President Obama said Wednesday that he would fight to prevent the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, reversing his position on the issue after commanders warned that the images could set off a deadly backlash against American troops.Let's see if I'm following so far. If the wogs see the pictures of us brutalizing them, they'll hate us. But if the wogs see in the news that we have pictures of us brutalizing them, that are apparently so bad that we know they'll hate us after seeing them, but we keep them in our triple-secret file drawer and don't let anybody (who doesn't work for the gummint) see them, then the wogs won't be upset, because ... why? They're not smart enough, maybe? They're strictly "visual learners?" My head's starting to hurt already.
The administration said last month that it would not oppose the release of the pictures, but Mr. Obama changed his mind after seeing the photographs and getting warnings from top Pentagon officials that the images, taken from the early years of the wars, would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger troops in two war zones.
“The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,” Mr. Obama told reporters on the South Lawn. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”"Would not add any additional benefit to our understanding ..." I've been noticing a decline, since about midway through last year's presidential campaign, in Rainbow Brite's justly-celebrated articulateness, and I'm beginning to wonder if there's a White House Curse in effect, whereby the occupant loses 20 or so IQ points -- a loss that absolutely crippled George Dubya Slow-Puppy, and is also unbecoming even to the new God-Emperor, Obama I. But I digress; you see what the Prez is saying: you don't need to know what your tax dollars and your fellow-countrymen have been up to overseas, because ... well, because I said so, that's why. I find that rather unsatisfactory.
To go on:
Officials who have seen the photos describe them as falling into two categories: Abu Ghraib-style personal snapshots taken by soldiers; and photos taken by military criminal investigators documenting allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody.Frankly, it pains me to agree with an ACLU operative about anything. But, you know, even a blind squirrel comes up with the occasional acorn.
Many of the photos may recall those taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which showed prisoners naked or in degrading positions, sometimes with Americans posing smugly nearby, and caused an uproar in the Arab world and elsewhere when they came to light in 2004.
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the decision to fight the release of the photos was a mistake. He said officials had described them as “worse than Abu Ghraib” and said their volume, more than 2,000 images, showed that “it is no longer tenable to blame abuse on a few bad apples. These were policies set at the highest level.”
For the last word, I'll turn to Jesus, as quoted in John 3:20, 21:
For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.