home

Retired Gen. Taguda: Detainee Photos Show Rape and Torture

Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba (remember the Taguda report on Abu Ghraib?) told the British press he agrees with President Obama that the photos of Iraqi detainees should not be released:

A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Barack Obama's administration does not want released.

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

The Telegraph article is here. Among the graphic images: [More...]

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others are said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

What's a "truncheon"? A police officer's billy club or night stick.

< Sara Jane Moore, Now 80, on Her Freedom | FBI to Get Bigger Role in War on Terror >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'd wonder (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    where these sadists are now, but they're everywhere - it wasn't just the rapists, but Cheney and Bush and Yoo and Bybee etc...

    We need a truth commission because this is disgusting.  If this happened to our folks we would be enraged.

    Well, one of the sadists is about to become (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    Obama's Main Man in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Obama lied to protect torture organizers (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Andreas on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    On May 15, 2009, the WSWS wrote:

    He began by insisting that the images in question "are not particularly sensational." If this is true, it begs the question of why the government refuses to release them, purportedly for fear that they would provoke attacks on US troops.

    On this score, Obama is lying. It should be recalled that after the exposure of the Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, the Pentagon managed to suppress other images, which were described by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as depicting acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was more explicit about these photos and videos. "We're talking about rape and murder--and some very serious charges," he reported at the time. ...

    Obama further claimed that the photos would not add "to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

    Here the Democratic president embraces the contemptible claim by the Bush White House that the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was merely the work of a few "bad apples," a handful of soldiers who have been jailed, cashiered or otherwise punished. This alibi has been thoroughly discredited by the Justice Department memos released last month, which gave pseudo-legal justifications for precisely the abhorrent abuse seen at Abu Ghraib. Senate investigations have also established that these acts of torture were discussed and approved by the top officials in the Bush administration.

    Finally, Obama warned that the release of the images would "inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger." This concern only makes sense given the Obama administration's refusal to seriously investigate--much less criminally prosecute--torture and other war crimes carried out under Bush. Thus, instead of being seen as evidence in holding the guilty accountable and making a decisive break with their criminal policies, the photos represent more proof that those responsible--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and others--enjoy impunity, and that the new administration is covering up for torture.

    Obama on torture photos: cover-up and complicity
    Bill Van Auken, 15 May 2009

    Yeah, Obama seems to have crossed a big black line (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by david mizner on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    lying to conceal evidence of war crimes.

    This is a big deal, people.

    Parent

    Is there a trial underway that we haven't (2.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    heard about? Hope, hope, hope.

    Parent
    He'll have plausible deniability--he never saw the (none / 0) (#80)
    by jawbone on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:37:00 PM EST
    photos, just heard them described and wasn't told everything....

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Parent

    I think if Obama told the truth (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    and dealt with the truth about previously sanctioned military torture it would endanger his plans to use General McChrystal's talents in Obama's war.  He can say this is about protecting our troops all he wants but he's saying that as a politician.......not as a General.  I think that Taguba's principle that he fears further outraging the Muslim world is sincere, because that's how commanders think always think about all this type of stuff.  They win every war whether it is conventional or for hearts and minds on the ground one battle at a time.  When Obama gives the standard stock "General" answer though to policy lawlessness......I'm sorry, he is not sincere therefore in my book he's LYING.  He doesn't have enough experience and enough soldier deaths on his hands to mean this at this point, and he has no life experience in the military either to back up this reasoning in any sincere sort of way.  He's saying this purely for political reasons and that's to protect those, who handed down the past military torture, that he wants to use in his present administration!

    Parent
    And thinking about Obama (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    circling the wagons to make sure McChrystal gets the post makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

    I so wanted to feel bad about not voting the top of the ticket last November.  I so wanted people to give me a hard time about not being able to believe in Obama and his message, because he had demonstrated by his actions that he was more than just words.  I so did not want to be feeling a whole lot of "we tried to tell you and you wouldn't listen and here we are."

    But here we are.

    Parent

    Only purpose for photos a legal one, per Taguba-- (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jawbone on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:46:19 PM EST
    "I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," Gen Taguba said.

    That's the money quote, for me. If they come out it should be for prosecutions. Game, set, match.


    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Mikeb302000 on Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:37:27 AM EST
    if he lied to protect. I'm not too impressed with the way Obama is handling this mess. But, I hope he ends up doing the right thing, whatever that is.

