Impeaching Bush for Murder

Here is a good example of what can be done:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_st_lo/prosecuting_bush_2

The 9/11 truth movement should support this because it can be used as a stepping-stone to 9/11 prosecutions as well.

At the same time, 9/11 truthers should stick to Bugliosi's arguments because prematurely bringing 9/11 into the case/argumentation/politicization of the issue (the latter being the main goal) would hamstring it.

So I see an opportunity and a danger here. Do "truthers" have enough self-discipline to do one thing at a time? Once we are well into prosecution for war crimes we can much more easily extend into 9/11 crimes.

Beware of those who ignore the elementary wisdom of this approach--and there will be more than a few.

Awful!

Bugliosi is a CIA asset. The idea of his book about how Bush is guilty of murder is to distract the Left away from stuff like 9/11 truth that, if exposed, would cause the larger population to rise up against the criminals who run the government. Prosecuting Bush about lying us into war and thus causing the deaths of thousands of U.S. military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, though richly merited, simply will never excite the masses.

This candidate's choice of Bugliosi is catastrophic. He's a filthy worm whose assignment is to keep the people in the dark forever about what the government's really up to. If this Vermont "Progressive Party" candidate for state attorney general is well meaning, she's a disastrous fool, and I hope she loses her election. No, the only way to get at the war criminals in any serious way is to make the 9/11 false flag operation the centerpiece of the prosecution.

And most certainly not putting a fox like Bugliosi in charge of the chicken coop.

Yes, awful

Buglioisi wrote the book, and this is a legal question, so he is a logical choice. The fact that two people can agree on some things and not on others does not make one of them an agent. Look at you and me. I think we have agreed on some things, but on this you are wrong. One step at a time is the way, not both feet forward. There is a much clearer case against Bush et al. for war crimes than for 9/11 in the eyes of the general population--not to say it would be easy, but saying "the only way..." as you do is tantamount to giving up.

I hope others will think about this.

Dishonesty is evidence of dishonesty

"The fact that two people can agree on some things and not on others does not make one of them an agent."

I absolutely agree with this statement, but it misses the larger context of the issue.

If I give you misleading explanations for an important historical event, does this make me a credible advocate for truth?

The relevant issue is not whether "so and so" is an agent (which is pure speculation in most cases), it is basic, intellectual honesty.

Take the time to read this review:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

For example of a dishonest statement by Buglioisi:

"Bugliosi handles this problem by lying:

Drs. Light and Dolce expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connolly had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the belief that the bullet recovered from Connolly’s stretcher could not have broken the radius without having suffered more distortion.” But again, this was before the tests at Edgewood Arsenal proved that it could. (Endnotes p.305) [ 5 ]

In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. …in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. …They did not accept this.” (NA! pp.298-299)"

Let me stress the relevant point here. What is not essential to figure out here is the question of who is an "agent". What is important here is that the truth is being distorted. People distort the truth for many reasons.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Bugliosi is right about this.

Even though I think he got the Kennedy thing wrong, I believe that Bugliosi is right on this one. He points out that any district attorney in any district where someone has lost their life due to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq can legally prosecute George W. Bush for murder.

With that in mind, a listener and contributor to the Mike Malloy radio program has a project which plans to put Bugliosi's book into the hands of all the 2700 district attorneys in the country. I think it is a good idea.

Here is the site:

http://prosecutegeorgebush.com/

I think that once people realize that Bush totally lied about Iraq, they may be more receptive to reconsidering the events of 911.

I agree

Yes, Rob, I agree.

I have said the same thing about Vincent Bugliosi

A cover-up can not work against Vincent Bugliosi's case against Bush et al for the Iraq war deception and it is provable in court without a new investigation.

If this happens 911 Truth would be much more easily accepted by the public at large, and we would most likely get a new investigation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Vincent Bugliosi has provided a stepping stone to blow the entire house of cards wide open.

