ABC News is reporting on some pretty strong campaign rhetoric coming from the president's Dad, George H.W. Bush:

"If we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these [congressional] committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country."

Them's fightin' words. Read the full ABC News piece for more of Bush's comments. So, do you agree with the former president?

In the days after the official collapse of the Soviet Union, the US made overtures to Boris Yeltsin and other leaders to assist with their transfer to democracy and capitalism. With Gorbachev largely out of the picture, the US had an opportunity to remake an enemy into an ally.

The course set by George H.W. Bush was one of trade and financial incentives to open up the former communists state that Ronald Reagan decimated. In June of 1992, Bush signed an accord with Yeltsin spelling out the assistance to be provided and the trade restrictions were lifted. The future looked bright.

Enter former KGB head Vladimir Putin. Putin was a breath of fresh air when he arrived. He was young and energetic, whereas the aging Yeltsin was an embarrassment.

Who makes up the Iraq study group? There are ten individuals. The youngest is Charles Robb at 67 years old. Several have served as Chief of Staff. Many are loyal to the Bush family. This group presented a message not unlike that message yelled out by the young child in the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." Though others praised the non-existent wardrobe of the emperor, it was the child who stated what everybody knew, "But he doesn't have anything on!" Once the child said it, the rest of the people repeated it. Now that the Group has stated that this war is a failure and we must leave, I believe the rest of the crowd will follow suit.

Here's a quick look at who made up the Iraq Study Group.

James Baker was born in 1930, is a close friend of President George H.W.Bush, Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan. Secretary of State under George 41. Legal advisor to President George W. Bush for the 2000 election. Helped construct the 34 nation alliance for the first Iraq War.

Lee Hamilton was born in 1931, is a former Democratic Congressman from Indiana. He was Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and presently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council. A Democrat, Hamilton made a decision, as chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.

Monday was "Meeting Day" at the White House. The Iraq Study Group dropped in to interview President Bush. The bipartisan group has two chairmen: James Baker, who was George H.W. Bush's former Secretary of State; and Lee Hamilton, who also co-chaired the 9-11 Commission.

"Expectations are high both inside and outside the administration that the Baker-Hamilton group will provide a face-saving way forward for Mr. Bush," the New York Times reported.

The 2006 elections gave Bush good reason to doubt the effectiveness of one stalwart, Karl Rove. The study group may, however, provide renewed confidence in another GOP reliable, Baker, whom Ryan Lizza of the New Republic described as "America's shadow secretary of state, boasting an Iraq portfolio broader than that of anyone actually serving in the administration."

One wonders what questions the Study Group had for Mr. Bush, let alone the answers he was able to provide. Thoughts?

It's an ironic circumstance for President Bush: The man who enjoyed the advantage of being a president's son has no heir apparent of his own.

For two-term presidents it's usually all about their legacy when the next election comes around. In 1988, Dubya's dad, George H.W. Bush, ran as the heir to Ronald Reagan; in 2000, Bill Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, tried to continue the Democrats' hold on the Oval Office. Of course, Gore distanced himself from the scandal-plagued Clinton, but the booming economy he touted could certainly be linked to Bill, too.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney probably won't run in 2008, and it seems there will be no "official" candidate. Appropriately, two of the top three GOP claimants are mavericks: a pro-choice ex-mayor of New York and a campaign-finance reform zealot. Mitt Romney, shifting farther to the right each day, seems the best choice for a Bush thumbs-up. (Last year, I mentioned his meeting with Jeb Bush in Florida.)

However low his approval ratings may be, Bush can still provide an asset with his endorsement. He has faced many tests during his presidency; determining who to endorse will be one of the most significant.

There is an interesting article in today's Washington Post by Peter Baker that speaks to the history of the late Saddam Hussein, Bush 41 and Bush 43. The execution of Hussein represents not the end of the story, but perhaps the end of a chapter, in the twisted relationship between him and both presidents.

Their relationship began as a pragmatic one in the 1980s, when Hussein was at war with our main enemy in the region, Iran. George H.W. Bush was VP at the time in Regan's administration, which provided assistance to Hussein. A 1992 article in New Yorker suggested that Bush, through Arab intermediaries, advised Hussein to intensity the bombing of Iran. Of course, the relationship went downhill after that, followed by the invasion of Kuwait and the reported assassination attempt by Iraqis on George H.W., Barbara and Laura in April 1993. George W. was at home managing the Texas Rangers at the time. In November 1999, two years before 9/11, candidate George W. told the BBC that, "No one envisioned him (Hussein) still standing. It's time to finish the task." The rest is history, so to speak. Hussein was a man who tried to kill George W.'s father, mother and wife. He says it wasn't personal. Maybe so, but it would have been personal to me.