    My best bet is to blow it wide open. Indict a cross section of those involved from the actual perpetrators to the CIC himself. Then let the prosecutors decide what pictures get released. They'd be treated like any other evidence.

    In that scenario, we could get fantastic mileage out of cleaning up our image in the global perception.


    Parent

    Obama lied to protect torture organizers (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Andreas on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    On May 15, 2009, the WSWS wrote:

    He began by insisting that the images in question "are not particularly sensational." If this is true, it begs the question of why the government refuses to release them, purportedly for fear that they would provoke attacks on US troops.

    On this score, Obama is lying. It should be recalled that after the exposure of the Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, the Pentagon managed to suppress other images, which were described by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as depicting acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was more explicit about these photos and videos. "We're talking about rape and murder--and some very serious charges," he reported at the time. ...

    Obama further claimed that the photos would not add "to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

    Here the Democratic president embraces the contemptible claim by the Bush White House that the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was merely the work of a few "bad apples," a handful of soldiers who have been jailed, cashiered or otherwise punished. This alibi has been thoroughly discredited by the Justice Department memos released last month, which gave pseudo-legal justifications for precisely the abhorrent abuse seen at Abu Ghraib. Senate investigations have also established that these acts of torture were discussed and approved by the top officials in the Bush administration.

    Finally, Obama warned that the release of the images would "inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger." This concern only makes sense given the Obama administration's refusal to seriously investigate--much less criminally prosecute--torture and other war crimes carried out under Bush. Thus, instead of being seen as evidence in holding the guilty accountable and making a decisive break with their criminal policies, the photos represent more proof that those responsible--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and others--enjoy impunity, and that the new administration is covering up for torture.

    Obama on torture photos: cover-up and complicity
    Bill Van Auken, 15 May 2009

    Don't worry folks (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Robert Gibbs denied the report (so see, it's all right!) and then slammed the British press:

    "I want to speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media," Gibbs said. "In some ways, I'm surprised it filtered down."

    "Let's just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I'd might open up a British newspaper," he continued. "If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be the first pack of clips I'd pick up."

    I think that's called a "diversionary tactic"

    Is he also calling the Gen a liar? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:04:38 PM EST
    I would think that if Taguba was (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    going to defile his honor as a military officer and start lying, he would have chosen to do so at a much more ass covering opportune time.  Like during the investigating and the writing of the Taguba Report.  But what do I know?

    Parent
    I have started to think (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    our only hope is people like him and others who are "tortured" by conscience.

    yesterday I was reading that Fredo was in butt covering mode.  trying to disassociate himself with the torture memos.  

    I think that in the end it they will eat themselves from the inside out.

    Parent

    Twenty years from now when we have to (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    eat all the bitter despair that torture bought us and brought us.......within the military Taguba will be held up as a standard of what an officer is supposed to be AGAIN!  Because everybody always eventually forgets and has be reminded.....usually via shame and despair!  Maybe on PBS too if we get lucky.  He'll be about ready to take a dirt nap but he will prevail.  Today he gets to be ignored, suspected, and a liar.  If there's any truth to the rumor that Obama shows blantant favoritism to people who could be considered ethnically a minority in America.....he's really effing failing Taguba.

    Parent
    It became an on-going tactic (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    by the Obama campaign and it seems those who join the administration learn the tactic very quickly.


    Parent
    wtf? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    that is just unbelievable.  who do these people think they are?  personally, if want the truth, that is the truth you wont find in american publications, I usually go to the british press.

    Parent
    It's what (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    comes from not being held accountable. This is the result.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    sometimes the Canadian press.

    Parent
    all I can say (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    is they damn well better come up with a better response than that.

    Parent
    From some of the descriptions we've heard (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    I'm beginning to think the only people who should see these photos are jurors...

    I also find it interesting that at least in the quote from above the White House didn't question the motives of the retired general...

    if indeed he did not mention the general then I think the White House silence speaks volumes...

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    forgot the inflame the world stuff- releasing photo's of sex crimes (especially stuff that goes beyond the already released images) seems to cross a victim rights line- if the individuals involved were actually punished, I think releasing the photo's could actually serve to further the victimize their subjects.

    Parent
    Fine. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:40:36 PM EST
    Black out the faces of the innocent but show the offender.

