I have a theory:

Pelosi doesn't really care one way or the other whether the photos are released, BUT the controversy is holding up passage of funding for the troops.

The longer funding can be held up the better the anti-war groups like it. Permanently, if possible.

By using a ploy, Pelosi can truthfully say she didn't vote against the funding.

If the holdup continues and Obama doesn't classify the photos, then he is playing the same game.

What do you think?

Hello gal:

I believe in transparency. I want to KNOW what the government did in my name. Being embarrassed because the photos show us doing wrong is NOT a reason to withhold them.

And, I'm not buying for a minute, that a terrorist who wants to kill Americans is going to want to kill 'em even more if he see's these pictures - not buying it at all.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello gal:

I believe in transparency. I wanna KNOW what the government did in my name. Being embarrassed because the photos show us doing wrong is NOT a reason to withhold them.

And, I'm not buying for a minute, that a terrorist who wants to kill Americans is gonna want to kill 'em even more if he see's these pictures - not buying it at all.

excon

---

Then you think you know better than the military commanders in the field.

But that is not the point of my post.

Hello gal:

It's true, but that's the only thing in your post that I understood. I don't know nothing about her doing what you say she's doing, and/or for the reasons you say she's doing it.

All I know about is the pictures showing US doing WRONG! I say again, ain't NO way, these pictures are going to make them want to kill us MORE than they do right now... It makes no sense, no matter WHO says it.

What'll cause 'em to want to KILL us, is our BEHAVIOR - NOT the DEPICTION of it. That's one thing you righty's never understood. You blame the media for TELLING us about stuff, instead of the people who DID the stuff in the first place... That makes no sense.

If you want to DIS-INFLAME the terrorists, then you STOP the behavior. But, you want to keep Gitmo OPEN, and that's where the BEHAVIOR happened, IS happening and, if you had your way, will CONTINUE to happen...

Yup, you guys got it exactly BACKWARDS.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello gal:

It's true, but that's the only thing in your post that I understood. I don't know nothing about her doing what you say she's doing, and/or for the reasons you say she's doing it.

All I know about is the pictures showing US doing WRONG! I say again, ain't NO way, these pictures are gonna make them wanna kill us MORE than they do right now... It makes no sense, no matter WHO says it.

What'll cause 'em to wanna KILL us, is our BEHAVIOR - NOT the DEPICTION of it. That's one thing you righty's never understood. You blame the media for TELLING us about stuff, instead of the people who DID the stuff in the first place.... That makes no sense.

If you wanna DIS-INFLAME the terrorists, then you STOP the behavior. But, you wanna keep Gitmo OPEN, and that's where the BEHAVIOR happened, IS happening and, if you had your way, will CONTINUE to happen....

Yup, you guys got it exactly BACKWARDS.

excon

---

What I posted is simply a theory.

Your take is interesting. Photos could not inflame terrorists.

I don't know whether you buy into it, but lefties blamed O'Reilly and other conservative talkers for Dr. Tiller's murder, and now the shooting at the museum is being blamed on the "right wing". So according to this crew, public talk can cause criminal actions.

But the same crowd wants to release photos that could inflame terrorists.

I assume you are not part of that crowd, but you can see what I mean can't you?

And BTW weren't the people who did these things punished by our law and everyone been put on notice that these kind of things will not be tolerated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

So according to this crew, public talk can cause criminal actions.

---

Hello again, gal:

Point taken.

In the same vein, since the right wing talkers do their talking in PUBLIC, don't we have the right to have the photos in the PUBLIC sphere too?? Unless, of course, you think the government should keep the talkers quiet...

excon

How about we release photos of your incarceration ? I wonder EC have you even been in battle? Have you ever been in a war zone? There are a few in congress and their accomplices in the media that do not understand what it is like to be in war. These fools look through the red colored glasses of communism and have no clue what can and does go on in war. Someone coined the phrase "war is hell!" and they were not far off the mark. If you want a picture of what hell could look like, just spend a few weeks in a war zone spending every minute of every day trying to stay alive.
Anything that is necessary to ensure that our troops can come home safe is OK in my book. You know there is still material being held as classified by the government from WWII and no one objects to that? Why is that?
The speech scene from the movie An American President, Michel Douglas is making what I consider a great speech. His comments are" that freedom is not easy". Well, freedom is not easy. People in authority need to make the hard choices. And those choices need to be made to preserve our freedom and way of life. Otherwise we will turn into what we spent so many cold war years trying to defeat. Do you want that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

How about we release photos of your incarceration ? I wonder EC have you even been in battle? Have you ever been in a war zone? People in authority need to make the hard choices. And those choices need to be made to preserve our freedom and way of life. Otherwise we will turn into what we spent so many cold war years trying to defeat. Do you want that?

