Former Prosecutor's Book Accuses Bush of Murder

Ex-Prosecutor’s Book Accuses Bush of Murder
By TIM ARANGO

As a Los Angeles county prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi batted a thousand in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.

As an author, Mr. Bugliosi has written three No. 1 best sellers and won three Edgar Allan Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers. More than 30 years ago he co-wrote the best seller “Helter Skelter,” about the Manson case.

So Mr. Bugliosi could be forgiven for perhaps thinking that a new book would generate considerable interest, among reviewers and on the broadcast talk-show circuit.

But if he thought that, he would have been mistaken: his latest, a polemic with the provocative title “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers.

Internet advertising has been abundant, but ABC Radio refused to accept an advertisement for the book during the Don Imus show, said Roger Cooper, the publisher of Vanguard Press, which put out the book.

ABC Radio did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Bugliosi, in a recent telephone interview from his home in Los Angeles, said he had expected some resistance from the mainstream media because of the subject matter — the book lays a legal case for holding President Bush “criminally responsible” for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq — but not a virtual blackout.

His publisher and publicist said they had expected that Mr. Bugliosi’s credentials would ensure coverage — he is, after all, fairly mainstream. His last book, a 1,612-page volume on the Kennedy assassination, “Reclaiming History,” which was published last year, sought to debunk the conspiracy theorists. It is being made into a 10-hour miniseries by HBO and the actor Tom Hanks.

Mr. Bugliosi said bookers for cable television, where he has made regular appearances to promote books, have ignored his latest offering. MSNBC and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” were two outlets Mr. Bugliosi had thought would show interest, but neither did.

“They are not responding at all,” he said. “I think it all goes back to fear. If the liberal media would put me on national television, I think they’d fear that they would be savaged by the right wing. The left wing fears the right, but the right does not fear the left.”

A spokeswoman for Comedy Central said the staff of “The Daily Show” was on vacation and unavailable for comment. A representative for MSNBC said: “We get many pitches to interview authors and very few end up on our programs.”

The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, said he had not read the manuscript, but he offered a reason why the media might be silent: “I think there’s a kind of Bush-bashing fatigue out there.”

“If it’s selling well,” Mr. Meacham said, “it’s another sign that the traditional channels of commerce have been blown up. If a dedicated part of the Internet community wants to move something, it doesn’t need a benediction from the mainstream media and might benefit from not having one.”

The book was published in late May by Vanguard Press, a division of the Perseus Books Group — which also owns PublicAffairs Books, the publisher of the recent memoir by a former White House spokesman, Scott McClellan — and has sold about 130,000 copies. On Sunday it was No. 14 on the New York Times best-seller list. (The Times published a lengthy review of Mr. Bugliosi’s Kennedy book last year by the writer Bryan Burrough of Vanity Fair; his latest book is under consideration for review, said Robert R. Harris, the deputy editor of The New York Times Book Review.)

For the Bush book, the equation for success seems to be this: Mr. Bugliosi’s reputation plus talk radio plus the viral nature of the Internet.

Sara Nelson, the editor in chief of Publisher’s Weekly, said, “130,000 copies is an enormous number of copies of anything.”

“You should never underestimate the power of a brand name author to circumvent the normal publicity and marketing channels,” Ms. Nelson said. “Somebody was very smart to see that something subversive like this is best marketed on the anonymous and youthful medium of the Internet.”

Ms. Nelson said that if the book becomes successful, “the same people who didn’t want to give him publicity in advance would give him publicity after the fact.”

Mr. Cooper of Vanguard Press said, “We publish books on all sides of the political fence and all kinds of political thought.” The company's sibling, PublicAffairs, has also published one of President Bush’s favorite writers: Natan Sharansky, the onetime Soviet dissident whose book “The Case for Democracy” is said to have influenced Mr. Bush’s foreign policy agenda.

On Mr. Bugliosi’s book, Mr. Cooper said, “I expected there would be people who would choose not to talk about it. But I thought some would.”

Mr. Bugliosi has had more than 100 radio interviews about the book, and Vanguard was behind an aggressive Internet campaign that included ads on liberal blogs. “It’s been frustrating on one hand but exhilarating on the other,” Mr. Cooper said. “Using the Internet has been an integral fact in the success of this book. I feel terrific about the sales of this book.”