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    ...it reminds me of the time Tucker Carlson was berating the British reporter who refused to leave something an Obama campaign member said "off the record," saying that wasn't the British journalistic convention. Carlson launched into a snide commentary about the perfidy and crappiness of Brit journalism that left the reporter stunned. Who the heck do these guys think they are??

    Meanwhile if I want to read anything substantive about our foreign policy, British (and other foreign) press is a necessity and has been for 10 years.

    Yep, they're lying. To cover up crimes. Isn't that nice?

    I hate to back Tucker (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    but UK Journalism also has some serious drawbacks- its weak libel laws, and far more polarized partisanship make it really hard to find a unbiased view.

    Parent
    How do UK libel laws differ from US? (none / 0) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:44:26 PM EST
    Sincere question. Also, what is your basis for saying the UK press is more "partisan" than the US press?

    Parent
    Quite. (none / 0) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:13:39 PM EST
    The Telegraph is not exactly what I would call a reliable, unbiased news source.  Unless I was a card carrying member of the Red State Strike Force crowd.  

    Parent
    unless he has tape (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    of taguba saying that the photos depict rape, who are we to believe?

    More importantly, why do reporters suck so much?

    "Mr. Gibbs.  We all know that the telegraph is suspect, especially since we all work for competitors.  Are you on record than to state that there are no photos depicting rape or sexual abuse, as that would seem to be in direct contrast with the Presidents statement that there was nothing sensational about them"

    Reporters suck and politicians lie and we act as if it is new.......

    one of the photos (none / 0) (#75)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    One of the photos in a story linked by cbsnews 1 or 2 weeks ago, has what was called "an unidentified white substance" in and on the mouth of a detainee.

    However, if you have seen a few porn sites, you would know that the substance makes us look quite bad as moral guardians for the world!  The man had been orally raped or sexually assaulted and the results photographed, and this is simply one of the photos.

    I am finding it difficult to find the photo on the web at this time.  It appears that a number of links to it have been taken down.

    Parent

    here it is (none / 0) (#76)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    here is the link

    take a look.  If necessary, save the photo to you computer and zoom in.  Not saliva here!

    Parent

    trying again (none / 0) (#77)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    here

    not sure if this will show up.

    Parent

    trying again, again (none / 0) (#79)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    here

    try this

    to see

    Parent

    "the ONLY protectors..." (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dadler on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    "....of our foreign policy?"  What the phuck is he talking about.  We are supposedly a democracy which means WE THE PEOPLE are the essential protectors of all policy, foreign or not.

    It seems the general does not have the balls to live in a free country.  Or the brains.

    Hide it and hide it and hide it, heaven forbid we should simply stand up and show the world we can hold ourselves accountable.

    Day by day, Obama is turning into a bigger coward than I could've ever imagined.  But, as he bragged to Newsweek, he's got this really neat movie theatre in "his" house, so he can entertain himself into more denial. And btw, it ain't YOUR house, acehole, it's the people's house.

    yeah (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    it sure was cowardly to nominate a Judge he'd have to fight for, to remove the global gag rule (a move with little popularity), and other things, seriously, the hyperbole is hilarious I'm starting to think that some peopel actually think the way Bush governed was normal- newsflash- in a functioning Democracy the President can only do so much, congress has to do a lot as well.

    Parent
    I think I missed something... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by vml68 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    which Judge did Obama nominate that he would REALLY have to fight for?

    Parent
    You beat me to it! (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    He actually nominated a judge he'd be least likely to have to fight for.....another one of his "safe" moves.

    Parent
    Advisers calculated . . (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    . . she would be the savviest move for the President to avoid an all-out battle over his Court nominee, according to sources close to the process.

    Parent
    I guess (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    if Republicans do anything but roll over, that means Obama had to fight ;-).

    Parent
    the politics of personality... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Dadler on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    ...are what obama is "good" at, which includes nominating individuals.  meaning, yes, they may require a fight, but in the end they are merely individuals up for single jobs.  in the area of fighting for tough policy choices, in the area of fighting the right wing, he is pitiful.  obama is not a bad guy, certainly better than bush, but he is not at all a tough, fighting politician who is doing what is best for the people of this nation.  on the financial crisis and health care, for example, two huge issues for the average american, he is being cowardly to the core and choosing to side with wall street crooks and health care ceo's.  

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    I've tried to state this earlier in the thread but I may have been a bit inflamed:

    As far as the rape photos go- are we sure that releasing them wouldn't endanger the victim given the treatment of rape victims in some Muslim countries (such as Iraq's neighbor and US "ally" Saudi Arabia- where the victim of a gang rape was recently sentenced to be lashed)?

    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    And that's a consideration, but the point is Obama stood up there and said these were not as bad the ones from Abu Grahib, but he still wouldn't release them.  So the question is, (besides why did Obama lie, or does he not think these are worse than someone wearing a dog collar) - what has been done to the perpetrators of these alleged crimes?  Have they answered for it, and if so, why haven't we heard about it.

    This smacks of a cover up.

    Parent

    Yes, I would like to see the names (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    of everyone and what punishment they received. Since we've read enough about what the photos contain/reports/etc, I think it might be fairly easy for us to see if the punishment fit the crimes.

    Parent
    What punishment fits though (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    I mean honestly I think Green got off easy with Life w/o parole, and most of the AG offenders recieved less than a decade- again far easier than I would argue they should have gotten.

    Parent
    In fairness (none / 0) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    The already released photos due have one set of pictures arguably worse than these: the guy whose nude, and has been beaten to death with various MPs posing around him like a freshly killed buck.

    Parent
    "... other than a legal one" (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by lambert on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    My favorite part. If the troops aren't fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law, what are they fighting for? Will General Smedley Butler please pick up the white courtesy phone?

    Since when (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    are soldiers supposed to be "protectors of our foreign policy"?

    This is a crazy house.

    Taguba (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nellieh on Fri May 29, 2009 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    This is the guy who should lead the investigation, if there ever is one, into torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baggram, the black sites and everywhere else torture took place. The black sites should implicate any American just standing and watching, Taguba was forced to retire because he did a thorough job before as far as he could go. He couldn't query anyone above his rank. That includes Cheney and Bush and others in the Pentagon, WH, DOJ or in Iraq or Afghanistan. If he had subpeona power he could solve the indictment problem!

    Like it or not (none / 0) (#1)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    when you vote for war this is part of what you vote for.

    It's not all "surgical" and antiseptic and brought to you by the good hands people.

    Jeralyn - your post title misspells (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    General Taguba's name - you inadvertently typed "Taguda" instead of "Taguba."

    I fail (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    to see how the pictures trickling out is any better than just releasing them all at once. It seems to me that this could be worse.

    like a frog (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    placed in cold water and heated to boiling.
    unfortunately I think we would sit there and cook if it is done gradually.

    probably Obama agrees with me which is why he is letting it happen this way.

    as I said in the previous thread images of rape will set of a firestorm.  it is true that a picture is worth a thousand words.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    I'm not entirely sure but I believe releasing images of rape could be both a crime in and of itself, and more solidly would endanger the victims (remember that in Iraq and other Muslim cultures misappropraition of the Koran has led to the victims of rape being punished more severely than its perpetrators- given the relative scarcity of women imprisoned in AG and the possible ramifications of releasing a rape photo even with the ID obscured- couldn't release lead directly to the death of the victim or women believed to be the victim?)

    Parent
    But they can't give that reason and still (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    stick to their story that it didn't happen, or that there are no pictures of it, can they?

    I forget - is this the bamboozle or the okey-doke?

    Parent

    The Pentagon - Wall St (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    complex vs the information age: a p.r man's nightmare.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    considering that Gibbs just denied it all I wouldn't say that he's letting "it happen". I think it's moved beyond his control. And I guess he lied when he said that it would "harm the troops" if he actually is playing the 11 dimensional chess you are proposing.

    Parent
    lied? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    say it aint so.

    that "denial" wont last one news cycle is there is any independent press left in this country.


    Parent

    Independent press? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    I think that died long ago. I'm with you. I don't think much is going to happen until the pictures get splayed all over the cable networks.

    Parent
    sad (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    and rather depressing thing to admit.  that.

    Parent
    Perhaps this will inspire some indie press (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    to start happening?

    Parent
    I see another (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    of Olbermans obnoxious opportunistic special comments on the horizon.
    oh well.  I guess we should be grateful.  at least he will talk about it.


    Parent
    Obama also (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    took up the "just a few bad apples" line in his comments, as well.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    well, he's earning his Bushma nickname doing things like that.

