So I was reading a piece in Salon the other day, about what steps the Obama Administration might take to investigate and prosecute those in the Bush Administration for their role in U.S. sanctioned torture.

The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.

The proposed commission — similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July — would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House — widely rejected by experienced interrogators — that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool.

And then I was reading about John McCain’s meeting tomorrow — Monday — with Barack Obama, and it clicked into my head. I’m fairly sure I’m not the only person to whom this thought occurred, but if you’re going to have a bipartisan commission looking into the criminal misconduct of a previous Republican government, don’t you want to put a Republican to lead it so as to avoid any impression of bias? (After all, politics is perception). And which better Republican than John McCain? Okay, he ran a horrible campaign, but everyone in America knows he got tortured, and everybody knows that, politically, he’s not buddy-buddy with Obama. It’d be like in 1940, when FDR, after his third re-election, brought his opponent into the Oval Office and said, “Hey, I got a job for you.” After, Wendell Willkie was Roosevelt’s personal representative in dealing with nations involved with Lend-Lease, and late said that if he had to choose between an inscription that said “Here lies a President of the United States”, and one that said, “Here lies one who contributed to the preservation of freedom”, he’d choose the latter.

Honestly, who better than John McCain for the job of investigating what the Bush Administration did or didn’t do? And it’s hard to claim it’s a partisan witchhunt when the panel is weighted towards and led by Republicans (even if they are blood-thirsty for the heads of those who wrecked their party).

(Of course, McCain has his own personal issues with being against torture before he was for it, but, who knows, his explanation might be the truth).