Get real

Prosecuting Bush for war crimes alone is a big fat waste of time and energy, which is exactly why the Left gatekeepers promote it -- with gatekeeper Bugliosi their legal point man. Remember him? The attorney who spent 20 years writing a vast tome to assure the suckers who think Mother Mockingbird, The Mockingbird Nation, In These Mockingbird Times, The Mockingbird Progressive, MockingbirdPunch, and His Worshipfulness Mockingbird Chomsky are looking out for them to stick with the official explanations offered up the government and the MSM. (The AG candidate may well just be a victim of reading too much Left gatekeeping without realizing she's been suckered in.)

The ugly truth is that the public not only scarcely cares whether its government acts criminally, but has been whipped up into believing that the government is at least partially justified in "breaking the rules" so as to apprehend "terrorists" and other evildoers who humiliate America, if not represent a tangible threat to it. Even if, hypothetically, the attorney general of a small left-leaning state tried to prosecute Bush and his henchmen on such a basis, it would go exactly nowhere: The national MSM would essentially black out the story, except to poke some occasional fun at.

No, war crimes alone are a political dead end, though such prosecutorial pursuits will keep the antiwar movement distracted. What the gatekeepers really fear is more and more citizens getting wise to the massive deceit perpetrated on those same citizens by the 9/11 false flag operations.

And Vincent Bugliosi is about as likely to review evidence challenging the 9/11 OCT as he is to announce that Charles Manson was framed for the murder of Sharon Tate.

Vincent Bugliosi - archive

August 1, 2008

Alex Jones talks with former LA County district attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi, who recently appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Bush.

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/bugliosi_vincent/

Truth Strategy

"At the same time, 9/11 truthers should stick to Bugliosi's arguments because prematurely bringing 9/11 into the case/argumentation/politicization of the issue (the latter being the main goal) would hamstring it."

I think we need more open discussion about this important issue. It seems to be an under-considered topic.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Its the 9/11 Truth, Stupid!

The Bush administration as lying, theiving murderers has already been amply portrayed in the MSM and multiple books. A major effort to impeach based primarily on this well agreed-upon stance has recently gone nowhere. The problem is that lying and murderering are not compelling enough to disengage the masses from their TV tonic, which they slurp like starving, mindless, fear-stricken rats. Only a narrative as compelling as 9/11 Truth, so persuasive in its facts alone even without interpretation, can create a tipping point. The key to getting 9/11 Truth into the public conciousness is to concentrate on the most convincing information, such as Richard Gage's excellent presentation of physical anomolies, Steven E. Jones' solid chemical evidence for thermite, and several other researcher's work in which simple, convincing arguments are made based on undeniable facts. We must push 9/11 Truth with all our might, using only highly convincing material.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Writer is right-support Bugliosi

If the most famous well known prosecutor in the U.S. says "I want to prosecute Bush as a mass murderer". To me it sounds unwise to respond with "no thanks, you think Oswald killed Kennedy which makes you a CIA asset".

Bugliosi spent 20 years of his life and about a million pages of writing, to make a book on how he believes Oswald killed Kennedy, you think he is ever ever going to say, "gee, I guess that was a waste of time, I was wrong.". No he's not and so what if he thinks Oswald killed Kennedy? Everyone wakes up in their own time for whatever reasons. And I think Bugliosi could even end up being a truther before this is all done. He believes Bush is evil, he has no idea how much though.

Of course he has an ego(and at 74 might not be at the top of his game), but he wants to put Bush and others on trial and he's good at what he does. Manson was sentenced to death, but didn't actually kill anyone himself. Can you think of anyone ever sentenced to death that didn't actually do the killing? Because Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson turned sweet little homecoming queen Leslie Van Houten into a crazed killer. And all american boy Tex Watson was a star athlete that turned into a drug crazed monster after Manson got ahold of him. Bugliosi was full of it, just like your typical trial lawyer, Van houten was having abortions and taking LSD daily before she ever knew Manson existed and Tex was a drug dealing psycho before he knew manson as well. The point is he is good at what he does, and what he wants to do now is put Bush on trial. And I shouldn't support that because of what again?

