Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Joins the Cover-Up

President Obama's about-face on the release of more photos depicting detainee abuse is a colossal mistake.

The president who came into office promising to restore our international reputation and return responsibility to government now seems to be buying into the belief that covering up our sins is better than coming clean.

Obama has always been conflicted about how intensely to probe the abuses of the previous administration. He has an understandable desire not to stir things up, not to set people at each others' throats, and not to distract from his agenda. It's also reasonable for him to worry about the effect of disclosures on troops in harm's way. But ultimately, it's not his call to make.

Everything was set in motion a long time ago, when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney made the calls that they did. The truth has to come out, in all its horror -- and it will come out. For Obama to actively take side with those fighting against disclosure is a real disappointment.

The photos, which the administration had previously agreed to release under court order, reportedly show that the kind of vile, sadistic treatment of detainees illustrated in the infamous photos from Abu Ghraib in Iraq were in fact not limited to that one prison or one country. They would have been a visceral and powerful antidote to former vice president Cheney's furious PR campaign intended to cast the argument about government-sanctioned torture as a narrow one limited to the CIA's secret prisons.

Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson write for The Washington Post: "In announcing the shift today, the White House said in a statement that Obama 'strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

David Stout writes for the New York Times: "'These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,' said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the A.C.L.U., which sued for release of the pictures under the Freedom of Information Act....

"Disclosure of the latest pictures 'is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse,' said Ms. Singh."

Obama now finds himself sharing sides with Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, who argued yesterday that releasing the photos was tantamount to siding with the terrorists.

There was also a lot of torture-related activity on the Hill this morning, with a former State Department official decrying the Bush administration's "collective failure" on the interrogation of terror suspects, and a former FBI agent saying brutal tactics such as waterboarding didn't actually work. (See Carrie Johnson, writing for The Washington Post.) I have to run, but I'll have more tomorrow.

By Dan Froomkin  |  May 13, 2009; 2:33 PM ET
Categories:  Torture  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Empathy War
Next: Cartoon Watch

Comments

From now on I'm calling him Obushma.

Posted by: solsticebelle | May 13, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

How did we manage to convince ourselves that Obama would be any different from Bush? Oh, yeah, he told us so. But just like Bush, he lied. Do the American people really only have the choice between Republican war criminals and Democratic war criminals? Looks that way. Sickening.

Posted by: davidbn27 | May 13, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree with President Obama on this one. I also agreed with President Ford when he pardoned Richard Nixon. We know they did it so the pictures do nothing but make us look bad and could lead to problems for our soldiers who are still in foreign countries risking their lives. Whether the pictures are released or not is not going to change anyone's political or personal views of the Bush Administration. We need to focus on getting our troops out safely without ruining the situation. Vice-President Cheney can talk all he wants, but it says everything that even his daughter says it would be dangerous to release the pictures.

Posted by: duanelaw1 | May 13, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

So much for transparency. Anyone seriously worried about "endangering our troops" would bring them home, not extend their exposure. The people who should have worried about how this might play out are the people who authorized it.

Beware of the cover up.

Posted by: SarahBB | May 13, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

LMAO.All of you obama supporters expecting change....SUCKERS!!!!!LMAO

Posted by: TBsportsguy | May 13, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Until there is a full investigation of this sordid time in our history, the issue will not go away. It will continue to surface and haunt us like the dirty waves coming up on the shore after a storm. We are now having the slow drip, drip, drip, of former officials who were involved and now have to confess what they did or thought. We will continue to have disclosure, official and/or unofficial until the administration realizes that the whole mess has to be cleaned up by a special prosecutor or neutral commission. Isn't it also possible that the pictures will be leaked? In the technology of today, there are all kinds of ways for smart techies to get their computers around the info they are looking for.
We have become monsters who now joke about torture - it is never OK!!!!

Posted by: Edmele | May 13, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed. But it REALLY makes me wonder what the photos show. We already know the CIA destroyed videos. It has always been my opinion that an administration so obsessed with torture will certainly have 'murdered' at least one or two of their victims.

Posted by: gposner | May 13, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Only far Left anti-Americans want those hideous photos out to arouse even more hatred of this fine nation. Brazen and fearless since Obama was elected, they are now on the verge of becoming seriously unhinged as "hate" oozes out of every pore. The Left sincerely hates this country with all their might and now demand we publically impale ourselves. Anyway, it's OBAMA's wars now...has been for over 100 days now. Froomkin can blame Bush all he wants it is OBAMA'S WARS and I believe by successfully lying to dumb Lefties, Obama is now COMMANDER IN CHIEF andd that means WAR, baby! "All we saying is give WAR a chance....."

Posted by: TJLinBallston | May 13, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

No, Dan, I think Obama is correct on this issue.

The photos should not be released.

It's enough to know that they exist should anyone doubt that we DID torture.

Posted by: bmschumacher | May 13, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

This can only mean that the photos are truly shocking, that revealing them would set the world aflame with outrage at what the USA has been doing in our name.

It's not the president's job to conceal the truth because it might hurt someone's feelings.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm with him on this one. The photos absolutely should not be released. Glad to see he can change his mind.

Posted by: schala1 | May 13, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The Obama about-face tells me that I was correct in telling the Obama campaign to go pound sand after Obama voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms who assisted the Bushies in wiretapping all domestic message traffic.

I imagine that Agent Smith and his cronies will shortly knock on my door.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | May 13, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

More and more, it seems as though the Abu Ghraib guards were prosecuted not for what they did - but for letting the pictures get out.

That said, the pictures themselves would be highly inflammatory. Dick Cheney and the torture crowd would claim they were cherry-picked, and they'd be on every al Qaeda recruiting poster.

