AbuMubarak,

It would seem the military complex has become the bureaucracy of a highest order.  Self perpetuating and a business were people die for their wares.

Al-Qaaida is bigger now and stronger than ever.  The Taliban are bigger now and stronger than ever. The Shabaab in Somalia are bigger now and stronger than ever.

Interesting how we have spent billions of dollars in the “War on Terror” have resulted in these groups getting larger and stronger.  They don’t even fear the American military. 

If anything, the American military attracts them, like flies to ...........

Methinks we need to regroup.  Maybe even get a refund from the neo-cons.  Where is Paul Brenner and the $8billion he “lost”?

Leefeller,—“Well now we are getting someplace, three people not everyone believed Iraq was a threat to the world! Bush, Clinton and you!”

—-

You could go on believing that or you could take 30 minutes out of your day and try what I’ve suggested…..LOL

Obviously dialog is not what you’re seeking. Good luck to you.

Well now we are getting someplace, three people not everyone believed Iraq was a threat to the world! Bush, Clinton and you!

What of torture, and Bush condoning it as saving the world?

Leefeller,—“If one wants to believe Bush went into Iraq because Clinton said”

—-

I’m sorry but I am unable to follow your line of thinking here. I have never suggested that Bush “went into Iraq because Clinton said” anything.

What I did say, without ambiguity, is that both men believed in the dangers that was Saddam Hussein. It seems obvious the two U.S. Presidents followed two different paths toward the same goal of removing Hussein from power.

If one wants to believe Bush went into Iraq because Clinton said so,—- fine! What of Bush defending torture as this article is titled?  Blame that on Clinton also? 

Bush and Chaney claim torture saved us from another attack and made our country safer, and I have a bridge for sale. 

If the world was not safe with Iraq the way it was, we now should feel so relieved to see the fine results of unknown numbers of Iraq dead and 4000 plus US troops dead and many more wounded. Just around the corner sweet Victory, ever so worth while. 

Of course everyone was for the war, just everyone, like everyone was for being in Vietnam another great waste of lives and money.  Bush the Vietnam evader just did what Clinton told him, so now he worked for Clinton?  Accountability in politics is pointing fingers, most call it blame.

If one wants to believe Bush went into Iraq because Clinton said so,—- fine! What of Bush defending torture as this article is titled?  Blame that on Clinton also? 

Bush and Chaney claim torture saved us from another attack and made our country safer, and I have a bridge for sale. 

If the world was not safe with Iraq the way it was, we now should feel so relieved to see the fine results of unknown numbers of Iraq dead and 4000 plus US troops dead and many more wounded. Just around the corner sweet Victory, ever so worth while. 

Of course everyone was for the war, just everyone, like everyone was for being in Vietnam another great waste of lives and money.  Bush just did what Clinton told him, so now he worked for Clinton.  Accountability in politics is pointing fingers, most call it blame.

Leefeller,

Here’s a thought. Instead of me explaining what I meant by “all” let’s do this another way. You give me the names of 25 U.S. Senators, Congressmen, or Presidents, and I will show you what they had to say prior to 2001 in regards to Saddam Hussein, banned weapons, and links to terrorism.

Give me the names of 50 world leaders and I’ll deliver the same.

Take me up on this and I’ll deliver the variable quotes, the dates, and to the best of my ability, where their respective statements were made.

—-

Again, the subject is who claimed WMD and terrorism in and from Iraq prior to 2001.

Leefeller,

You, not unlike others ardee), desperately attempt to change the subject.

Again I will say it so you may not twist my point.

You can neither pretend away nor ignore all the warnings and the words of President Clinton on the subject of Iraq’s WMD and links to terrorism prior to 2001. “All roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad.—Bill Clinton 1997

It is impossible to argue that two U.S. Presidents, hundreds of House Members, over 100 Senators, three CIA Directors, four National Security Advisers, three Secretaries of State, two Vice Presidents - along with over 100 global intelligence agencies all saying the exact same things, but BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!

Using the military in full force to remove Hussein was 100% Bush. Not Clinton. Bush. Not Clinton. Bush. Not Clinton.

It was Bush that decided to use the full force of the military, however, that is not the subject. The subject is in regards to the lies.

—-

I can show you hundreds of news articles and intelligence products that addressed these issue prior to 2001.

I can show you hundreds of news articles regarding the opposition party, at the time Republicans, claiming that Clinton was lying about the dangers from Hussein.

I can show you hundreds of news articles of Democrats, all before 2001, claiming Saddam Hussein was continuing his banned weapons programs and had, what they all called, “clear links to international terrorism.

What can you show me? The very same people above now claiming Bush lied?

It’s an impossible argument. That is my only point.

“direct threat to the United States”  Who do you mean by everyone? 

You placed yourself in the neoconservative ball park not I.  For some reason I find it amusing finding Chaney and Bush asking to be updated by Clinton on anything, except maybe that woman’s phone number.

Since Iraq had nothing to do with 911, what was the connection?  Clinton told them to do it?  Sure Clintion may have told them to keep an eye on Iraq, did he direct them to attack, of course not until after 911?

Your connection to Clinton seems more like smoke and mirrors than reason.

“My point is singular. Everyone believed Iraq held banned weapons, supported international terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States many years before Bush entered office. It was only after no WMD was found that we began witnessing the suggestion that Bush lied”.

Using the word everyone, direct threat to the US? One must be a simpleton to believe Bush did not push for the attack, even when told by some he should not have.  Everyone did not believe, unless you are everyone.

Iraq and the 911 connection was and is a lie! It is also a stretch or lie to say we have not been attacked because of the good healthy use of torture.

Leefeller,—“So we are supposed to believe the Iraq war was completely a Clinton idea, and everything Bush did was because of Clinton’s suggestion.”

—-

I wrote nothing of the kind. Far from it.

My point is singular. Everyone believed Iraq held banned weapons, supported international terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States many years before Bush entered office. It was only after no WMD was found that we began witnessing the suggestion that Bush lied.

—-

The decision to use full military might to topple Hussein was 100% Bush, BUT that was not when U.S. policy changed from “containment” to regime change. That policy was put into place in 1998 by President Clinton and the overwhelming majority of the Congress with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. And their collective reasons in 1998? Reasons that had nothing to do with then Gov. Bush? Banned weapons and links to terrorism (anyone can read the Iraq Liberation Act for themselves).

—-

I will say it again and again. Some people love to claim that almost the entire world spoke openly about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, banned weapons and terrorism. But yet they still hold on to the odd notion that it was only Bush and Co. that lied about all these things.

It’s an impossible argument.

—-

I supported President Clinton against Saddam Hussein. I supported President Bush against the same. But, today, I’m judged as a Bush loving Neo-Con. So narrow is the point of view of others.

—-

I will repeat myself. Two main groups suggested President Clinton was lying about Iraq in the 90’s. Republicans, suggesting Clinton felt a need to distract form his “Monika problems”, and anti-war protesters, who’s arguments at the time were almost identical to the objections we see today.

Look it up for yourself! “Clinton+Iraq”. “Clinton+Saddam Hussein”. Clinton+Saddam+terrorism”. Clinton+antiwar protesters”. Google everything prior to the year 2001.

So we are supposed to believe the Iraq war was completely a Clinton idea, and everything Bush did was because of Clinton’s suggestion, warning, caution and the very special insight Bush perceived from the only novel he had read since avoiding Vietnam when he read “Lady Chatterley’s Lovers”——“My Pet Goat”?

So Clintion was bending Bush’s ear like God and told Bush to attack Iraq!

Now did Clintion also tell Bush to use torture, made up the weapons of mass distraction.  Accountability is usually point fingers so Clinton did it, responsibility is always directed at someone else. Instead of the devil made me do it, we have Clinton made me do it!

Let’s see, Blame Clinton if not him someone else, seems only a diversion and has nothing to do with torture.  Do some folks get paid by the one-book Bush Library to make up and divert topics with this crap,

Chaney is on TV every day defending his torture policies, which were not torture? But we were never attacked again because now of the not torture.

Some people seem content with fantasy stories, so why not believe in Chaney’s.

ardee,

Put simply; you and others predicate your entire judgment of the past 8+ years as if the history of Saddam Hussein, WMD, and terrorism began in the year 2001 - When the Bush Administration took office. You insist that any talk of the prior eight years is some Neo-Con plot of some odd kind.

—-

You can neither pretend away nor ignore all the warnings and the words of President Clinton on the subject of Iraq’s WMD and links to terrorism prior to 2001. “All roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad.—Bill Clinton 1997

It is impossible to argue that two U.S. Presidents, hundreds of House Members, over 100 Senators, three CIA Directors, four National Security Advisers, three Secretaries of State, two Vice Presidents - along with over 100 global intelligence agencies all saying the exact same thing, but you scream BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!

It’s an impossible argument. Yet you base your entire world view on it. Add to that how you and others are quickly angered at the mere mention of President Clinton and the entire U.S. Congress before 2000. You conjure up images of mythical evil Neo-Cons.

—-

You learn that President Clinton said exactly the same as President Bush in regards to Saddam Hussein but, Bush lied! You learn that Al Gore said exactly the same things yet, Bush lied! You learn that Nancy Pelosi said exactly the same things but, Bush lied! You learn that almost the entire U.S. Congress made all the same claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein years before Bush entered office but, BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED!

Forget the 16 U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq’s WMD prior to the Bush administration. Forget that 140 nation’s respective intelligence agencies were reporting on Iraq’s banned weapons and links to terrorism. Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush lied!

Yes, ardee, it’s not you who’s obsessed with all things Bush. It’s not you who carefully chooses your information. You’re not the one rewriting history to meet your needs.

—-

P.S. There were two groups of people who claimed President Clinton was lying about Iraq during his years in office. The Republicans and anti-war protesters.

I will make this my last comment to a poster,AFriend, May 31 at 4:20 pm # , increasingly proving himself childishly dishonest.

Listen kid, you claimed to be not supporting Bush, but that is all you have ever done here and elsewhere. I cut and pasted several proofs of that simple fact and you are caught red handed.

You may post responses til youre blue in the face but you are on the shelf as a complete waste of my time. You cannot post without lies and deception, you are ,in fact, one of the weakest links here.

ardee,

“It took me a while to understand that you believe my interest is in defending the Bush administration.”

“The Bush administration did not, as you attempted to claim, lie to the Congress on Iraq’s banned weapons. “

”Your finally beginning to realize that those lies had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Bush administration.”

“Now you can no longer write that the Bush administration duped the entire 107th - 109th Congress into believing Iraq held banned weapons”
—-

So you cherry pick pieces of information that support your arguments and omit everything else? How very “Bush” of you…..LOL…you damned Neo-Con.

NotAFriend:

“It took me a while to understand that you believe my interest is in defending the Bush administration.”

“The Bush administration did not, as you attempted to claim, lie to the Congress on Iraq’s banned weapons. “

.” Your finally beginning to realize that those “lies” had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Bush administration.”

“Now you can no longer write that the Bush administration duped the entire 107th - 109th Congress into believing Iraq held banned weapons”
...

No of course you do not seek to defend the Bush administration, whatever was I thinking? You are either more than a bit confused, or a clumsy prevaricator…My vote is for the latter….

Defending ones actions as Bush is here, in this case the use of torture, which was not really torture; but enhanced interrogation, supported by lies which were not really lies but; enhanced fairy tails.

If one wants to support the idea, the Iraq war was not Bush/Cheny’s idea and blame it on Clinton, so be it, blame is a game. 

what does this have to do with torture? 

A game of pointing fingers, so let’s blame torture on 911, the Talaban, Congress and the sand man, for accountability is off the table, as are integrity truth and reality.

ardee,

I must apologies. It took me a while to understand that you believe my interest is in defending the Bush administration. Now I understand why you keep twisting every point I make into something never intended.

If you could think larger, beyond your laser like focus on all things Bush, past your desire for revenge, you may actually see what I have been writing.

ardee,

You’re still attempting to change the subject. I have not written a single word on the effects of these so-called “lies”.

I have written only on the subject of who lied. And it’s finally getting through to you. The Bush administration did not, as you attempted to claim, lie to the Congress on Iraq’s banned weapons. The Congress clearly already believed. And the Congress believed in Iraq’s banned weapons many years BEFORE Bush entered office.

You’re finally beginning to understand that for almost a decade the U.S. President claimed Iraq held weapons banned to it by the United Nations. You’re finally beginning to realize how almost the entire U.S. Congress read the very same intelligence and came to the same conclusions as President Clinton and his National Security team did. Your finally beginning to realize that those “lies” had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Bush administration.

You simply can’t have it both ways, ardee. You can’t be so lazy in arguing actual history.

Your decade long mantra, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied is, well, unhinged from demonstrable history.

Context is everything.

AFriend, May 31 at 7:24 am #

ardee,

Now you’re starting to understand how it’s impossible to argue that two U.S. presidents, saying the exact same things, over the span of a decade, but only one of them lied. Now you’re finally realizing that you must include president Clinton and his entire national security team in these, so-called, lies.

..............

Do you honestly believe this stuff you post? It is hard for me to comprehend how such a mind as yours works, or how you can believe such clumsy efforts to obfuscate or exonerate Bush/Cheney from investigation, prosecution and ,hopefully, conviction will work on anyone. That Clintons lies resulted in few deaths, no invasions, no war profiteering and that , in contrast the lies of Bush and Cheney resulted in many deaths, invasion and much profiteering. A child might note the difference…I suggest you ask one to assist you.

I have, I believe, made my position crystal clear, I suspect that you care not for legality, clarity or anything less wretched than defending a neocon, crook ,liar and criminal.

I understood from the first that no amount of logic or rationality would sway you, but I think the garbage you spread needs exposure to the light of reason. I have done so to the best of my ability and now you can talk to yourself on this topic.

How many here do you think you persuaded? How many folks defend Clinton? How many think your mention of Clinton is less than a distraction? Most understand, I believe, that prosecution of the criminal elements in the Bush administration is a remote possibility, but one that needs to be loudly proclaimed.

ardee,

Now you’re starting to understand how it’s impossible to argue that two U.S. presidents, saying the exact same things, over the span of a decade, but only one of them lied. Now you’re finally realizing that you must include president Clinton and his entire national security team in these, so-called, lies.

As much as you attempt to change the subject that has always been my point.

Now you can no longer write that the Bush administration duped the entire 107th - 109th Congress into believing Iraq held banned weapons. The Congress already believed in this context several years before Bush took office. Clearly you have been wrong in your thinking.

I understand it will take you some time to catch up. It will take some time to wrap your mind around this new and unquestionable reality. You can now apply what you’ve just learned after being wrong for almost a decade.

Context is everything.

Now if you would take the time to read every United Nations resolutions during the Clinton years concerning Iraq’s banned weapons and ties to international terrorism. How almost the entire U.N. Security Counsel also “lied”.

Before long you’ll be writing how it was only Saddam Hussein who was telling the truth.

Context.

If Bush ever were brought to trial for the crimes he committed, all he’d have to do is plead not guilty by reason of insanity (or is it inanity?) and he’d be acquitted.

If I were on the jury I’d be FORCED to conclude he’s insane.  He’s phuggin’ nutz!

If one is looking for righteousness in war, the man mad causes and retaliations back and forth until one side is left may be the closest thing to victory.

If one ignores reality, made up causes are no different than real ones. It seems Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with 911. So why would torture matter as part of the happening of killing?
For reality in truth has no reason in the discussion of war, nevertheless the degrees of atrociousness?

Supporting the troops is one thing, supporting a stupid unneeded war is another.  Like the people of Germany before the invasion of other sovereign nations, people were told many reasons for attacking, in the case of the good old USA, one need only look at Vietnam, Iraq and others senseless wars. 

Instilling support by the people to go into a war has little to do with truth.  Demonize the alleged enemy any why possible, so it becomes just a matter of kill or be killed.

As people fret about the atrocious behavior done to the alleged enemies, seems it may only be worse than death in the minds of some, for the death of hundreds of thousands seem to be ignored? 

In Vietnam we had something like 55 thousand United States dead,  from Iraq we have 4 thousand plus I suppose, but many more wounded. What does it all mean? Nothing! For the people making the decisions do not care. 

Simperfied!

USMC

Would you be so kind, as to tell te court, what justification you had invading a sovereign country? Whatsoever did you invading that country had to do with Sept 11? What freedoms of Americans yu were fighting for?

And lastly, if China were to invade the USA, stating they wanted “regime change”, would you not shoot at their soldiers just as you were shot at?

USMC SAM, May 30 at 12:37 pm #

“I have heard much more “kill muslims” from Americans than I have ever heard “kill Americans” from muslims.”
.................................

Nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong….

Of course one might think to see such actions from a people who have been invaded and slaughtered. How many of those children you note have relatives or friends who were murdered?

In contrast I would remind you that, after the events of 9/11, candlelight processions were held in Tehran, honoring American dead and protesting the actions of the terrorists.

If one is to use examples of an enraged people then one must protest the acts that cause such rage.

“I have heard much more “kill muslims” from Americans than I have ever heard “kill Americans” from muslims.”
You must be very young, or very blind. I watched as children danced on blown up us vehicles, kicking helmets down the street. I can’t count how many times since the mid ‘70s that I saw Mid East burning American Flag, and chanting “Death to America”. You are right about one thing, the hate is on. As for the individuals who committed war crimes, I do believe they should be punished. But no amount of fancy words, higher education takes away from the fact that this country was attacked. I guess the “bad people who tried to kill me repeatedly in Iraq” are just misunderstood. The ones who smiled in my face, and planted IED’s behind my back. I completely understand that I have no loyalty from my country, but I am loyal to it. So ya raise your little banners, scream it’s so unfair, whatever you feel you need to do. And I will do the same.

Where does accountability start? Top, the bottom, the middle?  The buck stops where? Disgusting as it gets, as criminals of hideous crimes, maybe Bush should check in with the pope and find out how they got through the inquisition without accountability.

AFriend, May 29 at 8:07 am #

You should be aware that your neocon rants are not fooling anyone….Nor is your conveniently twisting of facts going unnoticed or having the desired effect. Ironic that the one poster who is the single most disingenuous on this forum accuses another of such.

Clinton and his administration could stand on a soapbox and scream the moon is made of green cheese, and nothing illegal would have been done. But when the Bush administration pressures CIA analysts to politicize intel, as did Cheney and Bolton several times a week as reported by several who took early retirement or quit rather than commit such violations of law and decency, then you have a crime.

When Bush uses the lie of biological weapons and delivery systems in order to push for an invasion of a sovereign nation, when they spout that Iraq had ties to AlQaeda when every single intelligence service in the world knew otherwise, including our own, then you have a crime.

Clinton and crew used such lies to justify no fly zones and sanctions that caused incredible hardships and made the finest hospitals in the Middle East empty buildings, terrible judgement and certainly criminal by reasonable standards. But you continue to throw that up as a shield to avoid facing the truth that what Bush/Cheney wrought was horrific, hundreds of thousands dead for lies and subterfuge, for a power base in Iraq, for war profiteering, and to gain popularity for a failing administration.

