'George W. Bush has gotten away with murder'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Since former LA prosecutor Vince Bugliosi charged that Bush was guilty of the crime of mass murder, allegations by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have simply 'buttoned up' Bugliosi's already open and shut case. Bugliosi now has a material witness.

Bugliosi has much more than 'probable cause' to bring charges against Bush and his inner circle. He has the smoking gun, the open and shut case, the verifiable, indisputable fact that Bush knew Saddam did not have WMD but sent some 4,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq anyway. I want to see McClellan on the witness stand spilling his guts about how Bush planned to hoax the world for the benefit of Dick Cheney's Halliburton!

Famed Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says: 'George W. Bush has gotten away with murder'

Bugliosi's book hit the stores just recently and since then the capital murder case against Bush has been made open and shut with a material witness to the crime: Scott McClellan. McClellan's 'smoking gun' is his recent confirmation that Bush and co-conspirators inside the White House deliberately planned the US attack and invasion of Iraq knowing full well: 1) that Saddam did not pose a threat and, 2) Saddam did not have WMD. It's open and shut. Let Bush's murder trial begin.

Not mentioned by Bugliosi in the video is the fact that because the US attack and invasion of Iraq was a fraud, Bush may be held accountable in the International Court, as well, for the deaths of every Iraqi at the hands of US troops. This is not merely a matter for the International Court however. It is the subject of federal law, US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which makes George Bush subject to the death penalty under US federal law.

The timeline of events, a matter of public record, and the testimony of Scott McClellan who supports the charge that Iraq was but a fraud upon the entire world, is the case that must be made against Bush in court.

As we know --Colin Powell's presentation to the UN consisted of ten year old, obsolete black and white satellite photos, a plagiarized student paper (cited as authoritative), and other bogus so-called 'evidence'. Events have proven all of these deliberate fabrications to be bald faced lies. Saddam never had WMD, in fact, few weapons but those provided him by the US.

As a critic of US foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that “to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”

...

As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration’s case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction.

--Investigate This, Scott Ritter

The Washington Post is now trying to re-write history in favor of Bush's latest 'counter-offensive'. By his own accounts, Bush did not lie about WMD though we were told repeatedly of Saddam's chemical and nuclear programs. Bush now claims that his 'war like talk' was a mistake. This latest round of revisionism is beginning to look like a 'full court press' to salvage a few shreds of credibility. Notably, the Washington Post is wasting ink with its latest efforts to rewrite the history according to George W. Bush.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

--Fred Hiatt, 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple

It is that simple, Fred. Like Bush earlier, Fred has cherry picked the report and plays word games to support his bogus claims. Specifically, Fred, just where was or is the 'Iraqi nuclear program' that was 'substantiated'? Just where --exactly --are the chemical weapons? Where, precisely, may one find any 'weapons of mass destruction' whatsoever'? The conclusion of the report --in fact --stated that Saddam was not an imminent threat! Now, had there been any reason to believe that there had been a nuclear weapons program, a chemical weapons program, indeed, any program consisting of 'weapons of mass destruction' whatever, the report received by Bush six days prior to his speech would not have concluded that Iraq (Saddam) posed no imminent threat! Fred --I have news for you! The report does NOT support your 'case'.

Let's look at that 'intelligence' again. It was on October 7, 2002 that Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and the American people. It was the first time that Bush had made that case in a speech. Bush called Saddam a 'homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction!' That was probably his administration's first use of that term!

Bush pressed his case, claiming that '...Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.' Bush stated that an attack by Saddam on American soil could happen '...on any given day'.

But, in fact, on October 1st, six days prior to his speech, the CIA had provided Bush its 2002 assessment entitled 'Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction'. It was not the pretext Bush needed to attack and invade Iraq without making himself subject to prosecution for war crimes. Six days before Bush's 'Saddam is a threat speech', the CIA had told Bush that it was the consensus of 16 federal, intelligence agencies that 'Saddam was not an imminent threat to the security of this country'.

With the words 'not an imminent threat to the security' of the US, the CIA has made Bush, who ignored them, culpable for the numerous war crimes that he has perpetrated upon the people of Iraq.

It cannot be claimed with any credibility that Bush merely misspoke. By claiming the possibility of an imminent attack, Bush was already laying the groundwork for his legal 'defense' against war crimes charges. Only 'imminent threats' or actual attacks may, under international law, excuse the attack by one country upon another.

