May 4, 2011

What Alfred Hitchcock tells us about whether Obama should show us the bullet-ridden head of Osama bin Laden.

Here's the fantastic "I think you're evil!" clip from Hitchcock's "The Birds":


I Think You're Evil! by movieclips

I looked that up because Titus invoked it in the thread about whether the bin Laden death photos should be shown: "I want to see them and he better look like Suzanne Pleshette in The Byrds." Titus is a comic commenter who says all manner of outrageous things (and misspells to amuse us). (By the way, did you know that the rock group The Byrds came out around the same time as the Hitchcock movie, and they adapted the movie slogan: "The Byrds is coming"?)

Anyway, if you've seen "The Birds," you have the feeling that you stared straight at a stark depiction of the character Annie (Suzanne Pleshette) with her eyes completely plucked out. With the clip at your control, you may have to go back a few times before you can be sure how much you really saw. I mean, I think I went back about 10 times, and I'm still not sure! But you see almost nothing. Similarly, in "Psycho," you feel you see the knife cut into Janet Leigh multiple times, but, in fact, you never see that.

The vivid, lingering image of the eyeless Pleshette is a product of imagination, and in our imagination we already have the picture of Osama's blasted face. Why should we prefer the opportunity to stare at the destruction? If "The Birds" were made today, we probably would get a long look at gruesome special effects, and it would, undoubtedly be a much worse movie with far less emotional impact. We might even laugh at it. How would we react to the real photo of bin Laden? I don't know. Maybe we'd feel a thrill, followed perhaps by shame at our brutishness. More likely, we'd stare to the point of familiarity and arrive at some clinical distance.

Why would Obama want that? Like a remake of "The Birds," it's beyond unnecessary.

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
ricpic said...

People, including me, need closure. That's why we should be shown the picture.

MayBee said...

Why would Obama want that?

It's not about what Obama wants.

Phil 3:14 said...

The horrified young girl, Kathy, was played by Veronica Cartwright. Later in her movie career she would see much worse

edutcher said...

Good point, Madame.

Hitch always said he hated graphic violence and deplored the trend in the late 60s.

So he did what he did best.

As The Duke once said when asked why he didn't make his later pictures gorier, "We're in the business of illusion".

Hitchcock felt the same.

Peano said...

Why should we prefer the opportunity to stare at the destruction?

Why should Washington elites be the arbiters of whether "we" have that opportunity?

The Grand Inquisitor said...

I don't need to see Osama's corpse for an emotional thrill.

That's disgusting. It was justice, not revenge. It's true some are cheering his death as though it's just base revenge, hoping for something grisly, but that's not really what this was about for most of us.

We wanted to win a psychological battle with Al Qaida and others like them that we actually can catch *anybody*, and were determined to catch anyone who killed our people.

Proving that is very important. DNA tests in this case cannot prove it was OBL. And some of the world is simply too paranoid to believe everything America says. And, frankly, the handling of his corpse is weird.

So release a photo of his corpse. I probably won't even look at it. I'm sure it's awful. This isn't entertainment for me. This isn't like a horror movie. I have a hard time understanding why someone would even draw that comparison.

Suspension of belief makes movies better, but it isn't how we should conduct the war on terror.

Also, let's remember this is about thousands of innocent people who were murdered, and not simply seeing a dead terrorist.

traditionalguy said...

Is this a clue that Osama's body dropped into Bodega Bay? Conspiracy theory is hard work.

Ann Althouse said...

"Proving that is very important. DNA tests in this case cannot prove it was OBL. And some of the world is simply too paranoid to believe everything America says. And, frankly, the handling of his corpse is weird."

And the photo itself would be challenged. It's photoshopped, etc. etc. Layers!!!

traditionalguy said...

But this is an elected Representative Governed Republic. Let our elected representatives ordering the Navy do the job. We don't need an internet Democracy doing the job behind them.

Sixty Grit said...

Amuse us - that's why. Right. That and profound ignorance, but whatever...

Carol said...

Well I was all for showing the photo a couple days ago, but now am not so eager because we will be blamed for all the reactions.

But I think the "morbid" desire to see it is merely a natural reversion to our primitive past, when vanquishing an enemy was considered a good thing.

Enjoy the moment. History will march on and shit will happen that will be blamed on this and irony will abound..but so what. The sorryass sulkers among us would have mourned on V-E Day.

David said...

No need to publish the photos.

Much better to let everyone imagine, each in their own way.

The photos are not going to have any effect on the inevitable conspiracy theories.

Did you know that Osama's body was not actually buried at sea. He's in cold storage on the Carl Vinson.

MayBee said...

A friend points us to Michael Yon, who reminds us the photo of burned and mutilated American contractors hanging from the bridge in Fallujah won a Pulitzer Prize.

Trooper York said...

The photo will not prove anything and might inflame the barbarians.

But the details of the DNA testing would not and could be used by independent third parties to verify that it was indeed Osama to prevent any imposter from arising to rally the terrorists. So there is no reason not to release a detailed autopsy and DNA report for independent review. Right?

David said...

"It was justice, not revenge."

One person's justice is another's revenge.

And revenge is a game of leapfrog.

MayBee said...

If we have another terrorist attack, it will be best if no photos of it are released. Or at least, not any gory ones. Not any that may inflame. We can imagine what happened. We should be protected by our President, whom we must trust to make these decisions for us.

Fred4Pres said...

I am still not sure why an autopsy was not performed on OBL. Don't they have a competent coroner in Afghanistan? Hell a comptent surgeon could have done it with direction. This whole shooting in the head thing may be OBL's own supporters doing it. With the various accounts from the Administration, we have not gotten the correct facts. Apparently some current and former SEALs are pissed that this was called a "kill" operation. They have say if OBL surrendered they would not have shot him (maybe a rifle butt to the fact but definitely not a kill shot).

So it would help if the Administration could release the facts on what did happen.

Lucius said...

In "The Birds" you see the gouged-out eyes of the farmer quite a bit though: a sequence of quick cuts dragging you closer-closer-closer . . . .

Perhaps subliminally people are thinking of this?

Trooper York said...

Wait a minute?

Titus is a comic character?

Like Beetle Bailey or Mary Worth?

That's not nice.

Always picking on the gay guys.

Lucius said...

I mean this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwLiH8bWFdM

sorry, I've forgotten the little HREF song. I'll have to look it up . . .

Palladian said...

Lucius is correct; the farmer's eyeless, mutilated body is shown quite clearly, as Jessica Tandy's point of view. People who haven't seen the film recently tend to conflate the image of the farmer and the oblique shots of Pleshette's body.

TMink said...

That was part of Hitchcock's genius, what he made us feel WITHOUT showing us. Brilliant.

And Titus missepells? None of us with dyslexia knew!

Trey

Peano said...

The presumption should be that all government information is open to public inspection.

Those in power reflexively think, "We must find a justification for making this public." The principle should be, "We must offer a justification if we are to keep this secret."

Lacking a justification, release the photos and let people decide for themselves whether to view them and what to think about them.

Those of the "progressive" mindset (our hostess leaps to mind) seem not to understand that they possess no special qualities that elevate them above the little people and give them special status to make such decisions.

Hagar said...

I believe U.S. Special Forces conducted a raid on this "million dollar compound" and at least someone got hurt.
After that every detail we are told clangs with something else, and I think I will just wait to see what else develops, and maybe I will live long enough to form a picture I can more or less believe.

Sofa King said...

Why?

Because every time someobody says "trust me" and insists I take their word for it, I trust them less.

On the other hand, I sincerely doubt I am capable of trusting government officials any less than I already do.

Mick said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Proving that is very important. DNA tests in this case cannot prove it was OBL. And some of the world is simply too paranoid to believe everything America says. And, frankly, the handling of his corpse is weird."

And the photo itself would be challenged. It's photoshopped, etc. etc. Layers!!!"



Right so you buy into the meme that "if it will be challenged anyway by conspiratorialists, then we souldn't release it". Even tho the stated reason was to "quell the conspiracy theories". The logic of the liars gets them all twisted up.

If it is a true dipiction of the event, then no "conspiracy" can disprove it. Obama's LFBC is cetainly a FAKE (not that it matters, since he has already admitted his British birth and ineligibility). So he releases a fake LFBC, yet we are supposed to believe it, and the story of OBL's death, because he says so? Where is your outrage as a champion of the law? The putative POTUS has "released" a fake offical birth document.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW_PWzhgvDs


Oh yeah, that's right, you put all the nefarious associations aside, and voted for him anyway, and still defend that decision!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Maybe they could show it with his face covered with a big blue dot like that girl at the William Kennedy-Smith trial.

EDH said...

Here's the explicit scene from The Birds with the farmer's eyes gouged out.

By his bed... with no CPAP machine.

Trooper York said...

If Titus is a comic charater then he has to be Peter Parker. I mean he is gay after all.

MadisonMan said...

People, including me, need closure

Eye-plucking. And closure.

Interesting juxtaposition of words.

And those nails are just so perfectly red right after the slap in the clip.

Godot said...

We have been told that there are two pieces of evidence that this is Osama bin Laden: 1) a DNA test and 2) a photo of a man who suffered a gruesome gunshot wound to the face.

Since the currently reported DNA test can only be used to prove that the corpse was one of the 54 known children of the late Mohammed Awad bin Laden, we are left with the photo.

I want to see what the CIA's photo-recognition technology had to work with after the shooting.
_

slarrow said...

Release the picture. Let us show our children, so they can see what a dead monster looks like.

That shows two things: that monsters are real, and that they can be killed. That there is both a reason for fear and a reason for courage.

Those are important lessons, and we ought to be denied them because it wouldn't make good entertainment?

ic said...

It's good that Osama was killed by our kinectic actions. But all the power of the US to kill one man? A bit overkill, no?

People need closure. Closure for what? Nothing is closed. Al Qadea are still milling around killing people, Muslisms and non-Muslims, that they don't like, they try to control others with fears, the fascists do that, the communists do that.

Killing Osama was an act of revenge, no more and no less. I am all for revenge, that's why I support the death penalty. But don't make such a big deal out of it. Don't dance on the street to celebrate one man's death, so like "them" sans AK-47s firing skyward. Yuck!

chickelit said...

I think Althouse's argument here is bunk. As already noted, the farmer's corpse was graphicaly depicted. I've remembered that imagine since I was a kid.

The best part of the "I think you're Evil" clip is the sniveling, cowering Mrs. Bundy, the know-it-all ornithologist who finally gets her comeuppance. Now that was some good moralizing on the part of Mr. Hitchcock.

jerryofva said...

Fred:

This is not the first "kill mission” undertaken by the US military. On April 18, 1943 the USAAF was given the mission to intercept and assassinate ADM Isoruku Yamamato. The Mission was named Operation Vengeance for obvious reasons.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=932946715303681507

Unlike Bin Laden, ADM Yamamato was doing his job as directed by his National Command Authority even though he was against going to war with the US. He was educated here (MBA, Harvard class of ‘21) and a friend and admirer of the United States. If he could be dispatched in a "kill mission" then I don't see why the Seals would have a problem in dealing death to Bin Laden.

chickelit said...

Trooper York said...
If Titus is a comic charater then he has to be Peter Parker. I mean he is gay after all.

I've never found Titus all the funny. Outre and all that, but too wet for my dry taste in humor.

MayBee said...

Because every time someobody says "trust me" and insists I take their word for it, I trust them less.


Exactly, Sofa King. And saying it is dangerous for us if we don't just trust him are extra warning sprinkles on the sundae.

pduggie said...

I wonder if watching Danile Pearl have his head cut off correlates with wanting to see Bin Laden's death face.

I didn't see the first, and don't want to see the latter

Proof said...

I think it's funny that Hillary is advising against releasing the pictures. What better way to undermine Barry's credibility for 2012?

For the sake of what little legacy he has left, he needs to release the pictures (plural).

MayBee said...

I didn't see the first, and don't want to see the latter

You do not have to want to see it to believe in the principle that the President should not use fear to control information.

traditionalguy said...

The urge to get some retribution is OK so long as your actions do not hurt yourself while you are doing them to the enemy. In this case Obama is right again in not releasing the photos. These photos do nothing to hurt Al Qaeda and would certainly be used as "Bloody Shirts" in Saudi Arabia and its allied Sunni societies/tribes.

Smilin' Jack said...

Whether he releases it or not, dithering this long over the question looks weak.

Coketown said...

I think your analysis ignores the differences in how we psychologically process the real world versus fictions. Movies are great for exciting our passions but the experience never equals real-world experience.

Call it bloodlust or call it closure, but I think society was much healthier when public executions were more common.

Harry Phartz said...

Man, Tippi Hedren was fantabulous!

MayBee said...

These photos do nothing to hurt Al Qaeda and would certainly be used as "Bloody Shirts" in Saudi Arabia and its allied Sunni societies/tribes.

If the President told you that not re-electing him would be used in Saudi Arabia to show that we are against people with the name "Hussein", would you believe him?

How far are you willing to go to let the president control information (that is usually made public) as a means of protecting you (or the troops)?

Rumpletweezer said...

How about this? Let a courtroom artist see the actual photograph. Have the artist do a sketch based on the actual photo. Hell, just have somebody do a sketch of what it might look like. Be sure to give him a big nose and a really ratty beard.

madawaskan said...

Breaking:

White House will not release photos.

