WTF, CNN..."Bush: 'Disgust' at APPARENT Iraq Prisoner Abuse Photos?"

...that's the current headline on their front page (http://www.cnn.com/). Supposedly, according to the article, "CNN has not verified the authenticity of the images."

The headline when you click on the front-page teaser is "Bush expresses 'deep disgust' at prison photos"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.photos/index.html

Quote 1: ""I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said. "Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America."

ap·par·ent, adj.

1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.

Quote 2: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan described the acts depicted in the photos as "despicable."

"We cannot tolerate it, and the military is taking strong action against those responsible," McClellan said."

SO...is the military taking strong action against "APPARENT" abuse or "regular" abuse????? If the images haven't been verified as "authentic," what action is the military taking? Are they checking all of the Longs Drugs photo drop-offs in Fallujah to see who turned in that roll of film or WHAT?

Finally, in Quote 3, we have the opportunity to savor the leadership for which Bush is so justifiably lauded:

"I didn't like it one bit," Bush added during an appearance in the White House Rose Garden with visiting Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin."

Well, that's a relief! Glad it only took him a couple of days to figure that one out. So, Mr. Commander in Chief, the question remains:

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT???

a couple days..the White House has had them since January according to cbsnews.com

I heard the clip on the radio. He might as well have been his dad, criticizing broccoli. No emotion at all.

Don't believe your lyin' eyes!

This was annoying the shit out of me today. "Alleged abuse" "Allegedly showing..." WTF? I know what I'm seeing!

...for news organizations to use the word "alleged" or "apparent" when talking about people who can bring powerful lawyers to bear.

Apparent is correct here, as is apparent (ha!) by the first two definitions that you posted.

Now, if they had said "alleged", that's different.

I heard the word "alleged" all day on CNN, MSNBC etc.

al·leged, adj.

Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.

Usage Note: An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but against whom no charges have been proved. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. In their zeal to protect the rights of the accused, newspapers and law enforcement officials sometimes misuse alleged. Someone arrested for murder may be only an alleged murderer, for example, but is a real, not an alleged, suspect in that his or her status as a suspect is not in doubt. Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged.

...that "leave yourself some wiggle room" ethic that shows up in the answer to every question asked of Bush and his administration.

I guess the way they'll verify it is to identify one of the prisoners and have him give sworn testimony that "yes, they laughed at my bare ass and pointed at it repeatedly."

Four more years!

:puke:

Do they think that CBS went wild with Photoshop or something?

And don't you dare say four more years! We WILL win this!

he handed the "insurgents" by also defending the US presence in Iraq with the argument that there is no longer torture, rape rooms, or mass graves. What a freaking idiot. Iraqis will judge us by our actions, not our words, and so far our actions are not winning a lot of friends.