It's an intriguing ethical dilemma. Democrats are dying to link confessed crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff with the White House, and there are apparently a number of photographs showing Tom DeLay's pal next to President Bush at various social functions. The photos are, as they would say on "Law and Order," highly prejudicial without being probative: they look bad, but don't really prove anything. Presidents get their picture taken with an extraordinary number of visitors, dignitaries, donors, friends of friends and guests, and it doesn't mean that they could pick their photo partner out of a line-up the next day.

The White House is reported to be tracking down the photos and either destroying them or simply refusing to release them. Why release pictures that will be run on every front page in America, shown on thousands of web sites and displayed repeatedly on television if they will only give a mistaken impression? Put it in ethical terms, is it unethical to withhold innocent evidence that you are certain will be used unfairly against you? Or to put it in Bush White House terms, is it ethical to launch a pre-emptive strike against imminent photos of mass distraction?

In a word, yes. It is unethical. The public has a right to see the pictures and draw conclusions, even if they are the wrong ones. Withholding the photographs is also a tactical mistake, because usually people hide incriminating evidence, and the public will naturally assume that whatever is hidden is sinister. But that's for another website: the question the Scoreboard must deal with is what is the right thing to do. The right thing for President Bush to do is to release all of the Abramoff photos, and trust the American people just as he wants the American people to trust him.