E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC’s Libby Leist and Carrie Dann
The White House decided last week not to release photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse, but a small group of U.S. lawmakers have the option to view the images at CIA headquarters.
The CIA has invited members of the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees to come to its headquarters in Langley, Va., to view photos taken after the al Qaeda leader was shot in the head and in the chest by U.S. forces in Abbottabad.
So who is going to take them up on the offer?
“I've seen enough dead people in my life,” said Armed Services Committee ranking member and Vietnam POW Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., agreed. "I spent a lot of time as a prosecutor and I've seen all the pictures of dead bodies that anybody should ever have to look at in their lifetime,” she said.
“The only reason the picture was taken was to confirm that it was he that was killed,” the Missouri Democrat added. “I think that's obvious right now. And I have absolutely no morbid curiosity about it.”
Intelligence Committee member Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Armed Services member Susan Collins, R-Maine, also said they won’t view the images.
But other lawmakers with access to the photos are arranging to lay eyes on the conclusive visual evidence of bin Laden’s demise.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she plans to view the photos, although she has not yet finalized what day she plans to make the trip to Langley.
Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. – both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- also said they plan to view the pictures.
South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who has previously criticized the administration’s decision not to release the photos, said he is undecided but reiterated his belief Wednesday that the White House should have made them public to give “closure” to the American people.
Leave a Comment:
There you have it folks - PROOF positive that these right wingers b!tch just for the sake of b!tching!
President Obama says blue - they scream green!
This time however, they appear to have been trapped in their own snare! lol
MAN UP Lindy you wanted them released - NOW L@@K at them!
Figures, last week Lindsay Graham was having a hissy fit about the photos, this week he's undecided. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda verified OBL's death let the air out of his sails so it is no surprise he's lost interest.
Feisty. Its not like we need anymore proof. But we get it almost every day.
He's too F$%@*!g SCARED...LITTLE MAMBY PAMBY BITCHING BABY!!!
There you have it folks - PROOF positive - the 4 above left wingers b!tch about b!tching just for the sake of b!tching!
Thanks for the laugh Feisty.
The Pres says blue, they say green - you mean like when the democratic senators say no to taking away the oil and gas subsidies the dems want to badly? Yep them dems from Alaska and La. are not so keen. Wonder what Manchin and McCaskill will say? Them re-elections can be such a rough time.
Yep, really is a shame that dem on dem crime, right Feisty old gal?
How totally odd that little bit of info didn't make the cut here in libbie land. Oh well maybe tomorrow. Gosh I just hope we can get another 5 stories about illegals. Totally a winning issue for you dems. :)
Hey bob, does that mean that you are bitching about bitching about bitching just for the sake of bitching? But then that means I'm bitching about bitching about bitching about bitching just for the sake of bitching. Dangit!
Spanky. Republicans with the help of a couple of conservative democrats want to keep the subsidies for the most profitable companies in history.
Mary Landreiu (sp?) (D) LA comes to mind!
We still have NO idea what permanent damage will result from the BP spill and that broad is hollering DRILL BABY DRILL!
Pat they want to keep the subsidies, which are largely tax provisions applied equally to all business. Your side seeks to carve out an exception for oil and gas.
Say Patrick Apple makes an assload of money, shall we treat them differently as well? Guess making a great profit is bad. But then again the government makes 46 cents per gallon, where as the oil companies only make 9 cents, they just sell a butt-load of product.
So Pat, why does the government get to pick winners and losers?
Oh and Pat, you sure it's just a couple of dems? Methinks its a lot like the Dream Act - if it actually gets to a vote in the Senate you are going to see it's way more than a couple that oppose - both bills.
And look-y here there Feisty. Feisty dear you have stated here so many times that you are ignoring me. I know, I know, you just can't get enough Spanky love. I am touched.
But do tell dear, just what do depreciation and depletion schedules in the IRC have to do with the Gulf spill?
And really dear - do you actually anticipate that there will not be a slew of new permits and an ass load on new drilling? Come on, even you must understand the tremendous pressure $4.00 gas puts on your boy.
Spanky, why does any company that makes a profit need to be given our tax dollars. Hell, for that matter, why does any company period need our tax dollars. If they can't cut it on their own, let'em fail. And before you ask, yes I mean every company. Ain't that what capitalism is all about?
Indy my man - these are mainly just tax depreciation schedules. Depreciation is available to all of us, including individual tax payers. Perhaps you, like millions of americans depreciate your car for business purposes, or other property you own.
This isn't giving anything - it's allowing a reduction in the gross income to the adjsted gross. You know "above the line/below the line" stuff. Taxes are fun right?
Problem is, I get the distict sense that most around here file simple schedule 1040s - no Schedule C', not partnership income, and no depreciation or other schedules. Hell I guessing the Feisty', Navys and DBOs of the world don't even itemize their deductions. Could you just imagine?
Most don't even understand what we are talking about - they have no common experience. They just see big corporations and big profits. But again the government makes far more per gallon than anyone. So who's the real bad guy? At least the oil companies actually produce something, and we need it Indy. We need it real bad.
This is about fundamental fairness. The tax code is one jacked up POS, but it should be applied to all equally. I mean it already picks winners and losers, but to carve out a specific group or business - and the dems are only going after the biggest 4 or 5 oil companies - is simply and totally wrong.
ad enough we subsidize the Volt, and solar and everything else green. But that all good right? Sure it is. Indy shouldn't Volt owners stand on their own feet? Would anyone ever buy one at full freight? It's what $85k per car. Just silly.
But what I'm hearing Indy is you want to go Flat Tax. Me too, but the the government will not be able to pick the winners and losers and all that so it'll never fly.
Too bad, but that's the reality.
Right Feisty - you are all over the depreciation schedules, right? Sure you are.
The company’s large 2010 profits allowed them to lead Fortune 500’s annual ranking of the nations’ most profitable firms for the eighth time in a row. But the oil giant’s average effective tax rates are roughly half the 35 percent tax rate that currently stands as the high-water mark for American corporations. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies continue to exploit tax loopholes for nearly $4 billion in subsidies each year. These subsidies include write-offs for drilling costs and a deduction for domestic production that was intended for manufacturers, not big oil producers.
Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.
From the article
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man
Sorry for the cut and paste but I can't post links. Anyway Spanky, do you think its fair that big profitable corporations pay an effective rate that is less than you or I?
Indy - I need you to understand this - corporations do not pay taxes, they simply pass through costs.
You do remember the little discussion we all had about Obama's buddy Immelt's little corporation, and the amout it paid in taxes? Care to calculate GE's effective tax rate? Was that fair Indy?
You add any amout the the cost of goods sold by a corporation it will simply tack that cost onto the price we pay. Don't know about you Indy, but I'd like to pay less, not more at the pump.
The article you cite speaks of "loopholes." Again your issue is [rightly] with the tax code, not the company itself. I don't know where you got the article but it was clearly written by someone not familiar with the way the tax code works. Gross income and legitimate deductions, including depreciation are not subsidies. That's why I get a kick out of the Feisty and freinds when they speak to these issues - they are clueless. They have never read any portion of the tax code, yet here they are spouting off. Very funny, in a sad clown kinda way.
But I love, love, love the part about "intended for manufacturers, not oil companies." Indy you think the author bother to read the IRC? Of course not.
Take my favorite section - IRC Sec. 179. It allows a one time 100% depreciation for certain assets bought by a business. It came about a long time ago related to farming. If a business buys a vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight of more than 6,500 pounds it can take the full amount in the first year. Usually you depreciate a vehicle over several years. This promotes the sale of certain durable goods, like trucks. Guess what. I own a business. I bought me a shiny new SUV which met the requirements. You bet you bottom dollar I took the deduction [limited to $25,000 for Suvs].
So Indy is that fair? I don't know about that. It was legal. IT's the law. And baby I love me my big SUV - thank you uncle sam. :) But hey it does cost me over a $100 to fill up, so it ain't all milk and honey.
And guess who writes the tax code Indy? Go ahead give it a shot.
Time to hit the road. Left the beast at home and took the sedan today.
x
Spanky
When corporations pay taxes, the individuals that use their product pay the tax. You are correct that it will increase the price of the item, but at least the individuals using it will bear the cost. Let's pretend that I do not use any oil products in my life. I have to pay higher taxes so the oil companies get to pay less (or none). This means I have to pay taxes that the shareholders and customers of their products should be paying. I am surprised that you cannot see the unfairness of that. In case you cannot figure it out, this is just another way of passing costs to the middle class so inverstors can make more money.
ir12 - that is exactly Spanky's point. The taxes are passed thorough to the consumer.
If oil companies pay no taxes, nothing is passed to the consumer. I use no oil, but I have to pay additional taxes to cover the taxes oil companies should be paying that are passed to their consumers in lower prices and to their investors in profits.
"South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who has previously criticized the administration’s decision not to release the photos, said he is undecided but reiterated his belief Wednesday that the White House should have made them public to give “closure” to the American people. "
He is undecided because he wasn't criticizing based on what he wanted he was criticizing for not giving the public the option to have the closure they clearly wanted. The polls showed 2/3 wanted the photos released.
It's not surprising that Dems are completely unable to comprehend doing something for the public's benefit instead of a personal agenda.
Patriots like McCain realize that releasing the photos serves no good purpose.
Only the political hacks are calling for release, whether public or private.
IR12 you use no oil or petroleum products? really?
IR 12 doesn't realize that his own computer is made from oil byproducts. LOL.
Take a reading comprehension class, reread 1.15, and then get back to me. You may substitute any product where a corporation pays no taxes or receives subsidies for oil in my statement. When a corporation receives tax breaks, it is supported by everyone that does pay taxes whether they use the product or not. I believe you would call that socialism. So by direct reasoning, Exxon and General Electric to name two are socialist companies. Their shareholders are on the government dole.
Can anyone explain to me what oil companies' getting or not getting tax breaks or subsidies has to do with the subject of whether or not Senators want to view the photos of Bin Laden??? Did you people read a different article than I did???
Look, if we can lok at pictures of Don Trump, we can look at this mess.
Man, didja haveta mention the Donald right before dinner?
Whatcha having?
All this talk about illegals gave me a taste for Mexican! ;o)
Mmmmmmmm, Mexican. Nice call Feisty!
Isn't it good to know that politicians are deemed worthy of viewing the photos that even relatives of 9-11 victims have no chance of seeing.
If the senators want them released put up a resolution by roll call vote so we know who to thank for any retaliation.
Tell old fart McCain to go away. We have a right to see Bin Laden's body!! Not photos!! Nobody saw it!! They threw him in the ocean supposdly!! What's up with this!! They won't even show the alleged photos to us!!
What "us" are you referring to? Just because you didn't see the body personally doesn't mean it wasn't there. Are you not happy unless every man, woman and child in the United States sees the body and signs an agreement confirming they saw it?
The appropriate peoples examined the body and confirmed it was Bin Laden. The burial at sea was likewise overseen by witnesses. It wasn't the "fly by night" secret that conspiracy theorists such as yourself like to think it was.
And if the photos are released, then what? Would the conspiracy theorists believe it then, or keep making up excuses like "It's a lookalike!" or "These are Photoshopped!"?
Conspiracy theorists hard at work.
Some folks never believe anything despite the evidence. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's wives acknowledged he is dead; one of his sons is threatening to sue the US.
Hey, you can't see God or Jesus but I bet you STILL BELIEVE in THEM!!!
Am I RIGHT?
Thought SO!!!
Did you realize that we have moon landing pictures, still many think that it was a HOAX ? I guess pictures mean squat for the unbeliever.
Hurry for a limited time only - BUY ONE TIN FOIL HAT & GET SECOND ONE FREE!
And, if you order in the next 5 minutes we'll throw in a free pass for the short bus!
chuck - are you frickin serious? And, I'm guessing you still aren't sure about the birth certificate, right? Oh please - get a life!!!
Feisty - Does the hat come with antennas and a satellite dish?
We can arrange that, but it's gonna COST ya! lol
The cheapskates prefer to pick up their 'news' via their fillings! ;o)
Releasing the photos would do little more than drive home the fact the Osama was a mortal man and that this is how you die if you follow his footsteps. Allowing him to simply disappear like a ghost only adds to mysticism.
Look at Hitler vs Mussolini, one vanished, one was hung in a square and pelted with stones.... by removing the mystery you remove the fascination and admiration. This is a lesson repeated throughout history, a lesson that our "leaders" choose to ignore in favor of placating the very people who already view osama as godlike.
They are going to conduct more attacks in the future anyway, whether they label them as "retaliation" or not is of no importance. Besides, any threat of "retaliation" can be met with larger threats of "retaliation". How much has Lebanon bothered Israel since Israel bombed them in retaliation? not at all.
Feisty Lynfred Winery is giving them out at the door. I've got two on right now you can't be too safe.
I can wait until the pics show up on Wikileaks.
I can wait. I have ZERO desire to view the pics, but I know if they are released or leaked it will be impossible to avoid seeing them. In fact, I suspect that once the pics are in the public domain, the image of a dead OBL will be on t-shirts and coffee mugs.
No doubt they will, wouldn't it be nice if we could try to set an example here in the US? We celebrated the death of this guy like it was some kind of jihad victory.
Why could't we just say hey we got the bastard, now lets look at Public Enemy #2....
Oh Lord.....now starts the conspiracy theorists.
As soon as I heard bin Laden was dead I should have bought stock in Alcoa. Man, aluminum foil is flying off the shelves these days.
Michelle Backman from MN will be the first in line to see them and then declare that the photos are fake and that they really shot Cramer from Seinfeld. She will then spout all sorts of conspiracy theories on where he might be and she will speculate that he'll be found at Lake Wobogon, MN fishing off his dock for wallayes.
Johnny B- yes, because she signed for his fishing license. Thought he was just a nice but kinda strange man.
You folks were all drooling in expectation when the Abu Graib photos were being released. WHY? Because they showed the US MILITARY in a bad light. Now you folks are ho hum with the pics of a dead bin laden. No fuss was made when the AP released the bloody pics of bin laden's son and the other two who were made into punkin heads.
its handy to talk about "you folks" since that is so vague as to be worthless. You can't be proven wrong if you don't actually specify who you are talking about. :)
WHO exactly are 'you folks'? Are you insinuating 'libruls'?
If so - let me say:
I NEVER wanted them released
Please don't put words in my mouth!
Release don't release. Osama is as dead as Trumps chance of being president
Correction: Abu Ghraib showed POLITICIANS and military LEADERS in a bad light. Photos of bin Laden will not prove he's a terrorist; they will establish only that he's not only merely dead, he's really, most sincerely dead. The Abu Ghraib photos, by contrast, were necessary to establish the parameters of the bad behavior. Without those photos, those same dispicable acts might still be going on today.
And judging from your post, that's probably the part you really don't like.
concerned in Central FL - what "you folks" are you talking about???
lol, reasonable americans already have 'closure' on his death, its only the 'deathers' who don't, and pictures won't ever satisfy them anyway.
McCain saw his own campaign viciously beaten to death.
cheetah. It was more like a suicide, when Palin came on board.
... by a seal club.
Patrick -- Cheetah's talking about 2000, when McCain watched Rove and Bush club his campaign to death. The guy just can't catch a break.
Once Palin came on board it became a mercy killing.
I never cared for either pictures I never saw them I do believe however they are true, but there is no sense in putting our troops in harms way by pouring salt in open wounds. This is just another idiotic attempt to discredit the President again.
Move on
I'll wager that the same people that are claiming OBL isn't really dead are the same people that were saying he was killed years ago and the government kept quiet about it.
Probably the same people who think we didn't really land on the moon either...
You mean we did? Got proof?
I have an authentic moon rock, so we must have landed. I bought it on ebay.
Anna Molly - no proof but we'll glady send a group of birthers, deathers and moon landing doubters on a one way trip to confirm it can be done!
If I were asked if I wanted to see the photos and had the time, I would view them. Just out of morbid curiosity.
However, I am not a politician and don't have to worry about getting re-elected.
Now, enough of this already. He's dead and gone.
Party-poopers.
So Newt is the new flavour of the month? Pundits will be regurgitating his every word, until like Trump he disappears in a flash.
More waste of taxpayers' time and money. So, who's paying for their trips to Langley, VA? Instead of wating time looking at some dead person's photos (I see dead people...lol), maybe they should be at work actually doing something about jobs.
Mark - they never really intended to do anything about jobs. That was just a lie to get elected!
The SEALS say it was a headshot, I can pretty well imagine what it looks like. Those who feel the need to see what a headshot looks like, those who generally have no skill to discern whether the photo they are viewing is real or not anyway, are those whose mental status I worry about.
If you want to see dead bodies, brains and blood there are easier ways to get your rocks off than waiting for the OBL photos.
I totally disagree with Lindsay Graham that the photo should have been made public as a form of closure. No need to see the blown away head of a mass murderer. I'm okay with the facts as they are.
I can now only hope that the sharks have had their fun tearing his body into pieces and gorging on his evil flesh.
Show the freaking photos....My kids saw more worst on TV as of now..whats the point?
If you want you can see our ex-president JFK brains in his head on the internet.
Like there is no medical info..about people shot in the head..there is thousands of photos of them online for public view!
Doesn't say much for your parenting does it, John Williams.
When my parents were alive..the worst we saw on TV..was Leave It to Beaver..hitting a baseball and breaking his neighbors window!
As for me..never was a parent..to busy fighting wars for children of our future!
I wasn't wealthy so can't afford college..and in my days no college your drafted..those in college ended up being my boss..go figure!
slighty old..I notice most of your comments/replies are about children..are you a child molester? Most of your child comments are in a negative way also! A parent with a attitude maybe?
I don't want to see them. I'm squeamish. I have to turn away during NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc. on TV.
Its easy to change the channel!
this is the dumbest article on the dead bin Laden photos. they're right out there in plain sight.all you have to do is go to Al Jazeera, and you'll see them.pretty bloody but, they're not any more gory than any other photos out there.
they've got to have secret meetings at the CIA office in order for these politicians to see them and blah blah. what a load of crap.just turn on Al Jazeera, and you can get them right off your computer.think i'm kidding? just try it.
Al Jazeera..the terrorist network..has photos that are fake from 2004 for god sakes..if you believe in them..I have a bridge in NYC to sell cheap to you..$120.99
Really and how is that a terrorist network? that's your opinion,funny from what i saw there were no indication of terrorism on their news programs.we must be watching 2 different networks.
better recheck your TV, or in my case computer listings!
Any republican such as Lindsay Graham is merely useing the the people or public to discredit President Obama.Every time one of these republicans open their chops,filth,and dirty water spill's from their mouth.It is very sad,that some of these republicans have stooped that low.Their ideals exceeded,and fogged their perception of our country's survival as a democracy,one nation under God..........
OMG! Folks, I just heard on the news that Osama bin Laden is still dead! Go figure.
He's part of an Arabian Tuna dish last I heard! Glad I don't eat fish!
SOURCE Pleeeze! ;o)
And you're brothers girlfriends mothers second husband DON'T COUNT! ;op
Damm..I like Feisty Redheads now. The second husbands remark made the difference.
Sportscenter. You can always trust Sportscenter.
Redheads are magical John - ask my husband, he SWORE to avoid them at all costs! ;o)
LMAO..at all costs..or..death!
J/K
How is it possible that these senile self-abusers don't have something better to do than ogle violence porn?
I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dang tired of Lindsey Graham!