Impeachment? Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Never Mind That -- Haul George Bush into a Court of Law, Part 1

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"?

Part 2 tomorrow.

Comments

[Michale32086]

CONT

Let's say that you and Mr Sullivan are correct and I am wrong... We put in all these extra security measures in and then we get an unscrupulous President in power who tries to use these eavesdropping and survelliance measures for nefarious purposes. Due to the nature of our system of government, there IS a limit to the damage that one man or even a group of men can do...
Now, consider the possibility that ya'all are wrong and I am right.. We DON'T enact these new security measures and terrorists slip thru our incomplete and inadequate net and make several successful attacks on US cities. Causalities in the tens or hundreds of thousands...

"If I'm wrong, nothing happens. We got to jail.. Peacefully... Quietly... We'll enjoy it.. But if I am right... And we can stop this thing.... Lennny.... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS of registered voters..."
-Peter Venkman, GHOSTBUSTERS

You see my point??

If I am wrong, and these measures are misused?? It will all come out with minimal damage... If I am right and we DON'T have these measures.. Millions of innocent Americans could die..

Considering the possible outcomes, it seems that prudence would dictate that we take the safer course...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@justaworkinstiff

}}}}}}}}}
So if Congress authorized something based upon incomplete and deliberatly withheld information how are they resonsible for makig an accurate and honest assesment?
{{{{{{{{{

OK, let's run with that...

If Bush lied to Congress in order to get his war resolution, then that would be grounds for impeachment..

100% agreement..

And yet... There is no impeachment?? Even though the polls (which I loathe) appear to be DEMANDING it...

So, if we employ Occam's Razor, what is the more logical reasoning??

Either there is a VAST Governmental conspiracy involving HUNDREDS or politicians and staffers on BOTH sides of the aisle in an effort to protect a President who's approval ratings are in the low teens...

OR

Bush didn't lie, there are no crimes and this is all a big wet dream from a small vocal group known for it's hysterical and unfounded accusations...

So, employing Occam's Razor, which is the more logical of the two???

Michale.....

[justaworkinstiff]

Occam's Razor refers to problem solving and is probably appropriate for this administration. They have taken the "simplist solution approach" to every situation since 2000 with astoundingly negative results. This administration has stubbornly refused to consider cause/effect potentials of desicions (for example; we invade a soverign nation in 2003 can we criticize Russia when they invade Georgia in 2008?)
Regarding Congress' lack of impeachment despite evidence that laws have been broken will, I believe, bring us to regret these precedents that now will stand because eventually the White House occupant will evolve around to someone who feels that if this adminsitration could do this then he/she can do this other thing which pushes us further down a slippery slope.
While I have mostly been a lurker on this blog, some of the recent threads have led me to believe I could imporve my understanding by asking questions. Michale,you're interesting if a tad assertive but I don't consider you a troll. I can accept that GWB did not "lie" if you can tell me no one in his administration didn't hide facts to influence him into misjudgments. I don't subscribe to the theroy that huge numbers of government employees/officials where in on a "conspiracy" But I do believe a small cadre of officials did take deliberate steps to hide information that did not support the direction they wanted a particuar decision to go (this does not only apply to Iraq but several misadaventures associated with this adminisitration)

[Michale32086]

I REALLY like the way you think....

Let me take your points in order..

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
(for example; we invade a soverign nation in 2003 can we criticize Russia when they invade Georgia in 2008?)
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

There really isn't any comparison to be made between the UN/Iraq situation and the Georgia/Russia situation.

The US led an international Coalition. There is no coalition in Georgia. Just Russia.

The Coalition was there under the auspices of the UN to enforce UN resolutions. There are no resolutions governing Russia's actions, save there own greed..

Really, the only similarity between the two actions is that a sovereign country was invaded. The similarity ends there...

}}}}}}}}}
White House occupant will evolve around to someone who feels that if this adminsitration could do this then he/she can do this other thing which pushes us further down a slippery slope.
}}}}}}}}}

I agree.. It DOES set a dangerous precedent. But, then again, these are dangerous times.. I honestly doubt that a peace-time President will be able to get away with these things, even with the "Bush Precedent"....

