Hiding the pictures isn't to 'protect the troops'.

[endarkenment]

It is to keep us here in the USA, the people, the citizens of this republic, confused and misinformed about what was done in our name.

Our enemies know what was done. Our soldiers will be treated as we have treated our prisoners, that blowback is already in progress and cannot be stopped. Please don't buy the lies. You wouldn't have accepted this bullshit from the Bush administration. Do not accept it from the Obama administration.

[Mari333]

1. yes, if they wanted to protect the troops

they can bring them home now.
this is just a coverup. of epic proportions.

[paparush]

2. Some Patriot will release this EVIDENCE!

These pictures are evidence in criminal investigations.

These pictures are the opportunity to rip the scales off of America's eyes.

[Buzz Clik]

103. Yes, yes, yes! We want pictures because no pictures of US torture we ever released.

Oh, wait...

Nevermind.

[Usrename]

108. Dick Cheney, earlier this week:

"I think it’s very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done."




Don't you think that releasing the photos now would be an effective push back against his argument? Do you think his argument helps the troops?

[Buzz Clik]

113. Photos are compelling.

Have you forgotten these already?

[shadowknows69]

109. Yeah, it's all in the past. Move along. Move forward. Take ten steps back.

[Buzz Clik]

111. Outstanding analysis! That's exactly what I said, isn't it?

I never ceased to be amazed at the petulance of the DU posters who can't get what they want when they want it. And that is exceeded only by their immediate anger at those who disagree.

[shadowknows69]

112. Happy to exceed your expectations.

[Buzz Clik]

114. Absolutely. DU posters never fail to disappoint.

[shadowknows69]

126. Well that would include you, as you are a DU poster. I have evidence :p

[Orrex]

3. It seems to me

That the only possible reason not to release the photos is because, if they were released, prosecutions would absolutely have to follow, and for some reason this seems unpalatable to this administration.

[leeroysphitz]

14. Bingo. n/t

[Soylent Brice]

53. self-delete

wrong place

[Hepburn]

36. +1....n/t

[leftofthedial]

37. This administration has been relentlessly passive aggressive

in their unwillingness to seek justice and restore the rule of law.

One might almost begin to think they are complicit and/or that they do not believe in the rule of law.


Or maybe they are just looking forward to the time when they've finished giving EVERYTHING to the rich bankers.

[tridim]

48. One might also begin to think that people like you

will never be happy with anything our President does, because it's your MO.

If Obama does anything that isn't 100% pure in your opinion, it's bad. If Cheney shows up on the Sunday shows and says torture rocks, that means he "beat" Obama.

[Javaman]

57. Um, okay.

remind me of that when I hear that we will never see the photos.

[livefreest]

68. oh, don't be so pessimistic. avenues for the release of these pics still exist

keep hope. have you joined the ACLU or renewed your membership? i just joined yesterday

[grahamhgreen]

91. The ACLU is who Obama is fighting.

[livefreest]

94. and that's why i just donated money to them.

[conscious evolution]

107. Its hard to be happy with a prez

that protects war crimnals.
As a matter of fact it makes him a war criminal.
I've had enough of war criminals ruining the show.
So have billions of people around the world.

[JackRiddler]

132. "People like you"

Do you know what it means when you say nothing except to attack some constructed species of person you imagine?

Congrats, that's The Full Freeper.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. It is even simpler than that, the US is an EMPIRE

Empires need to keep their subjects ignorant

Yes, it is that simple.

The photos would finally destroy the sense of american exceptionalism

[defendandprotect]

104. America needs to be totally awakened ....

to what political violence has done here since the coup on JFK --
Republican rule/secrecy/coverups --

America has been dragged thru the sewer by right wing forces acting thru
the GOP --

[Soylent Brice]

54. +2

[chatnoir]

93. +3

[Buzz Clik]

105. Have other pictures of US torture ever been release? Other documents of US torture?

Yes, they have.

Your analysis is flawed.

[Orrex]

142. Your analysis makes no sense

Q: What was the harm that resulted from releasing those other pictures?
A: None.

Q: What is the compelling reason for not releasing the current batch of secret photos?
A: None.

[Political Tiger]

4. Yes, it's all one big conspiracy........ n/t

[JHB]

10. Not big, but a time honored one, called...

..."Powerful and influential people covering their asses."

[grahamhgreen]

92. Called war profiteering. War is big money.

[mikelgb]

30. kinda like a chess game?

