The Book They Can’t Stop!

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
By Vincent Bugliosi
Vanguard Press (May 26, 2008 )
ISBN-10: 159315481X
ISBN-13: 978-1593154813
Hardcover: 352 pages

The Prosecutor and the President

Vincent Bugliosi wants George W. Bush prosecuted for murder. There are others who are complicit in the crime, namely the Vice President and Condoleezza Rice, but Bush is the target of this famed former Los Angeles prosecutor (the Charles Manson case) and best-selling author (Helter Skelter and The Betrayal of America as two examples). He is undeterred by the virtual major media blackout on interviews and advertising. He’s taking his case directly to the people through alternate media and the internet.

Bugliosi constructs a devastating case in The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. As I write this review, it is still difficult to grasp my sense of shock at this title with this author’s name below it. A legendary prosecutor with a near perfect record in big cases, Bugliosi articulates one of the most revolutionary ideas imaginable in a mix of today’s otherwise vapid and obtuse political thinking. But first, the book and how the prosecutor makes his case.

He wastes no time in following up on the shock generated by the title. In the first sentence, we’re told:

“The book you are about to read deals with what I believe to be the most serious crime ever committed in American history — the president of the nation, George W. Bush, knowingly and deliberately taking this country to war in Iraq under false presences, a war that condemned over 100,000 human beings, including 4,000 American soldiers, to horrific, violent deaths.” (V. Bugliosi, p. 3)

The president “knowingly and deliberately” caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians and that’s called murder, plain and simple. This is not a hypothetical case that could happen under special legal interpretations. When the president leaves office, he is subject to the same law as the rest of us. Bugliosi explains the ability to prosecute the case against George W. Bush by a district attorney or states attorney in any local jurisdiction where a life was lost in the Iraq war. Federal prosecutors also have that option. Bugliosi’s detailed analysis of this phenomenon offers some of the best analysis in the book and the detailed end notes.

In the first chapter, “Opening up One’s Eyes,” Bugliosi explains how he was able to reach this conclusion and then encourages the reader to do the same. He attributes his huge success as a prosecutor and author to his willingness` to “see what’s in front of me completely uninfluenced by the clothing (reputation, hoopla, conventional wisdom, etc.) put on it by others.” (p. 5)

After the stage is set for an open minded look at recent history, we’re offered a series of incriminating quotations from Bush, Cheney, Rice, and others. Before the invasion, these statements had the power to shift public opinion in favor of the war. How could we tolerate a dictator, Bush asked, who “threaten(ed) the world with horrible poisons and diseases, and gasses and atomic weapons”? Iraq had “unmanned aerial vehicles” and was “exploring ways of using these to target the United States.” (p. 22) These and other inflammatory claims by Bush and his crew were not only wildly off target, he knew that they were when he made them, without any doubt.

By the end of the carefully constructed first two chapters, the prosecutor, known to devote several hundred hours to a closing statement for a jury, has the reader prepared to accept his charges. He pauses before beginning his core case to let us know the cost of these lies. Over a hundred thousand died in a war predicated on lies which were deliberately fabricated by the president.

These aren’t just any deaths, we are told. We are dealing with the murder of young, impressionable, patriotic Americans who joined the service for a variety of honorable reasons. They all shared one bond, loyalty to their country and a willingness to die for it in war. While Bugliosi shows highly appropriate concern for the dead Iraqi civilians as a result of the civil chaos caused by the Bush invasion, he notes that he could find no domestic law allowing a prosecution for those losses.

After the first three chapters we know the tragedy that requires a legal remedy and we are clear about the author’s motivation to seek justice on behalf of the fallen. He is righteously angry that this crime has taken place and determined to provide the means for justice. Bugliosi is indifferent to a virtual media blackout as a result of the comatose state of the political and corporate elite, manifested through the calculated denial of their network news readers and the Bush administration stenographers at the New York Times and Washington Post.

There are three dates that define the guilt of Bugliosi’s defendant:

On October 1, 2002, Bush received a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) representing all federal intelligence sources. Iraq’s imminent danger to the Unites States was described in this sentence: There’s no reference to poison dispensing unmanned aircraft, weapons sales to al Qaeda which would be turned against us, or other immediate dangers.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks–more likely with biological than chemical agents–probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.” NIE, 10/2002 and (V. Bugliosi, pp. 104-105)

On October 4, 2002, Bush released a doctored summary of the NEI to Congress referred to as a White Paper. He left out the critical information — Iraq was deemed an imminent danger only if the survival of the regime were threatened by a U.S. attack. “Judgments” and other qualifying language in the NIE were converted to simple assertions of fact in the White Paper giving the case for war a seemingly unambiguous authority from the intelligence community.

In fact, the White Paper provided to Congress was diametrically opposed to the NIE which the White House received from the intelligence agencies on Oct. 1, 2002 and withheld from Congress. The critical trigger for an Iraqi threat to the U.S. was said to be just what Bush had proposed –.an attack that threatened the survival of Hussein’s regime. Rather than securing the nation’s safety, by the logic and advice of his own intelligence community, Bush put the nation at risk while concealing vital intelligence. White Paper – Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program and (V. Bugliosi, pp. 112-116)

On October 7, 2002, Bush spoke to an audience in Cincinnati, Ohio and claimed that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the United states with his “unmanned aerial vehicles” with WMD “for missions targeting the United States” (p. 105).

This is the critical evidence. It is unambiguous. Bush knew that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the nation, yet portrayed just that to gain approval for his war. It represents only a part of the detailed and overwhelming case presented in a determined, thorough, and totally engaging narrative that Vincent Bugliosi sets out to do what he promised.

He builds an overwhelming case against George W. Bush, lays out the jurisdictional and other legal issues that make this a viable case for prosecution, and argues that presidential accountability is a fundamental requirement to restore the status of “great nation” to the United States, so damaged over the past eight years.

But there’s a much broader significance to the prosecution, should it take place.

Each pair of boots represent a dead Georgia man because of the Iraq war.

The Birth of the Public Servant

While a trial and conviction of George W Bush for murder would be an event of momentous proportions, it would pale in comparison to enduring impact due to the precedent established. Presidents could no longer offer up the lives of soldiers and civilians sent to a war that was stated for anything other than national defense or imminent danger to the country.

Although the president had rotating rationales for the invasion, that act and occupation had little to do with protecting the United States. As Bugliosi said in a recent interview with this author, over 4,000 soldiers have died “not your war or my war or America’s war, but George Bush’s war.” The explanations offered by Bush have been discarded by all but the perpetrators and none of the financial or political motives suggested by others are acceptable justifications for the death and destruction caused.

Were there a prosecution and conviction, any future president would need to think long and hard before serving his political interests or necessities by filling the trough of financial backers and other chosen few no matter what they gave or promised. The president and his top aids would be accountable for a fundamental individual right that is obvious to us but not them: the right of each citizen to be free from death due to a president’s egotistical, political, or financial desires. Presidents would no longer be able to conceal the sin of premeditated murder by draping it in the fiction of necessary losses in the service of a larger national interest. The real basis for presidential decision making would be opened up to the scrutiny of communities through their local prosecutors.

The long standing conflict between individual rights versus collective rights would be resolved as well. By having to serve each member of the public by refraining from unnecessary war making, the chief executive would need to show restraint thus eliminating the requirement for an oversized military establishment designed as an imperial presence throughout the world. The tools of diplomacy would devolve to shared interests rather than coerced solutions forced on weaker states. And this would not just be for major wars.

The United States has engaged in over 40 military incursions since World War II. Unless a president could be assured that no one soldier died, he or she would be wise to have a solid justification for defense of the nation for any military action in order to avoid an indictment carrying a hefty sentence. The president would also have the example of a convicted and sentenced ex president who was vulnerable ddue to nonstop lying about the rationale for war.

The national defense was sorely lacking during the 9/11 attacks, despite an awesome world wide military potential. Similarly, the administrations successful efforts to exempt themselves from the consequences of international war crimes tribunals since 2003 occurred while the potential existed for domestic prosecutions as Bugliosi outlines in this book. It poses a much more serious and final threat to willful leaders who casually use their citizens as fodder in their wars to benefit the narrow goals of financial interests that fear real competition on an even playing field.

Michael Collins writes for Scoop Independent News and a variety of other web publications on election fraud and other corruptions of the new millennium. He is one of few to report on the ongoing struggles of Susan Lindauer, an activist accused of being a foreign agent, who was the subject of a government request for forced psychiatric medication. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and acknowledgment of images. Read other articles by Michael, or visit Michael's website.

27 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:52am #

    Sen Joe Lieberman, Al Gores last choice for a VP now supports McCain.

    Colin Powell, we all know who he supported in his last term(um)
    …now supports Obama.

    At this going rate, figuratively Lieberman and McCain will arrest
    GWB personally themselves the minute his term expires.

  2. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:00pm #

    That’s pretty apalling editing of adverse comments, Mr. Sharma.

  3. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:03pm #

    What’s really galling is that you showed it as successfully posted so long ago that I deleted the working draft, logged off for several hours, and now I can’t possibly rewrite it.

    You do know, Mr. Sharma, that live posts are not supposed to be worked on for hours, saved, rewritten, etc?

  4. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:06pm #

    Why don’t I just skip the introductory criticisims, and ask: How can anyone seriously opposed to Bushco NOT wholeheartedly support Vincent Bugliosi’s lawsuit?

  5. Giorgio said on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:33pm #

    Go for him, Mr.Bugliosi, go for him and get a heavy conviction!
    And when he’s convicted and HANGS let the whole world watch it on video like it did Saddam Hussein. Then the world will know for the first time in history tha even handed justice is being done!

  6. Michael Collins said on August 23rd, 2008 at 5:45pm #

    Max, Max, Max Poease concentrate on the strategy suggested by Vincent Bugliosi. He could care less about Lieberman. In fact, from what he said of the war supporters in the two interviews that I conducted (“Read other articles by Michael … ” link at the end of the article), he would find Lieberman and Powell loathsome. But I digress. The jurisdiction for such a prosecution, clearly air tight if you read his book/brief, is local and federal. A US Attorney could bring the case but that’s a small pool from which to draw.

    The real poll of talent and righteous outrage is found in the localities where there has been a loss due to the Iraq war. That loss would constitute an act of murder, by Bugliosi’s clearly defined analysis in the book and the interviews. It’s not a complex argument and well worth the read.

    Once started, the vice president, president, supreme court, etc. would not be able to interfere unless the president issued a pardon. Obama is already on record as saying he’d certainly allow the prosecution for major crimes to go forward against Bush administration officials. If he backed out on that, he’d become a quick footnote to history.

    So nobody can stop it short of a pardon just as nobody overtly tried to stop Jim Garrision for prosecuting Clay Shaw for the Kennedy assassination, despite the real threat that posed.

    Georgio and Lloyd Rowsey, I agree with you – this is a no-brainer. If you do the crime, you do the time. Bugliosi says it’s a straight forward criminal prosecution, one that Cheney and Rice would be immediately subject to as well as Bush.

    Here is the ultimate benefit of this momentous proposal (from the comment in the review):

    “Were there a prosecution and conviction, any future president would need to think long and hard before serving his political interests or necessities by filling the trough of financial backers and other chosen few no matter what they gave or promised. The president and his top aids would be accountable for a fundamental individual right that is obvious to us but not them: ***the right of each citizen to be free from death due to a president’s egotistical, political, or financial desires.*** Presidents would no longer be able to conceal the sin of premeditated murder by draping it in the fiction of necessary losses in the service of a larger national interest. The real basis for presidential decision making would be opened up to the scrutiny of communities through their local prosecutors.”

    Instead of the notion of sacrifice for the presidents errors or malice, the new criterion would be accountability by the president and others for the safe conduct of foreign policy with regard to each and every citizen. What a concept! They can’t carry forward their pathetic schemes for expansion of power and wealth using the lives of the people.

  7. cg said on August 23rd, 2008 at 9:21pm #

    Hell, Bush will just hire Alan Dershowitz, the pseudo-semitic paragon of truth, justice, the American way, torture (with sterile needles, of course) and champion exemplar of getting a murderer off on a technicality.
    Sure will make for some high drama/comedy though.

  8. Michael Collins said on August 24th, 2008 at 1:12am #

    cg, You may be right but Dershowitz is primarily an appeals guy. Also, he says that Bugliosi is by far the best DA around, period. Vince would clean his clock in court. The context would matter – we’re tanked as an economy, Iraq and Afghanistan are sunk efforts but whomever won’t pull the plug and get us out, and unemployment is about 12%. Lots of angry and betrayed people. Nice jury pool.

    People are pissed off right now. They want someone to answer for this. It’s only the tepid left, truly an embarrassment, and the Matrix engineers who manufacture the lies 7/24 that allow this nonsense to continue by discrediting any leader who emerges to fight for the people. We’ll see.

  9. r jackowski said on August 24th, 2008 at 4:40am #

    There are 50 State Attorneys General and approx 950 county Prosecutors who have the authority to Indict Bush. It is now up to the voters to elect an AG who will seek justice. It is always the voter who has the ultimate responsibility.
    The Vermont Liberty Union candidate for AG is a good possibility – but the voters will have the final say.
    Google ‘Bugliosi is Going for the Big One’ by rosemarie jackowski for details.

  10. Myles Hoenig said on August 24th, 2008 at 6:29am #

    Either Obama or Bush himself will grant pardons before the end of this term.
    The case will be closed Mass murder will continue under an Obama or McCain administration.

    I’ve read the book and I have some disagreements with some of his conclusions.
    He gives Colin Powell a pass.
    He blames Nader for Gore’s ignomious ‘loss’.
    And, he feels that the Democratic Congress or its Dem members when they weren’t in the majority, were duped.

  11. Jeff Bartlett said on August 24th, 2008 at 11:15am #

    This does sound like a strong case and a great idea. i just have one reservation about the entire notion of arresting, detaining and hanging Bush for his crimes against humanity: the future.

    Imagine, if this case did get pushed through and was won by the prosecution, it would indeed change the future of every president. They would have to worry about their future freedoms and not about the well-being of the state. If nothing less, it would persuade more quality candidates to NOT run for president.

    I do not condone Bush’s decisions or crimes but feel that the US should have impeached him years ago to avoid this on going problem. By prosecuting him, the US would be setting itself up for a weaker political future where all decisions would be made based on Will I get into trouble if this does not work out well, as opposed to, We need to do this because…

    Now, I do, on the other hand, understand that the case would be different if the future president(s) actually told the truth and did not feed the public well constructed lies, but there would still be an opportunity to federally prosecute any decisions. Large groups could, in theory, produce enough momentum and questioning that a case could be prosecuted that really has no business in the courts…

  12. DRL said on August 24th, 2008 at 12:08pm #

    Yes, by all means prosecute George W Bush for mass murder. He deserves to be strung up on the nearest lamp post, as does his entire administration, members of Congress, and his father, perhaps first and foremost. That’s just to name a small sample of today’s living criminals.

    [Nb: I intend to be deliberately provocative, here]. What has power-driven war ever amounted to, if not murder? And, name a war that has not been effectively preemptive, towards the cause of power consolidation.

    Exploiting either poor folk, looking feed themselves, or drafting brainwashed sods to take up arms against media-fabricated enemies for the benefit of financial expansion, has *always* been the ‘name of the war game’. Since a very long time.

    The difference, today, lies in the hyper-amplified, global powers that are possessed and nurtured by incestuous Western aligned nations, with their increasingly sophisticated tools of oppression [usury and expropriation of public commons] and annihilation [wmd] to oppress those who might one day be in a position to challenge their positions, even going so far as to give voice to ideological zealots such as neocon Michael Ledeen, who proclaimed famously that the US needs, every now and then, to throw “some shitty country” against the wall just to show it who’s boss”.

    Government-sanctioned murder, through manipulation, assassination, and war is clearly near-ubiquitous, in the industrialized world, if one takes even a cursory look at the contexts behind wars, most particularly those in recent history that led the world to Wars I and II.

    So, yes, again, I’m all for the prosecution of the current batch of criminals for murder and war crimes, but more to the point and more effective, in the long run, would be that we identify the *common denominator* to all wars and recognize the role we play in sustaining our own, virtual serfdom and vulnerability to aggression.