*****

You know how they could solve some of the debt crisis?

Sell pay-per-view for that video they don't want to admit they watched.

You could edit that down enough.......

I mean even Obama finds Hillary likable enough....


*******

Althouse it ain't over yet .

Gas prices even when adjusted for inflation are equal to the Days of Carter.

$5 and they'll be at the highest levels ever....


[wv:paless]

Dishonesty always bites you in the end.

madawaskan said...

Speaking of hindsight-


You're all for lying to the electorate, lying to a nuclear state that might or might not be hiding a terrorist to them you should telegraph all of your intentions.

Not exactly the wisest choice.....

Jenner said...

The picture needs to be shown. That is how we do things nowadays! Transparency? Honesty? Respect for the intelligence of the American people? These things are unknown in the Obama Whitehouse.

That he didn't already have a decision on this, as well as a SOLID report of what happened ready to be released is completely unacceptable.

Wasting time on birth certificates? How about dithering around on a matter of slightly more importance? Maddening. Now, with the decision not to release the photo, we are going to STUCK on this issue for weeks!

Please do not try to use your reverse psychology on me to make me think this was a good choice for president.

Sixty Grit said...

Rumpletweezer wrote...

"Be sure to give him a big nose and a really ratty beard."

Allah handled that already.

Lincolntf said...

Saving the photo to leak right before the 2012 election as a "reminder" to the voters of what a war hero Obama is.

jr565 said...

We probably don't need to see the face (though it would give proof to doubters that OBL is in fact dead), but we didn't need to see photos of Abu Ghraib either, nor have stories of us dunking koran's in toilets (especially when the story was fake) nor did we need to see pictures of draped coffins from Iraq soldiers coming back from the war.
It seems the template is, if it is damaging to Bush and if it causes our enemies to hate us more, then we must broadcast the pictures, if it undermines our effort, then we must broadcast the pictures, but if it would rouse our anger then we mustn't show pictures.
Remember how we had footage of people jumping from the WTC but noone showed it? Too incendiary.

Jenner said...

Wikileaks will clear all this up shortly.

murgatroyd666 said...

Althouse, if you're going to invoke Alfred Hitchcock in saying that we don't need to inspect the body, then I'm going to invoke Agatha Christie in saying that we do: Ten Little Indians.

D.D. Driver said...

"And the photo itself would be challenged. It's photoshopped, etc. etc. Layers!!!"

A) The photo SHOULD be challenged and scrutinized. Why is that a bad thing?

B) The WH is somewhat talking out of both sides of its mouth---on one hand Bin Laden's followers are going to think the photo is fake, on the other hand they are going to be inflamed.

This is not the time for blind faith in our government. Especially not in light of the constantly shifting stories. This operation is looking less and less like a military fire fight and more and more like a mafia-style hit. I'm not saying a mafia-style hit is not warranted in this case. But we should definitely have a conversation about it. We need more information and it starts with the photos.

We shot an unarmed man in the freaking face. Now is not exactly the time to start worrying about his followers being "inflamed" by it. That ship has already sailed.

ironrailsironweights said...

Anyone who is worried that the photo might be too gross for our sensibilities ought to spend a while at The YNC.

Peter

Jenner said...

Why do we continue to be so sensitive to inflaming the enemy? Show them the picture - this is the only way they will understand we are serious! Did anyone ever hear of deterence as a foreign policy strategy?

Smilin' Jack said...

Like a remake of "The Birds," it's beyond unnecessary.

That's debatable. A remake of "Psycho" is beyond unnecessary, but "The Birds" isn't one of Hitch's better films, and he only cast Tippi Hedren because he wanted to do her.

D.D. Driver said...

BTW, isn't is also weird that the administration has been planning the strike for 9 months and were still internally debating what evidence to give the public after the fact? Shouldn't they have made these decisions many months ago? Why do they seem to be in "reaction mode"?

MadisonMan said...

I'm going to invoke Agatha Christie in saying that we do: Ten Little Indians.

With your moniker, I'd think you'd invoke A Murder is Announced.

dbp said...

Openness and transparency dictate releasing the photos. Some will view them for closure, some for cheap titillation, others just to assure themselves that OBL is really dead.

I have no interest in seeing the pictures, but they should be available.

Freeman Hunt said...

You display a body to prove, especially to your enemies, that you've killed that person.

We kill the guy. Great!
We dump the body almost immediately. Little stupid but not the end of the world.
We don't release photographs. Are you kidding me?!

The people who hate us are going to say that he's not dead now, and people over there will believe them.

Part of a war is propaganda. This could have worked for us in that regard. Instead we're pissing it away. Pathetic.

D.D. Driver said...

As a wise man once said:

These are not the droids you're looking for....

Freeman Hunt said...

The warning that we will hunt you to the ends of the earth and eventually find you is ineffective if people don't think he's dead.

BloggerEsquire said...

With all due respect to the effort it took to obtain the pictures, they belong to the people of the US.

The decision to release them should merely be based on whether their release would harm the public, not how much it is necessary for some emotional purpose, or would offend.

It is my opinion that such analysis on the emotional effectiveness of publishing any such pictures or the lack thereof is interesting but largely irrelevant. Deciding whether to release on such analysis seems merely paternalistic, not presidential.

bagoh20 said...

"it's beyond unnecessary."

Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn what you or he think. It's really not his call or shouldn't be.

The worst thing he could do is not release it. The issue will linger and rot. Even the actual body won't have to endure that. Criminal enterprises hide the evidence. We are not Al Capone.

Freeman Hunt said...

It doesn't matter if some people still refuse to believe he's dead. It's whether or not that conspiracy theory can slip into the mainstream consciousness.

Much easier slipping when there's not even a photo of the dead guy.

Freeman Hunt said...

And how effing wussy do our government officials look clutching their pearls and saying, "Oh goodness gracious! They are so gruesome! We cannot possibly allow the eyes of human beings to be tainted so!"

bagoh20 said...

It's not the goriness. We see that everyday - voluntarily.

It's not the offending - we would only offend the most offensive people on the earth right now - OBL followers, and it's not possible to offend them any more than the way they wake up in the morning.

So why not show the body as was done with Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Mussolini, Holocaust victims and all the rest back in the conservative past. Why were they shown? Would we be better off if they were not?

Use your head. These photos are not special, we just think WE are today. It's a boomer thing again.

bagoh20 said...

I contend that it is dishonorable and smells of criminality to not release them. We may not like having to, but it's our responsibility. Don't hide your work, unless you are ashamed of it. We are not. It's not pride. It's humility that demands the release.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

Obama made such a big deal out of those SEALs who punched that terrorist.

Remember that?

It's odd how he picks and chooses what to make a big deal out of.

This is grisly, nasty evidence that is standard practice to show the world because it is an extremely effective way to convince people a bad guy is dead now.