The only way they can be released is to The Hague, together with Dick Cheney and George Bush - as exhibits in their trials for war crimes.

Posted by: Common_Sense_Not_Common | May 13, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see Obama take the side of OUR troops over the side of the ACLU and Froomkin whose only desire is to defame this country... Who said the Republicans are the party of no.. Republicans completely support President Obama on this.. It's the crazy left wing loons who are losing what's left of their minds over it...

Posted by: sovine08 | May 13, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

By threatening the British in order to suporess evidence of torture, the Obama administration, and in particular Attorney General Holder, has joined the war criminals. Literally. Supressing evidence of torture IS a war crime. Since Holder works for Obama, I think that makes Obama just as surely a war criminal as Bush or Cheney.

Posted by: dickdata | May 13, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

It'd be comforting if, like the GOP, Al Qaida needed to lie to recruit new members.

Alas, the truth will serve them just fine, so we need to conceal it.

I mourn my country.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

This last flip-flop by the president is more Clintonian than Bush-like. Bill too wanted to be loved, and that's how we got "don't ask, don't tell."

Let's face it "the truth will out." And, by his latest action, he has lost control of the situation. Now critics, journalists and all manner of hackers will be seeking out any stray photo that exists and is being suppressed. Lotsa luck!

Posted by: wide-eyed1 | May 13, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Let us make a deal. The CIA should publish photos of terrorists being splashed in the face with water when photos of the liberal sanctioned partial-birth abortions are published.

The differences are the infants are mutilated, killed, and the killing is on-going with no concern by “compassionate” liberals and the three lone terrorists that were waterboarded are living with three square meals, hobbies, and religious practices.


Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Yet another gooper troll (are there really more than one?) posted:
The differences are the infants are mutilated, killed, and the killing is on-going with no concern by “compassionate” liberals
==

Where are these infants being killed?

Most aborted fetuses are somewhere around the "guppy" phase of development. Calling them "infants" or "babies" is not only prejudicial language, it's flat out wrong.

So is the suggestion that waterboarding is a water splash. Has Hannity had his splash yet?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 writes:

Glad to see Obama take the side of OUR troops over the side of the ACLU and Froomkin whose only desire is to defame this country...

sovine- I don't think anybody is claiming the photos are not accurate depictions of what happened, so their release cannot defame the country.

Posted by: wstander | May 13, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the New Attraction, but the owners of the Circus continue to be the same. The public sees what the Circus administration wants to show. And, the admission is not free, either. It's a business.

Posted by: ElMugroso | May 13, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm having a hard time framing the issue the same way as the rest of you. The argument that releasing the photos might harm the troops was made at the district court level and again on appeal to the Second Circuit. The government lost each time. The time period for appealing the Second Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have lapsed. So, the issue is whether the President will obey a final court order, and I don't see that he has much choice in the matter.

Posted by: tmoore1 | May 13, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

CHRISFOX is asking:
"Where are these infants being killed?

Most aborted fetuses are somewhere around the "guppy" phase of development. Calling them "infants" or "babies" is not only prejudicial language, it's flat out wrong."

Have you ever heard of TILLER THE KILLER? Dr. George Tiller, in KANSAS, is known for UNAPOLOGETICALLY performing late term abortions on infants capable of living outside the womb.

Now that you know this, will you protest the horrendous practice of killing fully delivered infants (except for the head)?

I didn't think so. But, you will cry for terrorist getting soaked.

Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever heard of TILLER THE KILLER? Dr. George Tiller, in KANSAS, is known for UNAPOLOGETICALLY performing late term abortions on infants capable of living outside the womb.

==

Fine with me. Until the moment after birth, they are legally extensions of the mother's body.

I don't care how adorable they look.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Does the commander in chief not have a duty to protect the troops? I understand that the top brass at the Pent. incl. Sec, Gates have advised against this release. These pics do not necessarily incl. military personnel (but CIA) yet could have an effect on soldiers in the field. As well, the courts could still override Pres. Obama and I think he knows that. But he must bear responsibility to the troops as best he can. We do not need to see the pics to understand what went on.

Posted by: mendonsa | May 13, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad it was Obama that did this, and correctly so, and not McCain (had he been elected). Can you imagine what nut job Froomkin would have said about that?

Posted by: mmourges | May 13, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If McCain had won, Palin would have poisoned him by now

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"...the daughter of the former vice president, who argued yesterday that releasing the photos was tantamount to siding with the terrorists..."

no, Lezzy...releasing the photos will show that we ARE terrorists...and you can thank your daddy for that.

Now, if we are going to run and hide from such evidence, lets at least use the now sealed materials for war crimes trials.

Sweeping it entirely under the rug is an entirely bad idea.

Posted by: bushieisa | May 13, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever heard of TILLER THE KILLER? Dr. George Tiller, in KANSAS, is known for UNAPOLOGETICALLY performing late term abortions on infants capable of living outside the womb.

==
CHRISFOX:
"Fine with me. Until the moment after birth, they are legally extensions of the mother's body.

I don't care how adorable they look."

At least you're honest Chris. I think many liberals have the same opinion but will not admit it.

It takes some effort to keep the babies head in the birth canal for the sole purpose of killing.


Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

What does it take to Photoshop the faces of the innocent guards with some spray? If justice is to be served, the photos must be released. It's a crime, and not releasing them amounts to obstruction of justice. It's part of the Geneva convention rules, agreed upon by the US. Heck, a Nazi guard was just extradicted to Germany for war crimes. By his being alive, anyone can know he was a young person at the time the war crimes were committed. He was just following orders from his superiors. Same as we have now. It's the Bush and Cheney, and gang that set the disastrous criminal policy that need to be prosecuted, and justice must not be obstructed, even by Obama.