}}}}}}}}
Michale,you're interesting if a tad assertive but I don't consider you a troll.
}}}}}}}}

Oh, I am an arrogant SOB, I'll be the first to admit.. I like to think of it as "passionate" but arrogant fits as well.. :D

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}}}}}}}}}
I can accept that GWB did not "lie" if you can tell me no one in his administration didn't hide facts to influence him into misjudgments.
{{{{{{{{{{{{

I have no doubt that Bush was fed colored intelligence.. Whether it rises to the level of out and out lying, I honestly don't think so..

I also am fairly certain that Bush could not have gotten away with a TENTH of what he has done without the full consent and knowledge of both sides of Congress..

And THAT is why I believe impeachment was pulled off the table.. Because you simply CANNOT impeach a president who did what he did with the full knowledge and consent of Congress.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.. Sometimes the end DOES justify the means, as much as that goes against everything the Democrats stand for.

Great post.. This is why I love coming to HuffPo...

Michale......

[fairwitness]

Is it futile to hope that some altruistic prosecutor, somewhere, with legal standing and uncommon courage, will take on the case for us and Bush's victims? One prosecutor, somewhere, willing to make the sacrifice (which is no sacrifice, but privilege)?

Bush's victims cry out for justice. Their voices are not heard, but they cry out. In the deep space of our hearts, where lies fade, we know they cry out. We know what should be done.

In this world, we know there is no justice, really. Victims are uncountable, perpetrators walk every day. But one person, on well-trained, inspired, self-less person of legal skill, can bring justice. If only the case be made...

[sa]

one wonders about the republican party.

if bush is "unimpeachable" because it become a party line vote in the senate,
doesn't that mean that all republican senators are aiding and abetting war crimes?
with all the evidence coming out, and republicans will still back bush to their grave
(and i hope they do) doesn't that mean that all republicans no longer care about
the rule of law?

doesn't that mean that all republicans are political first, and
"honest" second (or third). doesn't that mean that partisan politics
are more important than truth or "america"?

my god, what has this country come to when republican "senators"
have not allegiance to the rule of law,
and only cowtow to their political leader.

america is dead.

[Michale32086]

In the last 2 years, the Democrats have had control of Congress...

The MCA, HR6304, etc etc could NOT have been passed without assistance from Democrats..

Let me ask you something...

If your entire government is telling you that something is needed and necessary for the safety and security of your country and THEY have all the information and you have none....

Why would you choose to dispute them???

Is it principle??

Or ego???

Michale.....

[sa]

um...
like all the "intelligence" to go to war with iraq?

sir lemming, there's a cliff that desires your acquaintance.

wait, maybe i'm wrong here -
you were being ironic right?

[peterg76]

Don't forget, the deaths of US soldiers were part of another crime, the Coalition Provisional Authority reign of terror and/or incompetence, and the attempted theft of $30 billion of other people's oil.

[xkp]

Then if I press charges, will he take the case?

[Michale32086]

And when Mr. Bugliosi loses and Bush sues you for false arrest, are you going to take the heat?

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}}
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.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

In that case, ANY president who has sent troops into combat or WILL send troops into combat has been and will be guilty of first degree murder...

Do you see the inherent illogic in such a position??

If this was established as a precedent it would forever tie the POTUS's hands when it comes to protecting this country..

But why stop there??

Every chief of police knows that their officers COULD be killed... Therefore each and every chief of police in the country is guilty of first degree murder...

Fire Chiefs??? Same thing... Lock 'em all up....

Regardless of all that, before ANYTHING can happen to Bush, he would have to be impeached..

And you can't impeach a president who has had Congressional authority for each and every act he has done..

Michale.....

[RussWellen]

I would advise reading the book, Michale. Mr. Bugliosi, as you can imagine, is much more savvy legally than a legal illiterate like me could possibly portray him.

[Michale32086]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to be insulting even if it came out that way..

I just feel that a lot of the Left really get's too emotional on this issue and pass beyond the realm of fact into the realm of wishful thinking..

But, as I indicated... There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration had briefed relevant Congressional committees and had authorization for many (if not all) that the Left claims as "crimes".

