Not just the general language (lack of circumcision, etc.), but the way they present the numbers strikes me as misleading. For example, several times they speak of an increase in relative risk by some percentage. Relative risk refers to how much more likely a risk group is to develop a disease than the general population (meaning everybody), expressed as a ratio of [risk for risk group/risk for general population]. So, for example, you might say that the relative risk of uterine rupture following C-section is 2. That is, it's twice that for the general population, or 100% higher. That's a very low relative risk. Describing a relative risk of group A vs. the total of groups A and B as a percentage higher than the risk of group B than the total of groups A and B borders on the nonsensical.
They also mention a few numbers that they go on to say aren't statistically significant. You only bother with statistically insignificant results if you're trying to prop up a weak case and can't come up with something better.
Finally, the lack of mentioning ANY research that contradicts the "circ reduces HIV risk" result (And there's bound to be some even if it turns out to be true, because of the nature of this kind of research) shows a very clear bias on the part of the person writing the CDC review article.