Did Obama merely have another photo-finish in mind?

Gibbs listened, then paused, pondered and stumbled through the rather bewildering answer that, well, Barack Obama is commander in chief now.

Still, that made about as much sense as every other White House explanation offered yesterday for having reversed itself on the release of yet more detainee photos.

It was less than a month ago that Obama's Justice Department, under fire from an ACLU Freedom of Information lawsuit, told a federal judge that "the Defense Department will produce all the responsive images by May 28, 2009." But by yesterday, officially, no, it wouldn't. No longer did Obama "feel comfortable" about it, plus -- and this was truly some last-minute stuff -- "he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."

I can't prove it, so I won't vigorously push this argument -- nor, of course, would vigor be required if I could prove it -- but I smell some damn clever politics, some Rooseveltian politics, in other words, some "make-me-do-it" politics here.

Obama already knows that in time, one way or another, these photos will become public, either through leaks or more likely at the insistence of the Supreme Court. So why -- or so he might have asked himself -- preemptively release the photos, angering maybe half the electorate as well as his top military brass in the midst of two or three wars, when he can simply wait a while and later say, This wasn't my doing, or, I had no choice.

Then, all his flanks are covered. Those to his left will indeed have the photos and another kerfuffle is soon forgotten; to those on his right he can grin and heft his shoulders -- Hey, I tried; and to the brass he can say, See, your strategic concerns and those valiant troops will always come first.

It's a classic Obamian resolution: vast consternation mixed with immediate outrage, both of which soon find themselves amid a quite practical denouement.

That argument at least makes sense, unlike Obama's public rationales offered yesterday: "The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," he said. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger."

Photos would endanger our troops? Mr. President, we endangered our troops years ago when we shipped them by the thousands into a seething hellhole of anti-Western religious fanaticism -- and, naturally, their continuing presence continues to stoke those fanatical fires. But, you already know that, so to have stood there and claimed that mere photos would now "put our troops in danger" must have required all your political skills of knowing disingenuity.

As for "inflam[ing] anti-American opinion," the best comeback (of which, again, you were already well aware, Mr. President) came from Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch's executive director: "Even given that the photos will undoubtedly generate outrage in the region, the best way to dampen that outrage is to hold those responsible accountable."

And that -- an airing of our dirtiest national laundry -- can't happen as long as material evidence is locked away in a Pentagon vault.

In a way, Dick Cheney is the now the most voluble advocate of the photos' release. Obama has "moved to take down those policies that kept us safe," growled the former vice president on "Face the Nation" last Sunday -- and there can be no denial that the photos in question grotesquely depict at least a reflection of the dark, medieval mentality that underlay those policies. So let's see it, Mr. Cheney; let's see -- since the lone imagination might conjure even worse -- the kind of thing that you say "kept us safe." Then your point will have been made, McChrystal clear.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, appeared on "Hardball" last night to underscore the indispensable if not indisputable point that public release of the photos is fundamental "to understand[ing] the gravity of the crimes" they portray. But he also made a rather fascinating concession, or at least it seemed like a concession: If accountability can be gained, he said, by submitting the photos to a Justice-appointed special prosecutor for investigation and, logically, eventual prosecution, then so be it -- as long as the prosecutions encounter no brass ceilings.

So, there may be another way, although I imagine the photos nonetheless will emerge either on their own or through the Court. And I can't help but wonder if Obama, notwithstanding his sudden national-security qualms, didn't foresee and silently accept that ultimate resolution.