Posted by: ElMugroso | May 13, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama administration says it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee."

Really unbelievable!

Why do people care more about how something looks than they do about the law? We citizens have to live under it and so did enlisted members of the military acting as guards at Abu Ghrab. The evidence so far is that these people were the sacrificial lambs that were supposed to satisfy our morbid curiosity.

If you, all of you, are not willing to hold Obama to the same standard that we demanded from Bush (full disclosure) then what kind of "change" did you have in mind?

If the law doesn't apply to those who drafted and then implemented these policies, how can we say that the law applies to anyone? At some point threat of violence may be the only recourse the government has against it's own people. Yes, this really is that serious (combined with the looting of the Treasury by Wall Street and Obama/Bush).

Everyone should demand that anyone at any level of the government that had anything to do with either the strategy, policy, and implementation of torture be put on trial and if found guilty, executed or put in jail. That is how you restore confidence in the system for both American citizens and other countries.

Posted by: mdsinc | May 13, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It takes some effort to keep the babies head in the birth canal for the sole purpose of killing.

==

They're not "babies" until after birth. If you need to use grossly inaccurate terminology to elicit the reaction you want, consider that the truth isn't on your side.

And by the way, the great majority of babies are born head first. A breech birth is a real problem. Sounds like you don't know a hell of a lot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

It takes some effort to keep the babies head in the birth canal for the sole purpose of killing.

==
CHRIS FOX:
"They're not "babies" until after birth. If you need to use grossly inaccurate terminology to elicit the reaction you want, consider that the truth isn't on your side.

And by the way, the great majority of babies are born head first. A breech birth is a real problem. Sounds like you don't know a hell of a lot."

First of all Chris, the babies are purposely turned around to allow the killer abortionist to kill efficiently by having good access to the base of the skull.

Second, what difference does a few inches make in renaming that human life. When the baby's head is the only part left in the birth canal it is not a baby. But when the head comes out (alive), it is a baby.

You are really inciteful Chris. I can learn alot from you.

Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his incompetency created this steaming pile. He acts and opens his mouth before thinking. He flits from one issue to the other never resolving anything only creating sound bites.Has he been tested for ADHD or ADD?

None of this should have been released. It has diminished our security and given aid to our enemies. Obama is now responsible for our National Security. Our defenses are being dismantled. Work to finish the border fence will be halted at what was approved under Bush. No more missile shield with North Korea showing they will have rockets with the range to hit Alaska and the West Coast. Iran has already shown they can build a dirty bomb and put it in a tanker ship. All work on radiation detection for our ports has been cancelled.

Obama seems to think he can bow and placate the terrorists. Maybe we should parachute him in to have a face to face with the Taliban. I am sure they would turn over Bin Laden just after a few words from BO.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | May 13, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I think you meant "insightful."

Anyway I don't care how you wring that handkerchief. Until someone can show me that a fetus at the time of abortion, even minutes before birth, has any more of a mind than the living cats and dogs that are euthanized every day I say the decision belongs with the one who's going to have to care for it for eighteen years: the mother.

No mind, no murder.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Some gooper troll wrote:

"None of this should have been released. It has diminished our security and given aid to our enemies"

==

If releasing the truth is bad for our security, what the hell kind of nation have we become?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This government is creating the very blow-by it fears. Telling the world it has photos so incriminating they'd inflame viewers has already done the trick, Mr. Obama. You have now joined Tricky Dick and Slick Willy, who chose to learn the hard way that a president can no longer keep a lid on the box. When you tell your enemy you have photos so grim they'll endanger your troops, do you expect him to say to himself "Hang on, now, I can't harm US troops, I haven't actually seen those photos"? That horse is out of the barn. When those complicit in torture convince Obama to tell Americans he has photos so grim they can't be released, do they really suppose they can escape the scorn and disgust of Americans? That horse is out of the barn too. Precisely when Americans desperately crave a president who will act with courage and principle, they are offered the sorry spectacle of a government begging one of its judges to help it shield its ass from its own citizens.

Posted by: voss | May 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox:
"No mind, no murder"

The baby does not physically change when it comes out of the birth canal. The only that changes is the location.

Do you think that newborn babies have no mind?

Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The crimes depicted in those photos were carried out in the name of the American people and it is vital for the functioning of our democracy that we know what actions took place. If necessary they can blur the faces to protect the identities.

Given the subject matter of the Abu Ghraib photos I can see little justification for not releasing these photos. Are the actions more horrific than wired genitalia and stacked naked bodies? Are they more horrific than tattooed prisoners being led into a gas chamber? What exactly are we dealing with?

Ultimately, if they aren't going to release the photos I would like the White House to go on record that every instance of abuse in those photos has been investigated and prosecuted. And, since their failure to release the photos smacks of a coverup of the crimes of the previous administration they should appoint an independent party to verify those investigations and prosecutions.

Posted by: fletc3her | May 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"The baby does not physically change when it comes out of the birth canal. The only that changes is the location."

Wow you must be some kind of genius to have come up with that "incite."

"Do you think that newborn babies have no mind?"

Of course it has no mind. It's had no experience of any kind, has never even experienced a basic drive. If you want to protect it as human because it has the right DNA then you need to protect fingernail parings and dandruff too, fool.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse


I agree with Obama on this one. I am glad that he has made a clear break from Bush on allowable practices. He acknowledges that this was torture, and has pledged not to allow it to recur. We can stipulate what was done, how many times, to how many prisoners.

