Since the announcement of the Iraq Study Group, (four years after it should have been created) observers have been touting it as a return to sanity orchestrated by former President George H.W. Bush, given the lead role played by James Baker. When the President fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and nominated Robert Gates the day after Democrats took control of Congress, these voices grew louder and more assured. These assumptions are as flawed as they are misguided.

It’s easy, after six years of unquestionably the worst administration in U.S. history, to look back in fondness and assign credibility and gravitas to a prior President, just ask some hard-core liberals who spent the Clinton years tearing their hair out over welfare reform and free trade. The same is obviously true when it comes to Bush 41, by many accounts a failed Presidency, though rising in stature every day by current comparison. But many prominent voices on both sides of the aisle are engaged in a bit of revisionist history. On the left, those who have demonized Baker for his part in any number of scandals (not to mention his starring role in stealing the 2000 election in Florida) and Gates for his Iran-Contra involvement, are welcoming both with open arms. On the right, the same pundits who harshly criticized Bush 41 for not finishing Saddam in 1991 and who wouldn’t shut up about “he gassed his own people” (an act that occurred on the elder Bush’s watch) when they wanted to go to war, are now upset only that these men were not brought in sooner. Conventional wisdom sure can contort itself into gravity defying positions some times.

Cataloging the legion failures of the Bush 41 regime would take more time than I’m prepared to devote, but in an age where incumbency matters, 41 is the only President out of the last four not to win a second term. There are reasons for that, and not all of them are named J. Danforth Quayle. Naturally I was already growing irritated at all of this 41-as-saviour talk — especially when one has to guess that Barbara Bush is part of the bargain — but was prepared to let it go until I read this:

Greta van Susteren: Why do you think it’s gotten so adversarial? Tonight is literacy. Everybody comes in from all different sides and wants to help. It seems like oftentimes in Washington, you know, on something we all want to work towards it’s not necessarily so civilized. It’s not so pleasant.

Bush: It’s true but that’s not new really. I mean, you go back in history and you’ll find that there was always adversarial politics. There was always gut fighting. And it’s probably a little worse now given the electronic media and the bloggers and all these kinds of things.

The debate is coarser because of bloggers. One day, those in power are going to have to settle on the effect of bloggers. It seems like any quote either pegs them as impotent ankle-biters or all-powerful king-makers. Pick one and let’s move on. But the real irony comes in the form of Bitch Bush’s past remarks, which I’m sure Poppy doesn’t rate very high on the scale of ugliness:

On Katrina evacuees:

“What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”

On the Iraq war:

“But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it’s, it’s not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer.”

These are the people who are supposed to rescue us from the catastrophes caused by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and their very own spawn? I thought when you found yourself in a hole, it was best to stop digging…

And, of course, a picture is worth 1000 words.