By some people's logic, GQ should not have published today's article

[Old Hank]

As you all know, GQ published an article today revealing how Donald Rumsfeld used the "Crusade" as reference to our invasions of Muslim countries around the time of the Iraq war. Rumsfeld, it was also revealed, used quotations for the Bibles for related purposes.

Now, you probably remember that some argued that President Obama released certain detainee abuse photos last week, our troops abroad would have been endangered.

For the sake of consistency, shouldn't these same defenders of the non-release of photos be voicing outrage against GQ?
The Muslim people are very sensitive with regard to this historic battle between Christians and Muslims (The Crusades).

See GQ slideshow here: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

[snowdays]

1. LOL.

[NYC_SKP]

2. The flaw is your argument is that there are several reasons not to rush to publish the photos.

One could engage in discussion about the claims made in support of the decision, but they would be pretty abstract and thus not terribly productive.

Also, Rumsfeld is out of power, and makes moot any argument that the Muslim world would react violently to Americans because of what he says.

We threw out the Bush regime.

[Old Hank]

3. A flaw in your counterargument

You say that Rumself is out of power; but aren't the culprits of the abuse in those photos out of power as well?

[NYC_SKP]

8. Yes, but consistent with what I wrote are the possibilities that there are other reasons...

to not release the photos at this particular time.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Rush to publish? Are you that clueless?

This ACLU lawsuit for release of these pictures under the FOIA has been won in every court by the ACLU for the last SIX YEARS. Rush?

[Buzz Clik]

6. I would agree that "rush to publish" isn't a perfect phrasing, but I agree with the post.

Bush stonewalled the release for 5.5. of those six years. A standing court order will force the release of those photos in a very short time.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Why would yet another court order make any difference?

And the 'poor choice of words' was the central theme of the OP, that this photo affair is some 'rush' that needs more consideration before action is taken. That is just bullshit. Six years and two administrations later, any claim that more time is needed is total laughable crap.

[Buzz Clik]

24. Obama's team is testing the national security slant on the ruling.

Nearly everyone who looks at this (except, incredibly, people at DU) are convinced that this is window dressing to pacify the military. Obama will make a futile attempt to reverse the court order, the attempt will be denied, the photos will be released, and the Pentagon will have to admit that at least he tried.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Yeah, clueless, that's me.

And you're describing the same ACLU who was granted access to the Torture Memos by Obama's justice department.

I suppose that was just smoke and mirrors.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39393prs20090416.html

[Warren Stupidity]

9. to 'some' torture memos.

I like the idea that these few documents constitute 'The Torture Memos'. One day, probably not in my lifetime, our KGB will have its day in the sun, as did the Stasi, as did the other KGB. Someday this purported democratic republic of informed citizens will learn what has actually been done in our names for the last 70 years or so.

Meanwhile - way to try and change the subject. I have to admire that, it is a great tactic. What RUSH TO PUBLISH? The FOIA case has been won by the ACLU in every court since 2003. And every administration, including this one, has stonewalled and refused to obey the clear directives of the courts. WHAT RUSH TO PUBLISH?

[Old Hank]

10. Furthermore, why is the US against releasing info about what we did to Binyam Mohamed?

We even threatened the UK to stop helping them combat terrorism if they made public what was done to prisoner Binyam Mohamed:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/index.html

[Buzz Clik]

4. I guess from a very narrow perspective, yes.

But, if you truly understand why the photos were withheld and recognize that no one is standing in the way of justice, then the answer is not only, "No", it's "You're kidding, right?"

[stillcool]

12. I don't know..do you think the pictures ..

of badly bruised and battered bodies have the same effect as an article about Rummy using the Crusades as a rationalization for war?

[Old Hank]

14. There's no way to know

The Crusades have more religious significance than the photos. Or maybe the photos can result in the death of more troops.

Maybe the surge has quieted things down in Iraq so much that neither disclosure would cause deaths in our military.

But the defenders of the decision not to release the photos should play it safe, just in case, don't you think?

[stillcool]

16. What defenders need to play what safe?

I'm not sure what to think about this decision. It surely shocked me, and the rationales don't quite pass muster. But then, I don't know how this decision was made. If it was a delay tactic because of the timing, a bargaining tool, or if there is some merit to the argument given. I'm slower than most when it comes to passing judgment. There's an awful lot I don't know, and I hate taking a position on a snapshot in time, when there are obviously many variables surrounding these photos. I think these photos will see the light of day..one way or another. And I really hope that people are contacting Eric Holder and their representatives to demand some kind of action be taken. That would take the sting out of the release of these photos.

[Uzybone]

13. Those pictures are beyond stupid

how anyone who thought that was a good idea got to serve in not one or two but three different administrations should cause us to take a very hard look at ourselves. Its not offensive to me, becasue its too stupid to be offensive. I cannot believe a grown man decided that was a good idea.

I really wonder about the country sometimes.

[polichick]

15. Of course you're right - but Obama apologists are only consistent about one thing.

[stillcool]

17. what is an Obama apologist?

Is that someone who questions? And what is consistent among "Obama apologists"?

[boppers]

18. How do the Rumsfeld images violate the Geneva conventions?

I didn't see any humiliation of prisoners in them.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Shorter Hank: WAAAAHHH!!!!

[berni_mccoy]

20. Most Moronic Post Ever. Compare These Two Photos and see if they evoke the Same Reaction:

vs.

[neverforget]

21. nevermind

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Spend any time in the Middle East?

Because in all honesty, I think the top one is more inflammatory on a far deeper level. The top one is what made the bottom one possible. People there understand that. They already know what happened to their family and friends. Rummy's memos simply confirm that they were correct about the whys and hows of their torturer's choices.
Especially the picture of the gates to Bagdad and the talk about God's judgment. Disturbing stuff that will not play well at all.

[stillcool]

23. The people in the Middle-east know exactly..

why we are there. They've been getting the shit bombed out of them for decades..and it has nothing to do with religion. Their leaders choose to use religion in the same way ours do. Obviously it works here.