« Obama to Replace US Attorneys | astral66's Blog | Egypt Wants Obama to Deliver June 4 Address from Historic 1,000 Year Old Mosque »

Shocking Appalling Images from the Bush Administration Revealed!!!


GQ has the exclusive story on how Donald Rumsfeld incorporated crusade-themed biblical verses in the cover sheets of his daily top-secret intelligence briefings to President Bush:

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say--"would be as bad as Abu Ghraib."

But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because "my seniors"--JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself--appreciated the cover pages.

But one government official was disturbed enough by these biblically seasoned sheets to hold on to copies, which I obtained recently while debriefing the past eight years with those who lived them inside the West Wing and the Pentagon. Over the past several months, the battle to define the Bush years has begun taking shape: As President Obama has rolled back his predecessor's foreign and economic policies, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and former speechwriters Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen have all taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to cast the Bush years in a softer light. My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders, have revealed another element of this legacy-building moment: intense feelings of ill will toward Donald Rumsfeld. Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld's actions epitomized the very traits--arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude--that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.

The images are copy-protected, so I can't post them here, but you can see the GQ slideshow at:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

For anyone who believes in the separation of church and state, this is about as disgusting as it gets.

One other thing, there seems to be a sudden surge (ha!) of anti-Rumsfeld sentiment this week. Any clues as to what is behind this current trend?

ps - It wasn't there when I started to put this together, but I see Josh has this up on the front page now. He must read Huffington Post over his Sunday morning coffee, too. Anyway, take a look, and come back to comment! 


37 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It makes Bush look even more pathetic -- to think that they had to give him a picture book with bible verses to keep him going -- it's a wonder there is anything left of our country.

user-pic

It just reinforces the notion that Bush had putty for a brain, and Cheney and Rumsfeld were able to manipulate him into doing whatever they wanted. It's Shakespearean - the simpleton king played like a puppet by his evil scheming advisors.

user-pic

Was the book "My Pet Goat" about a sacrificial beast, affectionately called Rummy? “Rummy the Scapegoat” is the sequel?

The Beer test?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTFhYjk3NDNmMGFjYTNmZWZlYmY1NzkzYmYzNzc2YTI=

The majority of the people would have a beer with Bush over any other candidate. Joe six-pack turned out to be the simpleton who could be manipulated by the Republicans.

Joe six pack, Joe the Plumber, and GI Joe.
The Great and inspirational leader Bush led his followers into the wilderness, to die.

People today have seen the slash and burning Bush, and he was no Moses.

user-pic

Sorry, I'm saving my outrage for more Abu Ghraib photos. After Al Gore and Joe Lieberman got down on their knees to pray together, I gave up on the idea that religion could be detached from American politics.

user-pic

I'm saving my outrage for reports of necrophilia.

user-pic

Thanks for this. I read the article this am.

I will say this, though. I had the distinct impression this was a "take-down" of Rumsfeld as a means of trying to deflect criticism from bush. maybe Condi also.

That's my theory here. The way the reporting was pitched.

user-pic

Ok, I see C Ville and Astro are already on this!

bush, in my view, deserves his own circle of hell! And so do the others!

user-pic

There sure is a lot of "not me" and scapegoating going on right now. It seems that everything the Bush Admin. touched is toxic.

user-pic

Maybe this is what made Bush think that God was talking directly to him?

user-pic

I keep trying to think of two political figures, rummy and cheny, who are more despised. AND FOR GOOD REASON. HAHAHA

user-pic

good, very good post--I would never have happened upon the GQ article on my own--and yet having read the whole article, it seems somehow not complete. Sort of "and then there was the time when, and then there was this other time and, he said but then she said..." and it seems to me that the writer is chopping and cherry picking to get a quick narrative out about Rumsfeld. Don't get me wrong, it might well be true. But the 10 page article reads more like a one page gossip hit piece, a gatling gun of take downs. And then there's this: I can't imagine writing an article on the power games and internal relationships with Rumsfeld without once mentioning his relationship with Dick Cheney aka Blunderdick. I can't imagine talking about Iraq, and Katrina and the internal battles for power and control without once mentioning the former VP.

It just doesn't make sense.

user-pic

The author's own opinions aside, I think his main contribution is finding these image files and making them public. There's sure to be a fair amount of discussion about them this week.

user-pic
...I think his main contribution is finding these image files and making them public.
I cannot imagine much that could be more offensive to a Muslim population than crusade pictures like this (i.e. tanks rolling into the gates in the heart of the Muslim world with the Christian quote: "Open the gates, that the righteous nation may enter, The one that keeps faith").
Astral on his post over releasing abuse photos: Do you forget the power of images, such as the Danish Muhammad cartoons that were published a few years back. {} If those photos came out today, they would be treated as having happened yesterday. The Muslim world would rise up in a worldwide riot and 1,000s of people would be injured or killed. You seem to have no idea of how these images would further inflame the problem we face.
I'm not attacking you, Astral, you may be more in the mainstream on this than those of us debating you, but you've written, what, four posts within a couple of days with updates and hundreds of comments defending withholding of the abuse photos. So I have to ask: Do you really not see the contradiction between your glee over the publication of these possibly inciting “Christian Crusade” photos and your defense of Obama's reversal on releasing the likewise inflammatory abuse photos?
user-pic

Hi Don, I thought about how the three compare quite a bit while putting this post together and a few of the main things to consider are:

- the Mohammad images were a direct affront to Muslims because of their iconoclasm (no representational images allowed, especially of Mohammad) and that any direct mockery of their Prophet is a great sacriledge

- the detainee photos depict a wide variety of abuses and torture, including the depiction of a variety of things Muslims find offensive (nudity, dogs, gloating women)

On the other hand, these intelligence briefing covers don't show anything offensive. Soldiers, tanks, press photos of Hussein, and bible verses in English.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't think that a picture of a tank and some text in English is going to have much impact on your average Muslim militant. Not sure what the "English as a second language" literacy rate is in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, but protest placards don't have much effect if you have to have a translator standing there interpreting the meaning of the image, and why the people should rise up in arms over it.

Hell, the 60-70% of Americans that identify themselves as Christian will have no idea why these covers were a bad idea.

So that's the difference between abusive and derrogatory images of another peoples' culture and religion, of demeaning images and horrid depictions of abuse and torture, and the plastered of Bible verses on the President's daily intelligence briefing.

user-pic

“Hell, the 60-70% of Americans that identify themselves as Christian will have no idea why these covers were a bad idea.”

I hope that’s not true or we may be in serious trouble.

First, you make very good points regarding the differences in these documents and I don’t disagree. But I think you play down how inflammatory these pictures would be to a devout Muslim after all we have done and continue to do in the M.E. If you haven't noticed, there have been mass demonstrations against America lately because we have been bombing civilians 9many, children). Now let's tell those outraged people that it's okay because God is on our side. How would you take that?

I can assure you that these pictures were passed around the internet, translated for some, will be published (along with the others we haven’t seen if released) and probably broadcast, if not described on Al Jazeera. A picture of soldiers invading Arab lands are offensive to some in and of itself, but framing it in Christian crusader rhetoric is extremely offensive and verifies our ill intent there for many (remember the reaction when Bush slipped and just used the word “crusade” early on?).

All of that said, do I think it will cause a rise in Jihadists? No. I think it will only confirm what many Muslims already think. I doubt there will be a peep, or if there is a small one, it won't be shown here. And I believe that the same is true for the abuse pics. It is not Arabs who are in the dark about the extent of our abuses or our Christian excuses. It’s much of America.

user-pic

One thing to keep in mind is that while these reflect badly on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, it's much harder to make a connection to any action by US soldiers. It's propaganda, and it's really not much different than anything one would find in militant Islamic propaganda.

user-pic

Don Key, disagree with your arguments based on unrelated evidence and faulty opinion:

(1) (a)these pictures were not released due to any court action by the ACLU or anyone else, ergo, Obama and the DOJ did not have any say on their publication. (b)Obama's position on the photo's, for the millionth time, was taken at the request of generals concerned about the GI's getting killed almost every day, and the judge has the final say anyway.

(2) Muslims would be almost certainly be more angry about seeing their brethren being tortured by infidels than to see Bible quotes/pictures passed around in the first Bush term.

(3)the high percentage of Americans who would not see why this is a bad idea may be more like 50%, yet high enough to say that we do have a problem. A large portion of the TV, print media, think tanks, public and most of the Republican Party will not raise a peep about Rummy's Secret Bible War Reports, and the Washington Post/Fox/CNN will likely not report it at all, or kill it after one segment. They will certainly not have Rummy or Cheney answer any questions related to the secret Bush Bible Passages/Reports.

