The Two Sides of Vincent Bugliosi

I post this now because I noticed that Bugliosi was recently featured on Democracy Now and also is going to be on a radio show with Kucinich soon. His 2007 book was 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy', and his 2008 book is 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.'

This is another case where *anyone* who utters the phrase "prosecute Bush" is given a free pass. Being on Democracy Now then opens the door to every single left media and blogger to accept him unquestioningly. But as Michael Green states, "The purpose of Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History' is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function."

Could such distortions, and the taking down of the JFK truths one year earlier, have been a necessary ingredient of becoming a central figure in the supposed prosecution of Bush? Only time will tell.

The essay is detailed but thorough and well done.


9-11 Research Guest Essay:

Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again

The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up
by Michael B. Green
Sep. 19, 2007

"According to Bugliosi, only the lunatic can seriously entertain that Kennedy was murdered because he pursued détente with the USSR, championed nuclear disarmament, decided not to back the invasion of the Bay of Pigs with US military might, made a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs wanted invasion and war, and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam rather than pursue by brute force an imperial venture in Southeast Asia. According to Bugliosi, Oswald is not just the murderer of Kennedy, he is the only one involved, and he is nothing but “a first class ‘nut.’” (945) Thus, Kennedy’s murder is deprived of any political significance whatsoever, assassinating him yet again."
. . . .

"Bugliosi tells the story of charming his audience of six hundred lawyers – mostly skeptics of the Warren Commission – by asking for a show of hands from those who doubt the official story. Many hands go up. He then commands assent to the truth that a rational person must hear both sides of a dispute to have an informed opinion, then he asks for another show of hands from those who have read the Warren Report and “just a few” go up, and Bugliosi hadn’t even asked how many had read both the Report and the accompanying volumes. This audience of potent opinion makers has been converted; they must defer to one who knows both sides of the argument. (xxiv-xxv) Having thus cloaked himself in authority, Vince “Mr. JFK History” is going to tell us the truth, and he even thumps his chest to that effect, “My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.” (xxxix)"


Democracy Now
June 13, 2008
Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi
Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”
Vincent Bugliosi is one of the most successful prosecutors in this country, with a record including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. With a new book, he outlines his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. [includes rush transcript]

"You’ve got to realize, there’s no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. So this could very well happen. At this stage of my life, I cannot engage in fanciful reveries. This is a very real thing that we’re talking about here. I’ve established jurisdiction on a federal and state level for the prosecution of Bush for two crimes: conspiracy to commit murder and murder."

You have to be aware of that stuff, for sure.

It seems highly unlikely that Bugliosi would on the one hand strenuously defend the official JFK story, AND be truly pure in intent regarding the prosecution of establishment poster-psycho George Walker Bush.

Yes, from what I've learned, federal prosecutors are often very


Also, I must wonder if Bugliosi achieved that record of "twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss" all through honest & fair prosecutions, or by some other tactics.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Bugliosi writes a thousand

Bugliosi writes a thousand plus page book, supposedly debunking all the conspiracies about JFK's assassination. But somehow he never finds space to address the arguments put forth in Final Judgment, by Michael Collins Piper. Bugliosi mentions it once or twice in passing, but never confronts Piper's theory that it was Kennedy's opposition to Israel's desire to build a nuclear weapon that sealed his fate. Of course, when LBJ became president, US policy toward Israel did a 180. Israel got not only the nukes, but their Six Day War, and their attack on the USS Liberty to boot.

Not Piper

Piper apparently also thinks the Mossad killed MLK.

Unfortunately Piper is also considered and anti-semite by most. It's one thing to implicate a foreign intelligence agency, but it's another to defend Willis Carto, a man who founded the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 to promote the claim that the Holocaust never happened.

That's the last thing anyone working on 9/11 issues needs to be involved with, given that a primary attack on us is in the form of how we claim "The Jews Did 9/11"'

It seems like kind of a

It seems like kind of a roundabout argument you're making. I don't really care if "most" consider Piper to be an "anti-semite." Is that the same "most" who think Osama was behind 9/11?

And who is Willis Carto? Who cares?

I will judge MC Piper by the quality of his evidence and arguments, not guilt by association.

I do.

It's important to know who is publicly identifying themselves with particular movements.

Ideology, beliefs and psychological mindsets can drive an argument and shape evidence, just take a look at the JREF forum.

Groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center are VERY interested in who we associate with, whether it is their business or not. They use "guilt by association" as you call it, to drive legislation that could cause serious problems for the 9/11 Truth movement and alternative viewpoints on False Flag Truth in general, given the opportunity. Don't give them the opportunity.

Plus, I codified a zero tolerance policy for Holocaust Revisionism or Denial in the Rules here, and that doesn't work for you, move on.

Whatever role it may have had in JFK or 9-11

it is mainstream news that Israel has prepared an attack on Iran, unless the New York Times is anti-jewish in reporting that.

Great work!

Great work!

what matters here....?

OK, I don't get it.
Here is a man with a reputation for getting bad guys convicted, who is now very vocal on
the ultimate neasure of accountability for Bush. This goes way beyond impeachment to the
issue of criminal behaviour and consequences of the law.
Why is that not greeted here with more enthusiasm ?

Who cares about his JFK views in that contect: ? How about some pragmatism ?
Look at the validity and strength of his arguments and stop looking for reasons to
distrust him. It's about justice and accountability for Bush. That's a hundred times more important.

bush bashing

A blind monkey could tell you Bush is a murderer. I don't need Bugliosi for that.