I see no reason not to support Bugliosi and the more we support him and rub elbows with him the more open he will be to 9/11 truth IMO.

I think you summed up Bugliosi nicely

Sorry, I don't agree with the people here that he is some kind of asset.

He is exactly what we know he is, a lawyer and prosecutor. His job is to make the best possible case for his position, not necessarily be a model of objectivity and balanced discussion. Like many people, he was probably attracted to the Oswald theory based on so many poor JFK conspiracy theory positions. Add in all the things that can have an alternative explanation, and you can make a pretty good case for Oswald, just so long as you gloss over a few things.

Unless Bugliosi's legal arguments are bogus, and I have not heard this, or completely unworkable in the real world (and I have not heard this either, although that may be the case), I don't see any issue with what he is doing. He is not trying to get in on the prosecution as an individual, other than to say he would be happy to act as a consultant. Until I hear otherwise, my conclusion is that Bugliosi has left a powerful toolkit for someone with the position and desire to use it.

"Thinking" versus "Evidence Manipulation"

"To me it sounds unwise to respond with "no thanks, you think Oswald killed Kennedy which makes you a CIA asset"."

I agree that it is unwise to characterize Bugliosi or anyone else as an agent without credible evidence. Anyone can speculate and call anyone an agent for any reason without proving it. However, is it wise to trust someone who lies about evidence regarding the JFK assassination? My objection is not over what Bugliosi "thinks" happened in the JFK incident. My problem is distorting evidence. Read this article for context: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

If he can lie about evidence in the JFK assassination and support the official story with distortions, can we trust his credibility as a prosecutor? I think the answer no: we cannot. Someone who distorts evidence as blatantly as we see in the case of the JFK investigation is very problematic for me.

Put simply: it is one thing to "disagree" about the JKF assassination. It is something else entirely to distort evidence while presenting a misleading case about the assassination. Everyone can disagree about conclusions, but distorting facts is no longer "disagreement"--it is manipulation. He may be making gross errors, but in this case the other option is just "incompetence" of investigation. We can't trust that either.

For an obvious example of this see my comment above: http://www.911blogger.com/node/17882#comment-198045

Distorting evidence while embracing a cover-up is not a sign of credibility by any stretch of the imagination.

To give you an analogy, if we were to give the 9/11 commissioners like Hamilton reign to do an investigation of more White House crimes, would you agree to this? When Hamilton and others have a past history of cover-ups and misrepresenting evidence? Well, I think most people would say no, because distorting evidence is VERY serious and underplaying the seriousness of this is quite surprising. The problem here is not "opinions" but "distorting evidence".

You can't tell me that it it would be "ok" to support Hamiliton simply because he "disagrees" about the 9/11 attack. The point is not that he "disagrees" but that he distorted evidence! He has a past history of supporting cover-ups! This does not make him a credible representative to endorse more investigations. He is already 0/4 as you know.

Again, this is no longer "disagreement"--this is manipulation through the selective presentation of facts. In other words: Propaganda. This analogy applies to Bugliosi as well. I do not have a problem with "disagreements" about JFK or any other event. What I have a problem with is evidence manipulation and cover-ups.

This is a very serious and real concern that I have with Bugliosi. He may be misguided or incompetent in his treatment of the JFK assassination, but he has shown that he will distort evidence (either intentionally or unintentionally) in such a way to support government crimes. Giving uncritical support to someone who has distorted evidence in such a way to support government crimes is not a very safe thing to do. Especially when we are considering putting him in a position to investigate more government crimes when has already shown that he can and will distort evidence.

This should be obvious.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Not to be trusted

Russ Hallberg
Anyone who researches the JFK assassination and says Oswald killed Kennedy is not on our side. Jack Ruby's assassination of Oswald is the Building 7 of the JFK assassination. Would a strip club operator sacrifice his life or freedom to "spare Mrs Kennedy the trauma of a trial"? I figured it out and I was 10 years old then!

