Bush's idea of restoring "honor and integrity" to the White House and nation...

Updated: 2:25 p.m. ET Sept. 29, 2005

NEW YORK - Pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released despite government claims that they could damage America’s image, a judge ruled Thursday.

Brutal images of the abuse at the prison have already been widely distributed, but the lawsuit covers additional photos not yet seen by the public.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, had maintained in court papers that releasing the photographs would aid al-Qaida recruitment, weaken the Afghan and Iraqi governments and incite riots against U.S. troops.

Hellerstein said in his 50-page opinion that he respected Myers’ arguments. But he added that his job was “not to defer to our worst fears, but to interpret and apply the law, in this case, the Freedom of Information Act, which advances values important to our society, transparency and accountability in government.”

The ruling was expected to be appealed, which could delay a release for months.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called it historic. “While no one wants to see what’s on the photos or videos, they will play an essential role in holding our government leaders accountable for the torture that’s happened on their watch,” he said.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which argued the case for the government, did not immediately comment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9530938/

As you said:

"The ruling was expected to be appealed, which could delay a release for months."

As much as I can't stand Bush,whatever form of "torture" that was committed against these prisoners probably doesn't even come close to some of the heinous acts they are responsible for.This is more of an affront to Bush than anything else as far as I'm concerned,not that I care. Just call it what it is!

[ September 29, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: eddiecat ]

Excuse me, but the little children being raped in the images are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING! I cannot believe I'm reading ANYONE defending something so horrible, and I would ask that you reconsider your statement, because there is NEVER ANY EXCUSE for brutality against children. EVER. No matter how angry this country was at Osama bin Laden, who was NOT IN IRAQ, or at Saddam Hussein, who had zero to do with 9/11, there is no excuse on God's earth for what happened to those children who are supposedly depicted being tormented and raped. NONE.

This is a very dangerous, horrible ruling. It must be overturned on appeal! Thank God even sensible mainstream Democrats are condemning this ruling. It doesn't surprise me that it comes from an ultraliberal judge (appointed by Clinton) who continually gives money to Democratic causes.

The ACLU should be ashamed of itself for wanting to release these photos. There's nothing new in them or in this whole issue. Their release WILL result in American soldiers being harmed. Hell, 15 people were killed after Newsweek's bogus story on the Koran desecration. This is yet another example of the ACLU being an extremely dangerous organization. Their only desire is to further embarrass Bush. They will claim otherwise, but that's their sole intent. The best thing that can happen to the ACLU would be its total demise.

[ September 29, 2005, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Except, of course, when the kids are still in the womb. Then it's OK, especially since there is so much money involved.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Yes, I am certain that the release of the documents will embarass the US. Yes I am certain they will further inflame the Arab world. Yes I am believe that some soldiers may die because of the reaction to those photos.

The question is not so narrow as this issue. The question is 'What kind of society do we want to be?' Do we want to be open, correct our mistakes, and punish those who do wrong in an open forum before the entire world? Or do we want to sweep everything that might be embarassing to us under some lime and 3 feet of earth as the Nazi's did at Katyne and Auschwitz.

The STRENGTH of our society has always been in our openess to accept criticism and blame, the rule that no one is above the law, and that if we make mistakes (Like the Japanese internment camps in WW2 or the masacre at Wounded Knee) we are ready to accept responsibility and make reparations.

Yes, we will get slammed. I do not want to see a single soldier die. But if we have to die for something, I would rather it be for the consequences of upholding the truth to the world, than for covering it up to save ourselves.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum (Let justice be done though the heavens fall).

If we do not take the moral high ground, then who will? And if we do not, then what happens next time when you are the innocent victim?

As for the comment "It doesn't surprise me that it comes from an ultraliberal judge ... who continually gives money to Democratic causes.

Jeez, well lets just shoot all the opposition we don't agree with; how dare someone donate to 'Democratic Causes'; lets throw that bum right into jail and throw away the key .

Do you mean he should not support organizations "characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality; "democratic government"; "a democratic country"; or representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large; "democratic art forms"; "a democratic or popular movement"; "popular thought"; "popular science"; "popular fiction" "?

Isn't that a little elitist even from you?

Rob

Ed for Sp

[ September 29, 2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

It'll only get better for Bush once he is impeached and he can retire to the ranch. That day can't come too soon for this nation.

By the way, how are your kids doing?
You know, the ones you adopted to keep them from being aborted...
Oh wait, never mind, you just talk the talk.
No action. Carry on.

But somehow it is fine for soldiers to trade pictures of dead Iraqis for on-line access to X-rated pictures(there were a rash of stories on this scandal last week - none of which I can currently link to because of my company's strict firewall, even the worn p*rn in a story prevents me linking to it). The ACLU's desire to expose the full extent of the abuse scandal (which is WAY more than a few fools at one prison) is a threat to soldiers, but the army is not concerned with the fallout from its soldiers gleefully posing with dead and dismembered civilians? That makes no sense at all.

I am also glad to see that you have the psychic insight to understand the motivations of the entire ACLU, never one considering the possibility they may be trying to PROTECT our country and its values by showing the world exactly the immoral incompetents that unfortunately occupy the halls of power right now.

Oh, the arrogance!

(PS, the Newsweek story, although it was wrong in a specific particular, was not wrong about the abuse of the Koran in our Arab prison camps AND was not fingered as the cause of the said riots by the military in charge of the region when they happened).

What results in US soldiers being harmed is that they were sent to war based on a lie. That the Geneva Convention was declared "quaint".

Whatever happened to "tell the truth and shame the devil"?

Bravo Ms D.!!!

R

Well, all I can do is plead ignorance because I never saw any pictures of children being raped.If there actually were then I am sincerely sorry for those remarks and I retract my previous statement.

Who raped children? American soldiers?

What would be the purpose of raping children (if it did indeed happen)?

I'm wondering the same thing.Fanthomas' post was the first I heard of it.

Millerbeach: even on the longshot Bush might be impeached, we have Cheney. How is THAT any better? Then, Hastert? NOT!

These photos should definitly be seen! We have a right to know what these guys are doing in our name. Oh and as for the 15 dead soldiers from that media report last year (or whenever), don't believe the hype. That article came out months before that happened and the only connection to the article was in the minds of the administration. These people lie so much its ridiculous. We need to see how far down these people have taken us.

Eddiecat, About the child rape...Sidney Blumenthal talked of it after viewing the videos and even Rumsfeld told of it (I think his words were "we're talking rape and murder here"), as well as a few other senators during the first cover up. It has to be googleable. Blumenthal said the worst part was hearing the boys screaming as they were being sodomized.

Actually, they're doing quite well, thank you for asking.

Slammed again, Raze.

It was Seymour Hersh who described the rapes. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham also mentioned them, as did Rumsfeld.

From what I've been able to piece together, the children were tormented, and in some cases raped, in the misguided belief that their parents might then give up information. There may also have been the issue of a pedophile or pedophiles among the contractors who had his way with a child or adolescent.


DailyKos: Kids sodomized at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has the photos

Thanks Fantomas, I always get those two confused.

OK - let me get this straight...

You have a guy named 'Gryn', who won't use his own name on his column, quoting another guy named Oliver Willis who says that EdCone.com has some information, that he will 'summarize', about what Seymour Hersch might have said to a 2004 ACLU convention. Then 'Gryn' will transcribe 'some of the more important bits' for you in his BLOG.

And you are upset about what he is purported to have said about some government held tapes.

You are joking right?

That would not even begin to qualify as a tertiary source material at EnquirerUniversity.com.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2004 the ACLU hosted a “Gala Dinner: America at a Crossroads: Journalists and Artists Share Their Perspectives”

Speakers included writer and radio commentator Sandra Tsing Loh, filmmaker John Sayles presented clips from his latest film, and a keynote address was delivered by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. Entertainment was by comedian Greg Proops.

At no point in his speach - which I have viewed in its entirety from the ACLU archive- did Mr Hersch state those comments attributed to him by the above 'sources'. As a matter of fact at the time source cited there was another speaker on the podium - a comedian.

While the video that appears online seems to be genuine, it has been edited. It is also from an unattributed source. Even there I can find no basis or source for the purported quotes.

As a matter of fact I can find no attribution for most of 'Mr Ed Cone's' quotations that he attributes to Mr Hersch and others.

Rob

[ September 30, 2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

As I need not point out, you are no more a "kid" or "child" than a fetus; one ceases to be fetus once one leaves the womb, and one ceases to be a child, at least physiologically, at adolescence.

As you also know, if right-wingers like you weren't so dead set against allowing greater access to comprehensive sexual education in schools, affordable (or free) contraception, and RU-486, there'd be even less need for abortions.

Irrelevant. That doesn't take away from what abortion is: the intentional killing of an innocent baby.

