No doubt you're all aware of the new set of Abu Ghraib photos being given widespread coverage.

The Abu Ghraib abuses happened in late 2003 (October through December), and were investigated and exposed by the military itself in early 2004. Since then, the soldiers who carried out the abuses have been tried, convicted, and imprisoned.

And it is now... what?

Oh yes. It is now 2006.

Meaning the press is still giving major coverage to a two-year-old event, appropros of nothing -- since absolutely nothing relevant is happening at the moment. (Except that that horrible man, Bush, is still daring to occupy the White House.)

Many in the media have professed great sensitivity at the power of images -- the power images have to hurt, the power images have to degrade. For example, we learned that the mere image of a nondescript Arabic-looking man in a turban -- doing something as inane as holding a sword, or standing in front of a donkey -- can cause tremendous psychological distress and humiliation for Muslims, and tension in relations between the West and the Muslim world.

Because of this, practically all US media outlets refused to run even one or two of the dreaded cartoons. What about the public's all-important "right to know"? Clearly an also-ran. So the US media are, indeed, we must presume, deeply sensitive about humilitating Muslims by publishing degrading images.

Oh, except here are the Abu Ghraib photos again!

Won't these photos also cause Muslims to again feel humiliated? Will they not also put a strain on Western/Muslims relations? Are they not also deeply offensive to most viewers? Will they not also play into the hands of the most radical elements, who will use them for propaganda and recruitment? Were these not the very arguments being offered for not publishing the cartoons?

So what on earth is the difference?

Ah, yes -- the difference are that these images can be used against George Bush. Screw all those arguments we just made. Who cares if Muslims will again be humilitated? Who cares if we make relations worse? Who cares if we indirectly help the cause of radical Islamists?

Those were really, really important arguments when the target of rage was Denmark, but, hey, this is a vendetta against George Bush! We're nailing George Bush, you know, so who cares if this could help terrorists, or the "insurgents" who are even now creating IEDs to kill our men and women in Iraq. Who cares? Who cares that the "right to know" argument makes almost no sense here, since the public has already heard of and seen each practice from previous photos and reports? Who cares that every single non-religious rationale offered for not running the cartoons is violated by endlessly parading these redunant photos again, two years after they were relevant?

They clearly don't actually care. All those alleged arguments about Muslim sensitivity, and inflaming relations between west? Lies.

The real calculus is remarkably, even brutally simple: "The cartoons could cause us to be threatened, or even killed. By people who really do pose a threat. But the Abu Ghraib photos, well, that'll hurt Bush (perhaps the whole US too, but we're not thinking that far ahead). And the only person who will blame us might be Bush, or conservatives, and, though we often imply otherwise, we know have nothing to fear from them."

So, we're seeing Abu Ghraib photos. Again. Apropros of nothing.

Even though the public has already seen the abuses before, and knows the whole Abu Ghraib story already, but has generally has not been shown even one of the Danish cartoons.

So that's it: Cowardice and Bush-hatred. How to understand the media's behavior, in three simple lessons:

(1) Competely ignore every justification they give, every ideal they profess.
(2) Understand they are cowards, fearing mass disapproval or bodily threats.
(3) Understand their thinking is otherwise dominated by hatred for their enemies -- apparently Bush and conservatives, particularly religious ones.

That's it. Done. Contradictions explained. Future behavior predicted.

(Sorry. That was a bit of a rant, but the rank hypocrisy gets to me sometimes.)