Saddam shown in his underwear

[Erika]

See www.drudgereport.com. This is how we protect the rights of those placed under our guard? Maybe, it's a hoax?

[swag]

1. Those aren't the most flattering briefs.

I would suggest all black Calvin Klein Boxer-Briefs.

[Must_B_Free]

2. more sexual humiliation

is homo-eroticism just an inherent part of authoritatianism?

[Kagemusha]

5. With men? When has it not?

Issues of potency have been around at least since the Greek myth of Saturn cutting off Uranus' private parts with a sickle and thus ending his celestial mojo.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Is this sexual humiliation?

[Maple]

3. I'd say

he looks damn good for being 70 years old.

Especially after doing nothing but sitting in jail all this time.

So yeah, I'd say it's photoshopped.

[cliss]

105. Exactly my thoughts, M.

When I saw the photo, I thought, "wow, he's not in bad shape, for being an old dictator". His boobs are a little overdone, but the hips are actually quite slim. Nice package, as Randi Rhodes said yesterday.

Yes, I agree, it has to be a creation of Adobe Photoshop.

[geek tragedy]

4. Now we can see where he's hiding at least one WMD. eom

[Ksec]

9. lol

good one man, I laugh..

[TahitiNut]

70. We can also see why Chimperor Codpiece resents Saddam.

The ol' disco cucumber must be on the menu.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. And ole Drudge couldn't wait to post it on his website.

:eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

7. he's got a thing for... underwear and wild animals.

among other weird interests.

[Clark2008]

11. He's got a thing for powerful men, is what he's got.

The Clenis... Bush's cod piece... probably even the GanGuckert.

Not that it's a bad thing, mind you - it's just that he's so hypocritical about his lustings in regards to the Party he choose to protect.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. You know...

Drudge has a link to James Wolcott on there.

Interesting.

[Rose Siding]

10. Convention (III), Part 1, Article 3, 1(a)

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
...
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument

August '49. We signed on to that one. So did Iraq.

[RobertSeattle]

12. ding ding ding - thanks

What would the reaction if this was a US Soldier? The US is such a hypocrite.

[Erika]

13. This does sicken me, if it's not a hoax

We cannot claim moral superiority when we act as lowly, or lower, as those we condemn.

[DoNotRefill]

90. You might want to be careful with that....

after all, wouldn't photographing POWs in most circumstances fall under that category if it was read too widely?

Would showing Saddam in a Speedo bathing suit be degrading? What if he was at a pool? Wouldn't such pictures be considered proof that he was in fact being humanely treated, since he's obviously in good health and not showing signs of torture? I haven't seen all of them, just the one of him in his tighty whiteys, but if the rest are "a day in the life" photographs, how is that humiliating? Or are ALL pictures of POWs going about their daily life humiliating and therefore a violation of the Geneva Conventions???

[FredScuttle]

96. Let's get a picture of you in your Fruit of the Loom

and gauge your comfort level with it being splashed on tabloids around the world

[DoNotRefill]

101. Really???

you think they would print it??? w00T!!!!!

How is this different than a papparazi shot of a famous person sunbathing topless?

[FredScuttle]

102. The supposition is that they would print it

and the whole world would get a gander at you and your junk.

Now, add to the scenario that you are being held against your will...a prisoner. I don't think Cameron Diaz getting caught in the buff at St. Tropez is an overt act of wartime psy-ops by the occupying force to 1) humiliate the deposed leader and 2) weaken the esprit de corps of the insurgency. Rather, that's an invasion of privacy issue over which she and many other celebrities (incl. Brad Pitt) have successfully sued.

[DoNotRefill]

103. So are you saying....

that ALL pictures of POWs violates the Geneva Convention?

[FredScuttle]

104. I'm going by the Convention rules

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
...
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

Are YOU saying that taking an unauthorized picture of a prisoner in his underwear (particularly insulting in the Arab world) doesn't meet that standard?

[DoNotRefill]

106. Considering that Saddam...

while in power, had his picture taken in swim trunks and a dippy white hat while swimming in the Tigris (one of the pics is posted in thumbnail form upthread), I think you're going to have a VERY hard sell that the picture rises to the level of being a war crime.

You're also getting into restricting a free press and the people's right to know what's going on. For example: When Saddam was in the "dock" during his court hearing a while ago, that could be seen as humiliating, right? But wasn't it newsworthy? People have said that the US and new Iraqi government have been abusing him. Wouldn't releasing pictures of him showing him to be in surprisingly good health be newsworthy? After all, the pictures would directly refute claims that he was being beaten, yes?