    Parent
    Are you saying Bushama? (none / 0) (#73)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:46:49 PM EST
    Maybe you're (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:07:53 PM EST
    right. I thought it was Bushma but your's makes more sense.

    Parent
    I think the pronunciation is: Bush-ama, FWIW... (none / 0) (#87)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    Too much outrage (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    and too many of the same old torture questions failing the "bad apples" answer puts McChrystal's Senate conformation in jeopardy.

    Parent
    Those Gibbs comments are weird. (none / 0) (#19)
    by rghojai on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    Does he think people will buy this, that they'll think, "Oh, okay; British newspapers are crap?"

    As someone above noted, what's his contention, that the paper either made up the interview with Taguba, made up quotes or distorted what he said?

    I could live with the thoughts if this was something in The Sun, with everything attributed to "sources," but this ain't that.

    As much as anything, I'm displeased with Gibbs for being dumb and for insulting the intelligence of anyone with a clue.

    And (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    what if Taguba goes on the tee-vee.....then what will Gibbs say...

    Press secretaries take classes in pathological lying.  It's part of their charm. LOL.  I honestly don't know why we bother having them.  Have they ever given real information?

    Parent

    the hubris (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    is simply stunning.

    Parent
    But not (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    surprising

    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    I find it a little surprising.
    it is so transparent and stupid.  so easily debunked.  such a vapid comment generally.

    a little surprising.  they have been better at this stuff before this I think.

    surely if they knew this they knew they would have to have a better response than this.  surely.

    but maybe other commenter is right.  this is the result of never being accountable for anything.

    I see chickens coming home to roost.

    Parent

    Not releasing the photos ... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    makes it seem like you're condoning covering up the acts.

    And then claiming the photos are just too awful to release, but they're not as awful as British newspapers say, is just such an odd argument I can't even track it.

    Parent

    {headdesk} (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    I'm also surprised (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    Which part of the article was supposed to be a lie if we believe Gibbs?

    I mean, really, we SAW the other photos, why would we suddenly need to not believe a Gen saying the remaining photos are far too disturbing? Obama saw the photos right? When this totally blows up, he has nothing to fall back on.

    Parent

    And imagine the Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    administration, when the photos are finally released, and they will be, trying to argue that a photo which appears to show a rape isn't a photo of a rape.

    That's a moment of television I'm not looking forward to.

    Parent

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    I get it now! Taguba is talking about DIFFERENT photos!

    "I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

    It was not exactly clear what photos Taguba was referring to.

    A U.S. military official in Baghdad, however, said "the photos referred to are ones that Taguba is not aware of." The official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because he was not authorized to release the information.

    The military is referring all questions on the matter to Washington. The Obama administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.



    Parent
    Oh, I get it ... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    Taguba was referring to the photos showing really, really bad stuff.

    But not the photos showing really, really, REALLY bad stuff.

    And this is all based on a unsanctioned denial.

    You rarely see satire this funny.

    Parent

    you cant make it up (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:53:51 PM EST
    thats for sure.  a siomilar screen play would be laughed at as unbelievable.


    Parent
    They're making me question my sanity (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    it's a trick to keep us from questioning their's . . .

    Parent
    Then how could the photos be backed up (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    by his report, if he is unaware of their existence? Maybe he didn't view them, but he knows what they contain at least? We wouldn't be having this photo flap if "the photos referred to are ones that Taguba is not aware of." right?

    Parent
    I think it simply means ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    that Taguba is not aware of photos showing rape.

    But that's based on an anonymous, unsanctioned denial from military official in Baghdad who spoke on the "condition of anonymity Thursday because he was not authorized to release the information."

    In short, the official is denying something he's not been authorized to deny.

    Parent

    I thought in the reports (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    they stated when they were taking pictures. That was one of the things that got me. They did this sh!t and keep detailed records.
    In short, the official is denying something he's not been authorized to deny.

    and tossing it back to Washington.

    Parent

    Maybe, he can claim that (none / 0) (#38)
    by vml68 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    he did not see ALL the photos...kinda like not being present during J Wright's more "interesting" sermons.... :-)!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    I need a drink. Hope he has his teleprompter fired up.

    Parent
    Ari Gibbs? (none / 0) (#67)
    by lambert on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    Why does anybody listen to him?

    It almost seems as if (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:32:10 PM EST
    President Obama is intimidated by the military brass.