Today's Qs for O's WH - 5/13/2009

Foggy
re; Ms Cal & 'the gay'

maybe if she hadn't blamed Satan, while hangin' out with James Dobson's crowd, her statements would carry more cred.

Very interesting question, DrJohn. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. I hope we'll see some discussion of it in the coming weeks.

I'll tell you what.. that Constitution must be the most abused document in the D.C. archives (glad that so many peeps go over there to assure it's still there).. both parties are quick to pull it out.. if a passage in it can be easily used to beat someone over the head with it.. otherwise, it just an old piece of paper (a popular piece).

What is the Constitutional basis for Obama to be cutting Chrysler's ad budget?

"I don't think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy - indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something."

First: So he's being dishonest in his unequivocal statement?
==================================

Wouldn't be the first time would it but it doesn't matter as far as the cult of personality goes.

Consider the gay marriage position shared by Miss Cal and POTUS. She gets ripped for it. He continues to get a pass. Why? One theory is that they think he is actually pro-gay marriage but has to lie about it for political reasons and they are perfectly ok with that.

"I don't think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy - indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something."

First: So he's being dishonest in his unequivocal statement?

Second: Wasn't it accepted as indisputable fact that news of Abu Ghraib was Al Qaeda's number one recruiting tool? If in fact that is true, is it possible for any sentient being to contend that these photos will not serve the same purpose many times over?

Third: Why on earth is the argument that the release would further endanger our troops in any way "akin to" the argument concerning the House of Saud? The claim that these two arguments are even remotely comparable seems astonishingly far-fetched. Far-fetched to the point of incoherence.

What does Gibbs have on the blessed one to keep this job? I have never heard such an inept spokesperson in my life!

He originally intended to release the photos. Over 40 of them. Yet he will releae only one of the hundreds of photos that must have been taken of the NY Flyover. Why is that? For a photo op that cost $300,000, we deserve to see every photo, and there can be no logical reason for them not to be released.

"I don't think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy ..."

Only a naive person would believe that releasing those abuse photos would not damage the morale of our military or not put them in greater jeopardy. Obama is not that naive to believe that - he is political and measures the wind and goes with it.

So, leave it in the courts, status quo for now, and go ahead and throw the opposition a bone by accepting their argument...

What, they're going to try to kill us twice as dead if they see the photos? Worst case a few embassies in Europe get egged and front row seats for the monthly riot in France.
============

Actually, the status quo was going to be to release them. This is a *reversal* of Obama's position. He could have released them and had the whole debate over with. The idea that keeping this alive in the courts is somehow the way to have the issue end is the opposite of reality.

I know you know embassies don't get egged when the jihadists have a new piece of propaganda to use.
You know real riots ensue, and real people die.

MayBee:"do you completely dismiss Obama's contention that he is concerned about the well being of our troops if the photos are released?
You think he'd rather release the photos now, but because he is so busy he instead will tell his justice department to continue fighting the ACLU?"

That's not exactly it, but pretty close. I don't think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy - indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something. What, they're going to try to kill us twice as dead if they see the photos? Worst case a few embassies in Europe get egged and front row seats for the monthly riot in France.

This was becoming a distraction, taking time that the public and politicians should be spending beating on the budget and real issues with real implications. Now, overnight, it's not. And he didn't sacrafice any significant portion of his agenda by ceding this battle.

So, leave it in the courts, status quo for now, and go ahead and throw the opposition a bone by accepting their argument. Obama doesn't have to single handedly solve all the problems, let the court keep chewing this one over and score a point for being willing to change course. Just like he had the National Mall renovation removed from the stimulus and the birth control money - if a truly minor issue is being blown out of proportion, it doesn't hurt to drop it.

I detest the abuses shown in these photos. However, we need to weigh the potential increase in danger to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan against the public's right to information. A pentagon study after the release of the first Abu Ghraib photos suggested the increased number of U.S. servicemen deaths might exceed the number of lives lost on 9/11. I'm willing to delay seeing these photos for a reasonable time if it protects American soldiers

"They want them released because they believe the number of them will (ahem) prove this abuse was due to policy coming from the very top."

Of course. And they know full well that the photos would prove no such thing. They also know, like trial lawyers everywhere, that the inflammatory and prejudicial effects of the photos would preclude rational discussion of the issue.

There is a well-known rule of evidence that material is not admissible if its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. That's plainly the case here, but the ACLU knows we're not dealing with any rules of evidence, and they want them not for a court of law but to inflame public opinion.

The FOIA exemption I'm talking about is the one concerning information

"specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy." Title 5 U.S. Cose Section 552.

It hasn't been applied here yet, but it could be applied in very short order.

The photos sought by the ACLU depict unlawful actions taken by soldiers--not trained CIA interrogators--who have been tried and punished for what they did. No one that I know of contends that the soldiers' acts were lawful.
=============

Yes. What the ACLU wants are akin to crime scene photos. They were taken to document abuse for Pentagon investigations and prosecutions.
They want them released because they believe the number of them will (ahem) prove this abuse was due to policy coming from the very top. They want Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush prosecuted for prisoner abuse. Prosecuting the people who actually did the abuse in the photos is not enough for the ACLU.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the materials Cheney is talking about and the photos at issue here are entirely unrelated.

Cheney is talking about memoranda regarding the DoJ and the CIA; specifically, the legal opinions stating what is and is not lawful (those have been disclosed) and memoranda describing the results of the use of various techniques by the CIA on a limited number of high-value terrorist suspects.

The photos sought by the ACLU depict unlawful actions taken by soldiers--not trained CIA interrogators--who have been tried and punished for what they did. No one that I know of contends that the soldiers' acts were lawful.

The president needs to wake up on this matter and get rid of it.

He has available to him an option that, so far as I am aware, has not been discussed.

The 2nd Circuit decision was not based upon some generalized right of the ACLU or anyone else to see these photos. It was based on a statute, the FOIA. The president and congress could, if they wanted, amend the statute overnight to exempt these particular documents.

A preferable way to proceed would be for the president to avail himself of a procedure provided for in the FOIA statute but not yet used in this dispute. He could issue an executive order, based upon his own finding, specifying that disclosure of these documents would pose a danger to national security. That would be the end of the matter.

Liz Cheney and her dad are helping Obama to become a better and stronger President. Bipartisanship is back.

Cheneys da man!

Oh the good old days when Obama could just vote "present".

Now he actually has to make a decision.
If he could only stick to them.