Lindsey Graham, Graphic Photo Flip-Flopper

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)US Congress/<a href=",_Official_Portrait_2006.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Now beginneth the backlash against the White House for its decision not to release photos of Osama bin Laden’s bloated, bullet-busted corpse. According to ABC News:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, believes President Obama’s decision not to release the Osama bin Laden photos is “a mistake” that will “unnecessarily prolong this debate” over the death of the world’s most wanted man.

“I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s decision not to release the photos. It’s a mistake,” Graham said today.

Well, at least it’s a respectful disagreement. But as long as Graham’s demanding government accountability, perhaps he can explain why he was against releasing graphic US military photos before he was for it.

Back in 2009, he fought almost singlehandedly to keep additional photos of harsh inmate abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison out of public view. “Every photo would become a bullet or IED used by terrorists against our troops,” he said, while threatening to block funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if the pics were released. He and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put out a joint release explaining their desire to suppress the pictures:

The photos do not depict anything that is not already known. Transparency, and in this case needless transparency, should not be paid for with the lives of American citizens, let alone the lives of our men and women in uniform fighting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere…Such a release would be tantamount to a death sentence to some who are serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult spots like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Strangely, that’s similar to what President Obama said about the Abu Ghraib photos and the bin Laden shots. Obama’s desire to suppress evidence of American service members’ handiwork, good and bad, may be disheartening to transparency advocates, but at least he’s being consistent. Graham, on the other hand, would do well to explain his photographic flip-flop.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend