THE STROKE OF A PEN (AND A RESPONSE)

It's been reported before, but it's worth mentioning once more here: there are indications that swift repudiations of several key Bush policies are likely to be handed down by the Obama administration within the first weeks, or even days, following the Inauguration. The vehicle: Executive Orders, which will be signed by President Obama and immediately effective under law. In addition to the reversal of Bush rulings on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and abortion, several new prime areas for change have appeared. From Politico:

Guantanamo (though closure of the prison will, of course, require more effort and time than is needed for an executive order);

Torture policy;

The release of key Office of Legal Counsel opinions which took an expansive view of executive power.

Along with Obama's senior-level appointments for CIA, OLC, DOJ and a host of other key positions, these reports are another encouraging signal. Bush's return to Texas in eight days will not just be a symbolic transition: Obama has given clear signs that his inauguration will mark the true beginning of the end of the Bush era.

Also, to veer off topic momentarily, a quick response to Kalash's last post regarding Obama and Middle East policy. While the president-elect has, unfortunately, not yet been willing to exhibit any criticism for Israel, any judgments about his foreign policy must be reserved at least until he takes office. While Kalash and others have given short shrift to the "one president at a time" mantra, it is not just a political excuse - it is an important principle in American governance. Any substantive statement President-elect Obama might make about Gaza or the peace process, beyond general expressions of dismay over violence and calls for restraint, would be highly imprudent because the rest of the world could not help but take them as official American policy. As a result, the foreign policy of the sitting, legitimate president would be supplanted.

This might seem pointless to some of us, as we look at our calendars and count the minutes until noon on the 20th. After all, we've probably already made dinner plans beyond Inauguration Day; surely the president-elect can manage a few words about the foreign policy he'll implement starting then. But let's not forget the pace with which international incidents can occur. In South Ossetia this past August, Georgia launched an attack on August 7th. The next day, Russia blockaded and attacked Georgia. Within five days, a full-scale invasion and an agreement to a preliminary cease-fire had both occurred. International crises can happen at lightning speed - one could easily start and end before Obama puts his hand on the Bible next Tuesday. It is imperative that America's leaders not risk an ineffectual response, which could trigger even greater instability, by sharing the duties of the presidency.

As much as this might frustrate those of us who want to get on with the next four years, we are constrained by the constitution: we have one leader authorized to act on our behalf in foreign affairs until January 20th. In my view, those of us who are upset that Obama isn't speaking should petition Congress to pass a constitutional amendment shortening the lame-duck period; they shouldn't launch into a knee-jerk reaction accusing Obama of "more of the same." In any event, President-elect Obama's unwillingness to publicly inject himself into the crisis (remember, he is constantly in contact with President Bush and receives daily intelligence reports as well as briefings from the Secretary of State) is a smart, logical and statesmanlike decision.