White House reporters received an unusual email on Saturday, with a subject line stating, "Important Please Read: From White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs."

In the email body, Gibbs wrote:

"A number of you have asked about or reported on a recent article in the Telegraph that inaccurately described photos which are the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. Both the Department of Defense and the White House have said the article was wrong, and now the individual who was purported to be the source of the article has said it's inaccurate. Given that this false report has been repeated around the world, and given the impact these negative reports have on our troops, I felt it was important for you to see this correction."

Gibbs included the full text of a story by Salon.com's Mark Benjamin, which features retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denying reports that he has seen the photos of prisoner abuse that the Obama administration is trying to keep secret.

 

Mr Gibbs, this doesn't explain away the other statement that the Maj. Gen made in that same interview:

Maj. Gen Taguba saw the horrors first hand during his Abu Ghraib investigation and he believes the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes.

It also doesn't explain away the fact that General Petraeus himself said we Americans violated the Geneva Conventions:

"When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those."

Gen. Petraeus joined FOX News and Martha MacCallum today and gave a blockbuster interview - Which probably SHOCKED FOX NEWS:

MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?

Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.

MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.

Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.

MacCallum: So you're confident that they will never go free.

Gen. Petraeus: I hope that's the case.

MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)

Gen. Petraeus: ....T here might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them -- those techniques work, that's our experience in this business.

MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?

Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

Ok people -- What Else Do We Need to Convict The Bush Administration of War Crimes?

More Evidence of Torture/Abuse in Prisons

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.

These descriptions come on the heels of a British report yesterday about the photographs that contained some of these revelations--and whose credibility was questioned by the Pentagon....

What is it going to take for Americans to wake up?  For me it's the THOUGHT that my child, niece or nephew serving in the military could EVER be treated in such a manner by ANY enemy.

BENTON HARBOR, Michigan (CNN) - Former President George W. Bush gave a speech to an audience in Michigan on Thursday saying that after the September 11 attacks, "I vowed to take whatever steps that were necessary to protect you."...

"Nothing I am saying is meant to criticize my successor," Bush said. "There are plenty of people who have weighed in. Trust me, having seen it firsthand. I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

So with Mr. Bush saying he won't CRITICIZE Obama, isn't he actually implying that there is criticism to be given?

"The first thing you do is ask, what's legal?" he 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."

You forgot something didn't you Mr Bush?  Didn't you forget the words, "What can we MAKE legal?"

Bush repeated his disclaimer about not passing judgment Obama later in the speech when asked about North Korea's test of a nuclear weapon. Before answering, the 43rd president said that he is "in no way trying to shape my successor's decisions or criticize them."...

On the topic of how to respond to North Korea, Bush said diplomacy is impossible without leverage.

"A lot of times people want to give out the carrots," he said. "My attitude is, you give out the carrots when the behavior changes."

So with Mr Bush saying he isn't trying to 'shape' Obama's decisions or criticize them but..."you give out the carrots when the behavior changes...".  Isn't that giving advice?

And if it's advice, should Obama listen to the former President?  The same man that ended up GIVING CARROTS to North Korea in 2007 after trying for 7 years to get them to GIVE IN by having 6 nation talks?  He gave the carrots one year before election day.

First it was former Vice President Cheney, then Condi Rice and now the 'man' himself, George W. Bush.  They must really be worried that the TORTURE stories are pinching a 'nerve' with the American people, otherwise why bother talking about what was LEGAL?

These millionaires are living it up after ruining America's self respect -- they need to be brought up for War Crimes and immediately!

President Barack Obama, with all due respect, you simply MUST demand that war crimes be investigated in Iraq and Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY!

Those who are found guilty should be seen LIVE on television during their trials, just as LIVE as say OJ Simpson's trial was or former President Bill Clinton's trial was, for all the WORLD TO SEE.

They MUST know that we Americans do NOT tolerate the torturing of prisoners, no IF's, THEN's or BUT's about it --- we do not authorize TORTURE, no matter HOW ugly the enemy gets, we are a nation of laws and moral values.

Please Mr President, by ignoring these crimes, you are ALSO committing a crime by covering them up.

You denied the release of those photos because you feared for the LIVES of our soldiers sir.  Well sir, this information is spreading like wild fire -- you are ENDANGERING our soldiers lives by IGNORING the War Crimes.

How would you feel if one or both of your daughters or wife was tortured in the manner that is being reported (brutally raped with different devices, let alone by a man)?

Stand up sir!  Stand up for our soldiers, other Americans and your family values.

You don't see this story in the headlines.  It's being listed as a 'side' or 'back page' story.

LONDON -- 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.

Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, was quoted as telling Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures...

According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the paper reported.

The Telegraph said the photos related to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons.

That was FOX NEWS report.  The following report on ChattahBox.com MSNBC is a bit more specific with details of abuse:

Although Taguba's 2004 report detailed incidents of rape of detainees, it was not revealed that photos existed of the shocking abuses, until now. Some of the unreleased photographs show detainees being raped and sexually abused with objects, such as a truncheon, wire, a phosphorescent tube and a policeman's baton.

One photo also shows a female prisoner with exposed breasts after her clothing was forcibly removed.

Maj. Gen Taguba saw the horrors first hand during his Abu Ghraib investigation and he believes the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes.

In a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights on prisoner abuse and torture in U.S. military prisons Taguba wrote: "There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Note the SIX OTHER PRISONS statement and the years of 2001 through 2005.  The famous Abu ghraib story came out in 2004.  This means torturing and abuse was happening way past that time that we were told it was just "A Few Bad Apples" that committed the crimes.

If the General that investigated the abuse thinks it's a war crime -- shouldn't the rest of us?

President Obama this afternoon directed his national security adviser and senior Cabinet officials to examine whether the government keeps too much information secret.

In a memo, Obama acknowledged problems with excessive classification of documents kept from the public eye for years and affirmed that he remains "committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness."

Obama tasked national security adviser Gen. James Jones to canvas executive branch officials about their procedures for handling classified information and to make recommendations about better information sharing.

After refusing to release photos of abuse during the Iraq war --- NOW Obama wants to STOP keeping information SECRET?

Sorry Mr President, being SELECTIVE on what you release or don't isn't called BEING MORE OPEN.  Especially when it has to do with one America's worst moral acts during a war.

Release the photos sir, then I'll back your idea up 100%.

This week's actions by North Korea, setting off nuclear tests and missiles have many in the media talking how President Obama is being tested.  Many are already calling Obama's 'talking down North Korea's threats' as being a sign of weakness. 

I think maybe it's time to remind folks what North Korea did during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.

When President Bush declared that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the "axis of evil",

a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman described Mr Bush's State of the Union address as "little short of a declaration of war".

In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said Washington's recent problems were "entirely attributable to the unilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration".

The US Central Intelligence Agency has released a report saying that North Korea sold numerous missiles to the Middle East and other areas of tension last year (2001 a Bush year).

*****************************************************************************************

In February of 2003, North Korea threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean war, accusing the United States of plotting a pre-emptive attack on the communist state.

North Korea's rhetoric has been escalating since the crisis flared up late last year, and warnings of an impending US attack are broadcast almost daily in Pyongyang's official media. It was not clear whether last night's statement broke that pattern or represented more of the same.

North Korea conducted their first nuclear test in 2006 - during the Bush so-called "get tough" years.

My point is ---- Bush was TESTED too and got the same words used against him as Obama is currently getting.  Bush finally gave in and 'bribed' North Korea into shutting down their nukes in 2007.  The only reason Bush gave in was, the 2008 election was coming up and he didn't want the NK issue to be used against the GOP.

So the next time you hear a Republican or right winger accuse Obama of being WEAK or not tough enough - remind them of the Bush 'get tough' years and how that worked --- NOT!

WASHINGTON -- Congress is moving to stop a federal court order that would disclose government information to the public -- this time the photos of the alleged abuse of terrorist detainees that President Obama no longer wants to release.

Just days after Obama reversed his position on the photos, Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., backed him up by adding a rider late Thursday to the Senate's version of a $91.3 billion supplemental appropriation covering the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In a 5-year-old lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, a physicians organization and two veterans groups, a U.S. District Court in New York and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that 21 of the photos should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Lieberman-Graham provision would allow the defense secretary to certify to the president that release of photos or video taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, of people captured by U.S. forces outside the United States would endanger lives. In such cases, the release could be prohibited for at least three years.

The House version of the supplemental appropriation bill has no such provision, and the two chambers must still agree on whether to include it in the final bill before it becomes law. Democratic aides say the White House backs the provision.

This is pathetic and should be struck down.

There was no such ruling or bill added to stop the release of the first Abu Ghraib photos during the Bush administration and there's been no proof that lives were lost specifically because of those photos.

Where were these two men during the first photos?  Did they demand Bush not show those photos?

These additional photos prove the abuse and TORTURE were being done in other prisons and not just by a few bad apples as Americans were told.

This provision must be STOPPED and those supporting MUST be UNDER THE LIGHT for even thinking of doing it.

CNN's State Department Producer Elise Labott has an article on CNN's website today, Analysis: Has North Korea reached a 'tipping point'?

She has covered four secretaries of state and reported from more than 50 countries. Before joining CNN, she covered the United Nations.

Fifteen years after the Clinton administration signed the Agreed Framework, essentially bribing North Korea to give up its weapons program with a nuclear power plant, the U.S. has been riding a merry-go-round of deal-making, provocation and punishment with the North.

The Bush administration also tried unsuccessfully to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions -- first by trying to squeeze the regime and then by reaching a deal with Pyongyang to dismantle its main nuclear reactor...

Economic sanctions, U.N. Security Council resolutions and even the Obama administration's policy of engagement with rogue states all have failed so far...

So, President Bill Clinton 'bribed' North Korea to give up its weapons; but President George W. Bush 'reached a deal' with Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear reactor.

Did you know that in just a little over 100 days President Obama's foreign policy with respects to North Korea has failed?  President Bush had 8 years and he still failed; but you see no mention of that fact in that statement about sactions and resolutions not working.

The role of China and Russia, typically reluctant to impose sanctions against North Korea, will be crucial. Last month the U.S. could barely get Beijing and Moscow to sign onto to a watered-down statement criticizing North Korea. But administration officials involved in North Korea policy say the one silver lining in the latest antics is that they were so outrageous they crossed a line, which could galvanize Russia and China to act.

Don't you just love knowing the political views of so called experts that are writing their opinions about a political situation?

With decades of diplomacy unable to produce a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, it begs the question of whether it is time for a fundamental overhaul of U.S. policy toward North Korea. There are serious conversations in Washington and among capitals about whether North Korea has reached a "tipping point," offering the world final proof it is intent on developing what it calls a "nuclear deterrent."

This is one statement I agree with.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps it's time to use reverse psychology -- show them a little mutual respect (because they too had weapons), just as we did China and the Soviet Union many decades ago.  It may be our only chance to stop them from passing along their capabilities to other nations like Iran.

BAGHDAD -- In the fall of 2007, Forat Aldawoodi fled Iraq through a special visa program for Iraqis who worked with the U.S. government. He landed in Pawtucket, R.I., where he soon became a New England Patriots fan, traveled to the Atlantic Ocean and enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves.

Today, after a year's absence, Aldawoodi is in Iraq again -- this time as an American soldier....

On July 4, Aldawoodi is scheduled to take his oath to become a U.S. citizen at a naturalization ceremony in Baghdad. He plans to return to Pawtucket in the fall to resume his life as an American -- and U.S. soldier.

I'm sorry but I find it a little hard to believe that we allow Iraqi's to serve in our military forces while we are at war in their nation.  If they want to serve in the military why not within their own country's military, why ours?

He could have very well joined his country's military and still worked as an interpreter.

We tax payers are paying this Iraqi citizen U.S. money to join our military while we conduct a war in HIS country -- why?  Don't we have enough Americans that want to serve?

If we were not at war in Iraq I would probably accept this idea, but not while we are.  If he wants to fight the enemy, let him join his own people's military.

Not being widely reported because of Obama's Supreme Court Justice pick being announced is some very good news for the nation:

Consumer confidence soared to the highest level in eight months in May, sharply beating analysts' estimates, as Americans believe the job market and overall business conditions will improve before the end of the year.

The broad measure of consumer sentiment jumped to 54.9, up from 40.8 in April, far surpassing average analysts' expectations of about 43. It was the biggest monthly increase in six years and the third straight jump after the confidence measure hit a record low in February and the highest since September.

Looks like we'll be having at least SOME growth by the last quarter.  Just imagine where we'd be if Bush were still in charge.

(AP) - The Pentagon says about 5 percent of terror suspects released from the U.S. navy prison at Guantanamo Bay so far have returned to the fight against the U.S. and its allies.

Data released Tuesday suggests that an additional 9 percent of freed Guantanamo detainees are suspected to have rejoined what the Pentagon defines as terrorist activity.

In all, 74 of approximately 540 detainees that have been released have either returned or are believed to have returned to the fight.

Hm'mmm.  I see no mention that these 74 prisoners were released during the presidency of George W. Bush and the vice presidency of Dick Cheney -- do you?

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, General David Petraeus said the following:

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

While I appreciate his support for Obama's decision to close Guantanamo and his pointing out that Obama's team is dealing with those prisoners in a "responsible way", I have to make a statement about what Petraeus says about using torture.

As the man points out, he was Division Commander in Iraq in the early days and before that, in 2004, he became the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq. This newly-created command had responsibility for training, equipping, and mentoring Iraq's growing Army, Police, and other security forces as well as developing Iraq's security institutions and building associated infrastructure, such as training bases, police stations, and border forts.

The famous abu ghraib abuses were reported in 2004.

