NP: U.K., U.K.

Once again proving that, if I wait around long enough, someone will make my point for me, Steve Benen riffs on a reader response to Andrew Sullivan over at Political Animal about Obama's handling of the Bush administration's torture policies. His interpretation of the situation seems pretty sound, but I'm not so sure of his final conclusion.

While I can easily understand the president's calculation, I still think some of Obama's recent calls are mistaken, not because they're inexplicable, but because expedience just isn't a good enough excuse.

It's a real shame Bush and Cheney screwed up so spectacularly, and ignored the law so systematically, that it's interfering with Obama's desire to govern. It really is. If I were in the president's shoes, I might feel the same temptations. But he signed up for this gig, vowing to rebuild the nation. As much as he'd like to get beyond the recent past, nothing of any value is ever built on a corrupted foundation.

Emphasis mine, and given all the early Lincoln-esque talk of this presidency, I think the obvious counter would be that "a house divided cannot stand." The risks of massive turmoil get discounted by the left a lot here, mostly because they feel so righteous about it that there's an almost implicit assumption that, when the truth is revealed, everyone in America will just accept it and see the light and the error of their ways if they thought otherwise. The unfortunate reality is that simply won't happen, and the societal reaction to trotting Dick Cheney out in an orange jumpsuit is perhaps too unpredictable to risk.

Besides, I'm still a believer in Obama as long-term strategist. Sometimes you have to turn away from your destination in order to get there.