The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

... is someone willing to write a book like this. My hat goes off in respect to Mr. Bugliosi.

I found this book to be very, very disturbing. We Americans have allowed the Bush administration to put a horrible black mark on the American nation.

I highly recommend this book to everyone.

Having said the above, I'd like to add a few comments about places I struggled with the book:

1. I found the writing style to be a bit puzzling ... that is, until I imagined that I was sitting in a court room listening to Mr. Bugliosi present his case. The book flowed much more smoothly for me after this.

2. Make make sure you read the End Notes. The copy of the book I had made no references to the End Notes, so I had read through several chapters before I discovered them.

3. Respectfully, I had a problem with one of the arguments that Mr. Bugliosi presents. I may have misunderstood his argument, but (again respectfully) I think his logic is off.

In his Chapter notes to Chapter 2, Mr. Bugliosi states that Saddam Hussein would never "do something [like attack America] that would only serve to assure his annihilation ..." and that such an idea as "... too ludicrous to even contemplate." (p. 260).

My issue isn't with Saddam Hussein, but with Mr. Bugliosi's logic. My point is that this is not a valid argument. People consistently engage in behavior that can cause their annihilation. (Think about all the smokers around the world.)

When I worked as a forensic counselor, I had the opportunity to work with several true sadists and sociopaths. Each one was very intelligent, and each one would consistently do incredibly stupid things that would get them in trouble.

I imagine that as an accomplished attorney, Mr. Bugliosi has worked with many more sociopaths and people with personality disorders than I have. Which makes me even more surprised that he used this line of reasoning.

Furthermore, although Saddam would not have had access to the information at the time, it is not a given that attacking the U.S. means annihilation. Consider Osama Bin Laden.

In light of the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Bugliosi offers in this book, this argument is not critical to the conclusions he draws about President Bush (conclusions that I completely agree with).

The danger I see in the line of reasoning Mr. Bugliosi uses here is that the exact same (again incorrect, in my view) argument could be used to defend President Bush. Mr. Bugliosi points out that there is no statute of limitations for murder. Therefore, anyone defending Bush can say, "President Bush would never violate as many laws as Mr. Bugliosi says he did, because (to paraphrase Mr. Bugliosi), "The notion that President Bush would do something that would only serve to ensure his annihilation is too ludicrous to even contemplate."

4. There were several instances of Mr. Bugliosi using "he" to refer to both men and women. I struggled with this wording especially when he used "he" in reference to the U.S. troops who have died in Iraq. Women soldiers have died as well. (To be fair, as an author I also struggle with she, he, s/he limitations of our English language. But still ...)

5. On page 68, Mr. Bugliosi writes, "FOr some reason, although the death of Iraqi civilians in the war is always distressing to me, I take the reports of American soldiers being killed in Iraq much harder.

For me, it's exactly the opposite.

I am always more horrified by civilian deaths for, as tragic as the U.S. soldiers deaths are/were, the soldiers at least chose to be there. Civilians have no choice, which makes their deaths even more tragic.

To be clear, I'm not saying Mr. Bugliosi is wrong (or evil or bad or ...) to hold his opinion. Nor do I hold these words up as a criticism of his book. I just see things differently.

6. Finally, I disagree with Mr. Bugliosi's opinion that President Bush should receive the death penalty. As horrific as the things that President Bush did, I, unlike President Bush, oppose the death penalty. Mr. Bush should be sentenced to life in prison in the general prison system.

I did very much appreciate Mr. Bugliosi's explanation of complex legal issues in a way that I as a lay person could understand them. As I read the book, I found myself curious to know what strategy Mr. Bugliosi would suggest in order to avoid a future president from pardoning Mr. Bush (should he indeed be brought to trial). I would hate to see a replay of President Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon.


Again, these 6 points are where I struggled with Mr. Bugliosi's book. Overall, I agreed with this premise, was shocked at his compilation of facts, and outraged at the acts of the current administration.

