Time must know more of what's behind the Abramoff-Bush photos. Why so coy?

[bigtree]

Looks like they're helping the White House with the cover-up. Photos no big deal? Why not release them, we ask the WH.

What happened to the journalists over there at Time-Newsweek? They've been replaced by administration drones.

[NYCGirl]

1. They can't release them, because they don't own them. NT

[hlthe2b]

2. Simple... they don't HAVE the photos.. only seen them.

I'm sure the photography group that holds the WH contract has asserted their copyrights.

I do wonder if we could force the issue through FOIA (freedom of info request). We taxpayers paid for them, after all (or at least some of them).

[Jara sang]

3. Go to Abramoff's home office, they are there, on the wall, as a trophy.

[bigtree]

4. right, the good ones are in his safe deposit box for insurance.

maybe I should just be happy that they shared. I don't have the type of connections that Time does that would let me look over the shoulder of whoever is covering them up.

[madmom]

5. One thing that bothers me tho...

is why did they come out and tell what the pics showed? It gives them time to cover their asses.

[bigtree]

7. with such flimsy stories

they could have fleshed out the actors. The Kickapoo representative in one pic is in jail for embezellment. They could have told us, for instance, that he doesn't speak english. What were the Kickapoo seeking at that time? They even conclude that they found no connection to legislation Bush approved. Their tone is one of a weak bystander rather than the close insiders they are who've had a view that the rest of us can't afford.

[Angry Girl]

6. Here's why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x226695