Originally Posted By Mr X ***if so they should make special arrangements*** "they" meaning the U.S. Government, of course. Not the families of the victims (the families should be approached with an offer of a private viewing if it seems necessary and appropriate).
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 There's been a few photos of this war that should have not been released a few years back.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Are you referring to Abu Gharib? If so, that is an interesting analogy.
Originally Posted By mapleservo I agree with not showing the photos, but I was impressed as usual by Jon Stewart's take on things. >> Maybe we should always show pictures. Bin Laden, pictures of our wounded service people, pictures of maimed innocent civilians. We can only make decisions about war if we see what war actually is — and not as a video game where bodies quickly disappear leaving behind a shiny gold coin. << <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/face-off" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa...face-off</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Are you referring to Abu Gharib? If so, that is an interesting analogy.>> I am. Like I said I support the President not releasing the photos because they could be harmful to the troops in the battlefield. But IIRC the Abu Ghraib photos weren't released by the Bush Administration but by the press.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Had this happened on Bush's watch I would have been against the release of the photos just as I am now. What's been lef tout of this thread is that Cheney's ok with not releasing, as is Boehner and other top GOP. The only ones making a fuss are the usual idiots.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn ""ou must not read a lot of lefty websites or journalists."" No. I don't read a lot of lefty (nor righty) web sites or journalists. Maybe I should. Good to know true journalism still lives.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 An important distinction between Abu Gharib and this: there's nothing to really see here. We know the guy is dead, and we even know where he was shot. There's nothing to be gained here. As has been pointed out, anyone so cynical as to think he's somehow still alive is cynical enough to assume that any photo that would be released has been doctored. The Abu Gharib photos showed an important - although obviously unflattering - light on a situation that needed fixing. Our troops were abusing prisoners, some of whom it turned out were just rounded up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was at best a breakdown in command and at worst a deliberate policy in place that allowed those abuses to happen. If the photos had not been published, the abuses would likely have continued for longer, which ultimately would have been worse for us, as these things have a way of coming to light eventually. With the publishing of the photos, the abuses had to stop, and at least some people were called to account (if too lower-level for my liking). With the killing of bin Laden, our people acted like professionals, so there's no abuse to stop. Important distinction.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn ""(in the W case, it was his fetish and LUST for torture that made him a monster)."" You have a double standard of how you define "monster" X. Keep telling yourself that. I'm not here to defend either W nor Obama. I don't care that you think W is a monster either. But, like the example I gave, it is impossible to even begin to present a convincing argument that EVERYTHING W did during his 8 years was wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No. I don't read a lot of lefty (nor righty) web sites or journalists. Maybe I should. > I read both, actually, along with the mainstream. It's always interesting to see what various folks of various stripes are thinking. And trust me, the left does NOT give Obama "carte blanche."
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn Sometimes it seems like the Left is very slow to find fault with Obama's decisions not at all unlike the Right seemed to be during W's reign. I just get so worn out on both sides being more interested in defending "our side" and attacking "the other side."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You mean idiots like Leon Panetta...our new Director of the CIA?" Get back to me when his reaction reaches the level of idiocy displayed by the Sarah Palins of the world.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn I am not pointing to any single and particular person SPP. And for the record, I think it's getting more and more difficult to find members of the base on the Right who stand behind Palin. It took them a while, but most of the real Conservatives over there view here as a nut who needs to just go away. Again, "most" not all.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Sometimes it seems like the Left is very slow to find fault with Obama's decisions not at all unlike the Right seemed to be during W's reign*** You obviously have no clue what's going on with "the left". Everything I read from the hard core left wingers consists of dissatisfaction with the President, bigtime. What exactly are you sourcing from the left that makes you think they are so in lock-step with the President like the right wingers were with Bush?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Most of the people I know personally on the "left" would probably describle themselves as "tolerating" Obama right now. "He is certainly better than Bush" is a constant refrain. Not exactly glowing reviews by any stretch.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know who he's sourcing. Probably mainstream Democrats, who naturally would like Obama to succeed and are by definition pretty moderate themselves so have little problem with Obama's direction - which HAS been quite moderate so far. It makes sense that center-left people would have little problem with a center-left president. The actual LEFT, though, is a different story.