They will instead continue to try to sow distrust and controversy about Obama policies as they have been doing.

user-pic

Astral- Agree and made that same point on another thread (regarding "God on our side" propaganda).

NCD- I don't and haven't disagreed with any of those arguments though I question some of the reasons behind the reasons (i.e. the urging from the generals could very well have as much to do with CYA than any further inflaming of Al Qaeda or the Taliban (would not be the first time).

These two things are not the same but both are insulting to Muslims implying we do not respect them and our invasions and occupations are a Crusade. We don't know what's in the abuse photos except that they were part of an army investigation into mistreatment of detainees before and after Abu Ghraib(Obama-"not too sensational").

Not much could be more inciting than pics of soldiers abusing prisoners- except perhaps images of dead, dying and maimed women and children, our collateral damage. And those are images that Muslims have been seeing for seven years now. My point about these was simply that if photos are inflammatory to Muslims why should some be withheld and not others?

We are fighting this GWOT because many Muslims believe we are crusading imperialist invaders and we feel we're superior to them. We would be reinforcing those views in both of these situations. I do not believe any of these photos are going to change a lot of minds on that front. What would change minds and hearts would be to admit our crimes against Muslims and prosecute those who committed them.

user-pic

This article is going to anger muslims, who will in turn kill our troops in return. GQ should have followed Obama's decision not to piss muslims off by not releasing the detainee abuse photos.

user-pic

I'm sure that this will prompt many Muslims to cancel their subscriptions to GQ.

user-pic

Astral, maybe they just won't renew. After all, if you don't respond, the mag just spends all kinds of money sending you renewal notices. :)

user-pic

I see an excellent opportunity for Maxim to start picking up some new subscribers!

user-pic

As someone said, Bush was on a mission from God, Cheney was on a mission from Haliburton and Rumsfeld was on a mission to sell the Iraqi weapons.

If only someone could explain why, given all that mess and all the promise of hope and change, Obama decided to stick by and large with the same framework Bush created...

user-pic

Yes, Bush and Obama are exactly the same and we have seen absolutely no difference in Obama's new policy initiatives from what we had for the last eight years.

user-pic

Keep trying to distract.

Why exactly is Obama following a Bush-friendly program? What's in it for him? Being blackmailed? His personal preference? Politically expedient? Gives him more power?

It's not exactly the same as Bush, and there don't seem to be any Cheneys or Rumsfelds to complicate things, but it isn't exactly like a fresh start what with all those carryover military, treasury, DoJ and CIA personalities, is it?

user-pic

Maybe it's something as simple as wanting a smooth and gradual transition, to learn as much as he can about where things stand, and to separate the competent ones from the incompetent? There was that whole thing about bipartisanship as well.

Sorry you didn't get the bloody revolution and chaos you were hoping for.

user-pic

Astral, don't bother with lalo and these others, the facts have been pointed out but they seem to have swallowed the 'Obama is the same as Bush' MSM BS on this issue, and are incapable of changing their take on the it, facts notwithstanding (which I will not bother to link...again).

Obama is using the military tribunals that he voted for in 2006, and which was defeated in lieu of the Bush program.

If what Obama is doing with tribunals is the 'same as Bush', why did the Republicans and Bush kill the Obama tribunal revisions in 2006 and pass their own, which Obama voted against?

user-pic

Excellent points, all. The main point I recall Obama making about the tribunals was that he wanted a pause in the action in order to reassess what was going on and to correct procedure. It appears that that is exactly what happened.

Thanks for the other points farther up. I had actually written about the same as your #1, but then deleted so as not to get into another "you're only defending Obama for anything he does" debate. Of course, I see no problem with defending Obama since all of his decisions so far have been sound all well-reasoned.

Thanks for adding your input.

user-pic
Being blackmailed? His personal preference? Politically expedient? Gives him more power?

Is the possibility that, whether he's right or wrong, he's doing whatever he's doing that you don't like because he thinks it is the best thing for the country in the long run so beyond your ability to conceive that you can't even drop it into your list?