Showing the pictures doesn't prove anything. It would only stir up anti-American sentiment (again) after we have made strides in improving our image around the world.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 13, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Do you think that newborn babies have no mind?
Chrisfox:
"Of course it has no mind. It's had no experience of any kind, has never even experienced a basic drive. If you want to protect it as human because it has the right DNA then you need to protect fingernail parings and dandruff too, fool."

Just like you say Chris, "NO MIND NO MURDER". When does the newborn infant get a "mind" and what is the window for killing? 1 year..2 years..3 years?

Posted by: JimMF | May 13, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland: disagree. Concealing evidence of a crime allows people to speculate on just how extreme the crime was. Obama's reversal indicates that it was ... pretty bad. The nation needs to heal, and that means cleaning out and dressing the infection, not covering it over to fester.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

You're kind of off, chrisfox8, by a continent or two. Fetuses most definitely do have minds. They can hear and recognize voices, and respond to them. Are you married, ever had a child, ever talked to the infant in the womb? Ever felt the immediate reaction to the sound of your voice, especially if you do so regularly? How's about after birth, when the baby calms down and shows every sign of recognizing the voice he or she heard while still inside the mother.

Or does the brain magically appear once it's out in the air? Maybe you know some biology that no one else does.

As for the photos, I can see how Obama's flip-flopping, but I'm not happy about it. This is one of those issues that Cheney and Bush bequeathed to him--like a hand grenade with the pin pulled--as they walked away laughing. Their crimes, of instituting the culture and the programs (to say nothing of the invasion) which led to this prisoner abuse, are now being made increasingly public. Of course the backlash will be awful. The backlash to crimes against humanity can't fail to be awful.

Timing may indeed be an important issue, but eventually, these photos must come out. So I am disappointed in Obama right now.

Posted by: whizbang9a | May 13, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Just like you say Chris, "NO MIND NO MURDER". When does the newborn infant get a "mind" and what is the window for killing? 1 year..2 years..3 years?

==

I'm cool with setting the moment of birth as the threshhold.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Timing may indeed be an important issue, but eventually, these photos must come out. So I am disappointed in Obama right now.

==

So am I, and I donated a LOT to his campaign.

I nurture hope that there's a reason, and my guess is that he's seen the photos and knows that releasing them would set off a firestorm, which means they're pretty damned bad.

I don't buy the Liz Cheney argument; if your troops did barbaric things then we need to know, and we can console ourselves they were badly-led. It's not the grunts I want to see in prison, it's the ones who gave the orders.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

First McKiernan fired, now Obama doesn't want to release the photos he said he'd release. Who's pulling the strings here - Gates? Petraeus? Someone else?

Insurgents in Afghanistan already want to kill every U.S. soldier and every civilian who is not Taliban. Would releasing the photos really make Afghanistan more unsafe than it is now?

Posted by: unojklhh1 | May 13, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't make Afghanistan any less safe but if they're as bad as they might be, it could have some of our allies pulling their embassies in disgust.

Netanyahoo would probably send a thank-you note, though, and ask for personal copies to keep under his mattress

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Some really good comments after a good article. My favorite comment was "where's the transparency?". Shame on Pres. Obama for continuing the Bush Administration coverups and bad policies.

Posted by: NYCartist | May 13, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

the only us forces thatwould be damaged are the joint chief of staff andsecdef who were on watch when this took place . they again are thinking of the grunt but the generals admirals and high ranking civilians ,anyone with any active military duty will see this for what it is.getting some bad advice prez.

Posted by: donaldtucker | May 13, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

sovine- I don't think anybody is claiming the photos are not accurate depictions of what happened, so their release cannot defame the country.
Posted by: wstander
_______
"Defame: means to try to diminish the reputation of." And that's exactly what these pictures will do.. diminish the reputation of our country.You see these pictures are just snapshots, they don't tell who this terrorist is, or who has he killed or who does he want to kill or what information he has that we can use to prevent his frends killing someone else. Without that information the picture will give the false impression he is the victum here.. He's NOT!!! If he is a member of al Queda the victums are the ones who lost their lives on 9/11 or US solders who lost their lives because of IED's. The ACLU for some reason wants to be on the side of terrorists.. I'm glad Obama wants to correctly be on the side of our service men and women who have to fight them.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 13, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

If the president had considered the obvious reaction prior to selectively opening up the memos, this discussion would not have taken place ...and should not have taken place.

He will now find that his early believers are the truly vengful deniers of this international deviance that will stop at nothing to end western civilization. It's laughable when Obama's spoiled benefactors of the west's hard-earned freedoms equate a global hate cult with the tactics discussed publicly and then taken to protect the individual freedoms of the west.

If Obamas early believers want to know what torture is, I'll send them the photos taken of people's faces in the windows of the World Trade Center as they were lining up to jump 1/2 mile to the ground- because their skin was flaming up. That is torture.

We have enemies who attacked us that tried to kill 25,000 people but hit an unfilled building and only killed 3,000. Those combatants were not fighting under a national flag while they were committing war crimes by targeting our civilians. Hence they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.

And since when is it torture when a doctor is present?

Rather than charge our defenders with 'torture' we should just simply say thank you for trying to keep my children, family and friends safe.

I'll say it now, thank you!

Let freedom ring!
T.J. Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 13, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

How did abortion get to be a topic of discussion today? Please, folks, let's stay on topic. This is a serious moral divide in this nation that certainly needs a forum - but not in this context.

Now to the topic du jour: I am disturbed that the President reversed himself on the release of the photos. If this decision is in conflict with legal decisions, he now has another problem on his hands.

That being said - I do understand the reluctance to disclose the photos. Irrespective of what the courts may have ruled, the appropriateness of second-guessing what the international response may by is questionable on the part of the judiciary.

Such photos should be released only to responsible parties, such as an international court, a select congressional committee, or a bipartisan commission - for inclusion as part of a larger investigation. I am concerned that a general, public release of these photos could prove to be internationally incendiary, and has the potential to put innocent people in danger of irrational and life-threatening response by militant radicals.

A verbal description of the photos, distributed for general information, is a more prudent course, and does not have the potential for visceral response and retaliation.

As far as Mr. Cheney is concerned, since he knows the content of the memos cited to justify his contention as to the effectiveness of EIT, it should not be difficult to paraphrase the contents of those memos to support his position. I am sure that he is responsible enough to understand which portions of those memos are fit for disclosure, since he is so solicitous of national security.

Posted by: MillPond2 | May 13, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Rather than charge our defenders with 'torture' we should just simply say thank you for trying to keep my children, family and friends safe.

==

Speak for yourself, savage.

I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have people tortured to save me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey there chrisfox8

The challenge of the west is to hope their spoiled young can stay focused long enough to understand that without the west, there are "0" liberties. Our ability to maintain order while we confront and limit an enemy's attack long enough to correct any imbalance in tactics, is the true hallmark of the superiority of western ideals, and not in some kangeroo world court infused with one world statists.

And since you welcome self-torture, just move to an Islamic regime they're growing everywhere; oh I forgot you are one of the spoiled chil'n from the west that needs protecting.

To reiterate I would rather just say thank you to the people trying to protect us. There I just spoke for you aagain.

Peace on earth, if not just win.
T.J Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 13, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

This is a mistake...it only allows those who have our worst interests at heart to fill in the blanks any way that they wish. The cover-up will definitely be worse than the crime here. It will not mollify any of the crazed critics on the right (if that is part of the purpose) since they will easily tuen any action of any sort into an attack, whether it makes sense or not (Dijon mustard, anyone?). So I see no upside for this except possibly a conserving of political capital for the coming fight on health care reform.

But as with mustard-gate, this will gain few if any points (Lindsey Graham seemed to bend a bit this afternoon on CNN)--- certainly not with the Kyls, the Shelbys, the Boehners, and the dittoheads who now dictate Republican political strategy at the behest of Mt. Rush.

Posted by: jprfrog | May 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Piling people into a$$ pyramids isn't "trying to protect us," troll, it's sadism and I don't want it done in my name. Since you're cool with it why don't YOU move to the Middle East, where you belong

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

FOR ONCE the president is using common sense - the recent "apology tour" did nothing to restore the image of the United States as illustrated by the whole-hearted acceptance he received - NOTHING from our allies. France offered to take ONE Guantanamo prisoner and the rest of the world laughed at the "brave, bold" image the new president presented. The last time photos were released American soldiers DIED - the same honorable men and women protecting the citizens of the United States by placing themselves in harms's way. He just won back my vote.

Posted by: nico5228 | May 13, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I am so dissappointed that I voted for Obama. He has proven to be a more articulate version of Bush, and nothing more (certainly not change we can believe in). If he does not start going after the numerous and serious crimes of the Bush cabal, I will not be voting for this yet-another thug again.

Posted by: bastanow | May 13, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8, you are drinking too much redbull.

If Obamas early believers want to know what torture is, I'll send them the photos taken of people's faces in the windows of the World Trade Center as they were lining up to jump 1/2 mile to the ground- because their skin was flaming up. That is torture.

We have enemies who attacked us that tried to kill 25,000 people but hit an unfilled building and only killed 3,000. Those combatants were not fighting under a national flag while they were committing war crimes by targeting our civilians.

Hence they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. This is not right or left, it is fact, or doesn't that matter.

Posted by: TJFod | May 13, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

We have enemies who attacked us that tried to kill 25,000 people but hit an unfilled building and only killed 3,000.

==

Well if that's all it took to lower us to barbarism then we weren't much to start with

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The people who attacked us died in the attack, troll, the people that our hillbilly troops were electrocuting and piling up were mostly innocent people rounded up for bounty.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

You simply do not understand what the Islamic facists understand. That because we are "systems-based", if you knock out the systems you can easily bring us down to barbarism. (you don't have a farm do you)

If you think strong methods with a doctor present to learn how to stop our systems from being brought down is an equivalency with barbarism, then you need to learn more about the topic.

Peace on earth, if not just win
T.J. Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 13, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

What's your native language, Fod? Doesn't appear to be English

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

After his signature waffling, this time at least Obama made the right decision.

The safety of our country is at stake; this is not an Emily Post exercise in etiquette.

Bush rightly determined that he must ask legal experts for the exact parameters legally allowable to extract information that may save our lives, or those of our children.

Congress--including the Democrat-controlled Congress post 2006--signed off on the methods. Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the methods and their employment regularly and never raised a question.

Personally, I believe Daniel Pearl would rather have had ANY of those methods employed than the one he received.

Obama's sycophantic Europe trip and his genuflecting to the King of the Saudi's was bad enough. We need to focus on our own security.

Posted by: ORTNmom | May 13, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The President is half right on this; these photos should be released in due time as part of a comprehensive investigation into the criminal activity of the previous administration -- and the courts will likely order it so. I voted for a smart president (a real change) and this may be a pragmatic retreat on his part, but ultimately the timing for release is not good.

BTW: the people who really hate America are the authorizers of torture and their apologists -- they have no clue what it means to be an American.