---

Hello again, 450:

I don't get the connection between the pictures of MY incarceration and the pictures of US doing wrong. But, I seldom get the connections you make...

Take the assumption you make above. Apparently you connect liberalism with weakness. You even suggest that I couldn't have served, and still have the opinion that I do... You'd be wrong again. If you bothered to check, and I've written about it extensively here, I spent 5.5 years defending this country. My ship was the FIRST one to blockade Cuba when the Ruskies had nukes aimed at YOU. When Vietnam heated up, I went there to fight. I'm not going to go into details, but I left some blood on the battlefield, and came home with a couple medals.

On the OTHER side, is that chicken hearted vice dufus named Cheney, who received one deferment after the other. You talk brave about war. Is that from your reading or first hand stuff?

Yes, tough men need to make tough choices. Keeping our country free isn't free. I didn't spill my blood so that my country could torture. I didn't do it so we could imprison people FOREVER. I did it to preserve and protect the Constitution. That's what I said in my oath, and that's what I meant.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, 450:

I don't get the connection between the pictures of MY incarceration and the pictures of US doing wrong. But, I seldom get the connections you make...

Take the assumption you make above. Apparently you connect liberalism with weakness. You even suggest that I couldn't have served, and still have the opinion that I do... You'd be wrong again. If you bothered to check, and I've written about it extensively here, I spent 5.5 years defending this country. My ship was the FIRST one to blockade Cuba when the Ruskies had nukes aimed at YOU. When Vietnam heated up, I went there to fight. I'm not gonna go into details, but I left some blood on the battlefield, and came home with a couple medals.

On the OTHER side, is that chicken hearted vice dufus named Cheney, who received one deferment after the other. You talk brave about war. Is that from your reading or first hand stuff?

Yes, tough men need to make tough choices. Keeping our country free isn't free. I didn't spill my blood so that my country could torture. I didn't do it so we could imprison people FOREVER. I did it to preserve and protect the Constitution. That's what I said in my oath, and that's what I meant.

excon

---

First of all Ex, a BIG thanks for your service to me and my country, I mean that! My age fell between Korea and VietNam, but I had 2 brothers in WW2, one on a tanker in the S. Pacific.

I truly don't understand your position on releasing those photos, but you have earned your right to have it, and I will disagree respectfully.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I truly don't understand your position on releasing those photos,

---

Hello again, John:

I told you earlier that I believe in transparency. It's not really a belief, in that I wish... It's a law, and I'm a believer in the law.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. All agencies of the U.S. Government are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request, except those records that are protected from disclosure pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions.

None of those exemptions or exclusions say that if disclosure EMBARRASSES the US they don't have to disclose. Nope. It don't say that - not even close.

Now of course they're going to say it's national security... But, you and I both know that the photos aren't secret. What they are, is EMBARRASSING.

I'm for the law. I BELIEVE the law too. I want to KNOW what my government does!

excon

From what I heard they want the photos released they just don't want to be the bad guy and are leaving it up to somebody else to give the go ahead to release them.

We know for a fact that the release of the photos will inflame the ummah. It happened already the last time photos were released. The lefty's claimed then that it was one of the best recruiting tool for the terrorists . When the false story of a Koran getting flushed in GITMO was published rioting throughout the ummah caused the deaths of many.

We know what is in the photos because we have seen them before . We know that there was abusive treatment . That has already been addressed.

As for Pelosi ;you are close John .The answer to the question I think is that she is losing control of her caucus. She was weakened by the CIA comments and her sock puppet Black Jack Murtha has his own scandals . Now Murtha cannot deliver a war funding because the FOIA and anti-war extremists in her lobby are holding it up.

