His "opening statements" contained in other chapters are worthy of putting the Administration and Bush as an individual in context. Some opinions are pretty harsh, but the totality would stir any jury to consider their own preconceptions. Here are a few I extracted for you to ponder and comment with alternative answers, if so inclined.
1. What was Mr. Bush doing in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 other than remaining for 5 minutes in a children's classroom?
2. What American President would not respond to an attack on the country in the same way? Essentially, greatness is emblematic of making choices. Bush, nor any American President would have had any other choice than to go after the perpetrators.
3. What was the reason for Mr. Bush's sudden reversal on the importance of finding Bin Laden six months before the
4. Why did The American Afghanistan contingent not actively engage until six months after hostilities, allowing the
5. What did Rumsfeld actually admit when Bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora?
6. Why would we leave his capture at Tora Bora up to ~50
7. Why was the Bin Laden unit of the CIA, established under
8. Why did Bush do everything in his power to prevent the 9-11 Commission from happening, and why did he do everything he could to retard their progress?
Under Bush this country is less safe, has created an incubator of future terrorist by invading a country which could not, if it wanted to, threaten the
Even the 9-11 Commission came to the conclusion:
"We find no collaborative relationship between
And this and WMD were the two premises that led us to declare a pre-emptive war with all its consequences.
Finally, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, a watchdog group created by the Commission, released its results and graded the Bush Administration on the 41 recommendations of the Commission. They gave the Administration 17 F's" and "D's". The Bush Administration did get 1 "A", an A- actually, for efforts to stem financing of terrorist networks.
Posts
2 comments:
Hi there!
I'm also very interested in Bugliosi's new book and the case against Bush.
Without going into the finer points of his argument, I think the case against Bush can be reduced to the following, logically airtight structure:
1. If George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S was a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq), then he is guilty of murder under U.S law.
2. George Bush’s publicly stated justification that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of U.S. was in fact a lie (thereby causing the U.S. invasion in Iraq).
3. Therefore, George Bush is guilty of murder under U.S. law. (from 1, 2)
4. Therefore, George Bush should be prosecuted for murder. (from 3)
Both sides *should* agree that the above argument is logically valid (that is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true), and hence the current debate should be about whether the crucial premises (1 and 2) are in fact true.
Bugliosi, in my opinion, in his book does a great job of demonstrating that Bush did in fact lie about Hussein being an imminent threat, though I'd be interested to know the opinion of any dissenters on this.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment