Obama has the burden of government, that's why he's not releasing the photos, etc.

[grytpype]

Obama has to win the war in Afghanistan, which is going very badly. If not, the Taliban might actually, for real, get Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

In his judgment, releasing the pictures might make Afghanistan and Pakistan materially worse.

Those of you who don't have the responsibility of running any wars can criticize him all you want.

But I trust his judgment, he "gets it" as much as anyone, he's about 10 times smarter than any of you, and he has better information.

[tekisui]

1. Its not about protecting our troops.

They will not be more hated or have a harder time in an unwinnable war.

If we really wanted to protect our troops we should get them the hell out of the graveyards.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Yep. There was no violent reaction to the Abu Ghraib photos. None at all.

Thank god we don't have ideologues running this country like the last 8 years.

[tekisui]

3. Good thing the crimes committed were so heinous they can never

be properly brought to justice. Go big or go home, right Uncle Dickie?

[MindMatter]

17. It is about protecting everybody with dirty hands

which is to say, just about everybody in the beltway.

This is gamesmanship, pure and simple. He knows that the pictures are likely to come out eventually. This is just CYA so he can say "I tried to protect the troops. I did all I could do."

We all know this has nothing to do with the troops. Publishing the pictures is not what would aid the terrorists. Publishing the pictures WITHOUT PROSECUTING THE CRIMINALS is what aids the terrorists. And Obama already decided he wasn't going to do that, again, hoping to stand aside while other countries or private parties try to seek some accountability.

It is a purely political game for Obama.

[lamp_shade]

4. We elected him C.I.C. for a reason. Since I don't have access to all the

intel that he does, and since I'm unable to have discussions with and get advice from his commanders and his advisors, I'm content (yes... content) to let him make the big decisions for me. I too trust his judgment.

[BobRossi]

12. Giving him the same concideration you gave shrub eh?

I'm sure.

[lamp_shade]

14. Do you think Bush listened to and took advice from his advisors and commanders?

He took his orders from Cheney and Cheney took his orders from Cheney.

[nichomachus]

18. Right -- we elected him so we could

put our brains and our consciences in neutral and just enjoy American Idol. No more thinking! It's the American way!

[Why Syzygy]

5. What some of you are missing ..

is this is NOT Obama's decision. It's his position. Two courts have already ruled in the FOIA case that they must be released to the ACLU. It may go to the Supreme Court. If Obama overrides our court system, we are screwed pooches.

[lamp_shade]

7. The President is now challenging those opinions by making the case that

national security implications of such a release had not been fully presented.

[Why Syzygy]

9. Which two courts of law

have already ruled is not a valid excuse.

(1) Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim -- that release of the photographs "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" -- means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- as the Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/

I am amazed at the acquiescence found at DU about this matter. It worries me. We need to think rationally even if our view of reality gets dinged.

[Clio the Leo]

8. And as this article clearly states.....

.... his admin. is challenging the matter on a an exemption that the Bush admin never did. A matter that's apparently pretty important to the generals in charge of leading the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8409858

This is a no-win situation for the President ... he's screwed either way .... IMO he went with the option that had the potential of saving lives over the idealistically preferable one.

[Why Syzygy]

11. Can you please point out

the "exemption that the Bush admin never did"? It is being reported as exactly the same excuse.

Wait. You must have intended this:
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said the administration had been informed that the time to challenge the release had passed. He said Obama had also been informed that the Bush administration had challenged the photos' release only on law enforcement and privacy grounds, and had never invoked a national security exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.

So a technicality is being used to justify breaking the law. FOIA is a Law.

[Clio the Leo]

6. That he is and that he does! NT

[Aloha Spirit]

10. There are a lot of considerations,

including the fact that Iran and Afghanistan haven't had presidential elections in 4 years, and will be doing so over the next few months.
At the same time, I think there is a lot of room for compromise on this issue.
Admittedly, I haven't been paying close attention, but I look forward to the WH responding more definitively to the criticism.
I understand all things involving prosecution require a lack of transparency, but Holder promised that he'd reach out to the public more than he has so far.
Like many here on DU I would guess, I'm waiting to see what happens next.

[slay]

13. So let me get this straight - we're going to be blackmailed, as a country, with wars and Pakistan

nukes into going against our core values in covering up torture? And don't try that bullshit telling me "Obama is ten times smarter than any of you". No, maybe he's smarter than YOU (ahem) but you do NOT get to insult the rest of DU while you cheerlead for Obama. I don't buy your bullshit "burden of government" for one second either!!!

[grytpype]

15. OK, well, it's a good thing you'll never be President.

By the way, were you at the top of your class at Harvard Law School? President of the Law Review? Do you even know what that means?

[slay]

16. If you're going to just insult me for no good reason in your own thread

you can go fuck yourself buddy. Asking questions you already know the answers to in an attempt to belittle another person = lame. Try again.

*edited to say - Actuallly don't bother replying to me as I will not respond to this thread any longer. I don't want to keep kicking it just to argue with you. We will never agree and I'm ok to leave it at that.

[opihimoimoi]

19. Its called benifit of doubt.....I stand by his decision.....

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Is that why bush did it too? Or did he do all the right things for all the wrong reasons?