Comments on: White House won’t show bin Laden photo, do you agree?

By: iverson

iverson — Tue, 10 May 2011 16:49:29 +0000

the fact is that no one can sure Bin is really dead without the photo.

By: GalaxyHorse

GalaxyHorse — Sat, 07 May 2011 03:30:00 +0000

Before blindly accepting this event it would be wise to consider the facts; Bin Laden was reported as dying 10 years ago from Marfan disease-there are some highly credible critics of the “Raid” performance, and while they are all being depicted as ‘conspiracy whacko’s” I for one am not convinced-the timing of this event for a start is politically synchronistic, to say the least….

By: SeaWa

SeaWa — Fri, 06 May 2011 18:13:42 +0000

I also think the news media should keep the stories simple, factual, and on topic. It would be easy to raise the level of hysteria and inadvertently rally his supporters.

By: affableman

affableman — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:33:39 +0000

One other, a Presidential Finding to the CIA issued first by Clinton, renewed by both Busha and Obama said we were going to kill him. So we did what we said we’d do.

Think of the hostages that would be taken had we held him in custody. They would have grabbed any American they could have to try to get him released. It would have been a sorry, sorry circus with additional innocents killed.

We said we’d kill him and we did. Time to move on.

By: affableman

affableman — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:29:36 +0000

The military says don’t release it, the CIA and the other national security agencies say don’t release it, the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence and Defense committees (both Democrats and Republicans) say don’t release it. They all say it because the doubters still wouldn’t believe we kill him and it would inflame the radicals and endanger our troops.

What’s so hard to understand about this. If you’re an American and you want it release then you want to endanger our troops and that borders on treason.

By: screwyou81

screwyou81 — Thu, 05 May 2011 20:58:30 +0000

I bet you guys would still believe in Santa if he told you he was real

By: oriondg

oriondg — Thu, 05 May 2011 18:28:20 +0000

Obama is right not to release them. The same images that will make American’s feel “closure” will also make militants feel anger. They will do a lot more damage, and allow him to become even more of a martyr.

Nowhere in democracy does it say “full disclosure”, nor does it say that government’s inner workings must be dangerously exposed to be a democracy. That is the entitled North American pseudo-logic at play, and it angers me.

Roll back the clocks 100 years and ask me if this would have been okay? Of course it would have been okay. Think about it.

By: ConstFundie

ConstFundie — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:37:33 +0000

I understand the reasoning, they are disturbing and macabre and it will be called uncouth by many to release them. I do not agree that graphic pictures of Bin Laden would incite more violence or make him any more of a martyr. However, not releasing them is overly protective and “Big Daddy-ish”. In my opinion, the deciding factor is that a true democracy absolutely requires maximal transparency. How do Adults in this world participate in democracies (governments by the people) without knowing the reality and truth about the events we are involved?

By: Stibine

Stibine — Thu, 05 May 2011 15:55:33 +0000

Does anyone think Obama would say Bin-Laden is dead if he weren’t? Obama would know that kind of lie would destroy his political future if Bin-Laden showed up again. I don’t give a crap what the naysayers think. Personally, I would love to see the entire videos of the raid, but I don’t want the rest of the world to see it. So, I will just have to wait for Hollywood to give me the vicarious experience in an inevitable future movie.

By: Stibine

Stibine — Thu, 05 May 2011 15:55:32 +0000