The Bush administration’s new readiness to sit down at the same table with Iran and Syria to discuss Iraq’s stability reflects yet another sign that the current president is farming out his foreign policy to the administration of his father.

With acceptance of a potential dialogue with Iran and Syria, with a renewed effort to revive the Arab-Israeli peace process, with a higher profile of key Bush I advisers, the outlines of such a shift are taking shape.

Historians and psychologists will one day sort out the complex dynamics which led W. to defy and deny the wisdom of his own father’s successful conduct of diplomacy in the Middle East. But with several recent decisions and personnel moves, George W. Bush is slowly recognizing that restraint and diplomacy are a more constructive course for a superpower than loud rhetoric and unilateral military intervention.

Robert Gates, a senior adviser in the first Bush presidency, is now secretary of defense, replacing a principal architect of the war, Donald Rumsfeld. James Baker, an effective secretary of state under W’s father, was co-author of the Baker-Hamilton report that urged talks with Iran and Syria.

There are other signs that the father is being listened to by the son – including more frequent public appearances by Brent Scowcroft, George H.W.’s national security adviser who, as did Baker, strongly advised George W. against going to war in Iraq in the first place.

It may be too late to reverse the staggering damage that this administration has inflicted on the position and respect for the United States. in the world with their lies and deception in going to war and treating it as a “cakewalk.” But if George W. Bush wants to realize any kind of legacy and not go down as one of the least successful presidents in modern history, he needs to continue to reach out to the past. He has taken tentative steps with his willingness, post-election loss, to seek common ground on a few domestic issues with Democratic leaders.

Obstacles remain, first and foremost finding an effective and realistic strategy for Iraq. But the next most important obstacle is to continue the housecleaning within the administration. And that means replacing another principal architect of the war, the vice president, Dick Cheney.

Recent reports suggest that Cheney’s influence in the White House is fading; he now needs to get out of the way. A resignation is in order, and there are many acceptable grounds.

Though unlikely, he can recognize that his arrogant, Constitution-shredding positions are damaging the country and the presidency. He could concede that the perjury trial of his closest aide, Scooter Libby, is mighty embarrassing, proving once and for all the desperate, behind-the-scenes manipulation that framed the White House drive for war in Iraq. With several heart attacks in his past, he can do it for health reasons. With another presidential campaign upcoming, the man who picked himself to be a heartbeat away could help a promising candidate become No. 2. (John McCain could be charged with making Bush’s “surge” in Iraq work; Rudy Guiliani could use some foreign policy experience.)

While W. likes to proclaim that he is “the decider,” it is clear that Cheney has been, until recently, the effective “caller of the shots” in foreign policy. While preferring to remain in the shadows, Cheney has been the main proponent of an imperial presidency, favoring pre-emptive military action over diplomacy, stiff-arming Congress, manipulating the press, and abusing the Constitution with his defense of spying, wiretapping and unjustified detention of prisoners.

Ever since his August 2002 speech setting us on the path to war in Iraq, since his many visits to the CIA to browbeat analysts into giving him the intelligence he wanted, since his campaign to attack Joe Wilson and his wife for unmasking administration lies about “uranium from Africa,” Cheney has played a vital role in most of the decisions which have led this country into the worst foreign policy disaster in its modern history.

Bush-Cheney decisions have created far more terrorists than existed after Sept. 11. They skipped going after al-Qaida with full force – and now al-Qaida and the Taliban are making a major comeback in Afghanistan. With their mistakes in prosecution of the Iraq war, they have not only severely damaged the American military but also empowered and emboldened Iran, a much clearer supporter of terrorism, a more serious threat to regional and U.S. interests.

As president, George W. Bush remains responsible for the decisions taken. But the 2006 election provided a clear verdict on the performance of both the president and the vice president, especially in foreign policy. For the Bush II presidency to have a prayer of salvaging its foreign policy in the last two lame-duck years, the next step is for the president to convince the vice president to return to Wyoming, soon.

Fred Hill of Arrowsic was a foreign correspondent for The Baltimore Sun and worked on national security issues on Capitol Hill and in the State Department. He can be reached at hill207@juno.com.