Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Thanks to a reader for drawing this to our attention.

Last Sunday 201k suggested that the outrage George Bush feels over the abuse of prisoners by US military personnel in Iraq is likely more due to the pictures of the abuse than to the abuse itself.

Call us prescient (emphasis added):

May 6, 2004

Rumsfeld Chastised by President for His Handling of Iraq Scandal

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, May 5 — President Bush on Wednesday chastised his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, for Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of a scandal over the American abuse of Iraqis held at a notorious prison in Baghdad, White House officials said.

The disclosures by the White House officials, under authorization from Mr. Bush, were an extraordinary display of finger-pointing in an administration led by a man who puts a high premium on order and loyalty. The officials said the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse, which have enraged the Arab world.

Another White House official said, "The president was not satisfied or happy about the way he was informed about the pictures, and he did talk to Secretary Rumsfeld about it."

So is it the pictures that bothered him, or the abuse?

Answer: It's the release of the pictures. How do we know? Because George Bush knew for months about the abuse. Look at his smarmy word-smithing (emphasis added):

In his interviews on Wednesday with Arab television networks, Mr. Bush said that he learned the graphic details of the abuse case only when they were broadcast last Wednesday on the CBS program "60 Minutes II." It was then, one White House official said, that Mr. Bush also saw the photographs documenting the abuse. "When you see the pictures," the official said, "it takes on a proportion of gravity that would require a much more extreme response than the way it was being handled."

Why did the president specify that what the photos showed him was "graphic details"? Because he'd already been told about the abuse itself (emphasis added):

Pentagon officials said that Mr. Rumsfeld was first notified about the pictures in mid-January, after a soldier turned them over to Army officials, prompting the opening of an investigation. A senior Pentagon official said that Mr. Rumsfeld was told of the allegations of abuse and given a general description of the photographs.

Within weeks, the Pentagon official said, Mr. Rumsfeld told the president about the case. But it is not clear, the official said, whether Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned the photographs or their basic content to Mr. Bush at that point.

So either the president was told of the abuse but, owing to his not having seen the pictures, did not grasp the "gravity" of the case, or--he knew about it but did nothing and said nothing until the photos emerged and were shown all over the world.

Which do you think it is, readers?