I would highly recommend this book to any interested reader ... which should be every voter in America.

Thank you again, Mr. Bugliosi, for standing up for American values.

You are a true patriot.

I found this book riveting--but at times was so upset I had to put it down in an effort to calm down. I think Mr. Bugliosi pulls no punches, and I glory in him.

This was a well written book and would open anyone's eyes. BUT, I don't think anyone would have the guts to do anything about it.

The book is provocative, but clearly lays out the case for the prosecution of this President. The end notes are as interesting to read as the text itself. After reading the book you'll have a hard time deciding if you are more outraged at the current administration or the people who still defend it.

Bugliosi's detractors will have a hard time discounting the evidence against Bush in this book. The argument is strong, the facts verified, the evidence damning. Don't read it before bed, you won't be able to get to sleep.

Bugliosi knows evil, but even he has underestimated George Bush and the small company of sequestered advisors who made him do it. But he has also underestimated the pervasiveness of the evil--call it "prideful ignorance"--that he's so eager to prosecute.

The devastation to our own country in terms of our own troops--their irreversible injuries and psychological damage; the ravaging of the women, children and civilians of Iraq (the term "suicide bomber" was unknown there until we created a reason for it, after which the mere shouting of the term caused thousands of Iraq citizens on their way to Mosque to leap off a bridge to their deaths); the bankrupting of America spiritually, morally, and economically--all to apprehend a homeless hoodlum in a hole (whose intelligence at least stood up alongside our own leader's)--all because of lies, lies, and more lies. No 9/11 and Iraq connection, no Saddam and 9/11 relation, no tolerance of informed advisors with a different POV (Richard Clarke), no greeting of these American White Knights as heroic rescuers and saviors, no cheap oil--still people want to believe, and this administration and its sycophants (who try to call themselves "mavericks") will exploit that naive, sadly misplaced trust, even proclaiming Mission Accomplished where there is none. No one will mention the obvious--the expense of the Iraq invasion (funded by Chinese loans) and its connection with the collapse of our economy. And just as the loan sharks couldn't help but perpetuate the myth that everyone could afford a $500,000 home, the new-moneyed powers of the Eastern world were convinced that American consumerism would continue to repay in huge sums of interest the money they decided to throw at America's banks who passed it on to the mortgage lenders who passed it on to the consumers.

Dante was right about usurers in the Cantos of the Inferno, and so was Ezra Pound in his own great Cantos (though he was deluded to think that one religion or group of people had a monopoly on usury). But Russ Feingold, Obama and Jimmy Carter (unlike Hillary, Biden and Kerry and many other normally thoughtful individuals) did not vote to support our leader's mandate to engage in this vain and hideous act of transgression, an imperial will proven again and again throughout history to be wrong. It doesn't matter how false the testimony of our leader: the act in itself was transparently corrupt from the beginning and would not have been supported by any person of integrity (a winnable war against hatred?). For that reason, Bugliosi overstates his case.

The American people deserved what they got, doubly so after the 2004 election. We can only hope they demand better this time around. Rather than persecute a scapegoat (as bad as the money and energy wasted on Saddam), far better they do some soul-searching, however unflattering the results. Our capitalistic system run amok, our consumer culture, and our educational institutions (when did hot-button issues, hardened positions, and ideologies and religious affiliations replace the Socratic principles of learning?) are what failed us. To prosecute a pusillanimous president is tantamount to elevating Saddam, a two-bit thug, to the role of the Anti-Christ. As Young Goodman Brown discovered, it's not necessary to leave Salem to locate Satanic revelry; as Flannery O'Connor's characters soon learn, "good and pious" Americans make serial killers look like saints by comparison; as Faulkner's fallen klan of a grand chivalric order discover, their pure, undefiled, exalted and separatist order was tragically flawed from the outset, an achromatic world removed from the prismatic colors that are our nation's strength.

We don't need a prosecution or a surrender. A confession would be a first step.