But as was stated in the intelligence report Bush received six days prior to his war speech, there was NO such imminent threat. Therefore, Bush is a war criminal. There is simply no reasonable doubt about it.

Bush must surely have known that he was guilty of violating specific provisions of federal law --else he would not have assigned Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo the task of trying to make it all legal but only after he had already perpetrated the crime. No one else committing mass murder gets to rewrite the laws after they've committed the crime. And neither should that person whose only swore duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution, which Bush called a "Goddamned piece of paper"!

By law, any Federal Grand Jury now convened for any reason or charge may, upon its own volition, subpoena Scott McClellan and, by doing so, begin an investigation of George W. Bush for the crime of murder. Specifically, the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers sent to their deaths by Bush upon a bald-faced lie. Bugliosi, a legendary prosecutor, is absolutely correct with respect to the letter of the law and the incontrovertible evidence against Bush. I urge any member of a Federal Grand Jury reading this to begin by subpoenaing McClellan now.

Bush's inner circle of Cheney, Rice, Rummie et al are GUILTY of murder under US laws and should be indicted and tried and sentenced. Additionally, the theft of billions should be investigated by a Federal Grand Jury now.

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

-- BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

Impeachment --of course! Followed by Federal Grand Jury indictments against Bush and his inner circle. The case is lately made that the corporate heads of FOX are likewise complicit having eagerly disseminated Bush's lies for war. What kind of deal had been struck between Fox brass, perhaps Rupert himself, and Bush's criminal junta?

An investigation of Fox's role as Bush's 'propaganda ministry should begin with the Fox board and executives throughout the Fox news organization. Subpoena every frickin' email. I want to know who got orders to write what and when! I want to know how many times news directors, bureau chiefs, or assignment editors were coerced, ordered or simply 'influenced' or bribed. I want to know why Fox conducted a campaign of bald faced lies, distortions and slanted news stories. Why did Fox slant the news in favor of the Bush campaign of lies in the run up to wars of naked aggression?

Bring the lot of them to trial for war crimes [See US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441], grand larceny and mass murder. Indict the FOX board of directors. Clearly, they are complicit in Bush's conspiracy to conduct the capital crimes of mass murder and aggressive war. Both are violations of US Codes.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

by Vincent Bugliosi

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the US intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

Denying Blix’s Findings

Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the US over the “no-fly” zones. Iraq had directed the UN inspectors to sites where illicit weapons had been destroyed and had begun to demolish its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as requested by the UN. Blix added that “no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found” by his inspectors and “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.” He said that for his inspectors to absolutely confirm that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) “will not take years, nor weeks, but months.”

Mohamed El Baradei, the chief UN nuclear inspector in Iraq and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN Security Council that, “we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.”

The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?

Hussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War

When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign — to get Hussein to disarm — was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before — that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict — the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line — because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?

The Niger Allegation

One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Niger allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Iraq, was sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate a supposed memo that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake (a form of lightly processed ore) to Iraq by Niger in the late 1990s. Wilson reported back to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” such a transaction had ever taken place.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed El Baradei told the UN Security Council that “based on thorough analysis” his agency concluded that the “documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Indeed, author Craig Unger uncovered at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union address in which analysts at the CIA, the State Department, or other government agencies that had examined the Niger documents “raised serious doubts about their legitimacy — only to be rebuffed by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them.”

On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent memos to the National Security Council, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and to the White House Situation Room stating that the Niger information was no good.

On January 24, 2003, four days before the president’s State of the Union address, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that “the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest.”

The 9/11 Lie

The Bush administration put undue pressure on US intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, “The President in a very intimidating way left us — me and my staff — with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”

Bush said on October 7, 2002, “We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade,” and that “Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” Of Hussein, he said on November 1, 2002, “We know he’s got ties with Al Qaeda.”

Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”

--The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

See also:

• Bugliosi: George W. Bush Should be Tried for Mass Murder
• FBI Evidence that Indicts George W. Bush for Mass Murder, War Crimes and Torture
• Push for New YOrk Grand Jury to Investigate 911
• The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
  
• Los Angeles Citizens' Grand Jury
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

---

---