I know, I know.. Many scorn the Nixon claim that, "If the president does it, it's not illegal" and rightly so...

But, if the President DOES do something that the Congress HAS authorized..... Well, it's kinda tough to make a claim of illegality...

Again, I meant no disrespect even though I came across as a bit sarcastic..

Michale.....

Michale...

[jhNY]

MIchale...

Please go away. Nobody here wants to read your earnest trollisms, however onsightful and thought-provoking you imagine them to be. And yet you keep sending them in, day after day after day. Do you see the inherent illogic of such a position?

[Michale32086]

{{{{{{
Nobody here wants to read your earnest trollisms,
}}}}}}}

I wonder if you can appreciate the utter irony of your statement.. :D

Michale.....

[MBryant]

While I agree that perhaps Messrs.. Bugliosi and Wellen are out of line with a murder indictment, you absolutely can impeach a President who
- obtained that congressional authority for war by misrepresentaion and falsification
- ignores congressional subpeonas
- suberts laws with signing statements
- misuses pardons, firings, and appointments of law enforcement officials for political purposes
- misrepresented and falsified the reports of how highly visible soldiers are killed or captured and denies press and public access to the return of the bodies of our fallen.
- uses "stop-loss" to reward our troops by trashing their family and personal life and provide inadequate care to our returning wounded
- exposes undercover intelligence operatives for political purposes.
- contracts with and uses contractors illegally

Impeachment is not necessarily punishment - it is not even necessarily about criminality - it is the legal basis for congressional investigation. It is how congress protects itself from excesses of executive power.

The great shame is that this congress will not defend itself.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}
The great shame is that this congress will not defend itself.
{{{{{{{{{

To be perfectly honest, I don't think it's a case of Congress not DEFENDING itself, but rather a case of Congress PROTECTING itself..

If the WHOLE COMPLETE story were to come out, I would imagine that the American public would be surprised to learn how much was done with complete Congressional approval..

Not that I have a problem with that.

"No great country has ever been saved by 'good men'. Because good men will not go to the lengths that may be necessary..."
-Horace Wapole

I know this is anathema to what the Left stands for, but sometimes the ends DO justify the means...

Michale.....

[hopeless277]

And why are YOU not joining in Bush's war, Michale? Regardless, if a fire chief sent his men into a burning building knowing that no one and nothing was at risk in that building, then, yes, he would be guilty of murder. Likewise if a police chief sent his men to attack a heavily fortified house without any justification and some of those officers were killed, he would be guilty also. And it's not just that they COULD be killed, it's that they WILL be killed in a war.

And why do you say that Bush had Congressional authority to wage war? He had authority to wage war AFTER A SECOND UN RESOLUTION that never came. And torture? Congress authorized torture? Please point me to the legislation in 2003 that nullified the Geneva Conventions?

No, Michale, Bush is a war criminal. And due to people like you, he will remain free to espouse his culture of criminality until someone whisks him off to The Hague(hopefully). As a matter of fact, ALL Republicans are criminals. If you don't believe me, just wait. As their influence wanes, their crimes will surface. But go on defending them, Michale. It's your tax dollars they are stealing too. Not just mine.

[DCX2]

1) Bush sent the troops to war without a legitimate reason. There were no WMD. Iraq was not a threat to the US. They did not train al-Qaeda. Bush lied - period. This is why it's a crime, as compared to other Presidents who sent the troops to war to defend the United States.

2) Torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention...Congress authorized none of that.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}
1) Bush sent the troops to war without a legitimate reason.
{{{{{{{{{

In YOUR opinion...

Obviously, Congress felt different... And Congress had much information that you do not.

}}}}}}}}}}}
Bush lied - period.
}}}}}}}}}}

Bush was wrong... That does not make a lie...

I said that last year, the Jags were going to the Super Bowl. Did I lie?? No.. I was wrong. It's THIS year that the Jags are going to the Super Bowl..

}}}}}}}}}}
2) Torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention...Congress authorized none of that.
{{{{{{{{{{

Congress authorized ALL of that and much more...

MCA, HR6304

And here again, we see an example of why it's impossible for mainstream America to take what the Left says seriously...

Michale.....