Those saying it would make no difference are lying. They actually are worried it will make too much difference with the Islamic radicals they are afraid of.

Obama is afraid.

Phil 3:14 said...

too wet for my dry taste in humor

Are you speaking literally or metaphorically?

Coketown said...

Wait. Stop debating. I figured it out. The administration missed the convenience of having an elusive piece of paper that everyone was clamoring for. This will replace his now-exposed birth certificate.

Trump: "Release the photo!"

Freeman Hunt said...

All the competent people in this administration must be ripping their hair out right about now.

kcom said...

"The worst thing he could do is not release it. The issue will linger and rot."

Apparently Obama learned nothing from the birth certificate issue. We live in an open society and today there is a strong expectation of transparency. Yesteryear, and the rules that came with it, are gone. Hiding things from fellow adult members of society in this day and age is both a mistake and paternalistic. And it will likely backfire.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
All the competent people in this administration must be ripping their hair out right about now.





That statement makes a large assumption, there little doodette.

Lombardi Chick said...

"We don't need to spike the football."

"He's not a trophy."

Do they honestly not understand why people want to see the photos?

Besides - Obama seemed perfectly content to "spike the football" Sunday night.

Fred Drinkwater said...

The best scene in "The Birds" is a throw-away shot of the two lovebirds in the cage. During the drive up the coast, they are shown (briefly) LEANING into the turns. My favorite.

Lombardi Chick said...

Obama made such a big deal out of those SEALs who punched that terrorist.

Remember that?


And, as Rush just pointed out, he was rather eager to release photographs of prisoner abuse. No concerns about that being "inflammatory".

You gotta love the situational ethics.

BJM said...

Once again a bumbling Obama steps on his dick.

I wouldn't be surprised if internal polling forces a photo dump late Friday.

Obama ordered drones to target individuals so why all the squeamishness about whacking UBL when he would have maximum political cover at home?

Something doesn't add up.

wv: focked

Yep, the WH's UBL storyline is definitely focked up.

Freeman Hunt said...

That statement makes a large assumption, there little doodette.

Panetta is competent.

Here's my guess: Someone who isn't a clueless fool is going to leak the pictures to the press. The sooner that happens, the better.

Jenner said...

This administration shows an incredible inability to learn from its mistakes.

Please let those last 40+ percent of voters be paying attention.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Panetta is competent.




That statement is debatable. I’d argue he’s in over his head at CIA, and will be, to an extent, at DoD. If by “competent” you mean he’s not some commie-inspired, academic, attempting to fundamentally transform America, with a sense of fierce moral urgency, but rather has a strong background, if limited in scope, in the Federal Executive, then I guess he’s “competent.” But, that’s setting the bar pretty low.

Alex said...

All this is so much spitting in the wind. You guys can't begin to comprehend the level of triumphalism in the MSM/HuffPo/leftblog-osphere right now. It's off the charts insane right now.

Just go to Huffington Post, they've deified him.

madawaskan said...

So you take a tight close up from the video- of him live right before he gets it.

The American taxpayer deserves that much-they paid for it.

madawaskan said...

I really don't care that he is dead-there should simply be proof that he was -

found.

That proof can be of him alive in the compound.

2 seconds of that.

ampersand said...

In Psycho the body shots in the shower weren't Janet Leigh. They were of a body double.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Anyone want to bet that there was not one single person in the raid who had a cell phone with photo capability?

BJM said...

Why not show a clip from one of the SEAL helmet cams? That would erase all doubt, especially given that the Pakis are spinning a different version of events.

A real-time demonstration that we can and will seek out and destroy our enemies where ever they hide might also be helpful in bringing the Paki leadership to their senses.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Why would Obama want that? Like a remake of "The Birds," it's beyond unnecessary.


Life is not a movie.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

The "perfect" 2 or 3 seconds would have been when Bin Laden used the woman as a shield.

Oh riiiight that didn't happen.

Brennan the first person to extensively brief the American public on the details had it all wrong.

Freeman Hunt said...

Clinton's probably advising him not to release the photos in order to sink him.

In the near future people will see this for the stupid call that it is.

Then Clinton gains.

BJM said...

@Alex

Just go to Huffington Post, they've deified him.

That almost insures that story will go south. Obama has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.

madawaskan said...

You know maybe Osama was dressed up like a woman.

That could explain the mix up.

We simply can't show that.

bagoh20 said...

Imagine getting handed the credit for the demise of Bin Laden and completely blowing it anyway.

A perfect example of what is wrong with this guy. They could have released a few photos immediately. There are certainly some safe ones. None of this would have come up and it would have been behind us. Dithering idiot.

Jenner said...

The picture that shouldn't have been released was that one from the situation room - where Obama is literally the smallest person in the room.

Comrade X said...

not releasing the photos hides the true cost of being a terrorist.

chickelit said...

Relevant tweet: link

madawaskan said...

"Thinking about that from a visual perspective, here is bin Laden, who has been calling for these attacks, living in this million dollar-plus compound, living in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield," Brennan told the world from the White House podium Monday. "I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years."(TheAtlantic.com)

Brennan -interesting use of the word "visual' .

mariner said...

Phil 3:14,
The horrified young girl, Kathy, was played by Veronica Cartwright.

She had the snivelling whiny scared personna down pretty well, didn't she?

Jenner said...

I predict the football will be spiked at the politically appropriate time.

kcom said...

"The picture that shouldn't have been released was that one from the situation room - where Obama is literally the smallest person in the room."

It was a terrible picture. He looked like he was photoshopped in there. It reminded me of this:

Photos Where Black People Were Awkwardly Photoshopped in or out

I was looking for the Wisconsin one that I remembered (number 10) but didn't realize there were so many other examples.

kcom said...

The situation room photo, for comparison.

Methadras said...

I want the finality of seeing the killer of 3000 of my fellow americans in the face and laughing and wishing him nothing but eternal damnation and hell. That's why I want to see it. Urkel pulls out the moral high ground card yet contradictorily he had no issue sending SEALs to kill him? Is moral cowardice a hallmark of leftism?

Matt said...

If they don't release the photos the right wing will complain.

If they do release the photos the right wing will complain.

Mark my words. Within an hour that the photos are released the idiots over on Hot Air and Gateway Pundit [and Rush Limbaugh too] will tell us how irresponsible it was to release photos that will inflame terrorists and endanger our soldiers in a time of war.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

And the photo itself would be challenged. It's photoshopped, etc. etc. Layers!!!


Then release the video of the raid. Unless of course Urkel hired Spielberg to stage and film it.

Methadras said...

Matt said...

If they don't release the photos the right wing will complain.

If they do release the photos the right wing will complain.

Mark my words. Within an hour that the photos are released the idiots over on Hot Air and Gateway Pundit [and Rush Limbaugh too] will tell us how irresponsible it was to release photos that will inflame terrorists and endanger our soldiers in a time of war.


I for one welcome to see the photo without complaint. I could care less about the sensitivities of 7th century primitives and the unflushed toilets they live in.

Freeman Hunt said...

If they do release the photos the right wing will complain.

I'm right wing. I won't complain.

It needs to be done as quickly as possible.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Then release the video of the raid. Unless of course Urkel hired Spielberg to stage and film it.






I guess you believe we ACTUALLY landed on the moon, too, huh? N00B!

Chip Ahoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Matt said: Mark my words.

Date and time duly noted.

Chip Ahoy said...

Sorry 'bout that↑.

They're having a field day with the situation room photo over on B3ta. They acknowledge the WH asks the photo not be altered in any way. A request that B3tans find perfectly laughable. A few have gone viral in just a few hours thanks to reddit and digg.

Here's one I won't bother to link just to demonstrate how widespread it is so fast. Instead, search "great shot, sir"

Matt said...

Freeman Hunt

It means nothing to me either way. It seems the only reason to release the photos is because some people believe Bin Laden is not dead. Which is nutty.

And as we witnessed with the birth certificate it will not matter if the pictures are released. There will always be those who will think the photos are photoshopped. So, releasing them really won't convince the conspiracy folks.

Also the idea that is gives closure is a bit odd. It makes you wonder how our society dealt with news prior to photography. Did they refuse to believe anything they heard ever?

murgatroyd666 said...

Why would Obama want that? Like a remake of "The Birds," it's beyond unnecessary.

Evidently you missed the Saturday Night Live fake movie trailer for "Brian De Palma's The Clams" ...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@kcom

OMG those photoshops are funny and really inept. I really LOL'd

Political correctness gone wild.

AllenS said...

This week we celebrate a special birthday.

Monica Lewinsky turns 44.
Can you believe it?

It seems like only yesterday, she was crawling around the White House on her hands and knees, putting everything in her mouth.

They grow up so fast, don't they?

Freeman Hunt said...

It means nothing to me either way. It seems the only reason to release the photos is because some people believe Bin Laden is not dead. Which is nutty.

Being nutty is a pretty popular way to be in certain quarters of the Middle East. It matters a great deal what people there think.

And as we witnessed with the birth certificate it will not matter if the pictures are released. There will always be those who will think the photos are photoshopped. So, releasing them really won't convince the conspiracy folks.

Releasing the birth certificate kicked the crazy out of the mainstream. That would be the point of releasing the photo.

murgatroyd666 said...

It means nothing to me either way. It seems the only reason to release the photos is because some people believe Bin Laden is not dead. Which is nutty.

Why is it nutty? I rather hope that the Obama administration was smart enough to capture Osama alive and then tell the world that the SEALs had shot him dead. Could get some pretty good intel that way, without risk of al Qaeda taking hostages in an attempt to trade for his release.

Nah, you're right, it's nutty. The Obama White House isn't that competent.

MarkD said...

When you can remove the pictures of those people jumping from the World Trade Center from my brain, you can keep the pictures of that monster, dead, from me.

The Freedom of Information Act will pry it out anyway, so why be churlish about it? I voted for a president, not national dad.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Also the idea that is gives closure is a bit odd. It makes you wonder how our society dealt with news prior to photography.

There were public executions and the dead bodies were put on display for quite some time so everyone could come and see.

It was good for the vendors too. Hot dogs and lemonaid for the crowd.

Did they refuse to believe anything they heard ever?

Smart people have always suspected that the government and powers that be were telling us lies. Now with instant communiciation and the technology to uncover the lies.....we don't believe ANYTHING they tell us without proof.....and then doubt that pretty much as well.

rocketeer67 said...

Matt,

Yes or No: Should the photos of the abuses being perpetrated at Abu Ghraib have been released?

Careful. Your answer will determine your credibility on this issue.

Freeman Hunt said...

Really, I have trouble accepting that even the government could be this stupid.

So perhaps we caught him alive, tortured the hell out him, shot him, and tossed the body. That would explain the odd hurry to get rid of the corpse.

jeff said...

"Titus is a comic commenter who says all manner of outrageous things (and misspells to amuse us)."

I assume this is the royal "us". Titus doesnt say all manner of outrageous things, he says the same outrageous things over and over and over and over......

Matt
"If they don't release the photos the right wing will complain.
If they do release the photos the right wing will complain."

Hey, can you use your mind reading powers to tell me what the next powerball numbers will be?

"the right wing" is a fairly broad definition, lots of people in there.

Matt said...

Just announced the photos will not be released.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) warned in a statement that releasing the gruesome images of Bin Laden would not only fail to quell conspiracy theories about whether the Al Qaeda leader is still alive, but was antithetical to American values and could lead to blowback in the Muslim world.

"I don't want to make the job of our troops serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan any harder than it already is," Rogers said. "The risks of release outweigh the benefits. Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East."

Obama agreed.

Although I sort of agree with MarkD's comment above. We can certainly handle seeing them. I guess the terrorist world cannot be trusted to see them. Which is sort of odd because they can certainly recruit without photos.

Phil 3:14 said...

"Spiking the football" does not equal
this

Jenner said...

Why are lefties so eager to dispense with accountability for their leaders?

If you are truly intellectually honest you would demand the same accountability for all leaders - this is that situation. If a leader has proven to be trustworthy then demands for accountability might be lessened - this is not that situation (how many versions of this story have we heard already?).

But the best reason for releasing the photos is to show our enemies that we mean business. Let's speak them in a language they can understand. Will this inflame them? If so, let's inflame them until they burn themselves out.

Matt said...

rocketeer67

Yes or No: Should the photos of the abuses being perpetrated at Abu Ghraib have been released?

Yes, because the photos could then be used as a tool for Democrats to win more elections. That's an easy one to answer....

Seven Machos said...

For the record, I told Freeman Hunt that photos would be released through some back channel, unofficially.

Well, look what happened.

Your Seven Machos is available for all of your prophetic needs. Just call or write.

chickelit said...

Careful. Your answer will determine your credibility on this issue.

@rocketeer67: you shouldn't have spooked him like that; I was hoping he would self-identify.

Jenner said...

So are you saying a picture of a dead Osama, at the hands of Democrat president would NOT help him win reelection?

Seven Machos said...

So are you saying a picture of a dead Osama, at the hands of Democrat president would NOT help him win reelection?

It won't hurt. The election is an eternity away. How important will this seem in a year and a half? What's Obama gonna do? Bring it up in speeches. Put it in commercials.

Freeman Hunt said...

Seven, you also said there was no indication that Middle Easterners would think we were lying about killing him.

I suggest you market those prophetic powers in a multipack along with mine.

TMink said...

You know, the amateur hour that has ensued since the crackerjack military operation makes me appreciate that the president gave the go ahead all the more. It was a fine moment for the president.

Trey

Seven Machos said...

My position on what Middle Easterners think remains the same: I don't care. Middle Easterners seem to have more of a problem with facts than people in, say, the rest of the world. They don't so readily accept them. This is to their tremendous social, political, and personal detriment.

Ultimately, it doesn't bother me what Achmed the taxi driver in Riyadh thinks about whether Bin Laden is alive or dead.

I add that I myself argued that he was dead for the last several years. I was wrong. So what?

D.D. Driver said...

"It means nothing to me either way. It seems the only reason to release the photos is because some people believe Bin Laden is not dead. Which is nutty."

I think blind faith in an administration that has already lied to us about this event (i.e., armed and dangerous, in a million dollar mansion, hiding behind woman,etc.) and supposedly acted in a reckless and comically inept manner ("hey let's throw this important piece of evidence in the ocean immediately after acquiring it!") is nutty.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. I don't think Bin Laden is actually alive somewhere. I just want my government to stop acting like it is hiding shit from us.

Freeman Hunt said...

I said that they wouldn't believe it without photos, and they wouldn't.

But you were right about the back channels.

That's why I'm saying multipack.

Bob said...

Now that Obama has decided to not release the dead Osama photos, the clock officially starts on their leaking.

Some CIA analyst or staff weenie is going to stick their finger in the eye of this administration. Why? CIA Interrogators.

Somebody's friend has been screwed/villified by the DC Dem political set. Payback is a coming... Then we'll see just how willing the paper of record is to publish truth that hurts a democratic admin.

Jenner said...

Photos at Abu Graib embarrassing the US = gets Democrats elected.

Photos of dead Osama confirming US is bad ass = __________?

Seven Machos said...

I just want my government to stop acting like it is hiding shit from us.

Dude, your government is hiding all kinds of shit from you. Reams of shit. There's classified information. There's evidence in trials sealed by judges. There's evidence not in trials because the judge wouldn't let the district attorney submit it. There's contracts and decrees. It goes on and on.

Given the national security issues involved here, and the way that terrorist threats are already heightened, you have no claim whatsoever to gruesome death photos.

All this said, the Obama administration handled this issue the opposite of deftly. But what's new?

Seven Machos said...

Jenner -- The photo isn't the issue, dude. It's the thing itself.

Living in the Limelight,
The universal dream
For those who wish to seem.
Those who wish to be
Must put aside the alienation,
Get on with the fascination,
The real relation,
The underlying theme.

D.D. Driver said...

"Dude, your government is hiding all kinds of shit from you. Reams of shit."

I'm going to promote you from Captain Obvious to Major Obvious.

Congratulations: you've really earned it.

My point was: when the administration can't get its story straight and the story it is sticking to doesn't make logical sense, it is the right time for the administration to show its work.

Seven Machos said...

D.D. -- Your argument makes no sense. There is no compelling reason for the government to release any photos. There is no law that says the government must release the photos.

Get over it, dude. There's a lot of women I want to see naked. But it's not going to happen with all of them.

Freeman Hunt said...

Nevermind. The photos are of other people. Not Osama.

Freeman Hunt said...

Nevermind. The photos are of other people. Not Osama.

Seven Machos said...

Freeman -- They'll still come out. Just wait.

Bob said...

Seven: "Given the national security issues involved here, and the way that terrorist threats are already heightened, you have no claim whatsoever to gruesome death photos."

No claim, really? Did you have claim to Abu Gharib photos? Really thinks these won't get out?

D.D. Driver said...

"There is no law that says the government must release the photos."

Ummmm....yeeeeah. There actually is such a law. There are exception to that law but "we don't feel like it" and "trust me, you don't want to see this stuff" is not one of those exceptions.

Coketown said...

Obama should go all Vladimir Putin with the photo. Have it photoshopped so Osama is laying in the foreground dead and Obama is in the background shirtless, atop a horse, his head obviously transposed on a more muscular (and maybe white) physique. Beaming smile. Rifle slung over shoulder.

Press it, pack it, stamp it. It's done.

Seven Machos said...

No claim, really? Did you have claim to Abu Gharib photos? Really thinks these won't get out?

You remain a day late and a dollar short, Bob. I have argued that the photos will be leaked. I was and remain very prescient on this.

Further, is the reason that the Abu Gharib photos got out because I had some claim on them? Because there was some law mandating release?

Try harder.

Seven Machos said...

There actually is such a law.

What is the law? Citation, please.

D.D. Driver said...

Seven:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-orders-government-turn-over-videos-and-photos-showing-detainee-abuse

Seven Machos said...

D.D. -- Here is what your article says:

The court order came in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights to obtain documents and materials pertaining to the treatment of detainees held by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

You do not understand the Freedom of Information Act, or classified information, or the difference between a lawsuit and a law.

Please clarify these differences for yourself and then you may come back to the big kids discussion table.

Coketown said...

Nevermind. The photos are of other people. Not Osama.

I hear many of Osama's wives' divorce attempts were thwarted in a similar fashion.

D.D. Driver said...

5 U.S.C. 552.

The administration can wait until a request come in and then take its 30 days to respond, blah, blah, blah.

Or it can be transparent on the front end. "Transparency" is no longer a "compelling" to our citizens. Damn shame.

D.D. Driver said...

Seven: I spend one of the worst years of my life doing FOIA work for a DC agency.

Are these classified documents---i.e., subject to Exemption 1? Up until this morning, the administration was going to release them. You can't just classify shit on a whim because you don't want to release it.

Seven Machos said...

This section does not apply to matters that are—
(1)
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy


D.D. -- You have no idea what you are talking about. There are many other exceptions as well.

Seven Machos said...

You can't just classify shit on a whim because you don't want to release it.

I worked for the State Department and classified shit on a whim all the time. The whole point of classification is that you don't want to release it.

The photos will be released, unofficially. That doesn't mean that you have some right to them. You do not.

Leo Ladenson said...

Will someone tell me why we can't now summarily execute all the HVIs in Gitmo?

We've got them cornered. They might resist--apparently they do with feces and urine and biting, etc. We don't want to risk the lives of American servicemen.

Let's double-tap them all.

D.D. Driver said...

Seven: enlighten me what other exemption might apply? The others are pretty far fetched. Trade secrets? Privacy? Attorney-client privilege? Deliberative process privilege?

Maybe a law enforcement exemption. It's still far fetched, but at least the notion doesn't immediately make me laugh.

In any event: the GOVERNMENT has the burden of showing why documents are not releasable under FOIA. The presumption is that they are.

D.D. Driver said...

"I worked for the State Department and classified shit on a whim all the time."

