Exactly what do you have against a commander in chief stating that sexual abuse is wrong? How is it that you are never satisfied? I fully support the admin's position in that sexual abuse to gain info is wrong. Exactly why is it that the opposition isn't applauding that? Oh, I know. It's because they have put the loud noise of partisanship and feudalism against the democracy called America. I suppose these same folks would decry the use of sexual abuse against MK ultra victims, yet won't, due to partisanship applaud the present admins rebuke against it.... ! Well, hooray for President Bush!!!! And the sooner we have a memorial to the MK Ultra Victims/Veterans ...even without their names..the sooner these detractors are silenced and made to acknowledge heroism of which innocence is subservient to the freedom of the whole...! May I recommend that you not spend your freedom decrying an admin that is trying to make right the wrongs of the past. thank you :)

First, you need to describe sexual abuse. Is it torturing the victims by hanging them from their testicles ala Abu Ghraib (which Bush and particularly Gonzales approved of) or are you talking about using females to lure men into doing what they don't want. No 1 above is a heinous act which in fact the BUSH administration allowed to occur. No 2 is something these dimwits would think to be against their relgion but in fact would be simply the smart 'sexual abuse' way to go.

Just my opinion.

Either way you look at it, how can anyone support the incompetence and unbelievable ignorace of the BUSH administration. It's as if the people who back BUSH don't realize they are cra*pping in their own pants. Well, to each his/her own.

Irony alert...Bush the grandson/son of the founders, recruiters and underwriters of MKUltra is now trying to right the wrongs of the past. Hardeeharhar.

I don't recognize George Bush as the commander in chief. He's a f*cking traitor and should be treated as such.

How far have we come that it is supposedly a novel and commendable act that the president of the United States of America condemns sexual abuse? Should he get credit for being against murder or for his pro-puppies position? To paraphrase Chris Rock, that's just giving him credit for sh*t he's supposed to do.

Besides that, I think the point of the article is that there are enough loopholes in the executive order that it doesn't prevent and may even encourage torture. So I'll continue to decry for now, thanks.