Posted by: sapphiretini | May 13, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

We're afraid of these photos endangering the lives of American soldiers? Too late for that you ignoramuses! They are in Afghanistan and Iraq-two countries where they are obviously not wanted and people are willing to kill themselves to kill our soldiers.
I feel less safe now because apparently I live in a country that does not obey the rule of law. Under the guise of secrecy, the executive branch can basically commit torture and ruin any sort of checks and balances (sorry judicial branch, we were sadistic so we can't let people know what we did). I'm sorry if our country looks bad because of these photos. Guess what? It's because we actually perpetrated these cruel acts. Our leaders need to take responsibility for what was done. This is insulting as a policy debate. There is no debate. War crimes were committed, these photos need to be released, and our national pride and ideals need to be restored.

Posted by: CypressTree | May 13, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Precisely ORTmom, precisely.

However I believe Obama did not bow, he actually kissed the hand. Check the video

T.J. Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 13, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I would say other than for the hapless and stupid houseplant-like Brennans, real American intel did not support Bush, ultimately did not trust him, viewed him as a traitor.

I would think Obama, like Bush, is acting on advice from a corrupt pENntaGon and a corrupt and sTuPiD CiA --(ROTFLMAO --people here are laughing so hard, they can't even breath -- but I digress).

Anyway, going into Afghanistan Obama doesn't really have the smart people behind him, so, look for more of the same as with Bush -- bad result, affecting the economy and US power.

And look at the Pentagon and the CIA who advised him during his campaign -- it was unrealistic to expect anything different, here.

They don't have the control they think they do, ultimately.

Wait for the next crisis, or the next bump in the road -- this isn't the way to build good will, or make the friends needed when one starts bombing civilians for no apparent reason.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | May 13, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

We're afraid of these photos endangering the lives of American soldiers? Too late for that you ignoramuses! They are in Afghanistan and Iraq-two countries where they are obviously not wanted and people are willing to kill themselves to kill our soldiers.
I feel less safe now because apparently I live in a country that does not obey the rule of law. Under the guise of secrecy, the executive branch can basically commit torture and ruin any sort of checks and balances (sorry judicial branch, we were sadistic so we can't let people know what we did). I'm sorry if our country looks bad because of these photos. Guess what? It's because we actually perpetrated these cruel acts. Our leaders need to take responsibility for what was done. This is insulting as a policy debate. There is no debate. War crimes were committed, these photos need to be released, and our national pride and ideals need to be restored.

==

OK there is one (1) American here. I was starting to wonder if nobody but Soldier of Fortune hand-towel goopers were posting.

Full concurrence from this end.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

CHRISFOX:
"Fine with me. Until the moment after birth, they are legally extensions of the mother's body.

I don't care how adorable they look."

And detainees are extensions of terrorist organizations bent on our destruction.

So I don't care how uncomfortable they look, either.

So now we can both go our merry ways, agreeing that babies, even with their bodies on American soil, have no rights as American Citizens and so can be killed without guilt.

Of course, detainees have no rights as American citizens either, so I suppose according to the above standard they could also be killed without guilt. And look at all the time, money, and inconvenience that would save--no unwanted children, no unwanted terrorists!

Posted by: ORTNmom | May 13, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

And detainees are extensions of terrorist organizations bent on our destruction.

-------------

What DOES THIS have to do with asymmetric warfare?

They're not afrraid of you, and they're manipulating you.

When did asymmetric war become so easy a John Yoo could hadnle it?

It didn't.

We're losing, and we will continue to lose until they get rid of stupid, corrupt, bottom line p*ssy.

It is very easy to understand a war plan based on "CYA," and you have no idea what I mean.

And there is no way to fight that reality.

So, either way, the right, or left, wing kook falls.

"Bring it on 'tards" was all it took...

Country ain't doing to well...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | May 13, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"And detainees are extensions of terrorist organizations bent on our destruction."

==

Uh, wrong, most of them were just people picked up off the streets in exchange for cash.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow we have some really mentally ill people in this country.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Worse, we have some really mentally ill people running the wars.

Not only because of what they would chose to do to another, but because they're losing, and destroying the American infrastructre, FULLY unable to understand WHY, despite 200+ years of brilliantly reasoned sociopolical theory.

But if it is to get better, we, as a nation, have to understand why, and we, as a nation, have to agree people like Yoo and Cheney gotta go.

Corruption can't be enabled, neither can treason.

We rise or we fall on the level of our talent, if it isn't the right wing kook, it's some Russian kook.

So, how do handle it?

See, there are no guarantees, in the end, only the smartest survive, and that wasn't Karl Rove...

And JFK would have been appalled at Obama's cowardice, here.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | May 13, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Joins the Cover-Up"

True. I feel like crying.

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | May 13, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Joins the Cover-Up"

True. I feel like crying.

==

The photos must be pretty damning.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama more than recent presidents is showing a pattern of abandoning some of his key campaign promises. This is likely to continue, especially in the important area of health care "reform,' where Obama will accept a bill which probably mandates health care insurance, which he strongly criticized when Hillary advocated such a policy.

The possible reasons for Obama's policy and promise retreats are:

1) Despite the widespread perception Obama was a different kind of politician, the reality may be he is just a typical politician, who makes promises and inspirational rhetoric to win, then abandons some of his key promises.

2) Obama is a weak, cautious leader who defers too much to Democratic leaders in Congress, the military, CIA and may be somewhat intimidated by the likes of Cheney.

3) Obama is primarily politically driven in many of his decisions, to maintain his overall popularity, especially among moderates.