That's really the difference, isn't it? You, and some others here, have viewed everything he's done through the lense of an irrebutable presumption of malevolence since the primaries and, apparently, nothing can change that. The rest of us are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And, on the basis of that difference in POV, we fight and fight and fight, we call people on your side of the divide trolls (you're not and most of the others aren't). Your side uses a variety of colorful terms that boil down to an accusation that we're infantile fuhrer worshipers. Neither side changes any minds.

Frankly, its getting kind of wearying.

user-pic

That's sarcasm right? Has to be because that's not what you were saying basically in your previous post you made at TPM Cafe.

user-pic

That was regarding your comment about Obama's and Bush's policies being the same. I didn't know if that was sarcasm or not. I ask because your tone about Obama is different in that comment than it is in your previous postings you published regarding him. Hope this dosen't sound like a stupid question.

user-pic

A corollary to this is the Repub indignation about the CIA being dissed, as if the CIA is an arm of the church, not to be shown any disrespect. Any one who is unaware that the CIA is stained with blood, well acquainted with lying, and even charged with being as deceptive as possible, has been in La La land for the past 50 years. To believe in the CIA is almost as asinine as .....believing in the church (any denomination).

I read and viewed the GQ article and the thought that kept coming to mind was that we, as a nation just barely dodged a bullet. Two more years and it might have been near impossible to recover from the Bush criminal enterprise. It may be anyway.

user-pic

Hey Hoppy, been awhile and nice to see you. Yes, it's funny in a sad and tragic way to see the GOP announcing they are shocked! shocked I tell you! to hear someone point out how dishonest and corrupt the CIA has been. But they have so little to hold on to anymore, I guess defend the CIA is the only way they can hope to defend their own complicity.

user-pic


This is good stuff, but not really news. Shortly before being dismissed, Rumsfeld was introduced by Peter Pace as someone who "knows God's will, and does it" or something to that effect. The rise of fundamentalist evangelicalism among the military and military chaplains has also been well documented. A friend of mine once remarked in the early days of the Iraq war, "As long as its fundamentalists killing each other, I don't really care." However, this will be of use to historians as they write the story of the collapse of the American empire.

user-pic

Yes. The collapse of empire has begun. When you have a right wing court appoint the namesake son of a former President to be President even though he is wholly unqualified you have the end of empire at your door. Then if this new boy-king makes it his business to gut the treasury with tax cuts to the super rich, start a long expensive war with borrowed money, and punish every social institution with fundamentalist religious dogma, yes, you have the end of empire. Thugs and liars and unqualified assholes from hell filled every position of power and spent 8 long years filling their pockets with no-bid riches while the economy of the nation was headed off a cliff. I am sorry but I think the damage is permanent. I think the dumb ass rednecks who ate this shit up are just too many, too fat, and too lazy to turn this ship around. They still do not admit that the extinctions and hell that global warming will bring have already begun. Nothing short of a miracle will save us now, all of us on Earth, from the momentum to disaster. Thanks Scalia, thanks for Bush.

user-pic

You are absolutely correct, but it is not the American Empire that is about to collapse first.
It is the Empire of FALSE religious influence.

Think back to the role Religious influence has had upon the Governments, an influence that has dominated many Nations. Charlemagne and Rome, to name a few. Have found a cozy love affair.

The people and their governments fed up with the fundamentalists in every nation, are about to turn their attention to the destruction of it’s influence.


(Revelation 17:15-18) . . .And he says to me: “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.

16 And the ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire.

Governments with its supporters are fed up with the Harlot, who exercises influence as though she was her own EMPIRE, with her own beauracracies, ie. Ayatollahs, clerics, preachers, pastors, Popes, Bishops, or what ever name of authority given it’s leaders
CHAPLANS included

A Harlot, who with fallacious words condoned pillaging, stealing, murdering and committing adultery and swearing falsely, TORTURE AND TRUMPED UP CRUSADES.

17 For God put [it] into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out [their] one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast…..

Finally after centuries, a wild beast given power and authority BY THE PEOPLE turns against and destroys the harlot who thought she was in control of the Governments.

Look out, you false fundamentalists supporters, your time is about up. HOORAY

user-pic

This post, of course, fits right into mine, and for some reason I missed it.

I did not catch the slide show at GQ which I quoted directly and it makes me laugh. I mean, they had to package briefings in comic books for the idiot leader of the free world.

Great post.!!!

Leave a comment

astral66

user-pic

Following: 55
Followers: 57

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address