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."

[longtermmemmory]

(s)you are not allowed to ask, and if you know you are not allowed to tell. You will now be ordered back to sensitivity re-education camp. (/s)

[GB]

So were the Pentagon Papers, but the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the N.Y. Times from running them.

[OldFriend]

The media is misrepresenting the picture of the dogs and the prisoners. The dogs are threatening, no doubt. But they are not attacking!

[longtermmemmory]

sorry for doublepost,tried to correct typo before it went through.

[MJY1288]

"But, if you see nothing wrong with stacking naked prisoners on top of each other, or loosing snarling dogs at naked prisoners, then you have a problem."

C'mon Sink, neither you or I know why the K-9 team had to be called in for that prisoner! we know they had linguist in the prison, so there was communication between the guards and the prisoner. I'm in no position to know, or will I speculate on why this prisoner is being confronted by K-9 Dogs, and I certainly don't think the guards just decided to call in the K-9's so they drag an innocent Iraqi out of his cell and sick the Dogs on the inmate for some kind of sadistic entertainment. That Prison is full of people who were trying to our Soldiers, and it's even said that that particular cell block housed the most dangerous of detainees. PLEASE DON'T FALL FOR THE LEFTIST SPIN ON THIS

As far as your concern over the Iraqi's being naked, we put suicide watch inmates in solitary naked, so they can't hang themselves with their under ware. I'm sure you can understand that it would be wise to make sure a bunch of suicidal Muslim fanatics aren't hiding shanks under the ankle length t-shirts they wear.

The prisoners in Iraq are nobody to be trifled with, they would kill one of those guards at the first opportunity. All this sensitivity over these terrorist being naked is a joke. Go ahead and insist on clothing them, but before you do, volunteer to stand guard over them as well as escorting them to the john

[oceanview]

I said under the right circumstances. if someone murdered my child, I could use violence against that person. that doesn't mean I run around beating people up when I don't get extra ketchup at McDonalds.

the only point I was trying to make, what that the part of "human nature" that might cause someone to rough up a terrorist in their custody, is totally different from the part of human nature that stacks two of those same people in some kind of bondage/erotic pose for photographs.

[sinkspur]

Taunting them with dogs, taking off their clothes etc is pretty tame stuff and I see no grownups willing to take this on politically. Our society is a bunch of wusses.

You're nuts. Certifiably nuts.

Can you imagine George W. Bush defending turning a snarling dog loose on a naked man? Just exactly how does he do that?

What's the matter with you?

The fact that our society doesn't tolerate such behavior says there's hope for our society.

[LandOfLincolnGOP]

I don't find that, I think there is a majority of people ready to form a backlash - our contractors are burned and hung from bridges, their bodies ripped apart - and then you see some iraqi on a leash.

One doesn't justify the other. We're Americans. We're better than that. (Well, most of us.)

And it bears mentioning that these photos are from last year, long before there was much of an "insurgency" or whatever the BS PC term for it is.

What happened at that prison represents a terrible failure. It's not the people who leaked the photos who have put us in jeapordy. It was those men and women who disgraced their uniforms and the Flag of the United States.

[GB]

What if those who took them burned copies to CD and have them stashed somewhere or gave them to friends? Do you think some individual outside the DOD or the government is going to hesitate one iota about taking them to the press? If they exist, they will come out. I don't relish that, quite honestly I don't like it a bit, I'd prefer that any release come officially from the White House and/or DOD, but I'm realistic enough to know that in the digital/Internet age it's hard to keep anything totally classified.

[sinkspur]

As far as your concern over the Iraqi's being naked, we put suicide watch inmates in solitary naked, so they can't hang themselves with their under ware. I'm sure you can understand that it would be wise to make sure a bunch of suicidal Muslim fanatics aren't hiding shanks under the ankle length t-shirts they wear.

No I don't understand that, and I don't understand why somebody thinks it's cute to stack naked men with penises positioned against buttocks.

Your tortured defenses are mind-boggling!

[oceanview]

I am not asking him to defend it, just make the point that it isn't torture.

This is the same society that firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and dropped two atomic bombs on cities.

[FreeReign]

The principles of the Geneva Convention still apply, whether you are legally subject to them or not.

Thank you for your frank albeit tortured admission that 60 Minutes II is not legally subject to the Geneva Convention.

I never said that 60 Minutes II was legally subject to the Geneva convention. I've made no error thus I've made no admission -- that's your error.

And you still ignore my point.

[Edit35]

Geeze, I'm thinking that Bush maybe going overboard. He needs to get on offense and make it plain to the media that any further leaking of photos of the Iraqi prison abuse will only serve to hurt our military men and women.

If we could just release ALL THE PHOTOS tomorrow, this whole thing would blow over in less than a week.

The problem is, as it has been throughout this war is the partisan Democrat leaning media.

CBS and the Washington POST each have hundreds of photos, and they obviously plan to release one photo each day for the next 500 days or so. These media partisans want to stretch this scandal and thereby damage Bush as long as they can, right up to the election if possible.

The Washington Post knows that if they release all the photos now, the scandal will diminish quickly.

[sinkspur]

That Prison is full of people who were trying to our Soldiers, and it's even said that that particular cell block housed the most dangerous of detainees.

Were these the same "most dangerous of detainees" who meekly formed a human pyramid in front of a 100 pound female?

Or was it a vicious killer who rolled over like a dog, while on a leash under the control of that same 100 pound female?

[MJY1288]

I've seen what they did to Danny Pearl, I'm sure he and his wife could deal with him being stripped naked, it's the video of him being beheaded they have a problem with.

I agree that the pictures were a complete violation, my argument is that what I have seen so far is not torture. The smiling faces of the couple of guards that disgusts me, and of course the fact that they posed for pictures to begin with

[sinkspur]

the only point I was trying to make, what that the part of "human nature" that might cause someone to rough up a terrorist in their custody, is totally different from the part of human nature that stacks two of those same people in some kind of bondage/erotic pose for photographs.

No. It's the same part of human nature.

If you can't get away with physically harming somebody, you can damn sure humiliate the hell out of them, and pose with these humiliated men as if one were standing next to a deer carcass.

[oceanview]

I've got news for you - we are never going to be able to fight and win a war under those standards, we might as well just give the country to the islamofascists right now.

that's not to say that we NEED to do things like this to win - we don't. But in every war, things like this are going to happen, and the entire military apparatus cannot be held hostage to the acts of every single US soldier. That would mean that one soldier or one group of soldiers can lose a war for us, this is the standard that the Dems and the media want us to live up to. Its not possible.

[bootless]

I don't know about the two-star, but the name George Soros did come to mind.

[Tunehead54]

Get it out all now - not in dribs and drabs up to the election. Stategery. ;-)

[strela]

I never said that 60 Minutes II was legally subject to the Geneva convention.

No, what you did is chime in on a discussion with an indeterminate statement that "The principles of the Geneva Convention still apply ..." Exactly what they "apply" to was left to the imagination of the reader, and my imagination said "60 Minutes II." A news organization is not part of the government and cannot be forced to follow rules that apply ONLY to the government. Hence, YOUR error.

And you still ignore my point.

You ignored mine first.

Now buzz off.