Obams and his advisors undoubtedly think campaign promises can be abandoned without his base during the primaries, caucuses, voting GOP in 2012. This is true, however, many progressives and liberals will simply become disillusioned, not voting in the next presidential election.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | May 13, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama has now joined the criminal ranks of Bush and Company. I supported Obama to the max, but now he has proven to me that he is just as complicit as the previous war criminals and that makes him guilty after the fact. How many other Bush crimes against the American people will Obama support, labeling himself guilty as WELL?
It's time to clean house people!! Everyone in this government needs to go, and new government institued as Thomas Jefferson proclaimed by saying that when the government fails in its responsibility to its people, then it must go!!!

Posted by: t_heavrin | May 13, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

President Obama made the correct call on this. He wants to protect the soldiers.

There is nothing wrong with that decision.

The pictures can still be used by the justice department, they simply will not be released to the public so terrorists, in this country and outside of it, can use them to recruit new terrorists.

I support our president's decision.

Posted by: dematheart | May 13, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The pictures can still be used by the justice department, they simply will not be released to the public so terrorists, in this country and outside of it, can use them to recruit new terrorists.

==

Like they need any more help?

Invading two Muslim countries, one of whom had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 and one only tangentially, AQ is awash in recruits as it is.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

No cover up. Not so much horror. Just a desire to say "They made mistakes but they were panicked and it is time to say no more."

This smacks too much of trying to punish all who would not quit the war when many gave up.

They did wrong, but only slightly wrong. Remember this was used on military people every year in survival exercises. Real torture is chopping off body parts and poking out eyes.

We should say "You made a mistake. We will not do that again."

But this witch hunt is out of line.

Don't you want the President full time on the economy. Or seeking revenge so you can gloat?

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 13, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"It's time to clean house people!!"

You seem to give up in a hurry.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 13, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

With Cheney and the whole right wing chorus spreading the lie that "We didn't torture", it was all "the equivalent of a fraternity prank", Obama helps the liars, not our troops.

You do not protect the troops or the country by continuing the lies. Videos of waterboarding (since destroyed) and these pictures would show the right wing liars for what they are - war criminals.

By letting the lies continue you set the groundwork for new torture in the future and prove to the world that America still cannot be trusted on this point.

This is a bitter disappointment for those of us who expected a return to honesty and the rule of law.

Posted by: HankNTennessee | May 13, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how showing more of the same will be helpful. Everyone knows that there are more photos of the same kind of nastiness. So what? What good can come of having another release of the same disgusting material to recruit more suicide bombers?

Posted by: frodot | May 13, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

As a country, we were forced to hear the sordid details of an intern and our president as they did their thing with their "thing" and it was disgusting.

We now have the opportunity to see the thing that bush and cheney did. While I need not see the pics, (I am not a republican) I sure want this pursued.

Obama will be the next Gerald Ford if he does not allow us to get to the bottom of this and clear the names of all American citizens for this shame on our country.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | May 13, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

These and all pictures relating to a possible criminal prosecution need to be released immediately.

One or two more pictures really aren't going to make a difference except to tell the entire story to the world. That torture was not an isolated incident at one detention center.

Obama needs to realize that there are many of us who voted for him exactly because we expected him to keep his promises of transparet government.

Not to hedge, weave and waffle when it became difficult to do so.

Posted by: buzzsaw1 | May 13, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Wow we have some really mentally ill people in this country.

Posted by: chrisfox8
__

There are and you need your medication.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | May 13, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is doing the right thing. If the left-wing liberals think waterboarding, fuzzy catepillers and a loss of sleep is torture, I suggest they attend SERE school. This type of treatment has been given to most all of the aircrew personnel for a very long time so we know what to expect from our enemies.

If the CIA had proof that what they did saved your life, or the lives of your childern, would you be so quick to critisize? I think not.

Posted by: Bowhunter | May 13, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Those who think that the photos shouldn't be released need to go back to Political Science 101 and learn something about the way our government works. I said works, because it was a court of law that said the photos should be released. The court wasn't a bunch of "leftists" (I love how people who actually think the Constitution is more than a piece of paper are designated as the "hard left). It was a court of law. And the reason is that, and a one and a two, in a democracy there is something called open government. Documents that the govt. has are presumed to belong to the public unless there is a compelling reason for them not to be public.

The national security argument for withholding them is nonsense, but it is used by every authoritarian govt. when faced with just this kind of choice--no the public doesn't need to know, because if the info. is public it will embolden our enemies. Every dictatorship uses this same argument regarding just these kinds of documents.

Because the photos do not reflect well on the govt. is no reason to keep them concealed. And the idea that they will be news to the Iraqis and thus cause anger among them and endanger our troops would be laughable if it wasn't so bizarre. The Iraqis already want us out; they have for years. Their anger at US troops is that they're still there.

I especially enjoy people who think these are "nasty" images rather than potential evidence of crimes, and that because they're unpleasant and potentially make America look bad, the public shouldn't see them.

Posted by: freespeechlover | May 13, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again. The President does not need to comply with the law. tmoore1 makes a good point. In fact, the Department of Justice or the President may be in contempt of court. If the time for cert to the supreme court has passed, there is no avenue to change the argument or make it stronger through the appellate process. That is based on the law of claim preclusion. Having had one opportunity to make your case, you don't get a second bite at the apple. Since the decision to order disclosure has already been decided by the 2d Circuit, DOJ would have been under an order of the trial court to disclose what it agreed to disclose. By not disclosing what the court ordered, the US government could be in contempt of court. Presumably, the ACLU can now make a motion for contempt for refusal to comply with the court's FOIA order.

Further, having agreed not to seek contempt sanctions earlier, based on what the DOJ said it would do, the trial judge will be allowed now to impose sanctions, including contempt, for inducing the ACLU to settle a claim and then reneging on the promise upon which the settlement was predicated.

Posted by: squirt07 | May 13, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Do we need worldwide dissemination of more photos graphically depicting Americans humiliating and torturing Muslims? The nightmarish pics from Abu Ghraib were enough for me.

