Socialist ::: Federalists=Conservative/(today’s)Republican=Fascist
Elaine said:
No kidding. I’d love to see Bush tossed out of office and tried in a court of law, but there’s no way in hell that Bush qualifies as a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Edi Amin. Bush is bad, really bad even, and I hate his guts with a passion, but even I don’t think he’s THAT bad.
I’d be interested in knowing how Bugliosi thinks a hypothetical prosecutor could get around the Executive immunity provisions that grant a President immunity from prosecution for certain crimes committed in the course of performing his duties. In other words, Bush would almost certainly be immune from prosecution for murder over the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq because the execution of a war is part of the President’s job description.
The execution of a war is his job when it’s a justified endeavor. That Congress never declared war, and it’s “technically” illegal (Constitutionall) to invade a country without Congress declaring war, he’s not “doing his job”, he’s abusing his office.
I’d have to read up more on Presidential Immunity, but I’m pretty sure that was never meant to shield the Office from lying to Congress to get an illegal war started for personal profit (and/or vendettas, etc). I would think the “crimes” they are talking about might be something like failing to stop for a red light while speeding to a bunker because the country was under attack and needed him in an undisclosed location. I don’t think it was meant to cover wanton murder by deception and lies.
Immunity was never intended to cover up wanton murder. But the bar of proof, and Constitutionality, will be very, very high. Bugliosi said in Part 2 that he wasn’t a Constitutional lawyer, but you cannot get to any potential criminal prosecution without first answering the Constitutional questions. And, given the structure of the Supreme Court today, I simply can’t imagine that they’d rule in favor of prosecution.
Ralph,
I have to agree with Jeff that in our country we presume innocence… I don’t personally think he is innocent and I do believe he should be tried in a court of law but we should not convict him, or anyone else, in the “Court of public opinion” instead of in an actual court.
Savanster,
The far left and the far right are both so out of touch with reality that their pursuit of their own self righteous goals have nothing to do with helping the people. The common man can only get hurt by the victory of the extremists on either side.
Brian,
I don’t know if the presidential immunities would shield him or not but he should still be charged and the courts should decide/interpret the law as is their duty.
Rho
“The common man can only get hurt by the victory of the extremists on either side.”
Well said, Savanster!
Re: the legality of the war; one can debate how much authorization there was from Congress 5 years ago, but even supposing the war was initated without explicit Congressional approval, what has Congress done since then? If it was really unauthorized Congress could have made some formal statement as such at any time. This is what I meant by checks and balances.
Had Congress at any point since the invasion passed a bill, law, resolution, yellow sticky pad, ANYTHING AT ALL stating that they did not / or no longer authorize the conflict, then I think the case against Bush would be a slam dunk. Congress is just as much as fault here for a lack of oversight.
“Except, left is social, for people.. right is for individual to the disregard for everyone else if needed. Left is about lifting everyone up, Right is about lifting “self†up, even if you step on lots of people to do it. One is gracious and caring, one is callous and cruel.”
Socialism=Crab-in-the-barrel syndrome
Bob:
Couple of things. First, I can’t agree with the phrase “The common man can only get hurt by the victory of the extremists on either side” in toto. I can’t imagine a more extremist group of people than those that signed the Declaration of Independence. And i think I can make a good case that the “common man” was much better off under the Soviet regimes than he was under the czars. I think I could also make a reasonable case that G. Julius Caesar, a radical for his time, was actually good for the Roman Republic and that, had he llived, there is a high likelihood that he would have restored the republic on much more solid legal ground than he inherited it.
At times, extremists have had a profoundly positive effect on the world, but you and others are certainly correct in that we must be profoundly suspicious of extremists, because their brand of true belief tends to lend itself to human rights abuses on a massive scale.
But not always.
As for Congress, let’s be clear. Until just under two years ago, Bush controlled Congress the same way a prime minister controls his party. The GOP has marched in lockstep trying to build that permanent majority of theirs, so there was no way they were going to buck party leadership.
In the past two years, every Congressional attempt to use the power of the purse to pull out of the Iraq War has met with executive branch theats to leave soldiers without proper equipment, and threats to take that message to the profoundly ignorant American public.
I strongly, strongly believe that the age of mass communication has tilted the balance of power dangerously in favor of the Presidency.
Time we got a handle on that branch and defanged it.
JS, Good points regarding the common man. I suppose I was looking more at today’s political climate, but you provide excellent examples. Perhaps the statement is quite dogma, but it sure sounded cool!
The founding fathers were extremist for their time, but they were not in lock step with each other. I have read biographies of Washington, J. Adams, Franklin and Hamilton as well as a great book called “American Creation†by Joseph Ellis. I find it fascinating how much the people we lump together as “Founders” didn’t really get along. What they did have in common was vision for the future and a willingness to compromise. In 1776 they got together and declared independence from Britain. At that time no one knew if we would end up as one country or thirteen. Had they held to firm to certain positions at the expense of progress we never would have gotten anywhere (the slavery question is another excellent example). Extremist in that situation would have screwed the common man. Obama has said it well “Perfect should not be the enemy of goodâ€.
Regarding the tilt of power to the executive branch, I agree completely that has occurred. Today’s society focuses so much on the POTUS that we as a nation have given our locally elected officials a pass.
I agree that the majority party in Congress was a stumbling block to oversight, but that has gone both ways in the past. All three of my representatives are Republican and we here in NC need to hold them accountable for their actions. Yesterday I finally got off my ass and wrote both my Senators and my Representative telling them that they were part of the first branch of government and should start acting like it. I don’t know how much it will help, but it’s a start.
Bob:
Yep. No question that when I hear someone say, “The Founding Fathers wanted …,” my first thought is that the person saying it has not read much about how much they disagreed with each other on many things. Still, I can’t imagine there could be a more radical position than rebelling against one’s king, God’s annointed sovereign, at that time. And they did agree to do that.
Pretty rad.
And, yeah, when the majority party in Congress is the president’s party, Congress can be just a bit too forgiving, regardless of which party is in the White House.
JS:
Dude, I have really enjoyed posting with you. It sucks I have to go back to work Friday and may not be able to post as often as I have the past few weeks. This site s great and I will get back to it as often as I can.
The hyperlink on my name is to my myspace page (the JV of the blogosphere). Check out my thoughts or drop me a line if you want.
Thanks for visiting, Bob. Checked out your Myspace page. Enjoy the Rancid concert. No band keeps the faith of punk better than them.
Come back to S&R when your navy duties allow.