Bugliosi’s excellent book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”, drips with contempt for Bush on almost every page, as he argues vehemently that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder, for purposely and with malice aforethought, lying our country into a needless war against a nation that posed no danger to us whatsoever.
Bugliosi’s disparaging of those who question the official 9/11 story
Yet, surprisingly, Bugliosi disparages those whose opinion of Bush is just a teeny bit worse than his own. Referring to George W. Bush’s statement that “Had I known that there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack”, Bugliosi writes:
I find it so weird that he should toss out a gratuitous insult at us on the “loony left” in the midst of his accusations of mass murder against George Bush. On the one hand he accuses Bush of the murder of thousands of American soldiers in his effort to advance his fraudulently based war, and yet at the same time he says that it should “go without saying” that Bush “would have moved mountains” to stop an attack that served to justify his war. Why should that “go without saying”? Because the attack killed thousands of Americans? Bugliosi already accused Bush of maliciously murdering thousands of Americans. Yet, so certain is he that Bush wouldn’t purposely allow a few thousand additional Americans to die, that anyone who disagrees with him on that point is “loony”.
But other than some nuts on the far left who were loony enough to actually believe that Bush was complicit in 9/11, shouldn’t this go without saying?
And then, Bugliosi goes on to rant about how “unbelievable” the official story of 9/11 is, while at the same time giving no indication that he doesn’t believe it. After using the word “unbelievable” several times to describe Bush’s lack of effort to prevent or respond to the 9/11 attacks, Bugliosi says:
It wouldn’t have been possible for Bush to have been more remiss, negligent, lazy, and irresponsible. Not possible… So these points I have mentioned reflect the policy of Bush and his administration to almost look the other way when it came to fighting terrorism… But why complain that “unbelievable” isn’t a strong enough word to describe the official story if he actually believes it? And if unbelievable is too weak a word to describe the situation, then why show contempt to those of us who actually don’t believe it? Like Bugliosi, many of us on the “loony left” think that the official 9/11 story is “unbelievable”. But unlike him, many of us actually don’t believe it.
Why can’t there be more powerful words in our lexicon to describe special, yes, unique situations like this other than this tired terribly overused adverb (unbelievable)?
And yes, Bugliosi is just as wankerish when it comes to the JFK ass'n (further down in the same post).