[JackRiddler]

133. Empty buzzword - empty mind.

[tkmorris]

5. When you're right, you're right.

It's not like the Iraqi people don't know what we've done. They see it every day, and the stories that make the rounds there are far worse than any pictures we might have.

It's the American people we are afraid of. We don't want them fired up and angry. We want them stupid, complacent, and hand-fed. It's the American way.

[cali]

6. Sorry, I don't see how you can know what Obama is thinking.

I'm sure you have phenomenal mind reading skills, so forgive me for not taking your word. One cannot reasonably deduce that Obama is behaving duplicitously here. In fact, I think one can deduce that he believes that releasing the photos would cause harm to the troops. His first instinct was to release the photos. He released the memos over exceedingly heavy duty objections. It seems reasonable to deduce that military advisors changed his mind. Now, I disagree with him, but I think it's absurd to assign nefarious motives to him in light of the facts I've presented.

[tabatha]

7. Agreed.

It is amazing how people think they know what the motives of others are. That is like witch-hunting.

Obama may make wrong decisions, but I believe he is honest and will always do what he thinks is best. Why? Because, everything he does is for his daughters' future.

[leeroysphitz]

18. At this point what difference do motives make? This administration just made the same decision that

the previous one would have and has done so with an alarming lack of infrequency.

[cali]

29. clearly the OP thinks motives are important and that's what I responded to.

and yes, in some cases, motives do matter.

[zipplewrath]

34. Several "reasonable" deductions

If we are deducing things, there are several reasonable deductions, including deducing that he had regrets about the effects of releasing the memos and was (potentially subconciously) open to an excuse not to repeat the result. That result was a growing call for investigations and prosecutions.

Another reasonable deduction is that he, like most of his predecessors, gets heavily influence by that whole CIC title and begins to feel a responsibility to the troops that can exceed his feelings of responsibility to other citizens. As such, pleas from generals can have more influence than pleas from the ACLU.

But these are deductions. Taking him at his word he tried to strike a balance between risks to the troops, and the risk of keeping these things hidden from the country, or really more importantly people arleady, or likely to become, hostile to the US. There is a moral hazard here though. People did these acts because they felt they could "get away" with them. Part of "getting away" with it is not putting our own troops, or the very people who committed them, at risk. What Obama is saying, in effect, is that he is going to help them "get away" with it. He "has their backs".

Obama is running a real risk here. Presidencies are rarely defined by their big successes. They are often more defined by apparently narrow decisions. Ford is more known for the act of a pardon, than for the policy of Whip Inflation Now. Carter's presidency became defined by a failed hostage rescue, and a boycotted Olympics. Nixon became defined by one meeting with a subordinate. Clinton? A frisky intern. LBJ? More the war than the Civil Rights Act.

We see these as narrow, or momentary decisions, but I suspect it really relates to basic underlying realities about how decisions are made. One's weaknesses may only clearly display themselves on apparently narrow, or momentary, issues but they are really always there. "No Drama Obama" is beginning to show the weakness of avoiding confrontation in pursuit of larger goals. Ultimately, that may define him, not the larger goals, but what he avoided.

[defendandprotect]

117. Agree, however . . .

The risk to our troops and our nation comes from secrecy and coverups --
not from truth --

Also, Gerald Ford was supported by funding from the CIA intended to keep right wing
Senators/Reps in office. Ford helped create the "Magic Bullet" lie -- and aided the
JFK coup coverup. Ford also pardoned Nixon.

And guess who was in charge of Carter's "failed hostage rescue" . . . ???
Oliver North and Secord--!!!
The helicopters didn't have the sand filtering apparatus which was required for work
in the desert.
Carter has a mixed history re Afghanistan.*

I don't quite understand this . . .
Nixon became defined by one meeting with a subordinate.

Nixon is defined by Watergate - which included an "Operations Northwoods" plan called
"The Huston Plan" intended to stop the election of '72 by creating "false flag" chaos -
including murders. Nixon also intervened secrectly - much like "The October Surprise" -
to keep Vietnamese peace negotiations from going forward after LBJ stopped the bombing
prior to the '68 election.

And, personally, I remember Clinton for having overturned 60 years of Welfare Guarantees,
something which no Repubican would have been able to do. Yes, he also jeopardized our
freedom in so recklessly pursuing sexually pleasure.

LBJ is complicit in the coup on JFK. It could not have been done without having the power
and control of the presidency. Granted, LBJ did carry thru the call for civil rights and
ending Segregation begun by JFK.





You might be interested in this -- we actually "baited" the Russians into Afghanistan --
In fact, WE went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in.
We also created the Taliban/AlQaeda via our CIA thru ISI Pakistan.


The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...

[JonLP24]

70. Maybe because we heard this argument before

Ronald Schlicher of the US State Department: "The Bahraini English-language Daily Tribune wrote on May 5, 2004, 'The blood-boiling pictures will make more people inside and outside Iraq determined to carry out attacks against the Americans and British.' The Qatari Arabic-language Al-Watan predicted on May 3, 2004 that because of the images, 'The Iraqis now feel very angry and that will cause revenge to restore the humiliated dignity.'"

BushCo says it we disagree, Obama says it, it must be true.

[AllHereTruth]

87. Sometimes DU just cant see

DU lives in its own alternate reality where the Dems are right and Repubs are wrong. At least thats what some here would like to believe. Every day I check DU to catch up on the 'vibe' of the 'underground' movement. And every day i am disappointed how mainstream some DU'rs have become. Blindly following one man, one administration. Because of course, if you dare to speak out on something he/they may have done wrong you are NOT AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. Or NOT A TRUE DEMOCRAT.

Im sorry. I thought thats what DU was supposed to represent. I was under the impression when i joined that DU was a place for Democratic minded, Liberal minded people to gather and share ideas. It seems ever since the election there has been a strong presence here that wears blinders just as large as those worn by the neocons over the last 8 years.

Now in no way am i comparing DU to the neocon movement. But it is hard to miss the similarities when it comes to ones perspective.

One group chooses to question their leaders when they step wrong, the other chooses to tell that same leader "You had a good reason to step over there, maybe i was not expecting it but you can do no wrong"

[defendandprotect]

120. DU is not dedicated to small "d" democracy . . .

It is, sadly, dedicated to the Democratic Party --

Unfortunately, too many Americans - DU'ers incuded -- fail to fully absorb that the
fascist right has penetrated both parties.

[JackRiddler]

134. Did you know "what Bush was thinking" and did it matter? Wrong is wrong.

[lamp_shade]

8. Ofercrissake.

[NYC_SKP]

28. +1 nt

[stlsaxman]

99. +2

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

135. Sum total of your eloquence. Adding another zero to the bullying swarm of nothing.

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. No. It's to buy goodwill with the Pentagon so they don't put....

any vindictive roadblocks ahead of the military policies that Obama wants to proceed with. At the end of the day the courts will deal with it and give Obama political cover if the pictures are released.
Smart move? I don't know.

[Mari333]

12. Obama needs to rethink those military policies

otherwise he owns both occupations and the disasters they both are.
right now, hes warmongering by my definition.

[mopinko]

39. that's what i think as well.

i think it would be good for him to get a grip on the cia and the military, and all the shit that they do. i think he would probably like to do that. but i think that is a big fucking job.

i wish he had gone ahead and released them, even tho i think there would be consequences for completely innocent people. but i think they are going to come out eventually. i think he knows that.


but i do wish he would make some kind of statement and explain why.

[Lilith Velkor]

72. Why the fuck does the CinC need to buy goodwill from those who serve at his pleasure?

[Bonhomme Richard]

73. In a perfect world, that worked exactly as we want it, he wouldn't.

In the real world........

[Lilith Velkor]

77. In the real world, he's their fucking boss.

And he just gave them a fat fucking raise during a recession.

Why does that not buy enough goodwill for them to allow him to stand on his hind legs in their presence? He's the President, he can unzip and piss all over them if he feels like it.

[stlsaxman]

100. That was exactly Cheneys line of reasoning at the time. and THAT led him to break the law.

[hedgehog]

128. I agree with your analysis. It's the difference between strategy and tactics.

Obama is willing to sacrifice himself in order to make sure all the other pieces are in the proper position when the game is over.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Why would President Obama want to keep us confused and misinformed about what was done in our name?

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

16. Yeah, why would rulers do THAT?

:crazy:

[cali]

22. "ruler"? lol?

letting your biases rule over logic is lame.

[PassingFair]

25. Right, because authority LOVES transparency....

call them what you will.

The photos need to be shown, or
description and outcomes from the
torture need to be made known, so
that the PEOPLE will press for
prosecutions.

It's obvious that it will NOT
come from the top.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. So, you believe that the President wants to withhold the photos so that the people will not

press for prosecutions?

[PassingFair]

43. Yes.

He DOES NOT want to prosecute
the previous administration.

He WILL NOT do it.

The pictures would have
our populace DEMANDING
prosecution.

Evidence is funny that way.

[Incitatus]

81. "The pictures would have our populace DEMANDING prosecution."

Isn't that what people said about the Abu Ghraib photos released years ago?

Not enough people give a shit and I don't see that changing with more photos of what everyone already knows happened. It's sad, but true.

[defendandprotect]

121. Because illegal acts requrie prosecution . . . .

[mmonk]

13. You've got it. But you will be amazed how the change of a name

will influence people into changing their perspective.

[cali]

17. it's hardly just the change of a name. and just how does the OP "have it"?

The OP is speculating and doesn't even claim to root his speculation in facts. And of course I judge Obama differently than bush. Why? Because there are self-evident and obvious differences between the two men: Obama is highly intelligent. Bush is not. Obama has a very, very different background and record than bush did. And the facts in this situation do not support the OP. The fact is that Obama's first instinct was to release these photos. He changed his mind upon advisement. That does not lend itself to the speculation that his motives here are nefarious. Obama released, over heavy duty opposition, the torture memos. That fact doesn't support the OP either.

[KG]

19. really, if the chimp was blocking the release of these photos, the poutrage here would be so shrill

only a dog could hear the noise. :eyes:

[Bluerthanblue]

15. very easy to say from your comfortable seat- Obama's decisions

actually directly effect the lives of the soldiers on the ground.

I sincerely doubt he did this lightly, or without very good reason. Why did he release the memos if all he wanted was to keep the people misinformed?

I don't buy the lies being floated here on DU-

And I don't equate this administration with the last one. If you do, you are a fool.

[Mari333]

21. having troops on the ground in 2 occupations isnt protecting them

by keeping them there Obama is putting them in harms way.
bring them home and he wont have anything to worry about.
in the meantime, release the photos.
the people in both countries already know whats been done to them.
this is about protecting military excursions into both those countries to secure oil company contracts in iraq and protecting that fcking pipeline in afghanistan.
time to bring the troops home.

[lamp_shade]

26. If Kucinich was president, all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would be back home by now. Right?

:eyes:

[Mari333]

40. well on their way home

no surge, no boots on the ground for a now indeterminate amount of time for the fake war on terra. of course, Kucinich would have been assasinated by the powers that run the govt..corporate oil contracts in iraq and afghanistan dont like their livelihood being messed with. we have to protect that OIL you know.
if this was bush, people on here would have been up in arms.

release the photos.

[lamp_shade]

44. Kucinich scares the hell out of me. I'm very glad he's not CIC.

[defendandprotect]

123. Evidently, you're more comfortable . . .

with not knowing truth --

with coverups --

and with occupation of two other nations -- one highly illegally!

The problem with truth for many is that it requires action -

in this case prosecution.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. there is nothing I'd like more than for our people to come home

NOW.

I've NEVER supported military force in Afganistan or Iraq- (you can look in the archives, i'm a pacifist from well before 9/11).

It isn't as simple to leave as you claim- We have to be much more careful getting out of both Iraq and Afganistan that we were going in. There are many MANY lives at stake. We owe those we've done immeasurable harm to at least that much care. This isn't about oil in Obama's mind. I'm sure of that. This is about doing what is right, even when that is difficult and goes against what you'd 'like' to do- Time will tell- but I believe Barack wants our troops home as much as we do.

peace~

[defendandprotect]

122. As Pelosi acknowledged on film: Dems were elected in '06 "to end the wars" . . .!!!!

What happened . . . ????

[Odin2005]

20. I know I'm be flamed for saying this, but we already know the crap that was going on and...

...I have no desire to see the photos, my imagination is enough. I could care less about the photos as long as Obama is stopping the crap. Releasing the photos would just inflame things and would let sadists that like looking at such things get their jollies off.

[90-percent]

24. to pharaphrase

I like images of American Military sadism and I vote!

-90% jimmy


:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

[lamp_shade]

27. No flame from me. I feel exactly the same way. n/t

[Political Tiger]

35. Makes sense to me!

:kick:

[Marr]

59. Peggy Noonan agrees with you. "Just keep walking", right?

"There should be some mysteries in life".

Uh-huh.

[Odin2005]

63. What mystery?

We KNOW what BS happened. If Obama was trying to hide something he wouldn't have released those memos. As long as Obama is stopping that crap I could care less about the photos. Frankly, I DON'T want to see the photos and I don't think they should be going around the Internet to be used by sadistic sickos for thier sick pleasure and for inflammatory propaganda by Islamists.

[JackRiddler]

136. Your desire is irrelevant - the photos are evidence.

"What sadists might like looking at" is also not a criterion. They are already amply served by the market.

And you don't know what is in the photos. A court proceeding would not get by on "we already know what's in it."

Sorry if you can't deal with the atrocities the country you identify with commits, or with the fact that your preferred politician participates (for now) in the cover-up of crimes against humanity.

[sarge43]

23. Cop out.

Our POWs get a vacation in Cancun? Please. That train left the station a long time ago.

Does Baatan Death March, brain washing, Hanoi Hilton ring any bells and those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

[endarkenment]

47. Lots of odd responses but so far yours is the oddest.

Let me try this again: our enemies already know what we have done. Consequently nothing new will be revealed to our enemies by releasing these photos. The argument that the release of these photos will harm our troops is simply false. Consequently there must be other motivations for not releasing these photos, for example a desire to avoid the political consequences of prosecuting those responsible for obvious war crimes.

How you got from my OP to "you think our captured soldiers have it easy" is an exercise left up to the DU readership.

[sarge43]

51. I didn't say you said that nor did I imply that.

If you choose to infer that, your choice, but don't twist my words.

I said that suppressing those photos will not protect our soldiers, nothing ever has. Even back in those fading days of yesteryear when, in general, the rest of the world thought of us as good guys our POWs were often treated badly. Clear enough?

In short, I agree with you. It isn't the real reason.

I'm disappointed that the administration would trot out such a lame excuse; it's the idiot treatment. I expected the idiot treatment from Bush et al, but I considered the source. I expect better from Barack Obama who is not an idiot.

If you're right and the real reason is avoidance of political nukes, then my question is what will be the consequences of not prosecuting. The fall out could be far worse. He has a wolf by the ears, but then he knew that going in.

[endarkenment]

60. "Our POWs get a vacation in Cancun? Please."

whatever.

[sarge43]

61. "Whatever."

Always the definitive rebuttal.

:sarcasm: In case you still don't get it.

[Poiuyt]

31. I don't mind not seeing the pictures as long as we prosecute those who were responsible for the acts

That's the only way we can cleanse ourselves

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[TankLV]

38. BINGO!

Other are just too fucking stupid to see it...

[flyarm]

42. a good question posed by Glen Greenwald..

Glen Greenwald's question to people defending Obama's position on torture photos http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photo...

"...(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?"


...As Judge Hellerstein wrote in rejecting the Bush argument -- now the Obama argument -- that disclosure would jeopradize the troops: "the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."


and thank you endarkenment..you are 100% right..the only people who don't know the damn truth are Americans..I can tell you after being a 33 yr flight crew now retired, I have traveled the world most of my adult life..we used to be respected , we no longer are..we used to be treated with respect in foreign countries, we no longer are..the past Nov-Dec i was in 11 countries, and we are now treated with total disrespect..and through all my 33 years flying i have never seen the behaviour towards we Americans the way it is today..and i feel nothing but sad and shame over that..

The only thing that will bring back the repect towards us is TRUTH..get it all out there..the rest of the world's people know what was done in our name..now it is time to clean up who we are and demand truth ..truth comes at a price many times..but the price of keeping the filthy lies going is far greater!

We have a broken moral compass..that needs fixing and damn quick..by not doing so we all have bullseyes on our backs. To think otherwise is naive and downright stupid..the world knows what was done..now we must put the truth forward, and hold those responsible accountable..for all the world to see..and to know..we do not tolerate this shit in our names!

[glitch]

46. Very well said. K & R the thread. nt

[opihimoimoi]

45. Whatever....I trust Obama and his explanation

[flyarm]

65. I am Obama's boss and i expect him to do what i sent him to Washington to do..

and not to break my laws..and the laws of my land, I pay his freaking salary and i damn well expect him to follow the oath he took , to protect and defend the constitution , not to go an shit on it!

tell me /...which is it for you??????????

Glen Greenwald's question to people defending Obama's position on torture photos http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photo ...

"...(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?"


...As Judge Hellerstein wrote in rejecting the Bush argument -- now the Obama argument -- that disclosure would jeopradize the troops: "the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

137. Moooo!

[Annces]

49. I think they should come out

maybe someone will release them.

And my theory is James Baker is making a lot of the decisions for this administration.

[Individualist]

50. The only people protected by suppressing the photos are the Bush/Cheney criminals.

[bullwinkle428]

52. It's about protecting the asses of the two "main troops" - Petraeus & Odierno,

as they were part of the whole chain of command that handed down the orders!! :mad:

[Richard Steele]

55. True that. K&R

[chrisa]

56. Yup.

I can't believe people still fall for this crap. When has "Protect / Support the Troops," when used by politicians, been anything other than a useless slogan?

[high density]

58. Yeah, that's why Obama released those memos

To keep us uninformed.

I'm so glad half of DU assumes Obama is just as dumbfuck stupid/evil/ignorant as Bush.

[endarkenment]

64. "just as dumbfuck stupid/evil/ignorant as Bush."

The current administration is not stupid. Then again nor was the Cheney administration. Bush was a fucking moron, but not really in charge. The Obama administration has been all over the map on war crimes committed by the prior administration. They do not seem to me to have any clear strategy here. Hide this, release that, sort of close Gitmo and fail at that, not prohibit the use of other gitmos, announce no prosecutions, then waffle on that, release some documents, withhold the goddamn photos the ACLU has been fighting to get released for many years and now multiple administrations. What is laughable is the theory, multiply postulated in responses to my thread here, and across this board, that all of the above represents a coherent strategy. It represents indecision, fear, and uncertainty on the part of the administration about how to deal with what has been done.

[EFerrari]

66. Obama didn't release the memos. The court ordered them released.

[soothsayer]

62. Release the pictures and then PROSECUTE and PUNISH the perps and the world will forgive us.

release them and do nothing (or don't release them and do nothing), and the world won't.

[ManiacJoe]

83. Why bother with the new pictures?

At this point they add nothing new. The facts are already known and documented by the text of the reports and previous photos.

[waiting for hope]

67. The pictures released during the Vietnam War

helped to end it -

Showing the abuses and crimes of the past administration would spur a greater public outcry and also put into question of why we are continuing on this path of war. But, sadly, this country's politicians are heavily deep into the pockets of the war profiteers. Until we the people take corporatism out of politics, we will never know the extent of the goodness this country is capable of.

[Blaze Diem]

88. As did knowledge of Hitler's Nazi Death Camps so appall the World, that it still horrifies

the world today.
So, what BushCo did to prisoners, as shown in the photos, is too horrific to show publicly.
BushCo's treatment of human beings is then, so horrific that the entire world may view the USA no differently than we still view the Hitler Death Camps of Germany.

Chilling reality & Bush's legacy.

This must be immediately and seriously dealt with in order for the USA to ever stand with honor in the world.
Bush/Cheney and those who aided them, I do believe set out from day one to destroy the United States of America.
It was "they" that hated us for our freedoms.
At this point in time, I have no doubt of that.

[JonLP24]

69. We heard this argument before

Ronald Schlicher of the US State Department: "The Bahraini English-language Daily Tribune wrote on May 5, 2004, 'The blood-boiling pictures will make more people inside and outside Iraq determined to carry out attacks against the Americans and British.' The Qatari Arabic-language Al-Watan predicted on May 3, 2004 that because of the images, 'The Iraqis now feel very angry and that will cause revenge to restore the humiliated dignity.'"

[livefreest]

71. i hope you're wrong, i'm afraid you're right

i want these pics out but many DUers are afraid of seeing their loved ones still in Iraq be attacked more after the release.

[DCKit]

76. When the President's mouthpiece went on "The News Hour" tonight to reinforce the meme that...

the President's #1 duty is to protect the troops (yes, he did say that), I was having alternating flashbacks of every lying, talking head from BushCo and every teacher I ever had from 2nd grade on who tried to teach their charges about the Constitution and government. I despise glib liars.

Oh, and maybe Mr. Obama needs to take the oath of office for a third time, 'cause it doesn't seem as though he was listening the first two. Hell, maybe he could just ask his daughters to explain the job to him. The older one should have a decent grasp on what constitutes the job of the President. At the very least, "protecting the troops" likely wouldn't make her top 100 list.

I'm not (yet) quite as disappointed as I was when Bill Clinton decided it would be good strategy to debate the definition of "is", but I've had enough lies and cover-ups for an entire lifetime.

[babylonsister]

79. Yea, he sucks, doesn't he. Please. And tough shit, I like Axelrod.

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/pr20090429/index.html

[babylonsister]

78. You are full of it, and I'll try to remember that.

Do tell how you know what's going on, besides your own opinion?

[opihimoimoi]

80. Moot and minutiae shit...keeps us distracted from the big issues...

BULLY Traits::: its all over the GOP Map....

The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

[Forkboy]

82. Hey, how did you get my counselor's report on me?

:D

[opihimoimoi]

97. LOL, :o) ....bully for you.....

LTNS.... :hi:

[countmyvote4real]

84. I voted for change. Not change of mind.

If the shoe fits, then by all means, throw it.

[Rex]

85. It is the illusion that counts, as American as apple pie.

[NYC_SKP]

86. Oh Bullshit. While your busy inciting a riot, you're missing the progress being made.

Drop by drop, the facts are coming out, the culprits are being exposed, whistleblowers are coming forward.

I support the strategy being used, slow and steady.

You're comparing Bush and Obama, really, unreal.

[AllHereTruth]

89. They are being exposed. Some are coming forward. But...

Nothing will be done. Pelosi, Reid, Obama have all said pretty clearly NO charges will be brought.

How can you support a strategy of sit back and do nothing. How the fuck is that a coherent strategy. How the is that change we can believe in?

I voted for Obama. I gave money to Obama. I supported Obama, and still do, BUT how the fuck is doing nothing a strategy. Please NYC_SKP tell me this. Because unless i missed it, this Administration and the Democratic leaders in Congress will, and have done,


N O T H I N G

.

[NYC_SKP]

116. I'll be the first to join you in outrage if nothing is truly done, I'm just not convinced yet...

...that the outcome will be as you fear.

:donut:

[Two Americas]

90. good thing we are "inciting a riot" then

Do you really think anything would ever happen if everyone took your advice and if no one spoke out?


...

[NYC_SKP]

119. I think the speaking out needs to be directed toward those in power.

The bigger part of participatory democracy is the continued pressure on our elected officials, not one another.

I hope you're writing or faxing your respective representatives.

I've sent emails and left messages with the offices of Boxer and Feinstein and Jerry McNerney.

:donut:

[endarkenment]

127. The same facts, minus two memos, have been out since 2004

The same ACLU effort to release these damn photos has been ongoing for the same time, now across two administrations determined to block the american people from having access to this information. The same few brave media people of influence, such as Sy Hersh, continue to document as they can, informally, what has and is being done in our name, while the same corporate media relegates their efforts to the margins.

The major difference is that now a large number of DU'ers are cheering on the coverup, while back then we were just about unanimous in denouncing it.

Wrong is what you do, not who you are.

[JackRiddler]

141. "Inciting a riot." Is no rhetoric too cheap or dirty for you? Why not just call the OP a terrorist?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

95. its also to protect everyone who let it happened - congress, bush, media

citizens have been fighting it, I know in my state there is a strong activist group
called StopTortureNow.

Congress is guilty, at the least they should have impeached Bush,
but they didn't and they let him keep doing all the horrible things he did.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. I am not confused, nor do I consider myself misinformed about what was done in my name.

Conversely, those people whose countries we've invaded and now occupy know what was done as well.

I'm miffed though, that you used this phrase: "Our soldiers will be treated as we have treated our prisoners". WE (meaning You and I) didn't treat our prisoners in any way whatsover. "Our soldiers" means what? Do you know? Is a Marine a "Soldier"? Is an Airman from the Air Force a "Soldier"? Is a "Soldier" a Marine? Is a Navy Corpsman a "Soldier" or a "Sailor"? Is every boot on the ground in Iraq tied onto the foot of a "Soldier"? Might some of them be tied onto the feet of Marines? Or Sailors? Or Airmen? Forgive me for being a stickler for nomenclature, but as a Veteran, I'd like for you to know that there is a distinction. You've made a broad-brush statement that I don't think you can back up.

Every "battlefield combatant" who's been released has told the same stories. Every one. We're not in the dark here. Photographs will NOT go any further to prove what they've said. Most of us believed it in our hearts before we even heard their stories, as bad as that is. Some people just need to believe that Americans serving in the Armed Forces are bad; male, female, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine.

PRESIDENT Obama is working his best to abrogate those bad things that bad people within our government thought should be SOP.

Showing photographs of bad acts doesn't necessarily advance that effort. I support PRESIDENT Obama's decision to oppose the release of the photographs.

Put it all into context. I have a Canon digital camera and it takes pictures as fast as I can push the shutter button. One of the memory cards for my camera is capable of holding over 600 pictures at low/medium resolution. I've taken over 600 photographs in a single day with my digital camera. We're talking about 2000 photographs which PRESIDENT Obama says are no worse than those we've already seen. With four 2 GB memory cards, I can take more photographs than that in a single day. So, you're talking about photographs that possibly span no more than a few days, NOT the entire time that has elapsed since we invaded Iraq.

[endarkenment]

131. We - as in 'we the people'.

Soldiers - you aren't serious are you? Ok, it seems you are. I think I meant 'people captured in battle generally considered to be prisoners of war' in that sentence. Of course this administration and the last have muddied the concept of POW to the point where it is unclear indeed what exactly our government thinks that term means.

Your last two points seem to be that a) these pictures are nothing new, and b) these pictures are just an aberration. An argument constructed to avoid the failure of its first point with a contradictory fallback point. Not terribly honest, but not original either, as that has pretty much been the contradictory set of talking points about these pictures all along. 'Nothing new' and 'just a few bad apples'.

The problem of course is that if these pictures are 'nothing new' then there is no reason to not release them. The other problem is that torture of detainees was policy and not an aberration.

Until we are forced to confront the facts we will continue to deny what has been done in our name, what WE have done.

[quickesst]

98. That's ridiculous...

...Anyone with a tv who watches the news is aware of the photos, and I would venture a guess that none of them think the pics are of detainees surfing in Hawaii. True, the general public is not as informed as probably most members of DU, but they're not brain dead. People have opinions on whether the photos should be released or not, but they're not as stupid as some here believe. Having the opinion that Obama is correct in his decision is not being "confused and misinformed." The attempt to make it so is the only thing that fits the description you have offered. Thanks.
quickesst

[Buzz Clik]

106. Yep!

[swilton]

101. Right on!

:bounce: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Buzz Clik]

102. Well, there's the overly simplistic, uninformed, emotional analysis. Does another exist?

[JackRiddler]

138. Try some content-less buzzwords. That usually works.

[pmorlan1]

110. Show some tough love

If Obama supporters REALLY want to help Obama they need to be honest enough to tell him when he's wrong. If we only let the politicos and generals have his ear that's all that he will hear. We need to be loud enough for him to hear us. A lot of those politicos are telling him that his base will forget about him covering for Bush...you guys need to show him that those people are leading him in the wrong direction and that this will blow up in his face. Don't let people with their own agenda's convince him to do things you know is wrong. When you do this you don't support Obama, you support the other people.

[Buzz Clik]

118. Oh, my. Do we have to tell him he's wrong when we agree with his decision?

The analysis in the OP is flawed at best.

[brindis_desala]

115. Logic on DU:. Obama releases the memos

No doubt to assess the public's reaction. Instead of outrage the corporate press has us debating the pros and cons of torture. He balks a releasing the most "graphic" pictures so now he is "covering up for BushCo". Why? Because we "know" that if the good American people just saw what the likes of Lyndie England and Graner committed they would demand immediate prosecutions. Astounding-- the fairy tale land DUers think they live in.
Oh and before you think I'm bashing Americans you might ask the French about Algeria and the British about Kenya.

[AlinPA]

124. The photos were taken for a reason - to show the world that the U.S. is bad ass

tough and to taunt the enemy. It worked - too well. Now the U.S. is running away from it.

[marshall]

125. It depends on what your definition of "troops" is

We're either talking about the soldiers, or they're talking about fellow members of Congress and the Executive branch.

[JackRiddler]

129. Outrageous excuse - and a right-wing standard.

For example, we have to keep the war going (pass funding) to "protect the troops."

It's never, protect them by getting them out of foreign countries (and insane institutions, for that matter).

[Echo In Light]

139. I know...and it's sooooo obvious I'm amazed so many buy it

[JackRiddler]

140. Some people are here to root for the home team, nothing more.

[hedgehog]

130. Of course it's to protect the troops! Do you have any idea how many generals

might lose a pension over this, or end up in Leavenworth?