Speaking at the National Archives, home of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, President Obama presented a comprehensive indictment of the Bush administration’s entire approach to defending America after 9/11. He described them as "ad hoc," "based on fear," inconsistent with "fundamental American values," and “a mess.” He reiterated his opposition to a truth commission but again raised the specter of criminal prosecutions. "The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws."

Former Vice President Cheney, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute immediately after the president, sharply rejected Obama's arguments. He emphasized the Bush administration’s success in preventing another terrorist attack, bipartisan support for its policies at the time, and the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques. He accused Democrats of “feigned outrage based on a false narrative” and the Obama administration of “recklessness cloaked in righteousness.” He argued that "people who distort the truth are in no position to lecture anyone about values."

Certainly, this was an important exchange of arguments and one worth having. But enhanced interrogation techniques had been stopped years before Obama became president; and Obama has continued many Bush counterterrorism policies. Now he's reversed himself on military tribunals. Attacks on the Bush administration have reached the point of diminishing returns.

President Obama and Democrats have continued to pound away at the Bush administration principally for political reasons. Part of it is payback for the last eight years. Part of it is they believe it’s advantageous for them to do so. It helps Obama appease the left wing of his party, unhappy with his recent decisions on Afghanistan troop deployments, detainee abuse photos, and military tribunals. And part of it is a desire to damage the Republican Party so badly it will pose little opposition to Obama's domestic agenda and take 40 years for it to recover.

Until recently the strategy was working. Then Obama released the top-secret Bush administration memos on "enhanced interrogation techniques," Cheney began speaking out, and Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying. Suddenly, Republicans were back on the attack and Democrats found themselves on the defensive.

In less dangerous times, all this would be well and good. Americans love political hard ball, and this is political hard ball at its best. But the election is over. Looking backward, especially on national security issues, isn’t in the country's best interest. It doesn’t help us deal with Iran’s and North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs. It doesn’t help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn’t help us deal with the difficult challenges in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, or with the ongoing global economic crisis.

President Obama is a charismatic leader and a gifted orator. He has been adroit on the domestic scene at disarming and outmaneuvering his critics. But Obama remains a rookie and largely untested in international affairs. It’s one thing to charm the people of Western Europe, it’s quite another to get their leaders to adopt the policies they don’t want to adopt, or to dissuade hostile governments from dangerous courses of action.

Obama is surrounded by top quality, experienced defense and foreign policy players, and he has demonstrated that he listens to them in the decisions he's made. But, so far, he hasn't made the really tough ones, and only he can deal directly with foreign heads of state and government.

Obama’s biggest challenges and toughest decisions lay ahead. What will he do when the intelligence community tells him Iran is on the verge of testing a nuclear weapon? How will he react when Benjamin Netanyahu tells him that Israeli jets are in the air and on their way to strike Iran? What will he do if all hell breaks loose in the Middle East? What will he do if the Government of Pakistan falls? How will he react if there is another mass casualty attack by terrorists on the United States?

A serious public debate on these issues is far more important than squabbling over how President Bush defended America. That's history. Learning the lessons of history is important, but history must age for a few years before we can be sure what lessons we should learn from it.

It’s time for President Obama and Democrats to stop telling everyone how screwed up the Bush administration was when it came to defending America. Why can't Obama acknowledge that President Bush kept America safe for seven-and-a-half years without endorsing all of his policies? It’s time to drop the idea of a “truth commission" or criminal prosecutions. It’s time for Republicans to get their act together and provide Americans with alternative solutions to America’s domestic problems and to work with Democrats on bipartisan foreign and defense policies. It’s time to discuss and debate seriously the broader issues that will determine the fate of the United States and the course of world events for decades to come.