We spin from one campaign to the next to satisfy our bloodlust. Attacked on 9/11 -- go get 'em! Upon realizing we were misled -- go get 'em! This entire period in American history is a long, painful post-adolescence, wherein the child finally grows up and comes to a more truthful understanding of life: the universe is largely hostile, beyond our control, and we will all die. Whatever victories we achieve are to be savored, for they are transient and infrequent.

I'm actually surprised that Obama has spoken so forcefully against the practice of torture, offically "banned" it, and then released the memos. This is far more than we should be able to expect from a president -- I assumed he would try to pivot away from the whole thing once in office, as it is probably impossible to operate a super-nation such as ours in the real world without cracking skulls once in awhile (or perhaps all the while), no matter how lofty our ideals are. There are genuine enemies out there. I agree that it likely doesn't work all the time (why water-board Khalid Shaikh Mohammed two hundred times a month or whatever it was if it's so effective?), but it likely works every so often. As a realist, I thought Hillary had the best line during the campaign: "It should never be the official policy of the United States to torture" (italics mine). So if he is really serious, and it appears he is, I consider this an embarrassment of riches.

Nevertheless, I would like my pound of flesh, too, from the Bush folks, and Obama is getting hammered here and elsewhere on this. The moral arguments for prosecution are compelling. But I suggest this: it might not even be politically possible to extract that pound of flesh, even if he wanted to (and, I surmise, he probably does). Not without a prolonged fight, not without tremendous political capital, not without sacrificing much of the rest of his agenda. This is our system. He can't just do what's "right," though he may want to. You only get some of what's "right" in this world, and he has to pick and choose. What would you choose -- prosecuting somebody at Justice or universal healthcare? Or whatever remains of his economic agenda? The idea that Obama can simply do whatever he wants and he is just not choosing the correct thing to do is ludicrous. The guy shakes somebody's hand or bows the wrong way overseas and the right goes ballistic. And you angry, "betrayed" supporters expect him to -- what? Indict Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzales? Please pass whatever you guys are smoking over to me. No, in this world, our world, the Dick Cheneys of history always get away scot-free. Always, every time. They don't go to Vietnam, they get the money, they rape and pillage all the way through, bend or break the laws, and in the end they retire. Maybe God gets 'em at some point. But usually not us. Understanding that, living with that without your head coming off, is the growing up part.

If you're still waiting for that Dick Cheney/Alberto Gonzales/et. al perp-walk, please stop now. You'll never get it. Accept it and reduce your stress level and mouth-foam. Stop saying things like, "that's not change I can believe in" (which I have read approximately 3.7 million times on the net).

As far as I can see, Obama has remained true to the beliefs he espoused during the campaign, until new information and new realities presented themselves. This is not the same as Bush claiming to be a "compassionate conservative" and governing as a full-on right-wing idealogue, so please stop equating the two. The problems Obama has to deal with are, well, intractable. There, I said it. You can say it, too. You'll feel better. I'm actually surprised he has gone as far as he has on torture -- I was expecting much less. But the Dems are up to their eyeballs in it, because they cowed to Bush, and any serious investigation of the who/what/why will reveal that and imperil his Congressional control at the midterms, and then you can kiss EVERY SINGLE ITEM on his agenda goodbye. This is political fact. Obama is daily making real-world cost/benefit decisions, not "lying" or "betraying" this side or that group. He's actually trying to get the big things he said he would get, which would be impossible if his presidency becomes consumed with the torture proceedings. Don't agree with his prioritization? Fine, let's have that debate; but I would at least expect the critics to operate from the perspective of realism. Does it suck that Bush has done this to us? Yes. But it's the world we live in, so I don't know what to tell you. There ain't no tooth fairy, either.

You don't see it, as mentioned, not because men are squeamish about seeing other dicks, it's because the dick cannot be evaluated as a symbol of manhood or virility or desirability or whatever when it is flaccid. (If you were a male star wouldn't you want to put your best foot forward, so to speak?) And a penis in a state of arousal will never get a rating suitable for general release. Women's parts, on the contrary, need not be aroused to be appreciated fully.

... is why these guys waste their time and make themselves look like assholes all to oppose what is a fait accompli. The smart, unexpected play would have been to keep their powder dry for when Alito falls down the stairs or Scalia has a heart attack or what-have-you, and Obama has a chance to make an appointment that will actually change the complexion of the court. Replacing Souter with Sotomayor changes nothing. So my question to the GOP: why bother? You have more to lose and nothing at all to gain.

Boy, you guys really need a leader. Like, stat.