Totse

Not to be trusted

Russ Hallberg
Anyone who researches the JFK assassination and says Oswald killed Kennedy is not on our side. Jack Ruby's assassination of Oswald is the Building 7 of the JFK assassination. Would a strip club operator sacrifice his life or freedom to "spare Mrs Kennedy the trauma of a trial"? I figured it out and I was 10 years old, then!

9/11 cover-up itself is treason

I think that this idea of exclusively targeting Bush for murder-charges while excluding the whole web of 9/11 treason could easily turn into a control operation. It might be different if there were a more trustworthy operator in charge. Even if it were to succeed i think that it would act to let off the steam of the progressive side of things, without diggin into the intelligence newtworks and manipulation behind this. Of course Bush is a criminal and should be prosecuted for all his crimes, but so should all the folks seriously involved in the 9/11 cover-up. And the latter has the advantage of uncovering in a big way, for the 1st time, the MO of secret governments run through "intelligence networks." I even think we have a much more solid case proving a treasonous 9/11 cover-up, then prosecuting bush for murder in relationship to the war. that should happen also. I don't see why 9/11 truth needs to be contained, especially with a guy who is already fairly suspect in a another serious cover-up.

We have Bob Graham on the record about a cover-up of a foreign nation's involvement aka treason as John Doraemi has pointed out.

We have Grace Napolitano openly admitting Congress's knowledge of executive treason:
WeAreChangeLA questions Rep. Grace Napolitano about Treason

I think I just about proved treason in a 10 second outburst/question to CIA Director Hayden. Either they're covering up Israeli knowledge/architectural and/or operational involvement (aka treason) or they are fully complicit in architecting and/or knowledgeable (aka treason): WeAreChangeLA confronts CIA Director Michael V. Hayden

And it looks like, we have just received a potential confirmation of the latter, in terms of the TV aspect of 9/11:

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20080920
September 22, 2008 -- Was there a closed circuit feed on the WTC on 9/11?

WMR has learned from a well-informed U.S. intelligence source that a closed-circuit, highly-classified and secure video stream was being fed to a select number of officials on the morning of 9/11. A camera, trained on the World Trade Center, transmitted via an encrypted link the video of the purported American Airlines flight 11 slamming into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

A long-time L-3 Communications consultant for the National Security Agency (NSA) was, according to our source, one of the very few recipients of the live video stream that caught the first plane hitting the North Tower. The only other official who revealed that he saw the first plane strike the building on a live television link was President George W. Bush. Bush said on two occasions that he saw the first plane hit the building on television while waiting to speak to a group of elementary schoolchildren on the morning of 9/11.
------------------------------

Even Philip Shenon is on record with me agreeing that any level of cover-up of 9/11, even the negligence and/or 'NSA archive-based Iranian involvement,' is clearly to be considered treason.

And it goes on.

Treason, with complicity in mass murder and war crimes are the charges, in that order I think. Treason is such a fundamental breach of trust. Treason is the most fundamental breach of trust that a citizen can engage in. And when its a politician... and when its the two civilians most deeply entrusted with securing our lives and the legislative branch and the lack of action in the judiciary..

I do think we should hone in on the meme of "The 9/11 cover-up is treason" rather than "9/11 was an inside job." Because, although we clearly have some good ideas about who might have actually architected 9/11 as the phrase"9/11 was an inside job" implies, it's not our job to bring an ironclad case and prosecute the actual perpe-traitors. It's our job to show how it's being covered up and, most importantly, how the cover-up itself is defined as treason under Article III Section 3 of the Constitution. The fact that treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution seems to be highly suggestive of and resonant with our current situation.
Maybe we can do "9/11 WAS treason!" and "The 9/11 cover-up IS treason." covering both grounds.

We need to go deep. The challenges ahead for us as a country and a planet are going to take all of us on board, not some lingering, shadowy covert criminal network still running things from behind. An over-emphasis on Bush might defuse the drive to root it out.

So, no I don't think we should stove-pipe in a legal or political sense the crimes of the covert, criminal network in charge of our governments into a murder case against one man. Though, I support the pursuit of justice in the diversity of its avenues and forms and the establishment of the rule of just law in this country. So, murder charges in that sense can't do anything but help the situation, unless of course, we let it diffuse and derail us.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

very interesting

"WMR has learned from a well-informed U.S. intelligence source that a closed-circuit, highly-classified and secure video stream was being fed to a select number of officials on the morning of 9/11. A camera, trained on the World Trade Center, transmitted via an encrypted link the video of the purported American Airlines flight 11 slamming into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

A long-time L-3 Communications consultant for the National Security Agency (NSA) was, according to our source, one of the very few recipients of the live video stream that caught the first plane hitting the North Tower. The only other official who revealed that he saw the first plane strike the building on a live television link was President George W. Bush. Bush said on two occasions that he saw the first plane hit the building on television while waiting to speak to a group of elementary schoolchildren on the morning of 9/11."

If not disinfo, this would be one of the Holy Grails of 9/11 research. Why would an NSA contractor at L-3 be fed this secret live stream? Accidentally? Was there not a similar claim by an anonymous NASA employee?

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

All the reasons not to

Seems all the reasons NOT TO have been given:

1. Oh no, we can't support anyone who disagrees with us about JFK.
2. Oh no, we can't support anyone who (might) disagree with us about 9/11.
3. Oh no, we can't support her/them because it just won't work...
...because people will ignore us
...because the media will ignore us
4. Oh no, we can't support this because the root problem is so much deeper...
...what good will it do to hang just one of them, etc.
5. Oh no, we can't support this because it will distract us from more important things like finding smoking guns (as if there weren't enough already).

These are the same arguments that many "truthers" used in 2006 to avoid making common cause with anti-war and impeachment groups. Things haven't changed a bit, except that now one of their nay arguments ("We need prosecutions, not impeachment!") has been superseded by the fact that we now have the case for prosecution laid out and ready for court and, more importantly, for more public attention.

As someone mentioned, no one has raised any legal objections, except the AG of Vermont Dennett is running against. Well, that is the perfect starting point.

Instead of taking this bit of rope and pulling on it mightily, which is what we should be doing, some, like Bartleby the Scrivener, "prefer not to."

It's a great bridge to build

I think it is a good thing to happen. And I would be willing to deliver some the book/documents to a DA, I just am very wary of these type of things where the truth movement is told to fully join an effort that requires us to corral the truth about 9/11. I have built bridges to the peace movement and, in many ways, was very involved in that movement when I discovered that I had been deceived about 9/11.

Many people did build bridges to the impeachment movement. Some people actually dropped a majority of their effort in the truth movement and helped really push in the impeachment movement and the same kind of rhetoric was there, "just hold off on the 9/11 stuff, we'll get to it if we can get impeachment." I know, since I really tried to build that bridge, and interpersonally it worked, but politically it was held back by the same type of proposals of 1st this, then that. The same thing operated when so many folks in the truth movement dropped much of what they were doing to rally fully behind Ron Paul with the promise that he would help open it up once he got into office and/or would say something to the contrary of what he had been saying when he go onto TV.

The 9/11 truth movement still has limited resources in terms people, time and money.
And to drop what we are doing to engage in what looks to be political and/or legal stovepiping is unwise.
Of course many of us will support it.

But there is no logical reason that Bush being tried for murder for lying about the War on Iraq would lead into uncovering the shadow government responsible for 9/11.

This should be heading in the other direction. Folks interested in trying Bush for murder and war crimes need to put their weight behind the truth movement's well documented claim that the 9/11 attacks and subsequent and ongoing cover-up is treasonous and helped lead the way for all the subsequent crimes.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush