The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Those "Inflammatory" bin Laden Photos

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Those "Inflammatory" bin Laden Photos

By Aaron Goldstein on 5.4.11 @ 10:25AM

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made the case that releasing photos of the deceased Osama bin Laden could be "inflammatory."

Carney's sentiments were echoed by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Rogers told George Stephanopoulos, "If you're a sergeant in a town in Ghazni, Afghanistan and you're trying to get some local elder to cooperate about what's happening in your village, are you going to do it if this inflames into some kind of trophy - we have a trophy of Osama bin Laden?"

But if the Obama Administration and Congressman Rogers are concerned about "inflaming the Muslim world" didn't they think the singular act of killing bin Laden would be sufficiently inflammatory? I'm afraid that train has already left the station.

For crying out loud, release the photos.

UPDATE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced earlier this afternoon that President Obama has decided not to release the bin Laden photos. Carney quote Obama in an interview he did earlier today with Steve Kroft which will air this Sunday on 60 Minutes. Obama told Kroft, "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies. This is somebody deserving of the justice he received. But we don't need to spike the football."

So President Obama will instead take a knee.

View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Jeff| 5.4.11 @ 10:47AM

no political coin to be earned for 2012 by releasing the photo ...

Obama had to order the mission ... if he had not then in 2012 the CIA would have been able to leak the fact that we had UBL in our sights in 2011 and didn't act ... not much chance of being re-elected if that were to happen so Obama had no choice but to order the hit ...

The pictures on the other hand gain him little in 2012 ... thus the resistance ...

crazy| 5.4.11 @ 10:48AM

Don't expect them to be released before BHO's trip to ground zero. They'll likely spill out after the WH is confident there won't be any split-screen visuals of BHO and OBL. Don't ya think?

Tim| 5.4.11 @ 10:57AM

I would have thought that taking him
alive and then having a public trial for crimes against humanity and then found guilty and then executed him would have shown the US to practice what we preach a lot better than just killing the turkey while unarmed.

Just an opinion from a solid American that can't stand Bin Laden

But what do I know!

Trinacria| 5.4.11 @ 1:15PM

I must respectfully disagree with you, brother. Due process is a constitutionally mandated right for all United States citizens. For those who declare war on our entire culture, plan and execute the murder of thousands of innocent civilians, publicly acknowledge responsibility for those acts and vow to continue killing U.S. citizens, no such right exists. Those individuals, in my view, are entitled to precisely 2 rights:

1) The right to be shot in the head at close range by a member of the United States military, and

2) The right to sleep with the fishes.

Mark| 5.4.11 @ 2:34PM

Yessiree Tim, What do you know? Apparently not much. This would have been stupid at the very least and dangerous at most. The Dead Tree Media would have demanded an open court civilian trial. The resulting circus would be entirely predictable and given the chances of finding an impartial jury slim to none, it's possible that he'd walk. He got what he deserved and more. The idea of putting a round through his head THEN giving him a purported Muslim burial is morally corrupt. We will never make the enemy like us no matter what. It's stupid and foolish to think otherwise, especially under these circumstances.

Too Many Tims| 5.4.11 @ 11:20AM

Where are all the "Saddened but placated jihadists acjnowledge US moral superiority " stories?

Al Adab| 5.4.11 @ 12:00PM

Good question. We might also ask where are the stories about the "protests" "riots" in Pakistan over the U S action? Very underreported. The effort and waste in being "sensitive" toward those who dislike us seems questionable. Why concern ourselves with how our enemies perceive us? They will never change sides through "understanding" on our part.

Trinacria| 5.4.11 @ 1:05PM

While I can, for the sake of those in harm's way, live with the decision not to release the photo(s), I can't help but notice the particular irony in the fact that the liberal establishment had no reservations whatsoever when it came to the release of the inflammatory Abu Graib photos (indeed, one might describe their reaction as gleeful enthusiasm). It seems that their concern for the potential effect on American troops in theater was rather less than their enthusiasm for embarrassing a sitting (Republican) President.

Don't release the photo if you wish, but spare us the "concern for our troops" bit. You've already demonstrated just how concerned you are...

David W| 5.4.11 @ 3:15PM

darn good point! Just another example of liberal double standard (release it to make Bush look bad, hide it so Obama won't look bad).

caitlin| 5.4.11 @ 2:11PM

Concern for what our enemies may think of us or not, why would anyone want to see something like that? It's disgusting.
Showing our military in acts unbecoming of US soldiers is entirely different.

Trinacria| 5.4.11 @ 2:51PM

It appears, my dear, that you've rather missed the point; haven't you? The point is not the content of the photos, but the hypocracy of those who enthusiastically embraced the release of "inflammatory" photos (that presumably put American troops at further risk) when it served their political objective and then argued against the release of the OBL photos on the basis of precisely the same argument they rejected in the case of the Abu Graib photos.

With respect to the "disgusting" nature of the photos, I, for one, am far more psychologically prepared to view photos of bin Laden's bullet riddled corpse that I was to view the photos of a bunch of fat and hairy arabs with their skivies on their heads (I just can't get that image out of my head, doctor...). Disgust, Madam, is in the eye of the beholder.

Mark| 5.4.11 @ 2:35PM

Breaking News- The WH is NOT going to release the photos. Once again the stumbling boobs in the Administration get it entirely wrong. MORONS.

Jeff Perren| 5.4.11 @ 2:38PM

That sort of 'inflammation' is exactly what is needed. If you are a local Afghan leader and trying to decide whether to side with the Taliban or the U.S., that photo might help you make the right decision.

caitlin| 5.4.11 @ 2:48PM

If you've been living in a war zone for most of your life I don't think a photo of a guy with a bullet in his head is going to scare you.

Trinacria| 5.4.11 @ 3:04PM

Perhaps not; but I should it rather unsporting of us not to try. After all, there's a difference between seeing a bullet in the head of some schmuck down the street and seeing your God-like spiritual and military leader reduced to a heap of flesh and gray matter by an enemey that you previously believed to be "soft". Tends to be a bit demoralizing for a bloke, you know.

All American American| 5.4.11 @ 7:26PM

So lemme see here. Releasing the "death photo" will inflame the muslims. Hmmm. So wouldn't that stand to reason that, uh, KILLING OBL would inflame them?

What "inflamed" them on 9/11/01?

Drawing cartoons of muhammed inflames them. A small-time pastor in FL burns a koran and it inflames them. OBL's maybe yes, maybe no, kinda-sorta islamic burial inflames them.

Would a better question be just what DOESN'T inflame them? I mean should we all just go ahead and recite the shahada and get it over with?