An interesting dynamic is emerging in the torture photo debate that deserves a mention.  Last week when Obama decided to abandon his pledges of accountability and transparency in favor of state secrets and concessions democrats were unwilling to make with Bush in office, he made a pretty explicit statement:

"I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

Of course, this explanation seemed a bit odd.  We've known since 2004 that General Taguba's report found instances of sexual abuse and rape (although the assertion of "child rape" thus far exists only in the warped fantasies of some TPM posters).  Now the good general has come out with additional statements that would seem to directly refute what the president said:

"These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. ... The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

It is impossible to reconcile the two statements.  They simply can't both be true.  So I guess the question becomes: who's lying here?  Some immediately have jumped to the conclusion that Obama is the one making inaccurate statements.  Based on the public records, they are probably right.  Either Obama is completely clueless and hasn't actually reviewed all the pictures, or he knows what's in the pictures and is misrepresenting them.

In either event, at the time of withholding the photos Obama also made some other assertions:

Obama, explaining his change of heart on releasing the other photos, said they already had served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals." Those cases were all concluded by 2004, and the president said "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

So, riddle me this.  If Obama isn't being forthcomming about the existence of "rape photos" - how can we possibly trust him that those who ordered and committed the abuses have actually been punished? Can we assume "appropriate action" even means punishment?

If indeed, as Obama asserts, it was just a "small number of individuals" and "appropriate action" has already been taken; the victims deserve to know what punishment their abusers were given.  The only way this would be a danger to our troops is if, after a full accounting, major of abuses had simply been swept under the carpet with a few soldiers handed up for show trials tied in a pretty bow. Considering the selection of McChrystal to lead our forces in Afghanistan, I think it's safe to say the ringleaders of Iraqi abuse have not been properly addressed.

America no longer has the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the world. Nor do we deserve it. Those suspicious of our actions will imagine the worst abuses were commonplace and assume the abusers are still walking free - while America offers nothing to refute this view.  Until this issue is resolved once and for all, it will continue to put our troops at increased risk every day and undermine the credibility of this administration.

So what is it Mr. President?  Is Taguba lying, or are you?