FURIOUS BUSH DEMANDS TO SEE ALL PRISONER ABUSE PHOTOS, VIDEOS

Drudge ^ | 5/9/04 | Matt Drudge

[demkicker]

A furious President Bush has demanded to see all photos and videos showing abuse of Iraq detainees, a senior White House source said late Sunday.

"The president was blindsided by the first TV images, he will not be blindsided again," the source, who demanded anonymity, explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

The president has instructed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to present him with him all known images that could further deepen the crises.

Monday editions of the NEW YORKER feature photos of a dog attacking a naked Iraqi detainee at Abu Ghraib prison.

President Bush was aware of the photo, the top source claims.

The White House is preparing for more fallout, and leaks from lawmakers.

The Pentagon is considering the possibility of showing the unseen material to members of Congress.

"It's clear the moment the evidence is sent to the Congress, we will see a new feeding frenzy in the media."

[Dane]

So, because this is a political world, then anything goes including the defense of the indefensible?

Where have I defended the indefensible.

All I did was point out the fact that this has been investigated since January and also the facts that hackworth was behind the release of the photos when he went to CBS who statrted the smear campaign against all troops by the actions of a very few.

Look you can put your head in the sand that this isn't a concerted political effort by the liberal media and the demos to smear the President and the military.

Just don't get mad when someone points it out to you.

[Dane]

Again, screw the Dems, screw the libs and screw the media (I choked a little on that, because I work in the media). They're going to do what they do and nothing is going to change it and nothing can change it.

Again don't get mad if I criticize your employer(the media)over their tactics in trying to smear the military and the President.

Freedon of speech is a two way steet not the one way expressway the media thinks they own.

[ironman]

"When Rummy's testimony the other day revealed that Hillary knew about the photos well before Rummy"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are confusing the leaking of the Tuguba report with the release of the photos to 60 Minutes. Here is what Rummy said:

"You say the report was well known. I don't know how you know that. All I know is when it made the public, when somebody took a secret document out of prosecutorial channels and released it to the press, I do not believe it was yet anywhere in the Pentagon. Certainly, I had not been given it or seen it."

[Dane]

As far as Lynndie England's lawyers, wouldn't be the first time that hot-shot lawyers took on something like this pro bono thinking they might get something out of it like publicity, etc

Their expenses and fees will be covered by some outside group, IMO.

[Pravious]

"Is it just me that senses that it looks like a demonic-rat behind this crap?"

It's not just you. The editor of "The Mirror" (that published the purportedly fake British abuse pictures) has called the U.S. "the world's leading rogue state." -- this is just one illustration, but there's no doubt where the press is coming from, either here or abroad.

And the brother-in-law of Ms. England (aka "torture-chick") is quoted as being angry with Bush because: "He doesn't know what these guys are going through... How can you make decisions for our military unless you've served yourself?""

I smell Rat blood.

OK. Maybe it is too far-out to think of this as a vast left wing conspiracy... but, in fact, I think it's quite possible that RATS are responsible for all of this all along the line - from the abuse, to the photos, to the media, to the politicians and their "hearings."

Conspiracy theories aside, there's something vaguely beyond reason about all of this. Even granting that a bunch of yahoos would be stupid enough to mistreat the prisoners, I just can't believe that the same yahoos would allow themselves to be photographed doing this without some underlying reason. One or two morons presuming they wouldn't get caught is one thing - but ALL of those people? Didn't ONE of them think "Gee, my ass is in a sling if anyone ever sees these pictures... um, maybe not a good idea, huh?" Could they really be collectively THAT stupid?

And the "Huh?" factor goes down the line, as well. Anyone else out there hear Rumsfeld say at the hearings that he hadn't seen the pictures until 7:30 the previous night? What? Does he mean the pictures the rest of the planet had been seeing for the past 2 weeks? Doesn't Don Rumsfeld watch TV? Gee, even Hillary got to see the pictures...

Another question I had was, if Ms. England says: "I was commanded to do this" didn't anyone bother to ask her: "Oh? WHO COMMANDED YOU?" and why isn't this information being made public? Was someone accused and denied it? And even if someone simply ordered them to "soften up" the prisoners, wouldn't they have been responsible to follow-up and see exactly how (or if) those orders were being followed... and if the abuse was evident, why wasn't it dealt with THEN? Severely and immediately? Is the military really that moribund?

[MaxPlus305]

Conspiracy theories aside, there's something vaguely beyond reason about all of this. Even granting that a bunch of yahoos would be stupid enough to mistreat the prisoners, I just can't believe that the same yahoos would allow themselves to be photographed doing this without some underlying reason. One or two morons presuming they wouldn't get caught is one thing - but ALL of those people? Didn't ONE of them think "Gee, my ass is in a sling if anyone ever sees these pictures... um, maybe not a good idea, huh?" Could they really be collectively THAT stupid?

How could this happen?

1. The ones photographed, as you put it, are "yahoos" and don't have any better sense.

2. There was an institution-wide attitude that this kind of treatment would be condoned, and therefore, there was no reason to hide it from their cameras.

If the latter reason is true, then this is why I'm OK with all this being aired out in the open. Maybe not the new photos and videos, but the media blitz that has happened thus far was needed to purge the obvious negligence somewhere in the existing command structure.

[philman_36]

If you'll notice there are two posters listed there.
I was advising you that I gave the wrong link earlier and was giving the correct one in that reply.
The rest goes to the other poster.

[philman_36]

Well, you've been to the thread and there is a high probability that you've seen replies 249/251/252.
Have you nothing but silence?

[SierraWasp]

"I'm very suspicious that it is a gay porn ring; not completely convinced, but almost."

