The Daily Telegraph's Rape Photo Claim

"The President himself has said that the photos are not as explosive as photos that have already been released. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational"

Then just release the rest of the photo's already and put these sort of allegations to rest.

most underplayed story of the day

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/05/28/chrysler-conservatives-axed-only-blogs-investigate

can u even fathom how the media would be foaming at the mouth to investigate if a republican president had done this..but the Obomessiah will never be challenged by the slobbering MSM that cover him..The liberal bias and obvious love for" the one" by the media is at a fevered pitch..no wonder why viewership is down in the news and liberal loon NY times is bankrupt.

So was Taguba, who distinguished himself throughout the Abu Ghraib investigation, calling the president a liar? Has he personally seen these photos? Did he misspeak? Or did the Telegraph misinterpret or misreport his statements? I don't know.
.
Could you find out for us?

And herein lies MS's best effort at this psyche war thing:

" .. a mentally deranged detainee in the prison who was being allowed to harm himself. "
Really?

"being allowed"? When did our Republic start "allowing" people to harm or kill themselves?

------

" .. hope that the newspaper behaves a bit more responsibly .."

Do we assume that hiding photos that may document a crime against humanity is acting "a bit more responsibly"?

Consider this MS: Would we piously insist that photos that SEEM to document crimes being committed by at Auschwitz concentration camp being released to the public and the museums or would we rather have them trashed/concealed? What would be our arguments?

Rather than acknowledge the mistake, as is American journalistic convention, with a clearly posted correction or clarification
.
That's pretty funny.

Rather than acknowledge the mistake, as is American journalistic convention ...

Effing hillarious, Cliff. And Scherer typed it to boot. Nearly soiled myself.

FYI: Hersh told us about this awhile ago.

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/05/photos-obama-wont-release-include-images-of-rape.html

" .. hope that the newspaper behaves a bit more responsibly .."
Do we assume that hiding photos that document a crime against humanity is acting responsibly?

Consider this MS: Would we piously insist that photos that SEEM to document crimes being committed by at Auschwitz concentration camp being released to the public and the museums or would we rather have them trashed/concealed? What would be our arguments?

During the glory days of the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush-BillKristol axis of *, we learnt a few things about the mechanics of our psyche war.
Let us ask HBO to prove the negative.
Example, Can HBO prove to the world that the photos do NOT document crimes against humanity being committed?
Perhaps Karl Rove can make the statement tighter. I doubt that he would dare.

Point I: There are (disputed) claims that photos exist (or existed) of rape at Abu Ghraib
Point II: Obama says the photos he opposes releasing do not show such acts.
.
Therefore, what? Where's the logical, reliable basis for resolving the accuracy of either statement? No one has established the truth or falsity of the first statement, and the mere existence of the first statement proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the second.

"Could you find out for us?"
~
Yes, simply append "to be continued" to your initial post, and media rockstar that you are, get on it. Though I agree the Telegraph is not always to be trusted, I'm also not put at ease by the presidents remarks, and anything a f@cking Pentagon spokesperson has to say is akin to a comment by QH (where is she BTW?)

Since the photo's were taken long before Obama took office, how is he trying to "cover something up to look better?"
The GOP must be relieved at Obama's decision. There is already pressure to investigate and possible prosecute members of the former administration. If these photos are indeed as bad as described then releasing them would tip the scales.
So, all the salivating GOP'ers should be saying a collective "whew!"

Michael Scherer:
.
Rather than acknowledge the mistake, as is American journalistic convention...
.
Come on, dude...oh, wait! You didn't say "as is American journalistic practice", so I suppose that I can't fault you for technical inaccuracy...

Stuart, way downstream, in what EST-ers may consider a dead thread:
~
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/28/latest-column-25/#comment-68565

Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel stat!

Shall we teach Mr Chips some basic statistics or allow him to continue to wallow in his self-pitying delusion?

I'm offended by the slagging of The Daily Telegraph by the White House, the Pentagon, and the Time Magazine. The DT has the UK on the brink of Revolution. The Spinning and Obfuscating by Robert Gibbs, Bryan Whitman, and Michael Scherer makes me ill. just googled this!

FLASHBACK Rumsfeld: Worst Still To Come; Rumsfeld Apologizes To Iraqis; Says More Videos, Photos Exist
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.

Oregon JC:
.
I responded here.

'scuse me, but we're arguing about the existence of rape photos not about the actual rape itself.
.
Can we table the photos issue until we learn more about the proported crime?
.
Or, is this not American journalistic convention?

Unfortunately, neither Michael Scherer nor Time Magazine has much more -- or ANY more -- credibility here than the Brits. Time Magazine has a history of not only refusing to post corrections even when demonstrably false information is published, but of actually attacking and smearing those readers who pointed out the error. I can point (have pointed) to demonstrable errors in the reporting of Karen Tumulty, Joe Klein, Michael Duffy, and Massimo Calabresi, as have others. There is no level of egregious, demonstrable error that Time Magazine won't defend and refuse to correct.
.
Michael Scherer himself lost credibility during the campaign when he gave himself totally and unapologetically to carry water for McCain, despite warnings by his most loyal readers that he appeared to be succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome. Now he is reduced to the same "credibility" as is held by Ana Marie Cox, who to her credit doesn't profess to be an actual journalist. So his assessment of credibility here is kind of eye-rollingly funny, and rather naive as well.
.
Taguba, on the other hand, has a great deal of credibility and is held in high esteem as the first military man and investigator to blow the whistle on the Abu Ghraib scandal, standing his ground in the face of ferocious reaction the the bushies and the rightwing lunatics.
.
All of that said, it is possible that Obama has not actually viewed the photos but is relying on descriptions by self-interested people in the Pentagon. It is also possible that there is a discrepancy between the photos in the FOIA and the ones that Taguba knows about, which have been described several times in the past by people with a great deal of credibility. A better journo might with hold comment until he investigates the discrepancy.
.
And people who suffer from lack of credibility probably should not be throwing credibility stones at others. What say you, Michael? Did you want to defend yourself?

Obviously, witholding information leads to all sorts of speculation, some of it possibly true. Obama was right when he said sunshine was the best disinfectant, but he seems to have left much of the decision making to the military since he took power.

Good article Michael

Ignoring the comedy of MS offering media criticism and focusing on the topic I doubt this will be the last of these stories.
.
When you already have documented offenses holding back the photos will naturally lead people to assume the worst. Despite BHO's assurances 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"
.
I wouldn't take any President's word on a topic like this.

"A mentally deranged detainee in the prison who was being allowed to harm himself"
That statement was amazing. Are we at the point now where a "suicide watch" means that we just observe while someone commits suicide while in custody? The journey into the surreal continues.

Michael sez:
Rather than acknowledge the mistake, as is American journalistic convention, with a clearly posted correction or clarification,
.
Ya mean like this?
Correction appended: November 28, 2007 In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not explicitly say that. Republicans believe it can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't.
.
No correction yet posted, clearly or unclearly, on this outright falsehood either.
Next year, workers at Ford plants will earn an average $53 an hour with benefits, the result of a breakthrough industry agreement worked out with the UAW in 2007. That's close to the $49 an hour that workers at the transplants average and far below the $71 an hour with benefits that was the old UAW wage, and that was cited by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby as a reason to oppose any bailout.
Sorry to rehash old controversies, but Scherer's superior tone and his risible assertion about "American journalistic convention" is just too rich to pass up. OMG could I post some more stinkers -- just in the past year!

"I wouldn't take any President's word on a topic like this."
.
And nor should anyone just simply take a President's word on any subject or topic.
.
Nothing irrated me more during the Bush years than the constant "We have to trust our President." People saying that seem to completely forget that the President is running a hugh complex government and those working for him could be very well lying to him. And since the world we live in is not as black and white as most of us seem to want it to be there could be any number of reasons why.