[FredScuttle]

107. "while in power..."

BINGO. I don't care if he was photographed in a codpiece with Siegfried & Roy at the Imperial Palace....while he's in custody, he is entitled to certain rights and paramount among them is protection against exploitation.

Newsworthy? Just repeating the Fox canard "People have said" does not justify this shameful episode. The pictures themselves neither confirm or refute these allegations of mistreatment (not all bruises need to be on the outside), but are simply exploitative and humiliating.

Just remember your tortured justifications for this nonsense when it's one of our folks held prisoner and snapped in their skivvies.

[greatbubba]

14. The military will deny then they will accept and finally they will forgive

the idiot that took the pics. The only one hurt by this would be bush..I think Saddam is more equipped than him..

[maseman]

15. Weird

All I can say is we live in a very strange world...and Saddam looks to to be fairly well hung

[Erika]

17. As Rose pointed out, this is a violation of international law

But then Bush has thumbed his nose at anything other than Bush's Law.

He doesn't need the Constitution, or International Law, he just makes the law as he wishes it to be and expects the rubber stamps in the GOP to agree with him.

[Roland99]

16. Violation of the Geneva Conventions - Pt 1, Ar.3 1c and Pt 2 Ar. 13

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Part 1, Article 3, 1c

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

Part 2, Article 13

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. "International law? I better call my lawyer."

Another one of *'s greatest hits

[PartyPooper]

18. This is not LBN.

It should have been posted in the Lounge.

;-)

[Erika]

21. It was LBN

Posted within the last 12 hours of the news date.

[BiggJawn]

48. Lead story on CBS this morning....

Oh, right... CBS...DUH!

Should be in the Lounge...

[kineneb]

19. poking out mind's eye...

is he as ugly as Arnie in a speedo? Uuuuuck. Things we don't need to see...

[MADem]

20. Could be a hoax photo, but it IS the front page of the SUN

Check their website, they say buy the paper and see Saddam in his 'pants' (Brit term for yer drawers).

In any event, it violates Geneva, and whoever took the photo should get Lynndie'd for it.

[TahitiNut]

71. "DoD officials say the photos are believed to be over a year old..."

"These photos were taken in clear violation of DoD directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals," a Multinational Force Iraq official said in a statement.

That sounds like a clear confirmation of their truthfulness to me. :shrug:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2005/20050520_1241.html

[wtmusic]

22. The underwear has been obviously whitened

there is at least some photoshop at work here

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. Nobody ever suffers this kind of indignity

Did they ever do this to anybody before? This is utter and total propaganda bullshit.

[ConfuZed]

24. ...I wonder why they made him so... "equipped" down there?

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. Who cares? Who have they ever paraded around like that before?

This is a stupid useless childish form of humiliation that will do nothing but piss off more Iraqis. Chalk up another blunder to the crown chimp of fools.

[AlienGirl]

26. Saddam is a disgusting piece of sh*t armed by the Republicans

But the reason we have things like the Geneva Convention is so that even dictators propped up by Republican presidencies are protected from abuse. That way, we have some moral ground to stand on when *our* POWs are abused.

Of course, such concepts are too complicated for the average freeper to understand.

Tucker

[greatbubba]

84. why is saddam disgusting cause his not white? If you notice USA has

issues with non white countries.

[ngGale]

27. I'm speechless....

they resort to the lowest common denominator. :scared:

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Looks like it was photoshopped to me

that is not the body of a 70 year old man, I don't care how long Saddam has been on Atkins.

Edit: I just pulled the image into photoshop and there's a lot more pixilation around the face then the rest of the image. Definitely a fake.

[TahitiNut]

72. "DoD officials say the photos are believed to be over a year old ..."

"These photos were taken in clear violation of DoD directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals," a Multinational Force Iraq official said in a statement.

The DoD is clearly attesting to the accuracy of the photos.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2005/20050520_1241.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

77. So were they taken

on the same day they staged Saddam's capture? Now you don't think the DOD would publish staged or faked pictures?

[TahitiNut]

78. Ockham's Razor: Nope. Not in his underwear.

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. They said they are investigating

The only person they quote is a "Multinational Force Iraq official", so they can leave the door open for claiming plausible deniability later on.

[TahitiNut]

80. It's a DoD Press Release.

If you read it, there's every assumption that the photos are not materally altered and not indication whatsoever that they're what they are purported to be.

[DoNotRefill]

91. Read the fine print:

"The statement went on to say that the command "is disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release.""

