You are herecontent / Letter to a Prosecutor
Letter to a Prosecutor
Bernard A. Carter, Prosecutor
Building 'B', 1st Floor, 2229 North Main Street
Crown Point, IN 46307
Dear Mr. Carter,
We are writing you, not just as concerned citizens, but as witnesses to a crime of almost unimaginable proportions that has been swept under the carpet by both our government in Washington and our main stream media. Yet the evidence is clear, compelling, and if one were to use the words attributed to Former CIA Director George Tenant, "It's a slam dunk!"
What we are referring to is the murder of 4,179 U.S. military
servicemen and women by President George W. Bush. These young men and women died in Iraq as a direct result of our President's deceit in lying to the American people when he justified his then upcoming invasion of Iraq by telling us that Iraq was an imminent threat to U.S. security.
Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi makes the case in his book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder". Bugliosi's track record is rather remarkable, winning 105 of 106 felony cases, including his last 21 of 21 murder convictions. The most notable murder conviction being Charles Manson, who was convicted not for physical acts, but for putting such acts by others in motion. Vincent Bugliosi's describes his case for murder against the President as reported by Alan Breslauer on The Public Record June 30, 2008 http://pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&catid=9%3Amultimedia&id=178%...
Can Bush be tried for murder?
"In my book... I present evidence that proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore under the law is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers who died so far in this war," Bugliosi said.
"Although supporters of Bush will likely argue that the president
should not be prosecuted," Bugliosi added, "they cannot legitimately say that he should not be prosecuted if he has done what I say he did. To say that is to admit that you have no respect for our American system of justice and democracy and that you would prefer that presidents have the same rights as tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein."
"There's this sense out there among many that prosecuting Bush for
murder can't be done," the former prosecutor said. "Which is the
equivalent of saying what - that he is above the law. That ordinary
laws simply don't apply to him."
"If a conspirator, or anyone for that matter, deliberately sets in
motion a chain of events which he knows will cause – that's the key
word – cause a third party innocent agent to commit an act, the
defendant is criminally responsible for that act. Bush, in invading
Iraq, caused Iraqis to kill American soldiers in much the same fashion that a person causes a gun to fire a bullet that kills someone by pulling the trigger," Bugliosi explained.
"The main issue would be whether or not George Bush went to war, as he
always claimed, in self-defense – the so-called pre-emptive strike.
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, alleged as so, therefore he
was an imminent threat to the security of this country so Bush had to
strike first in self-defense. If the war was not in self-defense but
one that the prosecutor can prove Bush took us to under false
pretenses then all of the killings of American soldiers in Iraq become
unlawful killings and therefore murder."
Evidence: National Intelligence Estimate, White Paper, Bush's Oct 7,
2002 Cincinnati speech
"In George Bush's first speech to the nation on Hussein and Iraq,
October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bush told Americans that Saddam
Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by his attacking us
with the so-called weapons of mass destruction or by giving these
weapons to a terrorist group to attack us. And Bush said that this
attack could happen, 'on any given day,' meaning what, that the threat
was imminent," Bugliosi said.
"The only big problem for George Bush is that on October the first,
six days earlier, the CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate – a classified top secret report that represented the
consensus opinion of all 16 US federal intelligence agencies on the
issue of whether or not Hussein was an imminent threat to the security
of this country and on page 8 of that 91 page report it clearly and
unequivocally says – and by the way what I'm about to tell you to my
knowledge has never been said or never been written or never appeared
in any major newspaper or magazine in America – page 8 clearly says
that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this
country. That he would only be a threat if he feared we were about to
attack him," he added.
"So we know then, not think but know, that when George Bush told the
nation on the evening of October 7th, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Saddam
Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was
telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what
his own CIA was telling him. Now if we had nothing else at all, and
there is so much more, that alone shows what, that George Bush took
this nation to war on a terrible terrible lie. Therefore all the
killings in Iraq became unlawful killings and murder."
"But it gets worse. It gets worse," Bugliosi continued. On "October
4th, three days later, Bush and his people had the CIA release an
unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report so
that this October 4th unclassified version could be released to the
American public and to Congress. This unclassified version came to be
known as the White Paper. And in this White Paper that was shown to
the American people and to Congress, in which contained the opinion of
16 US intelligence agencies that Hussein was not an imminent threat to
the security of this country, that conclusion was completely deleted,
completely eliminated. Every single one of these all important words,
the most important conclusion in that classified document, was
completely deleted from the White Paper. And the question I have of
you, is how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush
and his people be?"
Manning Memo: January 31, 2003, David Manning, Tony Blair's chief
foreign policy advisor records meeting with Bush less than two months
before we go to war
"He says that George Bush was so worried about the failure of the
United Nations inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction that
Bush started to talk about three ways to 'provoke a confrontation'
with Saddam Hussein. One of which he said was to fly U2 reconnaissance
aircraft over Iraq falsely painted in United Nations colors and he
said if Saddam fires on those planes it would be a violation of UN
resolutions and therefore justify our going to war. So here is George
Bush telling Americans, telling the world, that Hussein is an imminent
threat to the security of this country, but behind closed doors this
very small human being was talking about how to provoke Hussein into a
Bush Removes Weapons Inspectors: When Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans
Blix tells the UN Security Council that the inspectors are getting
proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein and that they should be
finished with their inspections, which so far had found nothing, in a
"Blix and his people became Bush's biggest adversaries because if Blix
and his people confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, that would rob Bush of his main argument for war – a war that
he wanted to fight at all costs," Bugliosi said.
State of Mind: Bush's says he is happy and describes perfect days
"Even if George Bush was only guilty of making an innocent mistake in
taking this nation to war in Iraq, not murder as I firmly believe,
with all of the death, horror and suffering he has caused, what type
of a monstrous individual is it who could be happy with his life? What
type of a human monster is George Bush?"
"If I ever killed one person in my life, even accidentally – a car
accident – I'd never have another perfect day as long as I lived.
George Bush is responsible for the horrible deaths of thousands of
human beings and he is talking about having a perfect day. Bush's
plans to have a perfect day right in the middle of all the death and
horror in Iraq goes so far beyond acceptable human conduct that no
moral telescope can discern its shape, form and nature," Bugliosi
"I don't like to see anyone get away with murder, even one murder.
[O.J.] Simpson got away with two murders and I got so angry that I
wrote a book – "Outrage, The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With
Murder," Bugliosi said. "If I can get so angry about someone getting
away with one or two murders you can imagine how I feel about George
Bush who has gotten away with over 100,000 murders and has been
smiling and enjoying himself throughout the whole period. It may sound
presumptuous of me but I can tell you that while I may not succeed,
I'm not going to be satisfied until I see George Bush in an American
courtroom being prosecuted for first degree murder.
If justice means anything at all in America, if we are not going to
forget about those 4,000 young American soldiers who came back from
Bush's war in a box, I say we have no choice but to bring murder
charges against the son of privilege from Crawford, Texas."
Attorney Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois College of
The following was taken from a transcript of a radio interview
with Mr. Boyle Interview with Morton Mecklosky, State
University of New York at Stony Brook Radio, WUSB 90.1, June 9, 2008.
I used to teach Criminal Law here; in fact I was originally hired to
teach Criminal Law. Murder is defined by common law as the unlawful
killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Generally
speaking you will find a definition along those lines in almost every
state of the Union because they are all based on the common law
definition. Now let's parse that definition: "Unlawful." In this
case the war against Iraq was a war of aggression by President Bush in
violation of the United Nations Charter. In fact he had twice tried
to get authorization by the United Nations Security Council to launch
that war and failed. So currently we have the "unlawful" part being
fulfilled. "Killing": Under the law it does not require that you
actually pull the trigger on someone. For example, you could push
someone in front of an L-train and that would be enough. In this case
Bush ordered these now almost 4100 dead U.S. soldiers into a meat
grinder in Iraq where they were killed and it was very clear there
were going to be casualties when he gave these orders.
So unlawful killing of a "human being": These 4100 dead soldiers are
our mothers, our fathers, our brothers, our sisters, and our sons,
and our daughters.
They have been murdered by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest
of them with "malice aforethought." Malice, malicious. I think we
all know what that means. Mainly that Bush lied about Iraq from the
get-go. That became very clear certainly starting in the Summer of
2002 now as verified by Scott McClellan in the publicity related to
his new book. Here you have the White House Spokesperson verifying a
very detailed propaganda campaign put into effect in the Summer of
2002 to try to sell a war of aggression against Iraq. Finally the
last element: "aforethought." Namely, that they thought about it
beforehand before they did this. It is very clear the war against
Iraq had been planned right after they entered the White House, and
In addition for a first degree murder charge on top of these elements
you also have to establish what is called "premeditation and
deliberation." Truly here we have had this death and destruction in
Iraq premeditated and deliberated by these Bush people since at least
when they came to power in January 2001. So I think there is a
compelling case that can be made for murder and also first degree
murder, which can be a capital offense – not that I support the death
Conspiracy extends beyond the President: Attorney Boyle continues
What Vince Bugliosi and I are both recommending is that this matter be
considered by every district attorney and state attorney general in
the United States of America. What we are recommending is that people
living in a community where there are dead U.S. soldiers get together
a group and set up a meeting with the local district attorney -- a
democratically elected official for that county -- where there is at
least one dead U.S. soldier, and go in and meet with the district
attorney, bring in Mr. Bugliosi's book, and demand that Bush, Cheney,
Rice, and Rumsfeld at least be indicted for murdering that dead U.S.
soldier in the district attorney's county -- and also for conspiracy
to commit murder. Conspiracy is defined at common will as an
agreement between at least two people to do an illegal act or to do a
lawful act by illegal means. Clearly what has happened here is an
agreement among Bush, Cheney, and Rice, who are still in power, and
Rumsfeld to commit an illegal act of murder of that dead U.S. soldier.
The murder indictments should include President Bush, Vice President
Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Further investigations with
subpoena power would indicate if others also share culpability.
Transferred Intent: Attorney Boyle answers question about President's
MECKLOSKY: There are going to be people who are going to have a
little difficulty with this that the President murdered the troops.
They are going to say he might be responsible for their deaths because
he sent them into combat when he shouldn't have done that, but the
ones who are killing them is not the President, it's the al-Qaeda and
the Iraqis who don't want us there.
BOYLE: Yes, it's the doctrine of transferred intent, I mean, again if
you push someone in front of an L-train and they are run over and
killed, they are dead. You push someone into a meat grinder and they
are killed by the meat grinder, you still kill them. So the President
knew he was pushing U.S. armed forces illegally into a meat grinder
and they were going to be killed and he knows it today and they are
still being killed today. So Mr. Bugliosi goes through some of these
technical, legal doctrines on transferred intent and things of that
nature in his book, if you are interested in reading it. Can a
sitting president be indicted or must we wait for him to leave office?
Attorney Boyle responds
"As for the question whether or not a sitting president can be
indicted, Mr. Bugliosi did express sort of an offhand opinion in his
book that he didn't think so. But in our conversation I hope I did
convince him that in fact there is authority for indicting a sitting
president for murder and I sent him those materials. That would be the
following sources: First during the Nixon impeachment proceedings
Professor Raoul Berger of the Harvard Law School, who at that time was
this country's leading constitutional law historian, did a very
important law review article expressing his opinion that a sitting
president could be indicted. Second, at the time Leon Jaworski, the
second special prosecutor of Nixon after Nixon had fired Archie Cox,
obtained an opinion from his legal staff to the effect that a sitting
president could be indicted for crimes. Although in his memoirs
Jaworski took the position that he personally did not think the crimes
for which Nixon was guilty warranted prosecuting a sitting president,
he did state his opinion in his memoirs that he felt certainly that a
sitting president should and could be indicted for murder. There are
some more recent law review articles generated out of the Clinton
impeachment proceedings to the effect that a sitting president can be
indicted. Indeed it was reported that the lawyers on the Ken Starr
staff also did a memo, which I haven't seen, to the effect that a
sitting president could be indicted. So I don't believe that this is
The Waxman Letter
We would also like to mention another key piece of evidence which Mr.
Bugliosi does not mention. Two days before the President began the
invasion Congressman Henry Waxman sent him a letter in which Waxman
mentions that the whole argument about Iraq being a nuclear threat
because they had purchased Uranium from Africa had evaporated with
revelations that the CIA had never considered this evidence credible
and on March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei had said the evidence was not
March 17, 2003
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order,
our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our
nation's history. The most persuasive justification for this war is
that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.
In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear
that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials
have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a
hoax. What's more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the
veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration
officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of
the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq
and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I
supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval
would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action.
Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable
intelligence information that merited deference. Like many other
members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq's
nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can
inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as
the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That,
obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so
many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq's
nuclear capability. The evidence in question is correspondence that
indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African
country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central
part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State
Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament declaration to the
U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: "The
Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." A month
later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March
7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear
materials from Niger was "not authentic." As subsequent media
accounts indicated, the evidence contained "crude errors," such as a
"childlike signature" and the use of stationary from a military
government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this
information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable.
The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part
of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your
own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not
believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The
two most obvious explanations — knowing deception or unfathomable
incompetence — both have immediate and serious implications. It is
thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide
an alternative explanation, if there is one. The letter goes on to
express the Congressman's concerns in detail. This letter provides
hard evidence that the President could not have been ignorant that his
major claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. because of
its nuclear weapons program was completely unsubstantiated. The
President ignored Congressman Waxman's letter and proceeded with the
International Commission of Jurists states before we invaded that
invasion would be illegal and amounted to a war of aggression:
Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War of Aggression on Iraq
Administration of Justice - Newsroom 18th March 2003 The ICJ today
expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to
launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of
aggression. The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have
signalled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of
a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis
for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council
authorisation, no country may use force against another country,
except in self-defence against an armed attack.
"This rule was enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a
good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so
inclined", said ICJ Secretary-General Louise Doswald-Beck. A war waged
without a clear mandate by the Security Council would constitute a
flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Security
Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Upon its
adoption, France, Russia and China, three permanent members of the
Security Council, issued a declaration indicating that the Resolution
excludes such authority. The bottom line is that nine members of the
Security Council, including the five permanent members, need to
actively approve the use of force - such support is blatantly lacking.
According to ICJ Legal Adviser Ian Seiderman: "The present regime in
Iraq is certainly responsible for widespread and systematic human
rights violations over the years. However, this reprehensible human
rights record does not by itself provide a legal basis for resort to
war. The appropriate method of addressing such gross abuses is to
treat them as international crimes and to use and strengthen
enforcement mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court." The
competency of the Security Council to authorise the use of force is
not unlimited. It may only do so to "maintain or restore international
peace and security". As States resisting the use of force at this
moment understand, the determination upon whether there is a present
threat to international peace and security must be based on sufficient
objective criteria. The evidence presented by states pressing for war
is less than convincing. The ICJ therefore strongly urges the
Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and other
countries, even at this late hour, to reconsider their policy choices
and desist from the unlawful use of force against Iraq. For further
information, please contact Louise Doswald-Beck or Ian Seiderman at
U.S. Constitution and United Nations Charter: "supreme Law of the land"
Article VI, Clause 2 the Supremacy Clause
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
The United Nations Charter is the "supreme Law of the land" as stated
in the U.S. Constitution. The International Commission of Jurists
issued an opinion before we invaded Iraq that the subsequent invasion
was illegal according to the Charter of the United Nations.
In addition to the invasion being illegal, it certainly grossly
violated the spirit the Preamble to the United Nations Charter
Charter of the United Nations Preamble
We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to
establish conditions under which justice and respect for the
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international
law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom, And for these Ends to practice
tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good
neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace
and security, and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the
institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in
the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the
promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have
Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims Accordingly,
our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the
city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to
be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the
United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization
to be known as the United Nations. War of Aggression: Marjorie Cohn,
President of the National Lawyers Guild and international expert and
lecturer on human rights and foreign policy
"Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime" November 9, 2004,
"Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In his report to
the State Department, Justice Jackson wrote: "No political or economic
situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He also said: "If
certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes
whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and
we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against
others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."…
Bush's war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the
use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out
in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314,
passed in the wake of Vietnam. The only two situations where
the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is
in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had
not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an
imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never
sanctioned Bush's war. Bush and the officials in his administration
are committing the crime of aggression. Virtually every Western
democracy has ratified the treaty of the International Criminal Court,
except the United States. Bush knows that the Court will prosecute
leaders for the crime of aggression. Mindful that he and his officials
could become defendants, Bush renounced the Court, and extracted
bilateral immunity agreements from more than 80 countries. This
year, however, Bush unsuccessfully sought to ram through the Security
Council an immunity resolution that would exempt U.S. personnel from
the Court's jurisdiction. But shortly after the photographs of U.S.
torture of Iraqi prisoners emerged, the Council refused to put its
imprimatur on preferential treatment for the United States. Bush
knows that the Court will also punish war crimes. Pursuant to policies
promulgated by Bush and Rumsfeld, U.S. forces have engaged in
widespread torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush admitted in his 2003 State
of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of
suspected terrorists. Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful
killing are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, treaties
ratified by the United States. Grave breaches of Geneva are considered
war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of 1996. American
nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in prison, or
even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of
command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or
should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he
failed to prevent or stop them….
Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil
thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an
international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole." Bush's aggressive war against the
people of Iraq promises to kill many more American soldiers and untold
numbers of Iraqis. Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson labeled the
crime of aggression "the greatest menace of our times." More than 50
years later, his words still ring true."
Propaganda campaign: 935 documented lies on Iraq by Bush
Administration shows intent to deceive American people
Former Bush Administration Press Secretary Scott McClellan
"Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new
memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a
sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush
and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying
the major reason for going to war.""
The Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his
administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of
misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top
officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made
at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11,
2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive
examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an
orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and,
in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings,
interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key
officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari
Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them),
links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning
of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the
conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including
those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006),
the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose
"Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's
nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis
of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that
culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not
surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make
speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public
debate also made the most false statements, according to this
first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about
Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the
second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to
Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements,
followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and
McClellan (with 14).
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what
President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public
consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a
day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public
statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official
transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations)
over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces
relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books,
articles, speeches, and interviews.
Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:
• On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention
of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply
stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA
Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well
beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official,
referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our
reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
• In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional
vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in
Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi
regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45
minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a
nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a
year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a
much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the
intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House
hadn't requested it.
• In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who
asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure."
In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense
Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet)
found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct
cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more,
an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's
relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
• On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President
Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in
State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to
examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field
report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final
report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had
probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
• On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address,
Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the
intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase
agreement "probably is a hoax." • On February 5, 2003, in an
address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What
we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid
intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human
sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to
which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi
con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence
officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The
other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had
reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later
recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January
2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information
interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being
handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with
congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated
through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January
2003 to the eve of the invasion.
It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president
delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his
memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including
when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project;
the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.
In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these
seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two
years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups,
joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also
routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.
The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by
thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media
coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical
months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some
entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their
coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and
uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall
media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the
Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the
president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on
NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons
of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005,
with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a
Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam
Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass
destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those
programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true
that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As
your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet
it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment;
instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity
between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth"
regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's
Who of domestic agencies.
On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of
former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases
vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring
or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics
say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public
pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this
nation's allies on their way to war.
Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely
avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their
personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements
in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional
investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the
Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused
almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war
intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public
accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of
the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified
before Congress about Iraq.
Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable
framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass.
Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush
administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad
Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
Bush would have invaded even knowing there were no WMDs in Iraq:
BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I
would have still made that decision.
HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the
equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them,
it was still the right call?
On Meet the Press,September 10, 2006, Vice President Cheney says that
they would have invaded even if they knew Saddam did not have WMDs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/ Asked by "Meet the Press"
host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with
the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in
fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
"He'd done it before," Cheney said. "He had produced chemical weapons
before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a
robust nuclear program in '91."
The U.S. invasion "was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it
again, we would do exactly the same thing," he said.
The implications of these statements and others like them from the
President and Vice President are staggering. They had justified
breaking the law (U.S. Constitution and U.N. Charter) in taking us to
war without authorization from the U.N. Security Council as required
by law. They said it was necessary because Iraq was an imminent
threat because of WMDs. After the fact, they say that they would have
taken us to war even if they knew for a fact that there were no WMDs.
Prima facie case Bush Administration broke seven laws
House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Report 2005
"There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice
President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a
number of federal laws including (1) Committing a Fraud against
the United States
(2) Making false statements to Congress
(3) The War Powers Resolution
(4) Misuse of government funds
(5) Federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture
and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
(6) Federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and
(7) Federal laws concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence"
We are just citizens and not highly schooled in the law. But for the
Democratic House Judiciary Committee to state that there is a prima
facie case that the Bush Administration broke at least seven laws
would certainly qualify for an indictment before a grand jury unless
rebutted by definition. The Administration has never rebutted these
charges. Since the Congress has decided for political reasons not to
pursue impeachment, it is up to our legal system to pursue justice.
