Washington Post editorial: The Truth About Abu Gharib

Check this out.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801745.html

All the "terra-ists" like libruls, brown people, etc. will learn about dogs and nakedness and shackles pretty quickly then.

"The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.


In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to ," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains -- the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs."

It's probably just rumors, but I think the sooner the images come out the better.

The govt must come clean as quickly as possible so that President Bush can discipline his underlings for authorizeing torture without his knowledge or approval.

###

Just kidding. They will all get promoted.

Soldiers raping kids is so horrible an idea that you'd better have rock-solid evidence for it.

The #1 hit is the New Yorker.

the bums out!! "The White House and Pentagon have gotten away with their stonewalling largely because of Republican control of Congress." Even a Republican President can't get away with the shit that Bush has gotten away with if the Congress is not controlled by the Republicans. Our motto should be: "Never again." Never again shall we have all houses of the government controlled by one party. People, we must start with the 2006 elections. No matter if you like your Republican Senator or Representative, you must vote either for an Independent or a Dem. The Dems would do well to have a number of "Independents" running...the tactic should be to switch to Independent in areas where strong Repubs may be faltering. We must take back our Congress if we can't take back the Presidency or the Courts!

I think you have hit on what honestly could be the rallying cry for all 2006 (and beyond) Dems. I think it begins with a strong, easily identifiable mission statement and then, with support, it becomes a living reality for those who want and demand change in 2006.

I think we all should work on getting this message out - it might be just what is needed to jump-start the election season.

God, it's so frustrating to get our own people in positions of power to do something really meaningful. I wish we had a couple thousand Dennis Kucinch's and Al Sharptons and a few more Michael Moores.

"Never again! Never again a ONE-PARTY government!"

www.freewaybloggers.com

was what really caught my eye also. The Republicans KNOW that the torture is wrong, but they close ranks and cover each other while what remains of our good name abroad is squandered foolishly and needlessly.

Recall the end of Nixon, when a Democratic majority in Congress held him and his merry band to account for their skulduggery. How different it is now when the majority in Congress wants to protect the perpetrators.

Right now, the election in 2006 is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the one in 2008. We'll ALL have to keep crying "BULLSHIT!" and make people face up to this unacceptable and Un-American crap.

As the Native Americans said -- white man speaketh with forked tongue.

Bush and his administration are claiming that these barbarric practices are being comitted by fringe elements, and without the administration's approval. I might be more prone to believing this, were it not for the fact that they've lied again and again.

If it is only a fringe element which is responsible, then why has Cheney come out against any proposed legislation which would firmly limit the interrogations? Why do they throw that "It will adversely affect the CIC's ability to defend this nation" canard into the air? And more importantly, why aren't more people calling them out on their obvious duplicity?

If they are finge psychos who are doing this sort of thing, then what's wrong with enhancing the penalties? Isn't that normally the sort of thing that we do, as a society, in order to discourage behaviors we find abhorrent?

maybe the people in this country need to know that.

nt

"The White House and Pentagon have gotten away with their stonewalling largely because of Republican control of Congress. When the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, GOP leaders such as Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) loudly vowed to get to the bottom of the matter -- but once the bottom started to come into view late last year, Mr. Warner's demands for accountability ceased. Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior officials have never been the subject of an independent investigation. A recommendation by the latest Army probe that Gen. Miller be reprimanded for his role in the Qahtani interrogation was rejected by Gen. Bantz Craddock of Southern Command."

Gee, Post, you're so self-effacing! What about the media's complicity in not insisting on finding out what's been happening in the American gulags? In fact, whenever anyone has made serious noises (and Warner's noises were clearly not serious) about finding out what's going on, the media have been more than happy to savage anyone the GOP blast faxes point them at (Eason Jordan comes to mind) or to ignore responsible, credible voices (Seymour Hersh) and feed us more crapola about the opening of "Bewitched" or the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.

And though the Post bravely puts the hat on the Republicans for the success of official stonewalling on this very serious matter, they do so on page A22. I remember a time when the Post took official corruption and misconduct a little more seriously than page A22.

Republicans are putting party loyalty ahead of country and principles, and they're being enabled by television. Are the news channels afraid of Bush's gangster mentality of discipline? Are they too financially compromised by defense contracts? Exactly what is the excuse that makes them prefer to be complicit in wrongdoing rather than expose it so that it can be corrected and people held accountable?

The Republican party is covering up crimes, which seems to me to make them either accessories after the fact or they are committing obstruction of justice.

Grownups? Party of morality? Restoring dignity and honor?

Start with an image of * or repuke of choice talking about "restoring dignity and honor."

Then just start rolling the list...Abu Ghraib; TomDelay/Jack Abramoff; Bolton temper tantrum; Jeff Gannon and Fake News; Rove....

it might take a whole series of ads.one 30-second spot might not be enough for the entire list...

they are sitting on hundreds of further images - I suppose beltway douchebags get to decide what the American People "need" to see.