But I expected this Congress to pull some kind of stunt like this anyway. This is the end of Vietnam redux. A rational policy of turning the war over to the SV was undermined by a Democrat Congress who could not bear to see it end in anything less than a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

We know for a fact that the release of the photos will inflame the ummah. .

---

Hello tom:

You have facts that I don't have. That's not cause you're smarter than me. It's because you believe the right wing emails you and John receive.

Even if you DO believe the emails, there is NO provision in the FOIA that says if your enemy doesn't like what you're about to release, you don't have to. We, like the dufus, certainly don't want to piss off our enemy's now, do we?? We'd never say stuff like "bring it on". (Oh, we DID?? - well excuse me.)

You guy's are silly.

excon

PS> New right wing mantra: "we MUST not piss off the enemy... we MUST not piss off the enemy.... we MUST not piss off the enemy"..

PPS> I thought you were the tough guys...

Either you think certain information should be held secret for national security reasons or you don't . I think the President has that authority despite FOIA provisions.

From the FOIA Exemptions :

Quote:

---

Exemption 1: Classified Documents
The first FOIA exemption permits the withholding of properly classified documents. Information may be classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.
The rules for classification are established by the President and not the FOIA or other law. The FOIA provides that, if a document has been properly classified under a presidential Executive Order, the document can be withheld from disclosure.
Classified documents may be requested under the FOIA. An agency can review the document to determine if it still requires protection. In addition, the Executive Order on Security Classification establishes a special procedure for requesting the declassification of documents. If a requested document is declassified, it can be released in response to an FOIA request. However, a document that is declassified may be still be exempt under other FOIA exemptions.

---

HRSA - Freedom of Information Act - Exemptions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

either you think certain information should be held secret for national security reasons or you don't .

---

Hello again, tom:

Oh, I DO believe in national security. I DON'T believe the release of THESE pictures damages our national security at all. What these pictures will do is cause us embarrassment.

Embarrassment has NOTHING to do with national security. NOTHING!!

excon

And I don't think the issue is embarrassment . It is thinking of the well-being of the troops in harms way. Obama made the right call on the photos. As CIC he had no choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is thinking of the well-being of the troops in harms way.

---

Hello again, tom:

Nope. I'm not going to let you get away with that crapola...

These are our soldiers. They're fighting an enemy who wants to kill them. Not just insult them, but KILL THEM - DEAD! They aren't just a slightly pissed off enemy... NO! They are the REALLY pissed off enemy... They REALLY are. I'm not lying...

There is NO way in hell, that the release of these pictures is going to make them MORE pissed off. In the real world, that just ain't going to happen. If YOU want to drink that wacko koolaid, drink away... But, don't think I'm not going to notice.

excon

Certainly that was the President's rationale . I guess he's sucking the kool-aid pretty hard these days. He's come far from being the only politician in America not corrupted by the paranoid "rush to war" and the GWOT .

I also have to wonder why CIA Chief Panetta is opposed to the release ? Nahh ;it's not concern for his field operatives . He must be sucking kool-aid too.

Hello again, tom:

Let me say it again. I don't think it's getting through to you guy's over there. Is it GRAPE koolaid you're drinking??

IF the enemy is pissed off at us, and they are. It's NOT because of the photos. It's because of the BEHAVIOR the photos depict... The behavior isn't a secret. Everybody KNOWS what the photos will show.

Therefore, if the enemy already KNOWS about our behavior, and they DO, and it pissed them off, then the release of the DEPICTIONS of that behavior won't make any difference... It really won't...

You guys, as usual, seem to be hung up on the MESSENGER. But, the ACT that the message confirms, not so much. Makes no sense to a simple guy like me.

excon

The administration said the photos pose "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

He must've sucked on that grape kool-aid when he was ordering burgers with Brian Williams. (without his teleprompter )
YouTube - Obama Orders Cheeseburgers at Five Guys Burger

General Odierno said that the release of the original Abu Ghraib photos in 2004 "likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq" .

Obama intervened this weekend on behalf of the funding legislation by promising the continue to do what he can to suppress the release of the photos.

This effort includes taking his case to SCOTUS . The NY 2nd Circus granted Obama a stay on the court's earlier order to release of the photos so that the White House can make it's appeal .