Rush Limbaugh just touched on your suspicions!!!

[k2blader]

Do you see President Bush taking that course of action? How about Sec. Rumsfeld? Gen. Myers? No, they're accepting responsibility/accountability. That's what strong leaders do - those who are attempting to use this to further their agenda will ultimately hurt their cause, and are the worst kind of political hacks.

Well said.

[TheCrusader]

"Tell me how a naked man, with his hands tied behind his back, acts dangerously. I'm anxious to hear this."

First of all, I don't condone the sexual perversion I saw in the photos, I detest it. But it is a far cry from an actual "atrocity", as the anti-war, anti-Bush gang are trying so hard to label it.

But frankly, it doesn't take much imagination to conclude that this prisoner's hands were tied behind his back for a good reason. Either you have a very small mind or you, like the agenda-driven democrats, pacifists and other weenies, are using these time frame shots to paint a whole story.

When I see a Fedayeen Saddam thug, who was trained by Qusai Hussein from age 12 to torture, intimidate, brutalize and murder his own people, I see the rope around his hands and the dog near him for a very good purpose. God only knows what these ruthless barbarians have done, are capable of doing, or have even tried to do at some point before the photo was snapped.

Too many people seem to conveniently forget that these POWs are mostly highly trained, elite Republican Guard troops, or Fedayeen Saddam assassins, or just plain maniacal insurgents who would tear your eyes out in the name of "Allah" if given the chance. Our MPs have to show these "people" that they are in complete control. How'd YOU like to take a little stroll around this prison camp all by yourself, without the complete control that is being exercised by the MPs?

[Southack]

"I would suggest that this makes you look as though you're attempting to turn this episode into a chance to further a political agenda re: gays out of the military. While that may be a fair debate, in this context you will harm the cause you wish to further. JMHO."

What an odd thing to conclude. I'm all for gays being in our military (though I have a problem with "don't ask, don't tell"). Many of our Arabic interpreters in Iraq and Afghanistan are gay, for instance, and quite frankly it would hurt our war on terror to drum them out of the military.

On the other hand, I really can't see any other reasonable, viable conclusion that explains why 6 men and 2 women were taking *thousands* of all-male nude pictures of human pyramids, parading around nude men on dog leashes, and *videoing* multiple homosexual rapes of young male prisoners.

I mean, that's some pretty serious felonious behavior. What would #1 "motivate" such people and #2 let such people think that word of their crimes wouldn't eventually leak out?

...And the only obvious answer that I see is that they were part of a sworn-to-secrecy gay porn ring in that prison. Such a porn ring explains both their motivation as well as their naive idea of why they wouldn't get caught.

There might be another rational explanation, of course, but as of this moment the "Gay porn prison ring" theory is the best fit for the evidence that has been made public so far.

[Unicorn]

The senior WH source just died.

[oceanview]

It does matter a whole lot if it was iraqis performing the rapes, and not our soldiers. the photographer should be punished, no doubt. but the chain of command cannot be monitoring these iraqi guards 24x7, an incident of rape may be something that requires 10 minutes in a room out of sight (except from the camera man, who I said should be rolled over), you can't monitor everyone all the time, even though they are under your "command". That's like saying the police commissioner is responsible for every action of every police officer on the street, everywhere, all the time. its just not practical.

[TheCrusader]

"Did you see the pictures? He's shackled. And naked. What's he threatening the guard with? His penis? My wife is sometimes uncooperative with me, but I don't turn dogs loose on her."

Man, you opened yourself bigtime with this one, LOL but since I'm a gentleman I'm going to withold my thoughts.

For the record Sinkspur, suffice to say that we do not know what occurred shortly before these time frame snapshots were taken, but we DO know that these POWs are amongst the most violent, dangerous and deadly human being who walk this earth, and many of them are utterly neurotic. We also know that Saddam emptied out ALL of his prisons and unleashed these madmen, criminals, thugs, killers and assassins just before the Coalition invasion. Hence, it is very easy to imagine what might have occurred just before the photo of the naked, shakled man was taken. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to OUR GUYS until all the facts are out?

[madison10]

I sure hope Rummy isn't resigning over this. The timing would be crappy. I trust President Bush to make the right choice on this.

[Spotsy]

Long Cut . . . soliciting your comments . . .

Isn't the publication and airing of the photographs by news outlets (especially pictures clearly showing prisoners' faces) a violation of the Geneva Convention?

I thought the rules and standards apply to the nation as a whole - whether its govt and military personnel, or journalists and other civilians.

[redrock]

The 'SYSTEM' works.

A few have disgraced the Oath they took...but we will show the world that we have nothing to hide....and we will punish those who DID abuse the prisoners in their charge.

It will NOT be covered up...

Kinda neat...the 'SYSTEM' works.

redrock

[Long Cut]

It's kind of a "grey legal area", at least to my reading of it.

Photos of prisoners are not to be shown for the purposes of humiliation of such prisoners (paraphrasing here), but I don't know if the media in this case can be said to be doing that.

For one, they are not State-run, and they do not publish the photos at the behest of the government for humiliation purposes.

For another, their reasons (as they will surely claim) were to expose and halt the abuse, and ensure the punishment of those responsible (we'll leave out, for now, if such publication could actually HURT the criminal case).

[Long Cut]

I certainly hope so.

As sickened as I am by these atrocities and disgraces, I am equally sickened now by the Dims' blatant attempt to use them strictly for partisan purposes. ESPECIALLY when, as it now appears, they knew about it months ago. In effect, they are now coming VERY close to compromising the prosecutions.

It's to be expected of them, I suppose.