However, I would like to see the criminals who authorized and implemented these tactics investigated and prosecuted.

Posted by: schnoo | May 13, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"If the CIA had proof that what they did saved your life, or the lives of your childern, would you be so quick to critisize? I think not."

==n

Let's see the evidence.

Let me guess.

"Classified," right?

NOT BUYING IT.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Fredot's claim that release of the photos would just be more of the same and would not appreciably add to either history or debate today. The fallacy in his argument is that he may or may not be right: he has not seen the pictures. Didn't we learn from the Bush days that you cannot trust what anyone in the federal government says about national security matters. Upon this assumption, it is the People who should make the decision whether the new pictures are old news; not a censor like the President.

As for the claim that disclosure would endanger the troops by inflaming the enemy, that's the price of a free and open society. Obama may be right. But I cannot personally agree with him without seeing the photos and videotapes the government is withholding. I appreciate the Catch-22 that disclosure is necessary in order to decide whether to disclose, but there are only three ways to resolve the dilemma. One is to trust the President's judgment every time he suppresses information on the ground of threatening national security. The second is to disclose information to an intermediary that the public can trust, such as a court. The third option is disclosure. I would not feel good about one and two. There has been so much suppreesed about torture, even the Congress can't figure out what the hell happened-i.e., what lead to the DOJ opinions, to whom were they disseminated, what role did Bush and Cheney play in their production, what did they expect the result of those opinions to result in, who did in fact rely on them, and so on. this cannnot be achieved by selective production of the truth. Cheney should be given the opportunity to prove his case, but with all the facts on the table, not the ones the CIA or the President chooses to put on the table.

Posted by: squirt07 | May 13, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

"There are and you need your medication."

==

Whoa, turnaround!

Did you think that up all by yourself?

You're pretty smart.

For a gooper...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

This might make sense if the radical Islamists were having trouble getting recruits, and a fresh set of damning photos would revitalize their efforts. But this is far from the case.

Our twin occupations and the ham-handed brutality of Abu Ghraib have not only let the horse out of the barn, but the horse is several counties away by now.

There is no more to lose, our reputation in that part of the world really could not sink any lower, especially considering how magnanimously we aid Israel and give them missiles to fire into occupied apartment buildings at dinnertime (not *intentionally* targeting civilians natcherly natcherly).

I'm very disappointed with this; it lets us down. There has to be more to this than we know, I refuse to believe Obama is caving to grotesques like Cheney and that dual-loyalty wimp Sen. Lieberman. The photos must be really REALLY bad.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Or seeking revenge so you can gloat?

Posted by: GaryEMasters

==

Since when is enforcing the law "revenge?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 13, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

I've been locked in work for the last 14 hours. But when I read this I was TRULY TICKED OFF.

There is literally NOTHING this exposure could do worse than we already have done. HIDING it only makes our reputation worse because then the jihadis can literally spin their own imaginations - like Jack Bauer supporters.

Let's get the facts out. We can live with them.

I'm calling, not emailing - Obama 202-456-1111 in the morning. I'm also calling - not emailing - my senators and congressman.

Posted by: boscobobb | May 14, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"I want it done, so it shall be done."


Silly, dangerously immature and without a global understanding of the powers that truly want the west's defeat- and what that will mean (see Dark Ages).

The people on this blog who would rather have pictures that endanger our military that won't help ANYTHING or ANYONE, will find that no one will sign up for the U.S. military and foreign service.

THEN Obama will need to institute a draft...I can't wait for the howling on the dangerously immature left when, not if, a draft begins...oh I forgot, mandating a 3rd tour is already a defacto draft.

Peace on earth, if not just win
T.J. Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 14, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Since we can now prove that Obama is merely driven by manipulating media opportunities and situational ethics, we can surmise the following:

The photos are not as bad as the shreikers on the left would believe, nor will the picture stay locked up....it is the Obama modus operandi.

So we'll see the pics, Obama will manipulate both sides of the discussion looking like Solomon and acting like Machiavelli, and Western Civilization will get significantly more dangerous.

Peace on earth, if not just win
T.J. Fod

Posted by: TJFod | May 14, 2009 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Aw, gee. If Obama did release the photos, he'd be attacked for endangering members of the military. Can we cut him some slack, please?

Posted by: alewis14151 | May 14, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"If the CIA had proof that what they did saved your life, or the lives of your childern, would you be so quick to critisize? I think not."

==n

Let's see the evidence.

Let me guess.

"Classified," right?

NOT BUYING IT.

Posted by: chrisfox8
=============
Evidence has been released that EITs have helped in getting great info and have prevented attacks like the one planned in LA.

Posted by: leeh11281 | May 14, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama will be the next Gerald Ford if he does not allow us to get to the bottom of this and clear the names of all American citizens for this shame on our country.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | May 13, 2009 9:48 PM
========
Gerald Ford? It has been proven that Ford did the right thing by pardoning President Nixon. You probably mean Jimmy Carter, friend of terroists, the reason why Iran is the way it is today, and the worst President in history. Obama will join him on that list.

Posted by: leeh11281 | May 14, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

What in the world can I do as a U.S.
citizen that used to be a "proud" American
before the travesty, criminal, acts of the
last eight years?
I voted for a "change" a transparency, a
return of moral values this country USED
to stand for! I don't see a change, just
a cover up for all the crimes committed,
all the LIES of the Bush, Cheney administration! WHEN will they be held
accountable? They are not above the law!
I am so disapointed in Obama, the man, the
change I voted for. I feel duped!

Posted by: tstone8 | May 15, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company