Tabloid says it paid U.S. official for Saddam Hussein photos (more than

[wakeme2008]

$900 but will not say how much more...

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/nationworld/articles/1564931.html

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Tabloid says it paid U.S. official for Saddam Hussein photos
Military will conduct an investigation into the leak of near-naked pictures. Some Iraqis say it's an insult; others say he deserves it.
By Bassem Mroue
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. military condemned the publication Friday of photographs showing an imprisoned Saddam Hussein naked except for his white underwear, and ordered an investigation of how the pictures were leaked to a tabloid. Some Iraqis expressed anger, but President Bush said he did not think the images would incite further anti-American sentiment.

The Sun, a British tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, said the photos it published Friday and today were provided by a U.S. military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a "body blow" to the insurgency.

..more at link...

[zbdent]

1. Well, according to the Newsweek standard

they have to name the perp, er, "anonymous source".

[Career Prole]

2. "a British tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch"

After the f'ing repuke sturm und drang over Newsweek if this doesn't point out the fact that Rupert Murdoch's corporation is "connected" to the GOP, nothing will.

What a f'ing double standard! :grr:

[MidwestTransplant]

3. The 8 soldiers and marines killed today are his fault......

[Career Prole]

10. He's likewise got blood on his hands.

Scotty-boy should announce it any time now.

[Bozita]

4. ... THE Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame?

[Career Prole]

9. One and the same...

The Sun and the NY Post (the other paper which orig. published the pictures) are owned by Murdoch's conglomerate.

[cliss]

15. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Remind me NEVER to read that British rag again. I didn't know.

Now I do.

[gratuitous]

5. They hoped the pictures would deal a body blow to the insurgency?

Okay, ignoring the fact that the photo just by itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, and that its deliberate publication raises this sordid little episode to the level of a war crime, who was the genius who figured that publication of a humiliating photograph would damage the insurgency?

Do these people even fucking THINK anymore? Or is this whole corrupt administration just running on endorphins and whatever else makes them feel good for a moment? They act like a bunch of crackheads.

[atreides1]

11. They don't have to think

Because robots are programmed!

[UpInArms]

13. k.k.kould it be k.k.karl?

:evilgrin:

[joeunderdog]

19. So the RW media machine acknowledges they are MAKING news

instead of just reporting it? Don't forget the pre-war rumor-milling and lies that got us into this.

Newspapers shaping history rather than reporting it is why the Shrub is in the position to do the damage he now enjoys.

[LynnTheDem]

21. "think ANYMORE"??? You mean they DID ever think?

I musta missed that day.

:D

[EndElectoral]

6. If the US Official had such altruistic purposes why did he take money?

[dArKeR]

7. More action by aWol than on the Plume case!

[Supersedeas]

20. a waste of U.S. taxpayer money

[Ian David]

8. I want a picture of him on the potty reading a tabloid newspaper....

with a picture of Saddam sitting on the potty reading a tabloid newspaper.... etc., etc.....

[Patsy Stone]

12. Is this because they don't need to use this as a "wag the dog" moment?

"Some Iraqis expressed anger, but President Bush said he did not think the images would incite further anti-American sentiment."

I don't know about you, but I'm losing track of what will and what won't incite further anti-American sentiment according to these bozos. Four year old story from Gitmo, yes; new photos of Saddam in his undies, no.

Seems to me this didn't fit into their evil plan and maybe someone just needed the 500 pounds. :)

[Straight Shooter]

14. $900 is cheap to break the back of the insurgency.

Like that's going to do it. :eyes:

[wakeme2008]

23. Do not know the real total amount

" He would not elaborate except to say it was more than 500 British pounds, which is about $900."

[Zerex71]

16. These people don't get it.

Pictures of Saddam in his tighty whities is not why there's an insurgency. The fact that we are occupying their country, destroying it in the long term, enslaving their population in fear, and murdering every last Little Brown Person(TM) *probably* has a little something more to do with it than a former Iraqi strongman prancing around in his BVDs. If they think for a minute the insurgency will quit because we've captured SH, they really are dumb.

[Frances]

17. If what the U.S. has been saying is true,

(that the insurgents are people loyal to Saddam), then I think publishing these photos will make the insurgents even angrier and more prone to violence.

[daleo]

18. "Oh, no, a picture of Saddam in his underwear!"

"We must call off the insurgency now. The shame is too great to bear."
"Yes, it is unfortunate that the U.S. military discovered our one vulnerable point. What a genius must that official be."

[0007]

22. .....and now the thieves are gonna investigate the thieves!

What a joke, eh?

[Nostradamus]

24. further anti-american sentiment not possible

how do you beat 100%

[spooked]

25. IS THIS A PLAN to get sympathy for Saddam so he can be released

and save the U.S. from this MESS they have created?

Couldn't this be U.S. Military psy-op to provoke sympathy for Saddam around the world, and cause a demand for his release?