Was he one of those in command that passed down the new so-called 'laws' made by the Bush/Cheney administration, allowing for waterboarding and enhanced interrogations?  Did he authorize those at abu ghraib to abuse those prisoners?  The command had to come from somewhere beside the White House.  It went down the chain of command as all the rules do.

**********************************************************

Colin Powell (another man I don't trust because of the way he sat by while Bush/Cheney pushed for war in Iraq without letting Americans know the whole truth; but others do trust him so..), made some very good points this weekend by saying:

"Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy, he is disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo."

He also said:

"Mr. Cheney the other day said, well, we're doing it to satisfy European intellectuals or something like that. No," said Powell. "We're doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people around the world that we are a nation of law. It isn't so much Guantanamo. It's the people at Guantanamo. How do we deal with them? We can't keep them locked up forever. This business about making the country less safe by bringing these people to our prison system, we have got two million people in jail in America, the highest incarceration rate in the world. And they all had lawyers. They all had access to the writ of habeas corpus and they're all in jail. I don't know... if you've ever seen some of these prison reality shows on television where they show you what a super lock-up is. I'm not terribly worried about one of these guys going to a super lock-up."

Perhaps it's time to do an about face or use reversed psychology when it comes to North Korea's Kim Jong Il. 

For decades now the world has made threats and or sanctions on North Korea for their actions with respects to their nuclear capability.

Yesterday Kim Jong II once again defied the worlds demands by setting off an underground nuclear explosion.

Former South Korean Foreign Minister Han Sung-Joo told FOX News his scientists estimated the scale of the latest North Korean nuclear test to be about 10 times the size of the 2006 nuclear test. 

They registered the tremor from the blast at 4.5 on the Richter scale. That is 1.0 more than in 2006, or 10 times greater. It is estimated that the 2006 test was about 800 tons, just under one kiloton. That would make today's blast around 10 kilotons. 

By comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 22 kilotons. 

The former South Korean foreign minister called the latest test serious, and a potential "game-changer." 

He said North Korea's Kim Jong Il is trying to escalate its nuclear capabilities to attain a better bargaining position, and eventually is seeking bi-lateral talks with the United States. He said North Korea is directly trying to draw attention from the Obama administration. 

As Minister Han Sung-Joo points out, this is a game changer.  The guy has nukes and will use them.  This means we either take him on and go to war to stop the growth of those nukes and his capability of selling that capabilitty -- or we say "Let's Talk" one on one. 

Sanctions, threats and rules haven't stopped them from getting what they need to build those nukes.  Perhaps a little respect might work instead.

I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this; but perhaps President Obama should invite Kim Jong II to Camp David.  Not the White house but Camp David, a place where other peace negotiations have occurred in the past.  Or perhaps the prime minister of China could invite both Kim Jong II and President Obama to his nation to have one on one talks.

Think about it.  What harm would it do?  Kim Jong II is still testing his nukes, he's still selling his information and products to other nations and the enemy, even after all the sanctions and isolation we've put him in that we've done for decades. 

Perhaps we should deal with the guy as we did with China and Russia many years ago.  Perhaps we should deal with him in the same manner we dealth with Saddam Hussein for many years until the Gulf War.

President Nixon is famous for opening relations with the People's Republic of China and initiated détente with the Soviet Union.  Perhaps this would plan of attack would help Obama and our nation as well as it did Nixon and the nation back then.

I realize some will say that's just inviting other rogue nations like Iran to want nukes even more.  Maybe so, but if we deal with North Korea perhaps he'll stop giving Iran his secrets in exchange for more prestige in the world?

Opinions?

ABU DHABI (Reuters) - The world economy has avoided "utter catastrophe" and industrialized countries could register growth this year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said on Monday.

"I will not be surprised to see world trade stabilize, world industrial production stabilize and start to grow two months from now," Krugman told a seminar.

"I would not be surprised to see flat to positive GDP growth in the United States, and maybe even in Europe, in the second half of the year."

Looks like even the so called experts can be wrong from time to time.

Paul  Krugman seems to be 'seeing' the light from his doom's day scenario and has decided to change his tune before he's made out to look as though he was completely off the mark with respects to our economy and how President Barack Obama's administration was handling the situation.

He even seems to be praising Obama's idea of capping greenhouse gases as a way to kick in part of a recovery:

"Legislation that will establish a capping grade system for greenhouse gases' emissions is moving forward," he said, referring to the U.S. Congress.

"When the Europeans probably follow suit, and the Japanese, and negotiations begin with developing countries to work them into the system, that will provide enormous incentive for businesses to start investing and prepare for the new regime on emissions... But that's a hope, that's not a certainty."

I hope this time next year we'll be hearing Krugman admit that he was completely wrong and that the Obama team actually 'did' know what they were doing.