He began by insisting that the images in question "are not particularly sensational." If this is true, it begs the question of why the government refuses to release them, purportedly for fear that they would provoke attacks on US troops.

On this score, Obama is lying. It should be recalled that after the exposure of the Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, the Pentagon managed to suppress other images, which were described by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as depicting acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was more explicit about these photos and videos. "We're talking about rape and murder--and some very serious charges," he reported at the time. ...

Obama further claimed that the photos would not add "to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

Here the Democratic president embraces the contemptible claim by the Bush White House that the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was merely the work of a few "bad apples," a handful of soldiers who have been jailed, cashiered or otherwise punished. This alibi has been thoroughly discredited by the Justice Department memos released last month, which gave pseudo-legal justifications for precisely the abhorrent abuse seen at Abu Ghraib. Senate investigations have also established that these acts of torture were discussed and approved by the top officials in the Bush administration.

Finally, Obama warned that the release of the images would "inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger." This concern only makes sense given the Obama administration's refusal to seriously investigate--much less criminally prosecute--torture and other war crimes carried out under Bush. Thus, instead of being seen as evidence in holding the guilty accountable and making a decisive break with their criminal policies, the photos represent more proof that those responsible--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and others--enjoy impunity, and that the new administration is covering up for torture.

He began by insisting that the images in question "are not particularly sensational." If this is true, it begs the question of why the government refuses to release them, purportedly for fear that they would provoke attacks on US troops.

On this score, Obama is lying. It should be recalled that after the exposure of the Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, the Pentagon managed to suppress other images, which were described by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as depicting acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was more explicit about these photos and videos. "We're talking about rape and murder--and some very serious charges," he reported at the time. ...

Obama further claimed that the photos would not add "to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

Here the Democratic president embraces the contemptible claim by the Bush White House that the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was merely the work of a few "bad apples," a handful of soldiers who have been jailed, cashiered or otherwise punished. This alibi has been thoroughly discredited by the Justice Department memos released last month, which gave pseudo-legal justifications for precisely the abhorrent abuse seen at Abu Ghraib. Senate investigations have also established that these acts of torture were discussed and approved by the top officials in the Bush administration.

Finally, Obama warned that the release of the images would "inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger." This concern only makes sense given the Obama administration's refusal to seriously investigate--much less criminally prosecute--torture and other war crimes carried out under Bush. Thus, instead of being seen as evidence in holding the guilty accountable and making a decisive break with their criminal policies, the photos represent more proof that those responsible--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and others--enjoy impunity, and that the new administration is covering up for torture.

"I want to speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media," Gibbs said. "In some ways, I'm surprised it filtered down."

"Let's just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I'd might open up a British newspaper," he continued. "If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be the first pack of clips I'd pick up."

I also find it interesting that at least in the quote from above the White House didn't question the motives of the retired general...

Meanwhile if I want to read anything substantive about our foreign policy, British (and other foreign) press is a necessity and has been for 10 years.

More importantly, why do reporters suck so much?

"Mr. Gibbs.  We all know that the telegraph is suspect, especially since we all work for competitors.  Are you on record than to state that there are no photos depicting rape or sexual abuse, as that would seem to be in direct contrast with the Presidents statement that there was nothing sensational about them"

It seems the general does not have the balls to live in a free country.  Or the brains.

Hide it and hide it and hide it, heaven forbid we should simply stand up and show the world we can hold ourselves accountable.

As someone above noted, what's his contention, that the paper either made up the interview with Taguba, made up quotes or distorted what he said?

I could live with the thoughts if this was something in The Sun, with everything attributed to "sources," but this ain't that.