While Mr. Bugliosi’s Kennedy book got the star treatment from Hollywood in Mr. Hanks, he had to look outside the United States to find money for a film on his Bush polemic. Jim Shaban, a theater owner in Windsor, Ontario, financed a documentary on the book that is almost complete. The movie, directed by David Burke, does not yet have a distributor. But it will not carry the same name as the book. “Mad as Hell” is one name under consideration, according to Peter Miller, of the PMA Literary and Film Agency, who has represented Mr. Bugliosi for about 25 years.

“We may not be able to work with a mainstream company,” Mr. Miller said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/b...der&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print

 

I love how media whores get all bent out of shape when said media doesn't ipso facto facilitate their quest for best selling riches. I guess Bugliosi figures he's owed something every time he writes an insipid book. If someone seeks profit from writing an anti-war book they're morally on the same plane with any other war profiteer. It's not the message it's the motive. If Bugliosi really wanted to seek higher ground he would have dedicated the profits to disabled vets. Instead he's just another quick buck artist exploiting those who died serving.

I've read 2 of his prior publications. Even as a 15 year old I thought Helter Skelter as a motive was a hokey bunch of bs. Recent interviews with the Manson girls seem to verify that Bugliosi was 100% wrong. The Tate killings were an attempt to free popular Manson family stud Bobby Beausoleil.

Hence the title/motive of Bugliosi's signature work is bogus and flawed. Why then would readers be inclined to believe anything else he's written?

 

If the mainstream media were so liberal, they would be all over promoting this book...

"If someone seeks profit from writing an anti-war book they're morally on the same plane with any other war profiteer."

So if someone who helps pay for the cost of golden eggs purchased by the government through their taxes, and writes a book on the importance of killing the golden goose they are on the same plane morally as those who are promoting and profiting from the golden eggs and the golden goose?

LOL!

 

Do Franken's book sales seem like he's hurting?

It's the same way I laugh at "impeachment" talk.

You and I both know that Democrat political sophisticates like Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Cleland, Dodd, Edwards and Feinstein made the decision to vote for war on evidence distinct from Bush's rhetoric. The only way one can accuse Bush of culpability is to prove that those senators voted because of statements made by Bush. Since they reached their conclusions independently the ultimate onus falls elsewhere.

Actually forcing the Democrats who voted yes on war to disclose their rationale would be pretty interesting. I'm sure EOD we'd find AIPAC and public opinion more to blame than Bush.

 

Exactly. Even the liberal media have some standards. Except for The View, they tend to shy away from the more laughable conspiracy theory artists, even if they are bashing Bush.

This guy's complaint seems to reduce to the fact that if they promoted Scott McClelland, why not him? After all, he attacked Bush too.

 

ZZZZzzz you have 20,000 posts. OMG get a life.

 

It's really funny how holier-than-thou types like Lieberman and Feinstein voted for the war. Maybe someone should mention that to Lieberman when he starts moaning about oil speculators again. Hello? Invading the Middle East isn't exactly a bear point for oil prices.

 

Ah, now Feinstein's vote makes a lot more sense:

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8609

 

It's funny how we constantly hear in the liberal media about Cheney and Halliburton, even though he has no connection to it. We NEVER hear mentioned the fact that Feinstein sits on the Committee that approves hundreds of millions in contracts for her husband's company. No conflict there, right? No back scratching and log rolling? No vote for this and I'll back your scam?

ZZZ, remind me again why Vietnam fighter ace Duke Cunningham was sent to live his life out in federal prison. Two bit defense contractor bought him a couple of dinners and let him use his boat, right? How does that stack up to Diane Feinstein, one of the most sanctimonious liberals ever to serve in congress?

 

Cunningham was convicted, and plead guilty to bribery and tax evasion.

Why do you keep defending these criminals?

So much for the party of "law and order" when it comes to their own...

"Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) resigned from Congress yesterday after tearfully confessing to evading taxes and conspiring to pocket $2.4 million in bribes, including a Rolls-Royce, a yacht and a 19th-century Louis-Philippe commode."