Of course even if Congress had chosen to pursue impeachment, the 4,179
counts of murder are still valid and need to see the light of day.
Since the Attorney General and all U.S. Attorneys are political
appointees of the President, we call on you our local prosecutor to
represent the citizens of Lake County, Indiana, the citizens of the
United States and the family members of our 4,179 dead servicemen and
women in bringing murder charges against the President.
Iraqi consequences: Iraqi death estimates run as high as 650,000
through June, 2006 by the British Medical Journal Lancet and Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine. This figure has been
extrapolated forward to now exceed 1 million deaths that would not
have occurred without the war.
This study used the latest statistical methodology "cluster sampling"
which is the same methodology used in disasters around the world. It
is considered controversial only because it comes to a much darker
conclusion than the other methods of simply counting bodies available
to be counted in certain locations.
The U.S. government is probably guilty of a war crime for the simple
fact that General Tommy Franks who led our invasion made no attempt to
keep a tally of the civilian deaths. We all remember his bravado when
he stated, "We don't do body counts." Yet the Geneva Conventions
require all efforts be made to reduce civilian casualties. How can we
be attempting to alleviate civilian casualties-if our commander on the
ground is proud of the fact that we will not be counting them?
In addition to the civilian deaths there are estimated to be more than
4 million refugees. At least 2 million of these have fled the country
and both Syria and Jordan who have the vast majority have stopped
taking in refugees.
The attorneys have stated that the Iraqi deaths and suffering are
outside the scope of justice that you our local prosecutor can seek,
but it is absolutely necessary that all Americans never forget the
consequences of the criminal actions of President Bush and his
Downing Street Memo: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1
The Downing Street Memo was a top secret document labeled "SECRET AND
STRICTLY PERSONAL-UK EYES ONLY" which described a meeting Tony Blair
had with his war policy team on July 23, 2002.
"C (Richard Dearlove head of MI6 British Intelligence) reported on his
recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude.
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove
Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of
terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There
was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military
action." (emphasis mine)
Dearlove was describing talks he and other British officials had
recently had with President Bush and other top Administration
The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W Bush
By Congressman Dennis Kucinich with Additional Material by David
Swanson and Elizabeth de la Vega
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36845 Feral House offers this
important and urgent publication of Dennis Kucinich's Articles of
Impeachment this election season in two formats: an offset-printed
paperback book available for the cost of $12 and a free downloadable
PDF available below.
David Swanson's additional article explains how the Impeachment
process is possible and necessary even after the guilty perp leaves
office, and how they can be used for prosecution of crimes. Those
wishing to purchase over ten copies of the printed book can obtain
them at discount from Feral House directly. Please contact
email@example.com for costs.
"More than two centuries ago, the Founders of this country set forth a
procedure for Congress to follow in the event of grave abuse of power
by the Chief Executive. That process is impeachment. In the face of
the monumental deceit and disregard for the Constitution that we have
witnessed on the part of the President over the past seven years,
Congressman Kucinich's initiation of this process is neither fanciful
nor futile, neither vengeful nor vindictive; it is the sober
fulfillment of his sworn duty as a Congressman to follow the law
without regard to personal consequence and misguided political
stratagem. It is, quite simply, an act of patriotism."
—Elizabeth de la Vega, Former Federal Prosecutor
and author of United States v. George W. Bush et. al.
"This collection of impeachable offenses should be viewed as a
sampling of the crimes and abuses of President George W. Bush and his
subordinates. Bush has had many accomplices — first and foremost Vice
President Cheney. But our Founders created a single executive
precisely so that we could hold that one person accountable for the
actions of the executive branch. It is high time we did so, and
millions of Americans will be urging their representatives to support
the effort being led by Congressman Kucinich.
"These articles establish, and hearings would establish further, that
President Bush was 'the decider' behind countless abuses of power.
And, of course, his public comments have time and again advertised his
indifference to the laws he is violating. Not only does overwhelming
evidence show us that Bush knew his claims about WMDs to be false, but
the president has shown us that he considers the question of truth or
falsehood to be laughably irrelevant. When Diane Sawyer asked Bush why
he had claimed with such certainty that there were so many weapons in
Iraq, he replied: 'What's the difference? The possibility that
[Saddam] could acquire weapons, If he were to acquire weapons, he
would be the danger.'
"What's the difference? Hundreds of thousands of corpses and a fatal
blow to the rule of law among nations. That's the difference. Unless
we remove impeachment from the Constitution by failing to exercise it,
in which case truth will no longer matter any more than justice or
— David Swanson, creator of ImpeachCheney.org, Washington Director of
Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org "Overload
is the main problem—I call it outrage fatigue. The sheer multitude,
not to mention magnitude, of impeachable offenses tends to dull the
senses. The opportunity to dig into just one or two provided some
space and focused the mind.
"At the same time, the deeper one digs, the more unimaginable the dirt
that comes up. Earlier, I had not taken the time to sift through the
abundant evidence of the unconscionable ways in which George Bush and
George Tenet teamed up—including, in Tenet's case, lying under oath—to
stave off charges of misfeasance/ malfeasance before the attacks on
"The Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor to create a system in which we could protect ourselves from
unbridled power. Today, we cannot let a 21st Century string of abuses
and usurpations stand without challenge.
"But the experience of the past several years shows that there is a
very high hurdle in our way: no Common Sense. I refer, of course, to
the courageous independent journalism of the likes of Tom Paine who
stirred the innate dignity of Americans toward sacrifice for
independence and freedom. Tom Paine would be horrified to see what has
become of his profession today—with browbeaten journalists and former
general officers doing the bidding of the corporations that own/pay
"In my view, impeachment proceedings are essential to:
* Reestablish the separation of powers in our Constitution as a check
on the so-called unitary executive
* Prevent a budding—and catastrophic—US attack on Iran by exposing it
as yet another war of aggression against a country posing no threat to
* Call attention to the blood already drained from our civil liberties
and staunch the bleeding.
"Impeachment proceedings may be the only way to force the captive
media to inform normal citizens about what has been going on in our
country. Thomas Jefferson underscored the importance of this when he
said: 'Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with
their own government.'"
—Ray McGovern; former Army officer and CIA analyst;
co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
"President Bush, Cheney and other US officials have violated numerous
domestic and international laws governing crime of aggression, war
crime, torture, etc., and they should be not only impeached by the US
Congress but also be prosecuted by a special prosecutor, to the full
extent of the law before or after impeachment. That is the best way to
uphold the US Constitution and the rule of law at home and abroad."
—John Kim, Esq., Attorney; author of The Crime
of Aggression Against Iraq
"The breadth of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush/Cheney
administration is likely unparalleled in our nation's history. Equally
unparalleled, and in many cases even more alarming and outrageous, is
the lack of accountability brought to the perpetrators of these High
Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is the Constitutional duty of members of
Congress—members from any political party—to bring such
accountability, particularly when the list of crimes began with the
very acts that brought this administration into office during their
elections, and right up through today when the same sort of crimes
continue, and are in place to try and affect our next Presidential
"This is not about politics, it's about the Constitutional duty of
Congress. If a line in the sand is not drawn immediately and clearly
in the face of such corruption and disdain for our American values,
such as the Rule of Law, the historical bar for criminality in our
Executive Branch will have been forever lowered, no matter who happens
to serve in the White House in the future."
—Brad Friedman, creator/ editor of The Brad Blog, and co-founder of
the watchdog organization VelvetRevolution.us.
"I have provided the legal architecture and evidence for a trial to
prosecute the President for murder. My book lends credence to a
powerful case for impeachment laid out persuasively by Congressman
Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment."
— Vincent Bugliosi, Former District Attorney, author of
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Steering Committee to Plan Prosecution: by David Swanson
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36843 Massachusetts law school
Dean Lawrence Velvel will chair a Steering Committee to pursue the
prosecution for war crimes of President Bush and culpable high-ranking
aides after they leave office Jan. 20th.
The Steering Committee was organized following a conference of leading
legal authorities and scholars from the U.S. and abroad convened by
Velvel on Sept. 13-14 in Andover, Mass., titled "The Justice Robert
Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level
American War Criminals."
"If Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and others are not prosecuted,"
Velvel said, "the future could be threatened by additional examples of
Executive lawlessness by leaders who need fear no personal
consequences for their actions, including more illegal wars such as
Besides Velvel, members of the Steering Committee include:
Ben Davis, a law Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law,
where he teaches Public International Law and International Business
Transactions. He is the author of numerous articles on international
and related domestic law.
Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in
San Diego, Calif., and President of the National Lawyers Guild.
Chris Pyle, a Professor at Mount Holyoke College, where he teaches
Constitutional law, Civil Liberties, Rights of Privacy, American
Politics and American Political Thought, and is the author of many
books and articles.
Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the
General Theory of Value at Harvard University, and winner of the
Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism.
Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center For Constitutional Rights,
of New York City, which was recently involved with war crimes
complaints filed in Germany and Japan against former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and others.
David Swanson, author, activist and founder of
AfterDowningStreet.org/CensureBush.org coalition, of Charlottesville,
Kristina Borjesson, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist
for more than twenty years and editor of two recent books on the
Colleen Costello, Staff Attorney of Human Rights, USA, of Washington,
D.C., and coordinator of its efforts involving torture by the American
Valeria Gheorghiu, attorney for Workers' Rights Law Center.
Andy Worthington of Redress, a British historian and journalist and
author of books dealing with human rights violations.
Initial actions considered by the Steering Committee, Velvel said, are
# Seeking prosecutions of high level officials, including George Bush,
for the crimes they committed.
# Seeking disbarment of lawyers who were complicitous in facilitating torture.
# Seeking termination from faculty positions of high officials who
were complicitous in torture.
# Issuing a recent statement saying any attempt by Bush to pardon
himself and aides for war crimes prior to leaving office will result
in efforts to obtain impeachment even after they leave office.
# Convening a major conference on the state secret and executive
privilege doctrines, which have been pushed to record levels during
the Bush administration.
# Designation of an Information Repository Coordinator to gather in
one place all available information involving the Bush
Administration's war crimes.
# Possible impeachment of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee
for co-authoring the infamous "torture memo."
Please uphold the rule of law
We are citizens who have been witness to a monstrous crime and are
imploring you to take action to uphold the rule of law and in doing
so, allow our country to begin the healing process. If we as a
society pretend that there was no crime and it was OK for the
President to deceive the American people and take us to war based on
lies, because he had some higher agenda, then we are no longer a
nation of laws. How can a prosecutor proceed with his day-to-day
tasks of enforcing justice by prosecuting addicts, thieves and
murderers, while the greatest mass murderer in U.S. history,
responsible for 4,179 American deaths, goes free?
Mr. Bugliosi has offered to help any prosecutor taking on the case. I
believe Mr. Boyle also would be of assistance. Of course the more
that take up the cause, the stronger the case will be. But it should
not matter if anyone else decides to proceed with the case or not.
All we ask of you our Lake Country Prosecutor is to follow the law and
not let the perpetrator of the greatest crime in the history of our
country get away with murder.
8340 Baring Ave
Munster, IN 46321
Nancy K. Thompson
511 141st Street
Hammond, IN 46327
Kathryn A. Sturm
1740 W. 58th Avenue
Merrillville, IN 46410-2304
8340 Baring Avenue
Munster, IN 46321
PO Box 246
San Geronimo, CA 94963
6925 Indian Boundary
Robert F. Hogan
7343 Hohman Ave.
Hammond In. 46324
Karen St. John
3740-3 Magenta Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46214
Neal Resnikoff Box 18224 Chicago, IL 60618
1009 S Wood St.
Griffith, Indiana 46319
1243 Brandywine Dr. Munster, In. 46321
Anita Skomac 2109 West 3rd St. Hobart, IN 46342
1249 Primrose Lane
Schererville IN 46375
Joyce Niksic 7429 Woodmar Hammond, IN 46323
B. E. Murphy
Park Forest, IL 60466-2408
2203 Dunwoody Drive
Valparaiso, IN 46383-3911
Valparaiso, IN 46385
7518 Marshall Place
Merrillville, IN 46410-4525
1227 Lakeview Ave
Whiting, IN 46394
West Lafayette, IN
402 Waterford Ct.
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
55 West 3rd St.
Hobart, IN 46342
Kerry and Ramona Mitchell
6706 California Ave
Hammond, IN 46323
431 South Main St
Crown Point, IN 46307
8429 Jackson Ct.
Munster, IN 46321
Hammond, IN 46320
231 W 550 N
Valparaiso, In 46385
8724 S. Baltimore Ave.
Chicago, IL 60617
4117 Mississippi Street
Hobart, IN 46342
221 Pawnee Drive
West Lafayette IN 47906