...at least he didn't bow to Chavez...and permission slips for depravity.

There is a faint meme circling the webernets that the release of the torture documents was a "diversion". I must respectfully dissent. I commend Obama for releasing the documents and I condemn him for refusing to investigate and prosecute those who committed war crimes.

As I've stated - the result of the latest Obama DoubleThink is to elevate lack of accountability and enshrine it as American policy.

The diversion here - if there is one - is the latest leg of the Obama "please like me the most-est of all the Presidents" apology tour of Latin America. The handshake with Chavez is a diversion - because, frankly, at least he didn't bow. Chavez may be a prick but he is an elected prick. Don't misread me. I happen to think Chavez is 99% bluster and not worth getting worked up about. If we didn't need his oil he would not matter at all. Nevertheless, Obama has now coated a fourth of the planet's land mass with his narcissistic apologetics. Which don't even carry the benefit of being genuine attempts at accountability. They are, as is always the case with him, all about being loved.

The issue remains - Who are we if we ignore brutality? The example given by Jay Bybee as to what is actually torture is what the Libyan secret police did to prisoners. That was the standard. Muammar Qaddafi's state police. Who are we?

Those who make excuses for what is considered "legal" in these memos have abrogated the right to invoke the moral compass on any issue. Screaming about Cuba's 200 political prisoners while excusing Americans who put prisoners heads in boxes with insects - is untenable. The legal readings concocted by the Bushies are not a justification so much as they are permission slips for depravity.

The legal fine tuning to cover for what is self evident torture is moral relativity taken to its logical, rancid, conclusion.

Obama has made the worst possible decision regarding the torture memos. I risk contradicting myself - but so be it - I thought this last week and I think it now: If he had no intention of holding anyone responsible - then THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO RELEASE THE MEMOS. It was, in fact, stupid and dangerous. If Obama is opposed to the techniques then he could simply have stopped them. Releasing the documents, while negating any chance that we, as a nation, can expunge the blot they have left on us - is POINTLESS. It is worse than pointless. It is damaging to national security. The question a seasoned leader would have asked was this: Is the coming fallout and prosecutions from the release of these documents worth the potential damage to national security? Obama ducked this question. He is too inexperienced or too much of a lightweight to be President.

Since the memos are now in the public domain we must respond within the law. Avoiding a full airing now of how the "war on terror" was conducted is the worst outcome. Affix blame. Claim credit. Avoid accountability. The American way since 2001...

Now Obama is in an a box. He's released the memos which are being rightfully met with revulsion - yet he has fallen back on the "looking forward, not back" bromide. Remember: as the Katrina blowback unfolded the Bushies did not want to play the "blame game".

Responsibility is not a game. Either we believe in it or we do not. Announcing a crime has occurred is not accountability or justice.