Posted on 09/29/2005 10:01:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
In time of war you don't provide propaganda material to the enemy, period. Especially when there is NOT any useful public purpose to releasing such material. In WWII, should Tokyo Rose and Lord Hee-Haw have been invited to publish and broadcast every form of propaganda they wanted to, and provided with material by us, enabled by US media??? No way, Jose....
I thought they were already released. What. . .they want the chance to show them again, over and over and over and. . .
If these acts were truly being covered up, your question might make sense.
This is nothing but a propaganda move made by domestic enemies of our country and our military.
And, in times of war, many things the military does wrong are classified. That is so our enemies can not use that info as a weapon against us.
This is not domestic politics- this is life and death for our servicemen.
Perhaps someone will stop for a moment, and think, and realize that any 'blood' from this is more appropriately on the hands of those who are depicted in the photographs.
The government failed to meet its burden of proof (that the pictures contained information that would compromise national security).
So, just so I understand your response - if there existed documented proof that our armed forces were raping babies and then beheading them, that information should be kept from US citizens on the grounds that its release would endanger our armed forces. Do I have that right?
Give it a rest..
Who would you rather as your prison guard..a US soldier at Abu Graib or one of Zaqawi's nice young men? I thought so.
So, just so I understand your response - if there existed documented proof that our armed forces were raping babies and then beheading them, that information should be kept from US citizens on the grounds that its release would endanger our armed forces. Do I have that right?
It's a bit late to tell the perps not to commit the abuses.
That is not how it is being represented, and you know it. This has been laid at the feet of the DOD and our President by the media and foreign enemies.
Releasing more photos is a despicable act with only one intention.....more fuel for Muslim fanatics to use in their recruiting drives and to justify barbarous acts against our soldiers.
As far as the remainder of your comment, I don't happen to believe that our actions are measured by comparison to the murderous thugs of Al Qaeda. IMO, our standards are a bit higher than that. Sorry you feel that our actions are justified just because there is somebody worse in the world.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
Information that it happened, no. Pictures of dead, raped babies...HELL yes!
In a 1998 poll, five out of five Administration officials agreed with this statement.
How much do you think happened there that you don't know about because you haven't seen the graphic evidence of it?
Your distinction could potentially have some merit if there was a snowball's chance in hell that the gov't would tell us anything they weren't forced to tell us.
So, your position is that in 1998 the press should have been permitted to issue a general statement that the President had been accused of sexual misconduct, but the Starr Report should have been suppressed. Gotcha.
Been lurking on the Dark side and they are sooo gleeful. They can't wait to post them all over the internet!
A little to smarmy for me. You honestly believe that a governmment at war has to lay bare its soul and release graphic details of every mistake made during a campaign?
Regardless of the consequences? Regardless of how many people die as a result?
What a crock. I don't believe the revelation of Bill Clinton's sexual missteps endangered any of our servicemen's lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.