He seems to be sniffing the winds and cashing in on some obvious crimes that only the lunatic neo-con right would argue against. Good.

However -- he's also boosting his own credibility, and thus his previous works. His bullshit Kennedy cover up is indefensible. We must ask why he wrote it. Anyone with three brain cells knows the CIA was behind Kennedy's assassination.

This isn't even controversial, except on corporate media.

It's like Jim Fetzer suddenly giving out some good, verifiable 9/11 info. So what? He's still a shill pushing lunatic ideas to discredit the entire movement. His latest performance doesn't erase the damage he's done.

You see the same pattern with agents like Shayler in the UK. He got credibility by blowing the whistle on the British government trying to hire "Al Qaeda" assassins to aassaintate Qadafi. He went to jail for speaking out publicly.

All good, but what exactly were the terms of his release?

Because he's now disgracing the 9/11 UK movement with no planes, space beams gibberish.

I'm going to remain highly skeptical of these questionable characters, whether they appear to be on my side this week, or not.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

The answer to your question... found in this article...

I remember coming across his massive book in a book store. He certainly set out to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" about JFK with gusto.

p.s. the magical indestructible bullet theory is very, very lame.

"Real bullets don’t behave this way: when they break bone they are smashed, dented or mangled, whereas this slightly flattened bullet looks much like the sample Mannlicher-Carcano bullets fired by the FBI in its tests into cotton wadding or by Henry Hurt (Reasonable Doubt, 1985, photo section) into a bucket of water.... Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986, “The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that.” [ 4 ]

Bugliosi handles this problem by lying:

'Drs. Light and Dolce expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connolly had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the belief that the bullet recovered from Connolly’s stretcher could not have broken the radius without having suffered more distortion.” But again, this was before the tests at Edgewood Arsenal proved that it could. (Endnotes p.305)'

In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. …in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. …They did not accept this.” (NA! pp.298-299)"
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Maybe he felt guilty and wanted to redeem himself?

Let's face it the guy can write a thousand pages of crap but let's not hold it against him when he decides to set the record straight on Bush. That in itself took a lot of courage. R.I.P. Gary Webb, Danny Casolaro, J.H. Hatfield, Mark Lombardi.

Let him get Bush

I agree. Let's not hold it against him.

Bugliosi would probably not agree 9/11 was an inside job either. He is a practical and intelligent man, but he still lives in the Matrix of whatever the mainstream news tells him.

The good news is that despite him falling for the propaganda that "Oswald did it" or "Osama did it," based only on evidence coming from the mainstream he can logically deduce Bush is an all out war criminal. In other words, Bugliosi could get Bush tried, convicted and executed without even the slightest whisper of 9/11 complicity.

As far as Bush goes, that's good enough for me. We can let some other brave maverick take on the other Neocons and the Mossad.

but he still lives in the Matrix of whatever the mainstream news

He wasn't just listening to what someone told him, he was looking at evidence and making claims which were blatantly false. He was actively making a case. The man wrote an entire book for chrissakes.

And, HBO is going to give us a 10-part...

...series, produced by Tom Hanks (the anti-Oliver Stone?), based on Bugliosi's massive Warren Commission defense...does it really take 10 parts to shore up the Warren Commission?

Probably more.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

And to think I used to like Tom Hanks,

I know he's just an Actor but I'll Still hold it against him... Oh well at least he used to drive an electric GM EV-1 car and he told the truth about how great it was.............

I saw him on Amy

My wife commented on what a "lawyer" he was. Sure, so good he could have prosecuted Oswald, given the chance.
This is the kook that "studied" the JFK assassination for 45 years and still believes in the lone gunman theory. I don't trust him.

The need for pragmatism

The 911 truth movement could do Bush no greater service than
to insist on the revelation of the ultimate truth in the JFK case. JFK, RFK MLK these are
rabbit holes. I believe they are designed to be rabbit holes. That's a disgrace and efforts to get at
the truth in those cases should never cease. But Bush will be alive for many years to come.
Living a life of privilege , inspite of his reputation as the nation's worst president ever.
I don't know why Bugliosi is writing the book, and I believe he is wrong about JFK.
But that's inconsequential in comparison to the possible ramifications
of what he writes on Bush's crimes. Things are happening in America now.
There are more signs that the country is beginning to find its moral compass again.
It's slow and hesitant, but stuff is happening, not least because of the 911 Truth Movement.
If we mistrust even these signs and underestimate their potential, how can there ever be
truth, accountability, justice ?

good catch, Victronix!

I find this latest book by Bugliosi a head-scratcher? A year earlier, Bugliosi brings out a huge book that supports the OCT of the Warren Commission on the JFK assasination, and now, a book seeking to prosecute G. W. Bush for murder?

I believe, this is a thread that could be given more attention!

Is it Bugliosi just following case law and sees where the President can easily be prosecuted? Is it Bugliosi, a right-winger, who has reached even his limits with a criminal regime? Or, is it possibly, Bugliosi with a solid conservative rep, brought out of cold storage to do battle for his beleaguered brethren?

I need to contemplate it further, but it's definitely an apt observation, Victronix!

I suspect, Bugliosi.. you
...can't believe him either!

I devoured every word

of this article. Thanks, Victronix. It demonstrates that a strong argument can be made without knowing every particular of how something was carried out.