Who do you think you convince with such shoddy and shallow logic? But by all means continue, your stuff is wonderful for its exposure of the weakness of your position, your lack of respect for truth or justice and the emptiness of your heart.

I think you grossly underestimate the power of the Bush’s.  I believe it started under Prescott Bush, if not before that.

W missed his chance to not only save his legacy,but possibly his neck. He shoulod ahve admitted what we all Know- His Presidency was a scam. he was nothing more than the Puppet for the Cheney Regime. They seized the powers of the Presidnecy as soon as he took office.
Come on Cheney “Basically” Admitted it. If the ‘Decider’ was not fully informed of all the facts and evidence, then his decsion making ability was undermined.
The Right wing Media has proven that Torutre is not required to get confessions- merley Give Cheney a Friendly face/audience and a Camera and he’ll gladly boast about his high crimes- including Treason and Abuse of Power.
We all know W could not have possibly been the Mastermind of ANYthing- he has the IQ of knat- either born that way or a result of alcholism. Reason Rummy knew he could manipualte him with religious quotes.
W, it is far better to confess you were an inept pawn than a heinous War criminal.Testify Brother Testify!!

ib42

I have heard much more “kill muslims” from Americans than I have ever heard “kill Americans” from muslims.

I think a common refrain is “turn it into a parking lot”

We think nothing when we hear the obliteration of a religious people who have been bombed and attacked.  But if we can get a good sound bite of a few of them “dancing in the streets”, then that’s all the justification that’s needed to treat them like dogs.

This is the exact same attitude that these soldiers who performed these perverted acts had.  This is the same attitude that has dominated American history since Christopher Columbus landed to Wounded Knee, till today. 

If they aren’t like us, we can treat them like trash.

So let’s be careful who we broadstroke with the “they hate us” mentality.  It is alive and well right here in the USA.

RE” ...Recruitment of fresh terrorists is probably in full swing now that the world knows of the abhorrent torture and humiliation of detainees…

One more facet of the rolling Black-OP/Psy-OP, commonly known as the Global War Of Terror: the Madrasses have been funded and nurtured for decades; the Bin Laden school of actors and shills have paraded across the air waves for decades; the Western Imperial Axis has bombed and strafed every corner of Iraq, Afghanistan and now pushes into Pakistan, while their Zionist collaborators continually threaten and execute false flag provocations almost daily…

Anyone still intent on parsing the minutia of blowback and incompetence had better get a clue - the goal is to fail every self-determinant state in any way strategically positioned.

The global finance oligarchy that orders this must be confronted continuously and relentlessly - threatened with investigation, indictment, prosecution and execution - nothing less!

A ruling class gets the people it deserves.  From General Taguba’s statements it is obvious that it was military policy not only to rape women, but children as well. With people taking pictures while this was done.This was not an aberration, it was systematic American policy.

Which was against both US and international law.  Which Obama is not only covering up but continuing, now being done by client-states, notably in Iraq and Afganistan.  Both Bush and Cheney are worried that they are going to be charged.  Which is against the interests of the other Gops and the Zionists, since Israel routinely tortures children.  And against the interests of Obama, since his is a Zionist administration.

Recruitment of fresh terrorists is probably in full swing now that the world knows of the abhorrent torture and humiliation of detainees. All the backtracking and pathetic justifications being made by the sordid repugnicans for these inhumane tactics will not change the dedication of islamic militants to kill the hated Americans. They are indoctrinated early, and are in no way open to any dialogue. Their mantra is “kill Americans”, period.

It had to have been annoying to him that Dick Cheney was getting all the attention.

Republicans say that the law is supposed to be interpreted by judges, not “made” by activist judges.  It turns out, however, that the Bush administration’s activist lawyers are allowed to make law.

The Bogus Torture Cover-up

by Scott Horton

“The Pentagon is denying the facts: photographs of Abu Ghraib torture are even more sexually explicit than first reported, including rape and sodomy, writes The Daily Beast’s Scott Horton, who has obtained specific and detailed corroboration of the photos.

The Daily Beast has confirmed that the photographs of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison which President Obama, in a reversal, decided not to release, depict sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.

...................

The photographs differ from those already officially released. Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed.

The Daily Beast has obtained specific corroboration of the British account, which appeared in the London Daily Telegraph, from several reliable sources, including a highly credible senior military officer with first-hand knowledge who provided even more detail about the graphic photographs that have been withheld from the public by the Obama administration.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5741981

Reichfuhrer Bush finally left his Dallas Compound to say this? Why? Does this war criminal have aspirations of international travel?

Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos ‘Show Rape’

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Paul Cruickshank

“May 28, 2009 “The Telegraph”—-At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President’s attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

“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, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

In April, Mr Obama’s administration said the photographs would be released and it would be “pointless to appeal” against a court judgment in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk.

Earlier this month, he said: “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires.

Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Mr Obama said the individuals involved had been “identified, and appropriate actions” taken.

Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22727.htm

Bush is a war criminal who should be tortured for the rest of his life for murdering a million innocent Iraqi civilians!

Who cares what Bush says…he broke many laws, not just
torture laws. An addict will come up with many excuses to defend his behavior. At least now, he can only talk and take no action that harms America and the world. Mr. Bush, stay in Crawford and play cowboy and be grateful you are not being prosecuted.

Impeachment was off the table, accountability was locked in a closet and integrity was busy looking for another opportunity.

Either he is incredibly brave or just plain stupid

ardee,

Yet through all your disingenuous gyrations you’re not repeating your usual mantra regarding how Clinton lied, Clinton lied, Clinton lied.

And you claim Bush cherry picked his information to share with others? You truly are disingenuous.

—-

To quote you: “Putting spin and dishonest representation of the words does not make it so”

Now apply that equally.

AFriend, May 29 at 7:03 am

Yeah, so? We were told Hussein had a weapons program, we were told he had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, we were told he had mobile biological weapons laboratories running around the country, we were told he was in league with AlQaeda, that there were agents of that group withing Iraq.

All bullshit. As were the assumptions of the persons you quote. Did you think that , becuse you cite democrats, I would think those remarks any less incorrect?

Quote all the speeches you wish, CLinton did not invade Iraq, Bush did. The weaponry to which you refer, destroyed by the UN investigators were GIVEN to Hussein by the United States of America.

Of course he defends torture.  He used to do it just for fun and hazing as a frat boy—branding pledges with a red-hot coat-hanger.

Why is this man not in jail? (Rhetorical question…)

ardee,

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”—President Bill Clinton, Speech to the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

—-

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Vice President Al Gore, in Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club 2002

—-

“Despite Iraq’s deception program, let me say, the UN inspectors have done a remarkable job. They have destroyed the following: 38,000 chemical weapons; more than 100,000 gallons of deadly chemical agents; 48 operational missiles and 6 missile launchers; along with a biological warfare factory. But the UN inspectors believe that Saddam Hussein still has his weapons of mass destruction capability – enough ingredients to make 200 tons of VX nerve gas; 31,000 artillery shells and rockets filled with nerve and mustard gas; 17 tons of media to grow biological agents; large quantities of anthrax and other biological agents.”—Bill Cohen, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998

—-

“No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. “
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—From the Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA), Remarks to Senate, 2002

Set the man naked in Iraq to receive the gratitude of a liberated people.

“The first thing you do is ask what’s legal?” Bush said. “What do the lawyers say is possible? I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, ‘I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.’ I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.”

First you lie our country into an unnecessary and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Then you get some unprincipled and amoral lawyers to give you a bunch of BS that puts a quasi legal face on torture.

There is only one way to absolve this country of its shame; investigations followed by prosecutions.