In politics, morality is a powerful force. If you hoist the flag at the right time, it will inspire a multitude that will carry you into office. But once you get there, the same flag can prove cumbersome and hard to furl. You can't make it disappear. It can trip you up if you aren't careful.

And that is President Barack Obama's situation now.

Obama caught his big break in politics by citing moral (as well as practical) concerns for his positions on Iraq in particular and the "war on terror" in general The war was wrong, he declared, both strategically and ethically. Viewing the world through the lens of war and war alone—dividing the planet into black and white, friends and enemies—also was wrong, strategically and ethically. Obama promised a more nuanced, ethical and humane approach in our relations with other countries and peoples. That promise is one of the main reasons he is president today.

But now he is being asked to apply—sweepingly—that moral vision to the matter of torture tactics used on suspected terrorists by Americans during the Bush administration, tactics that in and of themselves embody a world view he criticized and rejected. His response has been halting and hesitant. His message has been uncharacteristically muddied. And he is paying the price, at least in terms of message control.

True, Obama is honoring his moral vision, at least in part. He has banned some of the practices at the heart of the controversy, including waterboarding, as unproductive in terms of good intelligence, counterproductive in terms of diplomatic relations and simply wrong. "The decision to ban those practices was one of morals and values," a top administration official said today at a background briefing for a dozen reporters and columnists.

And yet, so far, the president is refusing to apply that same moral standard when it comes to the Bush officials and operatives who planned, sanctioned and performed those same practices.