And to remind you, I am far from being a right-winger, and I never said I was "dead set against allowing greater access to comprehensive sexual education in schools, affordable (or free) contraception, and RU-486." You misread that part of the liberal playbook. I will, for the record, say I'm totally against RU-486 for several reasons, not the least of which that it's very damaging to women, something you and others obviously don't care about as long as it kills that annoying, inconvenient baby. frown

[ October 03, 2005, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Oh, so you adopted some kids???

something you and others obviously don't care about as long as it kills that annoying, inconvenient baby Yeah, all prochoice individuals are just annoyed by babies and don't care about life. You keep believing that.

MIB, there are those, like myself, who would not want someone they care about to choose abortion. I would not want my daughter to make that choice, but I do believe that she should be allowed to make that choice. Because of the debate of when does a mass inside a women become a "baby", I believe every woman should be allowed to make that choice for herself. You, as a never-going-to-be-pregnant man, would rather force your choice on everyone. Do you think that highly of yourself?

Would you shoot a gun into a dark room if you at all believed there might be someone in it? Of course not.

When in doubt, I prefer to come down on the side of life. Never mind the fact that this much is irrefutable: the preborn child is fully human, no different from you or me other than size and learned intelligence.

BTW, who's forcing what on whom? yes, it is the woman who is forcing death on her child. How sad that this procedure of lucrative covenience (other than for life-saving reasons, of course) has led us to this culture of death in this country.

Why, yes.

Now you can wipe that huge egg off your embarrassed face.

Please tell us about your children.

It seems the American Taliban hates Harriet Miers. She must be a good woman. Even Rush is upset with the pick. She's got my vote! wink

Please. I don't believe conservatives are really all that upset about her. It's all posturing -- reverse psychology. Do you really think Bush Inc., hasn't had extensive conversations with her? That they know for sure she's ultra-conservative?

Never accept someone because someone else dislikes her. That's just a bad policy.

The other thing that really pisses them off is Shrubs cronyism exhibited here. Pat Buchanan has been besides himself about this. Shrub cares about loyalty far more than he cares about credentials. Remember Brownie?? eek!

[ October 04, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Poll: More say Bush will be seen as unsuccessful
Presidency will be viewed as unsuccessful in the long run, more believe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9688431/

I know this will come as a COMPLETE shock to the intelligent posters on the board...

Bush's idea of honor and integrity...hypocrisy. More Bush propaganda

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Thursday, October 13, 2005

WASHINGTON — It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (search) from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan (search) said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (search) and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth (search), an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172186,00.html eek!

More tripe from the King of Idiots. The level of incompetence by Bush is overwhelming. Good God, this is getting so old, so fast.

[ October 13, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

MSNBC played much of the "teleconference" last night and I can only say that its smarminess made me squirm. I actually felt embarrassed for Bush, it was so clumsy and awkward. He dropped his microphone once and had that nervous laughter thing going on. The end was, likewise, clumsy. Seriously, it was such an amateur hour at the WH that you really have to marvel at how quickly the veneer of this administration has been torn off.

Beyond that, then, was Scott McLellan's insistence that it was not staged, despite the publicly made tape which showed to the contrary. And when challenged, McLellan fell into the usual Republican game of turning the media's reporting of facts into an indictment against the soldiers. "Are you saying that those aren't the words of our men and women, that these aren't their own words?!" McLellan is such a worm.

Then when asked if Harriet Miers had the resolve to withstand the criticism lobbed at her, McLellan tried to turn it into a media attack on her through side issues (even to the point of claiming that the media was the one who has been using her religion in the nomination process when clearly it has been Bush doing that).

[ October 14, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

I've never been more proud of my vote against Bush (in both elections) then I have been lately.

Hmmmm....I also noticed that despite the fact that 38% of our military is made up of minorities, Bush's hand-picked lackeys included 9 white males and 1 white female.

"Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts"

The real tragedy is we still have all these problems, of course brought on by this administration, and we have to wait till someone with some competence comes in to fix everything. We still have a ways more downhill to go till we can start to rebuild. I hope in the end its not too hopeless. Meaning I think we can still salvage things (our reputation, Iraq's unfortunate innocent population, our economy, the real war against Al-Qaeda types, etc) we just have to get these goofballs out before that can happen.

To go along with my feelings things are salvagable and maybe I'm being naive but I don't think Roberts and Meirs are going to be so bad for us (gays) or the rights of women over family planning. I hope.

[ October 14, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing.

There are a few possibilities.
1. Black and Latin soldiers were not trusted enough to include; they might break ranks and say what they really thought or ask about Hurricane Katrina and why they were in Iraq instead of evacuating New Orleans
2. Black and Latin soldiers were considered too dumb to learn their lines quickly
3. Black and Latin soldiers were sought but had too much integrity...

Ms de Blazer, If you know any Black or Latino people you'd know its the third option. I'm sure you know this.