    Meanwhile, I recommend taking BushCo, the boards of the Carlyle group, Dyncorp, Lockheed Marin, BAE, etc, and, rather than put them to death, place them on a nice, isolated island, dominated by an externally controlled Central Bank, give them a few hundred dollars to work with, and watch how their society fares.

  13. Dogwood said on August 24th, 2008 at 1:43pm #

    Two things shock me….

    First, that Bugliosi could honestly believe that Nader caused Gore’s loss. I’ve admired Bugliosi’s attention to facts for years and thought he was much, much smarter than that. If he actually believes this, it is a truly, truly sad comment on ol’ Vince.

    And, second, that anyone could actually believe that Obama would not pardon Bush. People cannot seriously believe this. I invite all who do to look closely with clear eyes at Obama’s deeds, not his talk, regarding war and citizens’ rights: voting to fund Bush’s war, voting in favor or wire tapping, etc., etc. And, think about it, these are his deeds when he needs your vote.

    I think Vince’s idea is great – but he is grossly uninformed if he thinks Nader caused Gore’s loss; and anyone who thinks Obama will not pardon Bush is playing a very sad fool’s game of wishful thinking.

  14. r jackowski said on August 24th, 2008 at 3:59pm #

    The point is not whether or not Obama/McCain would issue a pardon. The point is to get an AG who will seek Indictment.

    If Bugliosi thinks Nader caused Gore’s loss – that is irrelevant to this case.

  15. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 24th, 2008 at 4:10pm #

    What is the burden of your point, Dogwood, re “Gore’s loss” and Bugliosi being grossly uninformed about Nader’s role in the same? That The Chipmunk caused it by stealing Florida? Or similarly (a final cause), The Left caused it like the arrow shot by the Native American caused Custer’s death?

    Or something quite different and not a mixture of those?

  16. bozhidar balkas said on August 24th, 2008 at 4:46pm #

    suppose gore won in 2,000? he wld have continued sanctions/bombardment.
    and eventually republicans get elected and we wld still have invasion of iraq.
    or gore wld have invaded iraq because the ruling class wld have demanded that.
    obama loses/wins: iraqis, pals, afghanis go thru hell anyway. what else can one expect in one-party rule?
    as dogwood says even if bush is impeached he’ll pardoned by the uncle. but that’s if he is sentenced. bush is uncle’s chosen and uncle does not punish but reward all those who are with him.
    as uncle said, You are with me or against me. than k u

  17. Michael Collins said on August 24th, 2008 at 7:57pm #

    r jackowski, Thanks for the lead on that article. I endorse that 100% and will do what I can. There’s a great deal of real democracy operating in New England. It’s encouraging. I wrote about the folks in Burlington about the time Bugliosi was finishing his book Amazing how this is all manifesting.

    Myles, Powell doesn’t deserve a pass. He gave that UN Speech and that’s enough for me. Bugliosi is working from the public records. I suspect when one of Powell’s aids turned, there would be a flow of information (I’m not sure Bugliosi knows Powell participated in torture “choreography” – a real indicator of a troubled soul and guilty man.) Florida was stolen when they did the voter purge. Congress funded it after it was started so they’re guilty to, those voting YEA.

    Having said that, I am 100% with Bugliosi, as all who want justice should be, imho, because he is right, dead right, on this particular issue. This is a big part of the issue of our lifetime. Will the guilty be held accountable? Will the cycle of cold malice be ended?

    Jeff Bartlett, we agree in analysis but not on the value of the outcomes. I believe strongly that just one prosecution like this would send the ravenous foreign policy adventures into a very long dead calm. The rulers need to know that killing citizens for the financial benefit of their friends is over. It started before Eisenhower but let’s take him. He allowed an attack on a sovereign nation in Central America for a fruit company. That’s just one of scores of large and small military actions that had nothing to do with our national security.

    Were this to occur, citizens would move form anonymous sacrifices for a grateful oligarchy to autonomous individuals who carry the primary value in society. Nice change. I’m glad you enjoyed the arguments, however. Quite a tour de force in that regard.

    Bozhidar, let them pardon him. Let them spread the final truth – it’s a total fraud. Sow the wind, reap the whirl wind;)

    DRL, indeed, what is that common denominator “to all wars and recognize the role we play in sustaining our own, virtual serfdom and vulnerability to aggression”? I don’t know on a deep level but I have the antidote. There needs to be a connection between reflexive distrust of government leaders and their intentions and action to resist. There can be no resistance without broad based education and information. That’s only possible now, to the degree it takes place, because of the internet. Unless communities of resistance to the madness arise soon, they’ll be shutting this vehicle of truth down or pricing it out of reach. Maybe that will be the breaking point.

  18. AJ NAsreddin said on August 25th, 2008 at 4:45am #

    Could I have some of whatever Vincent is smoking?

  19. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 25th, 2008 at 5:41am #

    “There can be no resistance without broad based education and information. That’s only possible now, to the degree it takes place, because of the internet.”

    You said a mouthful, Collins. And not censoring the internet is what the Chipmunk is bragging about when he extolls free speech in America (while “interpreting” the Constitution’s First Amendment to allow worse than Mayor Daley-like assaults on peaceful prostestors at national political conventions).

    Even the Chipmunk’s minions can see what the “Left” in America can’t face: like in the 1970’s, almost everyone to the left of Michael Lerner thinks Now’s The Time to get our agenda before the American public!! But the American public… Is it really any more ready for the Left than it was in 1975?

    Well, maybe it is. But for a squabbling and divided and backbiting Left? Fagiddaboutit.

  20. siamdave said on August 25th, 2008 at 5:46am #

    Speaking of books the capitalist rulers don’t want to see – Green Island . (If you like the idea of Bush being put on trial – it happens on Green Island – The One VI . )

  21. Rich Griffin said on August 25th, 2008 at 5:58am #

    This is why I believe our BEST strategy is to run for offices at all levels and to support (without nitpicking) ALL independent/green/other than Dem/Repub party candidates – it’s our best bet to get our agenda a real hearing. The other thing we absolutely must do is completely boycott 100% all mainstream media (in other words, stop buying mainstream newspapers, watching mainstream news programs, etc. – C-Span is great, Democracy Now!, a few others). If we aren’t willing to do these things, then we won’t ever get our agenda into enough hearts and minds…

    Yes, of course, convict Bush/Cheney et al.!

  22. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 25th, 2008 at 6:19am #

    Good, Rich. And I agree truly. In the MEANTIME, what about IVAW and others who will be putting their bodies on the line in Colorado this week?

  23. bozhidar balkas said on August 25th, 2008 at 6:23am #

    michael collins,
    what i am wishing for is that ICC or is it ICT issue warrant for bush,et al, to appear in the hague.
    russia made a serious error (possibly a crime) by invading georgia after georgian troops left or were driven out from abkhazia and s. ossetia.
    russia cld have shown how it MUST be done: call on ICC to prosecute individuals who ordered invasion of s. ossetia and are responsible for maiming/killing/driving out civilians.
    tit for tat may be best described as collective punishment. and this had been going on for at least 12,000 yrs.
    even if saakash never faces charges, it is still a good idea to demand he goes to the hague.
    bush, as i said will be rewarded by america number one. history, if writen at all, will be written by americans number one. more cld be said. thank u

  24. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 25th, 2008 at 6:36am #

    i think we hope for a history written by all the nations, bb, or failing that by all the peoples. someone said that the past is dead, and the present is only self-delusion; what we have and can share is our dreams.

    I don’t think the author(?) was a historian.

  25. bozhidar balkas said on August 25th, 2008 at 8:13am #

    you are right, history will be recorded by many peoples.
    what i meant is that US children will only learn history that will be written by the uncle.
    naturally, if it is written, it will be a narrative depicting US as a defender and not attacker.
    bush may get some mention. he probably gets passing marks just like every other US prez. thank u

  26. Gliscameria said on August 25th, 2008 at 3:14pm #

    Wow, that writer has some balls! I hope there are more like him.

  27. Michael Collins said on August 25th, 2008 at 4:02pm #

    “tit for tat may be best described as collective punishment. and this had been going on for at least 12,000 yrs” TRUE. I’m for individual responsibility, which will reverse the attack of rulers on the collective, represented by citizens.

    Bush “passing marks” – “the Horror.”