Obama’s obsessive “one-President-at-a-time” mantra was the right political posture to assume for most of the post-election transition. Under the pretense of deference to the current President, Obama insulated himself from the political contamination he might have incurred had he publicly worked in concert with Bush on the collapse of the auto industry, the accelerating tailspin on Wall St. or the assorted other catastrophes that have marred the last days of this already disgraced administration.
But at this point, with the Mideast reeling from another round of violence, and a perception that Israel is perpetrating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza abetted by the White House, this message about one president at time sounds as detached and negligent as praise for Mike Brown.
And even if we do have only one President at a time, no one can find Dick Cheney. So that pretty much leaves Obama to do the job.
Neither side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a monopoly on truth or righteousness. But there is no doubt that the current morass will have long-lasting repercussions that will resurface in some fashion during the Obama administration. So it would seem to behoove Obama to offer some indication now of how he will approach the problem in two weeks. That kind of signal could go a long way toward shaping the kind of policy he intends to institute, rather than letting events shape his fate.
Or worse, letting George Bush shape his fate. Americans effectively declared Bush irrelevant more than a year ago, which is why it’s grossly irresponsible for the incoming Obama administration, which will inherent this quagmire, to allow the outgoing President — who most of the nation deplores — to set a course that may dictrate or disrupt U.S. foreign policy and domestic security for foreseeable future.
Perhaps Obama’s public deference to Bush means there is no difference in his stance on this issue. Otherwise, he should get off message and get on with governing a country that currently lacks a leader.
