"Obama is a war criminal."

That statement comes from the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's blog/column for Salon about Obama's decision to suppress photos of torture and detainee abuse.

I think it's safe to say that the far left is officially out of love with Obama. That didn't take long. And it's not just about these photos. There's more. The bailouts, for example, struck many lefties as just more corporate prostitution. There's the denial of rights to detainees at Bagram. (See Glenn Greenwald again.) There's the president's failure to do anything about gay rights, including silence when another valuable Arab linguist was fired for being gay. Obama has yet to approach the issue of Don't ask don't tell. Andrew Sullivan, though attempting to be patient about this issue (Obama's only been in office since January, after all) calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever."

But, it seems the decision to suppress these photos is the drop that burst the dam. This is just too much. This makes Obama "just as bad" as Bush and Cheney and, yes, a "war criminal."

Now, hold on. I'm of two, actually several, minds about this. On the one hand, I'm glad to see the lefty blogosphere acting as a valuable critic of Obama's presidency. That must continue to take place. On the other hand--this makes him a war criminal? You've lost all faith in him whatsoever? I get the feeling some people are simply more comfortable distrusting the government. Really, it was weird liking the president. It felt good to be out of power, with Darth Vader ruining the country. All our snark, all our outrage, all our moral clarity was so pure and so cleansing. Remember those days, sitting around the common room in the dorm, understanding so clearly how the world should really be run?

Now, with Obama in office, liberals are faced with two choices: Deal with the inevitable compromises of actually wielding power--or disown the whole deal, call him a war criminal, declare independent, take no responsibility for the man you voted into office and the party you supported.

That's just cowardly and immature. To borrow one of Obama's favorite (and increasingly irritating) phrases--Let me be clear: I support what Glenn Greenwald is doing, holding Obama accountable for his promises regarding state secrecy and torture--and, moreover, holding public officials in general accountable for doing what is morally right. "Dealing with the reality of power" does not mean, to me, becoming sheep. It means continuing to push the president to do what is right. I think the "war criminal" comments, however, are silly.

Look, Obama has banned the use of water boarding and other techniques, labeling them torture. To this bit of, you know, factual information, one of the commenters responded, "Do you really believe that? Just because your government says so?" Oh, give me a fucking break. This is just conspiracy theorizing at its worst. Until there is the smallest shred of evidence that Obama is continuing the torture of detainees, I will believe that, as per his executive order, the procedures have been banned. To accuse someone of committing a crime, you need, what's it called?--evidence. The claim that "the government always lies, so they're lying now, so they're obviously doing the worst things I can imagine" carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.

Furthermore, Obama released the torture memos. In other words, the information about what was done is out there. Graphic representation is not. So, he is not, at least not entirely, covering up what Bush and Cheney did.

But, as to the release of those photos. Why didn't he do it? (Clearly, as you can see, I am reserving judgment. I am ready to entertain, at least, the notion that Obama based this decision on honorable motives. That's my bias, just so you know.)

I can think of two likely reasons:

1) His stated explanation, that the photos will inflame anti-American violence in the Middle East. Greenwald, and others, object that this makes no sense. The information is already out there that we tortured, as I said. Suppressing photographic evidence only makes it seem that we did far worse. (And maybe we did.) And, they say, anti-Americanism has already been inflamed by what was done. Furthermore, this is the same bankrupt argument that Republicans used to oppose release of the memos.

I think it's not as simple as that. Textual documentation and graphic photography are two very different types of information. The first can be used to make a sophisticated legal indictment and to, historically, document what was done. The second can cause intense emotional reaction. Remember the violence that attended that Dutch cartoon of Mohammed? So, Obama's argument does hold some water.

However, I don't buy it. As Greenwald rightly points out, the public outrage that ultimately led to the banning of these methods would likely not have occurred without the photographic evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. No one wants increased violence against the soldiers, but suppressing evidence is not excusable. He should have released the photos. Their release could be handled so as to minimize adverse reactions--e.g., with accompanying presidential statements condemning the procedures.

2) It's political. It's unfortunate but true: torture and torture prosecution have become political issues. Obama knew that they would. He has to play politics with this, as distasteful as that might be, because those who oppose torture investigations WILL make it political. (See Cheney, Dick.) So, suppressing the photos may be a political stunt, a little concession to the right wing. In which case, I still don't buy it. It's such a small gesture anyway.

However, on the larger point, of the politics of torture evidence and investigations, liberals are faced with another tough choice. Obama, I think rightly, predicts that if he goes after Bush officials now for war crimes, he will lose every last penny of his "political capital." He will spend it all, and more, going after the bastards that preceded him. It will prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to push through universal health care, energy reform, economic recovery measures or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Those things won't happen. They just won't. The morally uncompromising among us (Andrew Sullivan, for one) say that it doesn't matter. We must do what is right, and what the law demands, regardless of its effects on policy.

Perhaps this makes me a bad person, a realpolitik douchebag, a 'war criminal,' but I would rather save human civilization from destroying itself with CO2 than put Bush and Cheney behind bars. I would rather get everyone in the country on health care and back to work than get vengeance on Bush-era assholes. I would rather get out of Iraq without it imploding than punish the people who put us there.

This is tough. But, that is what happens when you, or your party, is actually in power. Reality intrudes upon the purity of your ideals.

That being said, I don't, actually, think it's necessarily such a stark decision. We could, potentially, do both. But, here's the thing: if Obama goes full bore into torture investigations now, those other things, as I said, don't happen, and won't ever happen. A political war the likes of which we have not seen, not even in Clinton's years, would erupt over the prosecution for war crimes by a new president of his predecessors.

But...Obama can accomplish those big goals this year, or soon thereafter. He really can. And, the while, set the groundwork for truth commissions, investigations, or, at least, the judgment of history. A truth commission is a step he could take now, without going full bore after the previous president. It might be a good step.

Do I think this will happen? To be honest, no. There will likely always be "more important" goals "looking forward" than going after Bush. But, if the evidence continues to come out, and the time away from Bush gets long enough, it may be possible to bring the authors of torture to justice. I don't know if Obama will do it, or if he plans to do it, but I just don't think we can stand to make the sacrifices necessary to do it now.

I am, of course, open to other opinions (if anyone is reading this).