The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder

DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
edited May 2008 in A Moving Train
Vincent Bugliosi is at it again with his new book:
The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder

For those who don't know, Bugliosi gained his fame after successfuly convicting the Manson "family" of the Tate murder.

He is a prosecutor of quite some renowned and this book lays out the entire body of legal ground work for the prosecution of ole Georgie. It even spells out the exact jurisdiction under which the attorney generals of any state or muncipal government for which a soldier in the Iraq war has fallen is legally entitled to bring forth this prosecution.

All in all, Bugliosi estimates that puts the number of prosecutors who may bring this trial forth at around 1,000 at the outside.

The catch is that the next president has the authority to pardon W. for EVERYTHING.

Hey you Obamorons, want to know what your boy is made of? Lets see if he slips Bush "the pardon".

;)

BTW,
I still think Bugliosi is somewhat of a publicity seeking goof ball for wasting 10 years of his life trying to validate the single bullet theory (and the notion that Oswald killed JFK by himself) with what he calls his magnum opus -- Reclaiming History, a 1,600 page snoozer chocked full of misinformation and distortions. Yeah, I bought the damn thing. I call it "The Doorstop". Everytime i open it i roll my eyes. Some of the shit in that book is ridiculous. I mean, absolutely stupid.

Still trying to figure out how a Warren Commission apologist could write a book like this, outright indicting Bush.

Weird.

:confused:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    His book on the 'Manson' murders was also ridiculous and stupid. Full of distortions of the truth e.t.c. Though he did at least have the honesty to admit in the book that Manson was innocent and that he was going to do everything he could to get him prosecuted anyway. It was all more about furthering his career than anything else.
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    certainly the idea is right on. Bush should be jailed for crimes against humanity. so I full on agree with the idea.

    but as far as vincent bigliosi goes I hate him too. The whole Helter Skelter thing was just a ploy for him to get famous. He's the one who came up with the idea that Manson and his family murdered people because of the Beatles. The Family were all fans of the beatles, and it was a factor in the murders, but it wasnt the only one.

    The movie and the book glorify Vincent. They are more about him than ascertaining, as Vincent so expertly puts it, one of the most bizaare crimes in american history. Why did crimes like this happen? What drove manson and others to go off the deep end? I am certain as hell it wasnt just because they listened to rocky racoon 50 times.

    Manson is portrayed in movie and book as a evil person without legitimate thoughts or ideas. An evil person who deserves to die in prison.

    Somehow I think thats a naive way of looking at this case or any criminal/killer/law breaker.

    Vincent isnt out to right society, he is out to make cash. Any time Manson speaks about ANYTHING, he says its a lie. So evidently criminals dont have legitimate thoughts. At least according to Vincent.

    Back to the topic at hand. I am in agreement with what Zack de la Rocha said about Bush, that he should be tried and hung for war crimes.
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    watch helter skelter, specifically the court room scene where manson speaks. As a sociologist, I agreed with 95 percent of his statements. Manson was right on. His views about nature, and analysis of vietnam and the effects of war on society, aresome of the more cognizant and concious I have ever seen put to words.

    To understand Manson and why he had followers, you have to look more deeply than John Paul, George and Ringo. You need to study the sociopolitical climate of the 1960;s. You have to study Vietnam. You have to study the antiwar movement and how it changed from 1964-1969 when the murders occured.

    You need to understand the world at that time, the feelings of activists at that time. You need to understand that activists had seen JFK, RFK, Malcolm and King all assassinated. And you had to understand Tet, and the Chicago convention etc.... on and on...

    To say manson and his followers are merely people who listened to the white album too many times or took too many drugs is simplisity in its most naive and shocking form.

    Manson and his followers talked about killing for additional reasons: to payback those who refused to sign Manson to a label for his music, to cause a race riot, as a sociologist one of my favorite explanations was from manson himself and his cohorts-that they were upset about vietnam.

    To me, manson and his crimes are inevitable in a world filled with violence. In the 1960's, it was a logical ending point. Of course it would come to that. You think starting a war that a majority of americans disagreed with would just meander on and on and not have consequences.

    To me Vincent is a shill. A liar and someone out to make a buck.
  • To me Vincent is a shill. A liar and someone out to make a buck.

    This was pretty clear to me on about the 4th page of his "magnum opus" ... that shitty book of lies about the Kennedy murder ...

    he starts the book the morning of 11-22-63, the day of the assassination, 3rd person omniscient in Oswald's wife's apartment. It flashes back to some time earlier when Marina Oswald (wife) is trying to contact Lee. It says she "stumbled" upon his whereabouts "almost as if by accident". As it turned out Lee had been living under an assumed name again, "O.H. Lee".

    Bugliosi addresses this strange occurance (living under a fake name, or having a fake identity) by saying, "this iritated Marina. Lee was up to his old childish antics again."

    Wow!
    Not even touching on more contentious claims, Lee Harvey Oswald was a private in the marines who just happend to be tested in Russian language before "defecting" to Russia 7 months later, and fast forward 3 years, upon his arrest, a search of his apartment turns up several spy glass optical devices, and a Minox camera. The minox was a very small, and very expensive "spy" camera, that the CIA is now known to have issued during that time period. Further, the serial number on Oswald's Minox was a 5 digit serial. Minox has issued a statement claiming that no such 5 digit numbers were assigned to commercialy available Minoxs at that time. Commercial numbers were 6 digits.

    Also, Oswald had on his person at the time of his arrest, a professionaly made false identification, a drivers liscence for the name "A J Hidel".

    And yet bugliosi dismisses the curiousness of Oswald living under a fake name as, "up to his old childish games again."

    Way to win street cred, you dipshit.

    And as bad as i thought that was,
    when i got to his mishandling of the medical evidence, i nearly shat myself.

    But hey,
    maybe this Bush book is actualy a legitimate work for a change.

    Jesus, i hope so.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    His book on the 'Manson' murders was also ridiculous and stupid. Full of distortions of the truth e.t.c. Though he did at least have the honesty to admit in the book that Manson was innocent and that he was going to do everything he could to get him prosecuted anyway. It was all more about furthering his career than anything else.

    So, if Manson was innocent do you know who did the murders he was accused of?
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    watch helter skelter, specifically the court room scene where manson speaks. As a sociologist, I agreed with 95 percent of his statements. Manson was right on. His views about nature, and analysis of vietnam and the effects of war on society, aresome of the more cognizant and concious I have ever seen put to words.

    To understand Manson and why he had followers, you have to look more deeply than John Paul, George and Ringo. You need to study the sociopolitical climate of the 1960;s. You have to study Vietnam. You have to study the antiwar movement and how it changed from 1964-1969 when the murders occured.

    You need to understand the world at that time, the feelings of activists at that time. You need to understand that activists had seen JFK, RFK, Malcolm and King all assassinated. And you had to understand Tet, and the Chicago convention etc.... on and on...

    To say manson and his followers are merely people who listened to the white album too many times or took too many drugs is simplisity in its most naive and shocking form.

    Manson and his followers talked about killing for additional reasons: to payback those who refused to sign Manson to a label for his music, to cause a race riot, as a sociologist one of my favorite explanations was from manson himself and his cohorts-that they were upset about vietnam.

    To me, manson and his crimes are inevitable in a world filled with violence. In the 1960's, it was a logical ending point. Of course it would come to that. You think starting a war that a majority of americans disagreed with would just meander on and on and not have consequences.

    To me Vincent is a shill. A liar and someone out to make a buck.

    This is utterly disgusting and very disturbing. To describe Manson's explanation as your "Favorite" explanation, and saying these crimes were inevitable, do you support these murders? To value the lives of the Vietnam soldiers, and then support or justify the murder of innocents is illogical.

    There are millions of people in this country. 10 or so insane junkies/brainwash victims kill innocent people in a horrible way and you are trying to mainstream it like this was expected and okay. No! 250 million people didn't go out and murder randomly, just these 5 individuals. War was not a justification to go murder some innocent people, because if it was there would have been a whole lot more of these murders. This was a lunatic and a few brainwashed individuals that murdered these people. End of story. The war did not cause it. The evil in these peoples' souls caused. My parents grew up during the 60's. They didn't murder anyone. Lived in the same USA as the rest of 'em. Society does not make monsters, people allow themselves to become monsters. All of a sudden a Vietnam war breaks out and these people become murderers? They were murderers before the war started, just hadn't killed yet.

    How many more would have died of Manson was allowed to roam free and brainwash more people? This thread is praising him as an amazing thinker and an innocent. Disgusting.
  • sweet adelinesweet adeline Posts: 2,191
    So, if Manson was innocent do you know who did the murders he was accused of?

    supposedly charles didn't have a hand in the actual murders, he just convinced/brainwashed members of his family to carry out the murders.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

    Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led the "Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in the U.S. state of California in the later 1960s.[1][2][3] He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction. Through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy,[4] he was convicted of the murders themselves.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487

    Back to the topic at hand. I am in agreement with what Zack de la Rocha said about Bush, that he should be tried and hung for war crimes.


    Talking about killing the President of the United States is not something the Secret Service takes lightly, even when in jest. You should also amend your statement to add, and if found guilty, to reflect the proper path of the justice system.
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    as i said, I am in agreement with zack de la rocha
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    unsung wrote:
    Talking about killing the President of the United States is not something the Secret Service takes lightly, even when in jest. You should also amend your statement to add, and if found guilty, to reflect the proper path of the justice system.


    if you think he needs to be found guilty, you have another thing coming. Look at his record the last 8 years. Even a cursory glance reveals sickening and disturbing things. Alot worse things than the manson murders thats for damn sure.

    His first crime didnt even take place in office, it was when he took cocaine, and because his daddy was in office, he somehow would up getting that expunged from his record, and never serving a day in prison. Imagine what bush would do to people now, who were found guilty of possessing cocaine!

    Bush is a killer. Straight up
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Apparently, Bugliosi makes a pretty good defense attorney as well. I remember reading one of his books, 'And the Sea Will Tell' in college. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Sea_Will_Tell
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
Sign In or Register to comment.