Manson Prosecutor writes indictment on Bu$h Jr.

"I lost court cases and misdemeanor juries, but of felony jury trials I was successful 105 of 106 times." - Vincent Bugliosi (1)---------------------
Vincent Bugliosi (pronounced boo-lee-OH-see, with a silent g) (born August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota) is an American attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

Education

Bugliosi is a graduate of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. In 1964, he received his law degree from UCLA, where he was president of his graduating class.

Manson prosecution

As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of his "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases. He later wrote a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter.

-------------------------
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
By Vincent Bugliosi, Vanguard Press.
May 2008.

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

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

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

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dan, love the audo files on here. Especially the interview with Joe Rogan by Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura!

$

David Raymond Amos said...

QSLS Politics
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 2,193
Domain Name GNB.CA ? (Canada)
IP Address 142.139.0.# (Province of New Brunswick)
ISP Province of New Brunswick
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : New Brunswick
City : Fredericton
Lat/Long : 45.95, -66.6333 (Map)
Language English (Canada)
en-ca
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1680 x 1050
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit May 30 2008 7:06:20 pm
Last Page View May 30 2008 7:07:23 pm
Visit Length 1 minute 3 seconds
Page Views 3
Referring URL http://qslsblogcast.blogspot.com/
Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....ism-and-liberty.html
Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/
Out Click 0 comments
http://www.blogger.c...=5045312985281255179
Time Zone UTC-4:00
Visitor's Time May 30 2008 2:06:20 pm
Visit Number 2,193

COULD THIS BE NONE OTHER THAN T.J. BURKE THE INFAMOUS "BLOGGER GENERAL" OF THE MARITIMES MAKING A SNEAKY COMMENT AS AN ANON?

IF IT TRULY IS WOULD HE EVER CONFESS PARTICULARLY AFTER HIS IRVING BOSSES SHUT HIS BLOG DOWN.

CHUCKY LEBLANC WOULD A LOL OR TWO ABOUT NOW N'EST PAS?

VERITAS VINCIT
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS