In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress."

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed, duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."

<link>

Here's a reality check. Bush's people kept trying to blame Clinton for Bush-era problems as late as Bush's eighth year in office (trying, for example, to draw a line between the utter collapse of our economy in 2008 and Clinton trying to raise minority home ownership back in the 90s). That is despite the fact that one could argue that no president had ever left America in as good of condition as Clinton left it: at peace, record surpluses, low unemoyment, falling poverty, rising incomes, improving social conditions, rising health insurance coverage rates, etc. By comparison, Bush arguably left a bigger mess than anyone before him: two simultaneous wars, low points for American prestige abroad, negative trends for nearly every social and economic matter, record deficits, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. So, one has to laugh at anyone who thinks Obama has played out his ability to blame Bush during his very first year in office.

All at a cost of bringing down the house of cards built on sand to the ground. Yes, thanks Bill Clinton.

Add Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, but I think we can get ready to say goodbye to Dodd.