Well then you were violating an Executive Order. Bureaucrats do a shitty job every day. Bureaucrats break the law every day. That's not news. Nor is it evidence that the law doesn't exist.

Seven Machos said...

D.D. -- Again, so what? There's always a burden and somebody's got it. Big fucking deal.

If the government doesn't want to release these photos officially, the government won't. There is, of course, a time limit on all this.

Seven Machos said...

Bureaucrats do a shitty job every day.

You don't understand the law of classification, dude. Sorry.

D.D. Driver said...

"You don't understand the law of classification, dude. Sorry"

No. And neither do you.

I do know that "on a whim" does not appear in any executive order that I have ever analyzed.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

These terrorists couldn't be more inflamed if they tried.

Show the photos so they know that we mean business.

We do mean business.... don't we?

Seven Machos said...

D.D. -- All you have to do to have classification is to fit one of several classifications with the facts at hand. Usually, a strong feeling of this shit ought to be secret is sufficient.

Second, as you say, the vital burden is on the government -- but only if challenged in a legal proceeding. Thus, if a bureaucrat is wrong, according to a judge, the information can be released to any party that wants it, possibly subject to court-ordered conditions.

The larger point is that the Obama administration is certainly within its rights to try to fit this photo into a classification. And there is really no question that it does so fit. And lacking a court order, which is unlikely on the law and on the political nature of the photo, you can't do a goddamn thing about it.

But, as I have said, the photos will be released through some unofficial channel.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

No need to "spike the football"?

Obama will be spiking the football at ground zero later this week.

He invited G.W. Bush to join him.

G. W. said no thank you.

Good on ya' G.W.

Seven Machos said...

I hear Obama is gonna wear a flight suit and say "Mission Accomplished."

kcom said...

"Monica Lewinsky turns 44.
Can you believe it?"


No. I can't. According to sources online she is turning 38 in July.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Matt said, mark my words.


I never mark your words.

madAsHell said...

Yeah...but there was a farmer in the movie that was shown to have his eyes pecked out.

chickelit said...

President Obama, duly sworn POTUS, is also the titular head of a political party which sought, through the release of photographic evidence, to undermine the morale of US military personnel, viz., Dover Air Force Base.

He's also titular head of a party which sought to embarrass the previous POTUS and administration through the release of photographic evidence, viz., Abu Ghraib. The subsequent release inflamed radicals and probably indirectly led to deaths of US service men and women.

Now he refuses to release photographic evidence because:

(1) "We don't want to spike the football"

or

(2) This could inflame radicals and thereby endanger Americans here and abroad

Option (2) is conceivably part of his constitutional duty, however, it doesn't square with his past support for fueling Abu Ghraib. I'm wondering if (2) really is the real reason and he is serious about it because his lawyers advised him he'd damn well better be.

Given his own party's past manipulation of war-related photo releases, I think Americans are correct in questioning his motivation.

And reason (1) is really disingenuous.

chickelit said...

madAsHell said...
Yeah...but there was a farmer in the movie that was shown to have his eyes pecked out.

Althouse isn't addressing that point.

bagoh20 said...

Reuters bought photos taken 1 hour after the operation showing the other men killed. So they say.

Warning: graphic, but only because of a lot of blood.

http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound

bagoh20 said...

So why would showing one more be such a problem? We look criminal, seedy and dishonest now, for not showing OBL.

Erik said...

I think releasing the photos is absolutely necessary for closure. Of course, just because they're released doesn't mean you have to look at them if they are. Sure, you may not need to see them, but someone else might feel better if they did. This isn't just another death. It has significant meaning for a lot of people, and our government should be transparent about such things. It doesn't matter if the photo is challenged. It will be anyway. It all will. That's not an excuse not to show it--it's an excuse *to* show it. It baffles me that anyone would think otherwise.

bagoh20 said...

So the festering continues. Another stupid unforced error.

"Life is what happens while you're busy making plans" or dithering.

Phil 3:14 said...

DD and 7
Based on this:
I spend one of the worst years of my life doing FOIA work for a DC agency

and this:
I worked for the State Department and classified shit on a whim all the time.

I have this gnawing feeling that you two have faced off before in previous lives. And if so I'm sure this exchange occurred:

DD"You can't just classify shit on a whim because you don't want to release it."

7"Well I have a strong feeling that this shit ought to be secret. That'll do it in my book"

DD"This isn't the end of it"

7 "I'll be here same time tomorrow. Oh and in case no one's mentioned it:
I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU"

Francisco D said...

Thanks for the clip. I am a Hitchcock fan who has not seen The Birds for about 20 years.

Hitch was a fascinating character and director with a predilection for blondes. Tippy Hedren was obviously not chosen for her acting talent.

The relevance of the clip is vague, but I lack your creative thinking and didactics, Dr. Althouse.

Since tangential thinking has been invoked (IMHO), does anyone recall all of the bird allusions in Psycho, starting with Bernard Herrmann's score?

AllenS said...

kcom said...
No. I can't. According to sources online she is turning 38 in July.

You're probably right. I didn't look anything up, but it seemed like something cool to say. Comedic value, is respected around these parts. Who gives a fuck if it's correct or on topic.

Sixty Grit said...

We used to vacation at Bodega Bay State Park. Never saw any odd bird behavior.

Sixty Grit said...

Did anyone watch Ken Burns' The Civil War? Lots of pictures of gore and dead guys in that show. But no problem, right - those were all dead Americans.

hombre said...

Our sensibilities and those of the Islamofascists must be protected at all costs.

The Arab Street might think us unmannerly and take a disliking to us if the photos are made public. Besides we are much safer if they remain in denial. Right?

Gary said...

Whether the government releases the photo depends on a couple of assessments. It makes sense as a tactical decision, if the United States is really at war, to withhold the photo so as not to inflame an incendiary enemy. On the other hand, if the United States is not at war, then there is no enemy, so there should be no issue about making public what amounts to a picture from the end of a criminal investigation (that happened to be completed by Navy SEALs, but never mind that.)

If the Obama administration is saying via the decision to withhold the photos that the nation is at war, then it should at least acknowledge the fact. If not, then it's painting itself again as confused and derelict as it's detractors suggest. To say nothing of deliberately and unnecessarily opaque.

The smart money would do the former, but the smart money looking at this administration would wager it will do the latter.

The Crack Emcee said...

This is bullshit - Obama isn't offering us a facsimile of Osama's murdered visage - Obama's giving us nothing.

You will twist logic, and yourself, into a pretzel for this man who is, clearly, beyond unworthy.

It's a bizarre sight to see - even weirder than The Birds.

Mikio said...

Chew chew chew

If Obama were to instead release a blood-eyeball-brain-splattered OBL pic, conservatives would just switch ankles and accuse him of foolishly scar(r)ing America's children with a graphic and -- thanks to his homies, the liebrul media -- ubiquitious photo for political and self-aggrandizing reasons, stroking an already oversized ego for an event he deserves little if any credit for anyway.