They're not saying that they're authentic, they're saying it's possible that they're authentic.

[MADem]

29. Fake or no, the military has started an investigation

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20325419.htm

Also, he does not have access to hair dye nowadays, thus the pics are likely old, as speculated below.

Other photographs showed Saddam, with short, dyed-black hair and a moustache, washing clothes by hand and asleep on his bed.

But a U.S. military statement said the pictures might be a year old, contravened Saddam's rights as a prisoner and could have broken the Geneva Convention.

"Multi-National Forces-Iraq is disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release," the statement said.

"This lapse is being aggressively investigated to determine, if possible, who took the photos, and to ensure existing procedures and directives are complied with to prevent this from happening again," it said.

[Blue Belle]

75. Right... Military Investigation...

What are the odds that they won't be found responsible??

The only military investigation that will be done is on a strategic 6 point plan to blame it on: a) some over zealous enlisted military guards; b) the media (ala Newsweek); c) all of the above.

[Judi Lynn]

30. US protests British tabloid's photos of captive Saddam Hussein

20th MAY 15:03 hrs IST
US protests British tabloid's photos of captive Saddam Hussein
- -
London: The US military condemned a British newspaper's decision to print photographs of a captive Saddam Hussein, including one showing him in his underwear.

A front-page picture in the tabloid Sun showed the former Iraqi dictator, clad only in white briefs, folding a pair of trousers. Another on an inside page showed Saddam hand-washing a piece of clothing. The Sun said it obtained the photos from ``US military sources.'' A statement issued by the US military in Baghdad said the photos violated military guidelines ``and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.''

It said the source of the photos was unknown, but they were believed to have been taken more than a year ago.
(snip/...)

http://www.manoramaonline.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=manorama/MmArticle/CommonFullStory&c=MmArticle&channel=News&cid=1116573323191&colid=1002258272837&count=10&p=1002366458817&WebLogicSession=Qo2xP8Sp11r7vDaEGl7wHZksWAdZFsAvonLwbyS1n67Blo0FQfZX|63

[MADem]

32. Wouldn't it be interesting

...if the photographer turned out to be US Military?

Our government is putting up their expressions of protest fast, because they are figuring the shutterbug was a Brit guard, one of our coalition partners. But hey, the smart person would shop the pictures offshore, the better to conceal their origination...

[bitchkitty]

31. Dang, ol' Saddam's got

quite a pickle in his pocket!

Seriously, though, this is breaking news?

[MADem]

34. I think it is, not for the underwear, but for the Geneva Convention issues

The photos have just been revealed, and it demonstrates that we have been playing fast and loose with the Convention for over a year (given the hair dye still looking fairly fresh).

Imus just led with it...it's news.

[truthisfreedom]

33. codpiece comparison... make up your own mind.

[MADem]

35. Saddam looks beefier, without any support! n/t

[truthisfreedom]

36. gives new meaning to the word "weenie."

[MADem]

37. UPDATE--The Sun claims the source is AMERICAN MILITARY

Reported on Imus moments ago.

UH-OHHHHHH, guess that expression of outrage directed at the Brits splashed back on us a bit, eh?

[truthisfreedom]

38. wow! see my codpiece post above!

[maddezmom]

41. yup, looks like it

But a U.S. military statement said the pictures might be a year old, contravened Saddam's rights as a prisoner and could have broken the Geneva Convention.

"Multi-National Forces-Iraq is disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release," the statement said.

"This lapse is being aggressively investigated to determine, if possible, who took the photos, and to ensure existing procedures and directives are complied with to prevent this from happening again," it said
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050520/wl_nm/iraq_britain_saddam_dc

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. BBC - US anger at Saddam underwear shot

20 May, 2005

The US military says it is investigating "aggressively" after a picture appeared in a British paper showing Saddam Hussein half naked.

The Sun newspaper's front page image showed the former Iraqi president in a pair of white underpants.

Other pictures showed Saddam Hussein washing his socks in a bowl, shuffling around and sleeping on his bed.

The US said the photos appeared to breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4565505.stm


Watch out gang, I smell another set up. This might be another Rovian attempt to discredit the media. I'd love to see the other pictures, since the one above appears to be, let's say, enhanced.

[trapper914]

40. I love the U.S. Military's "outrage"

It doesn't matter who prints the photo, the U.S. is accountable for Saddam's treatment.

[ikri]

42. This might be another Rovian attempt to discredit the media....

If that is the case it would be the biggest mistake the * administration ever makes.

Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun. Not sure it would be a good idea for Rove to piss off good old Rupert.