Freeman Hunt said...

Mikio, no we wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't.

All of these, "If he did something intelligent, you conservatives wouldn't like it scenarios..."

WV: corpster (I kid you not.) I suppose that I am a corpster. Release the photos, silly politicians.

Titus said...

I was wrong. Palladian is right. I conflated the farmer with the character played by Suzanne Pleshette. Although a picture of Suzanne Pleshette with her eyes pecked out would of been more interesting.

I think they did it to the farmer because we never knew him in the film.

Suzanne, on other hand, was kind of a sad sack. I mean really, how could she compete with the big city glamour queen Tippy?

Tippy was really a bitch in that movie but she was hot. Loved her hair. Even when she was in the attic getting pecked all over the place the hair maintained it's cuteness.

Mikio said...

Freeman, of coooouuurse you're going to say that. That's the predictable conservative response. You're of so little imagination you honestly can't picture what I said happening?

TheThinMan said...

THOUGHTS ABOUT "THE BIRDS" (nothing about Bin Laden or Obama):

I always thought the movie unwittingly symbolized the unrest in the sixties: how a certain segment of society would refuse to play its part and instead rise up. Blacks rioted, college students protested and bombed, women dumped their husbands and got jobs, gays came out of the closet and into the street. It was like the very laws of nature were suddenly suspended, just as if the birds in the sky started attacking us for no reason.

But a quick look on Wikapedia tells me the movie was made in '62, a few years before social upheaval of the late 60's. (And the book was written in the early 50's!) So it was just me reading things into it.

BUT art always has a way of anticipating events. Atonality and cubism started a year or two before World War I blew apart the 19th century, for example.

Titus said...

My favorite scene in The Birds, which was stated above, was when the Love Birds in the cage swayed back and forth when Tippy's fab car flew around curves.

Trooper York said...

Maybe there is a reason they don't want to release the photo. Because it doesn't look like Osama. Of course his looks could have changed because of plastic surgery or illness or aging so they can just refer to his body to prove it is him from dental or hospital reocrds so they can just go to the body and.....errr...errrr...nevernmind.

kcom said...

"That's the predictable conservative response. You're of so little imagination you honestly can't picture what I said happening?"

Remember, just because a liberal/leftist/Democrat would act that way doesn't mean you can project it onto conservatives. It's your (in the group sense) favorite ploy but it rarely stands up to scrutiny. Conservatives are praising Obama for pulling the trigger and getting the guy, just as they would have done with Bush. Look around. It's true. Yet all the things the left are praising Obama for are the same things they criticized Bush for. We understand you're well acquainted with hypocrisy, but you really ought to focus closer to home when you're hunting for it.

Titus said...

Althouse, I have to say this is one of your most amazing postings. This is not because you highlighted my comment but rather what you did with the connection between Obama and the photos and an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

What you did here is nothing less than amazing. You are incredible because you are able to make connections and articulate them in a very interesting, cool and unexpected way.

I give you props for your quick wit and exceptional writing skills. Meade is a very very lucky man. Not only does he have a beautiful wife but a wife who has a very interesting and exciting mind.

I would love to see you replace Frank Rich on Sunday NY Times. It is prime Real Estate and the rest of the world would be able to see and hear your voice.

Love you to death Miss Divine Althouse.

Also, you are really hot.

Mikio said...

kcom,

This coming from a guy who said earlier in this very thread:

Apparently Obama learned nothing from the birth certificate issue. We live in an open society and today there is a strong expectation of transparency.

Okay, tell me about this transparency Obama should have learned about. Tell me what it is specifically about the long-form birth certificate that supposedly passed muster with most birthers. Just because it’s longer? It can’t be that because that would be stupid. And we know birthers aren’t stupid. So was it a signature? A stamped date? A seal? What? And why is it unreasonable for anyone to doubt its authenticity too?

Failure to answer will indicate you don’t actually know a single rational thing about birthers and that in fact there was nothing for Obama to learn except just how persistently retarded a sizable chunk of conservative America can be.

Seven Machos said...

Birthers will never be satisfied. Just like truthers. That's the beauty of conspiracy.

Mick does come here less often, though. So maybe there's a sense of defeat. But not satisfaction of a change of mind. Never.

Seven Machos said...

Also, Mikio, I think you are misinformed about birthers being conservative. They are no more conservative than anti-Semites or racists.

Cedarford, our resident anti-Semite, is a lover of big government and national health care, particularly. Most racists I know are union-loving, anti-free trade Democrats.

You are probably one of those stupid, drooling morons who ascribe to evil Republicans all that you don't like. Because, well, Republicans must believe what you despise.

By the way, a leftist guy I know once insisted that the Kelo decision was foisted on the United States by conservatives. Are you him?

Darrell said...

Birthers will never be satisfied. . .

Especially when the "evidence" provided shows obviously signs of tampering.

Explain to me how a single scan can contain elements with different resolutions (pixel size)?

Explain to me how a color scan could show text without chromatic aberration surrounding it?

Explain to me why the "safety paper" background would vary in resolution?

Explain to me why every capital "B" is exactly the same down to the individual pixel without cloning? (All the other characters are unique as would be expected in a ribbon-typed document.)

You only need to find one inconsistency to judge a document suspect. Try turning something like that over to a court or the FBI and see what happens to you.

An untampered version of that document may exist somewhere but what the White House put up is not it. If it does exist, someone went to the trouble of creating a computer-assembled version of different copies of varying resolution to create something that doesn't pass inspection. Why? Who the fuck knows? Maybe the Administration is just saying "Fuck You!" to those that inspect the document.

Yeah, the layers are an artifact of the Adobe "Scan Optimization Wizard." But why run that wizard on a document that you know will be examined. The AP scan made from the printed version they were handed shows a single layer. The problems noted above still are present.

Darrell said...

Let's kick it up a notch. Let all the US document experts--those that testify before courts and those that work for law enforcement agencies come to Althouse and certify that the document as presented meets the standards of their agencies and does not show signs of alteration or computer manipulation. They can email Ms.Althouse in private and provide all their personal information. All FBI experts must comply. Let's get it on the record. Keep in mind, though, that defense attorneys can and will use a false negative to get past convictions overthrown if the documents are ever proven to be altered or fraudulent.

It's The President of the United States and what he presents must be true and accurate and without alteration, right? So lets put credentials on the line and let's end this once and for all.

Seven Machos said...

Darrell -- Obama's mother was an American. Obama spent the better part of his youth in the United States. Therefore, there is no question that Obama is an American citizen from birth.

Birth certificates do not matter. The underlying reality matters.

Also, you are a loon.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»