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. But Rove needs a distraction really bad right now

and those terror alerts aren't working anymore.

[MADem]

50. The Brit tabloid media? Naaah, this got away from them, OR

...they did it on purpose, hoping it would be blamed on a Brit guard, not an American one.

[DS1]

65. Dearest U.S. Military. Take a cue from Paris Hilton. Stop taking

pictures.

[Catchawave]

43. On the cover of the NY Post :

http://www.nypost.com/

It's the lead story on the cable newsies this morning too. Alot of fuss for possibly photoshopped ?

Wouldn't something like this upset the insurgents even more than the Newsweek article :shrug:

[hue]

51. Who the hell is making these F'd up decisions??? n/t

[MADem]

63. Maybe someone who wants to take the heat off of the Brit memo?

Underwear shots aren't as bad a fake reason to go to war....???? :shrug:

[tanyev]

44. Deja vu all over again.

The talking heads on GMA this morning told me that the US was "outraged" that the Sun published the pictures. WHEN are they going to be outraged that the pictures were even taken???

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. Of course this story broke thru Drudge

that should be a big hint that this is another Rove distraction.

[MADem]

53. It's not playing right for him, though, if he did do it

It's playing like "US Assholes at it Again." Also, it was fait accompli, NOT released VIA Druge, like Monicagate....all Drudge does is get online subscriptions to all of the gossip rag papers, and pick out the pellets from the steaming pile of crap.

This was simply far too good for him to pass up...after all, it IS a half-naked dictator, and Sludge has a thing for 'package' shots.

[Nihil]

55. Requested specially by Coleman?

(Not to mention the rest of the gutless Senate who had their collective
noses rubbed in the puddle.)

[hue]

47. Prob released per request of Guckert/Gannon n/t

[BiggJawn]

49. Lynndie England took the photos, right?

Can't wait to hear THAT revelation....:sarcasm:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

54. Hahahaha .... I wrote my post before I read yours...

I wonder if a lot of folks are thinking along these lines. :)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

52. US military will conduct throrough investigation

which will result in the imprisonment of some eighteen year old female soldier with an IQ of sixty-two. And business will go on as usual.

[hnsez]

56. This is standard psyops procedure against an insurgency

[Pockets]

57. Is this a coincidence?

Someone noted that yesterday was an important day because the same number of days had passed since 9/11 and May 19th 2005, as the number of days between Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII.

And on that day this photo comes out? It's interesting the kind of degenerate yet all powerfull masterminds we have controlling such matters.

[Catchawave]

58. Like the Koran story leak?

Then blame Newsweek?

I heard Tim Russert this morning mention we need to NAME SOURCES of such information coming from high ranking gov and military officials, or at the very least mention WHY they want to be anonymous.

The terrorism experts on the cable news are worried about this....basically saying this shows the world what insensitive and hypocritical bastards we are.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

59. I'm a little bit sensitive to this issue

since my daughter was at one time an airman, stationed overseas. I don't condone the conduct of these young women who are presently being courtmartialed and imprisoned for these crimes, but I honestly don't think that they were acting on their own. They go to prison, Rummy gets a medal. Where is the outrage from military parents?

Sorry for veering the thread in a different direction. End of rant.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. We're not

but all the major news media outlets are picking up the story.

[MARALE]

67. Good first post

:eyes:

It is a big insult to the Iraqis, whether it is in the Sun or not. This is as bad or worse than the Abu Gurab pictures.

[MADem]

68. It is also in the NY Post and every cable news station has been running

...with it, pictures and all, all morning. Don't let the real issue get obfuscated--a member of the US military tasked with guarding the dictator violated his Geneva Convention right to privacy and not being made a spectacle by first, taking the pictures and second, selling them to Rupert Murdoch for publication around the world.

All this will do is piss off the Sunnis, like they aren't already pissed off enough.

And I doubt it is photoshopped.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

100. I'm sure we dupes will be overwhelmed by your analysis

...which you are no doubt going to provide to show us just how we were duped so easily. Apparently, the president is duped right along with us, and no doubt you will tell us how they managed to fool him too!

[demo dutch]

62. Looks like a photoshop job to me!

[DS1]

66. Where? Why? What makes you think it's a Photoshop job?

[demo dutch]

74. I don't think it looks like a body of a 70 year old man, the

underwear looks like it's whitened, the top proportion of his body looks like it doesn't totally matches up with the bottom proportion somehow the waist looks slightly odd. I seem to recall some photos of Saddam by a pool or beach that could have been doctered possibly. They could have been slipped to the Sun to continue the momentum of outrage in the muslim world that's going on right now.

[DoYouEverWonder]

82. A couple of things

there's more pixilation around the edge of his face, then around the other edges. In other pictures where you can see Saddam's neck and hand, his skin is very old. I would expect there rest of his body would be of similar condition and color.

Of course, we are looking at an image of an image so we are at a handicap.

[TahitiNut]

73. "DoD officials say the photos are believed to be over a year old..."

"These photos were taken in clear violation of DoD directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals," a Multinational Force Iraq official said in a statement.

That sure sounds like the DoD is attesting to the accuracy of the photos.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2005/20050520_1241.html

[bluedog]

69. the administration shouldn't

be too upset...after all they started these showing of pictures when they kept showing the bodies of Saddams sons lying dead

[meppie-meppie not]

76. OMG that's where he's hiding the WMD!

[spinbaby]

81. Saddam's gonna sue

Saddam to sue newspaper over leaked jail pictures
By Michael Theodoulou, and Philippe Naughton, Times Online

Lawyers for Saddam Hussein said today that they have started legal action against The Sun after the newspaper published a front-page picture of the deposed dictator wandering around an Iraqi jail in his underpants.

Ziyad Khasawneh, who heads Saddam's 20-strong defence team based in Jordan, told The Times that he would also be starting legal action against US forces in Iraq and Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for allowing Saddam to be photographed in jail in breach of international law.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1620557,00.html

[maddezmom]

83. The Guardian; Bidding war for Sun's Saddam pics

Bidding war for Sun's Saddam pics

Claire Cozens, press and publishing correspondent
Friday May 20, 2005

A bidding war has kicked off for the rights to the Sun's pictures of Saddam Hussein in his prison cell, with News International demanding around £20,000 a photo.
According to sources, News International is demanding "tens of thousands" for the photographs, which show the former Iraqi dictator in his underwear and washing clothes.

Many newspapers were today weighing up the ethical as well as the financial considerations of publishing the photographs, but there is likely to be strong demand from American as well as UK media organisations.

The US military has said the photographs are in breach of the Geneva convention and has launched a mole hunt to find out who took them.

~snip~
more:http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1488808,00.html

[daleo]

85. Modesty is very important in Muslim culture

And this would be seen to be a major insult to Saddam. So, I doubt this is an accident - psychological propaganda, to prepare the Muslim world for a trial, perhaps. It will probably backfire, like everything Chimpco does.

[MADem]

86. Well, they were not a gift to the SUN

Apparently the shutterbug was paid nine hundred bucks for the pics.

The stupid fool--the US rights are raking in thousands. He should have made a better deal. There is some speculation that these could be a screen shot from a video surveillance camera as well.

[daleo]

88. It could have been someone's operative that released the pic's

CIA, Iraqi, MI6, Chalabi's bunch...The low price makes me even more suspicious of that. As always, timing is everything. My question is, "why now, why not last year when Saddam's capture was fresh?"

[MADem]

89. Watch Olbermann

They are speculating mightily right now as to the WHY. Catch the rerun if you miss it....

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

93. Saddam was a Secularist-not devout Muslim- What govt will emerge now?

A Muslim fundamentalist regime will emerge--The U.S. will oil business will soon be reminiscing over the "good 'ol days" when we eventually get kicked out of Iraq by religious extremists.

All I can say is one good Christian Fundamentalist Regime deserves another good Muslim Fundamentalist Regime to deal with.

Would have been funny to have seen the underwear photos of Chimp whackin it in a coffin at the Skull and Bone initiation,,,only the reporter for the Enquirer got Anthraxed before the photos could be printed...remember the anthrax in Florida?

[phasev]

87. sexy n/t

[olddad56]

92. How ironic, Our emperor has no clothes either.

[MADem]

95. GENUINE HEADLINE: Bush probes Saddam's pants

Oh, that cheeky SUN!!!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230454,00.html

GEORGE Bush yesterday launched a probe into how pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underpants were leaked.

His spokesman said: “He has been briefed. He wants to get to the bottom of it.”.....

But hey, it looks like they are getting the "desired" result:

...In Baghdad, Iraqis gathered in coffee shops to laugh out loud as our front page picture of their ex-president in his Y-fronts was screened by Arab networks.

[Erika]

97. Many thought Bush through Murdoch/Faux/Sun/NYPost

was responsible for the leak. Heck with international law or such things. Heck with our duty to treat prisoners in a civil and Christian manner, right?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.