The world is undoubtedly better off without Hussein and his regime. The cost of our invasion of Iraq, about 3,000 American lives (so far and counting) and reportedly hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars (so far and counting) -- all the result of a personal grudge, or the manipulation of someone with a personal grudge by others with their own neo-con agenda -- who knows? One thing is for sure -- the execution of Hussein is not the end of the story.

President Bush just surprised the Democrats with a George Washington moment.

During the Revolution, when Washington looked pinned down by His Majesty's troops, he stunned them with victories at Trenton and Princeton.

Now, after the Democrats captured the House and Senate, Our George has unleashed a little shock and awe of his own.

Bush wants firebrand UN ambassador John Bolton to stay in his post. The Democrats, plus the GOP's Benedict Arnold, Lincoln Chafee, don't. What follows, as reported by the New York Times, is worthy of a Dan Brown novel:

Barack Obama has just received his new top-secret code name from the Secret Service. I know this because I've just read about it in the Washington Post. Still, the name, "Renegade," has a pretty cool ring to it. In fact, if you're 14-years-old and forming a garage band, you could do much worse than Renegade. Then again, according to Webster's Dictionary a renegade is "an apostate from a religious faith; one who deserts to an enemy or who deserts one party and joins another: a deserter."

So was the Secret Service dissing Obama? Are they calling him a traitor? A sell-out? What gives? Welll, let us consider some other aliases that the guys in reflective shades have chosen over the years:

Hillary Clinton: Evergreen
Bill Clinton: Eagle
George W. Bush: Tumbler
Jimmy Carter: Deacon
George H.W. Bush: Timberwolf
Ronald Reagan: Rawhide

I guess those stiffs over at the Secret Service have a sense of humor after all. But let's keep it all hush, hush. Hey, you never know who's listening. Over and out.

Former President George H.W. Bush described her perfectly: he said that Lady Bird Johnson had "the grace and the elegance and the decency and sincerity that you would hope for in the White House."

Today, Lady Bird Johnson died. She will always be remembered as a wonderful first lady.

It could not have been easy for her to follow Jacqueline Kennedy. However, she did it well.

She beautified Washington, D.C with the plantings of trees and flowers. She helped to move billboards away from the highways. With a great deal of courage, she traveled the South in support of the Civil Rights Act.

Her and Lyndon Johnson were a team. They worked together and she was willing to stand in his shadow. She provided a wonderful example for others to emulate.

The John F. Kennedy Library & Museum hosted an event on Monday that was rather appropriate for Presidents Day ... and for 2008.

Four former speechwriters for past presidents Kennedy, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton discussed their experiences, and each played segments from a speech by their respective bosses.

The group included ex-Kennedy guru Ted Sorensen. Others who spoke were Raymond Price (Nixon), Chriss Winston (Bush 41), and Ted Widmer (Clinton). Ten years ago, I took a freshman-year class under Widmer at Harvard (in literature, not politics).

According to coverage of the event, being a speechwriter isn't as Svengali-esque as one might think. "The panelists said they agreed with Winston when she said the speechwriter's challenge is to 'try and learn (the president's) voice because you are reflecting his thoughts and words, not your own,'" the Associated Press reported.

Take note, prospective White House employees.

This is an interesting article saying what a lot of people (including me) have thought for a long time. In terms of presidential politics and the Bush Brothers, Jeb is the one better suited to the White House.

... all because of that disastrous November Tuesday a dozen years ago. That was the day Jeb -- the articulate and handsome workaholic, the one who as a boy spoke of his White House ambitions, and the one the Bush family counted on to avenge the Great Usurpation of 1992 -- narrowly lost his bid to be governor of Florida. Meanwhile, his older brother George W. had overcome long odds and won the Texas governorship, putting George an insurmountable step ahead of Jeb in the race for the presidency.

And because we've had Bushes in the White House for 12 years since 1988. It probably isn't Jeb's time in 2008. Maybe later. But, as the article spells out, there is no doubt of the great work that he did in Florida. While Republicans were routed in many state elections, Florida held pretty firm (except for Foley's old district, but that's another story).

Jeb is charismatic, and much more relentlessly conservative. He's done great work in turning Florida around into a business and conservative friendly state and the economic growth of Florida shows it. His wife is Hispanic and he speaks spanish as well. He ended his governorship of Florida on a very high note.

Again, bad timing that his brother has probably made the electorate weary of the Bush name. But as the article notes, Jeb is only 54 and has plenty of time.

There's an old saying that states: "be careful what you ask for -- you might get it." The Democrats should heed these words because they now have power over the entire Legislative branch of the government. The old standby of blaming the GOP for every bad thing is over, they are now the ones making the rules.

It's time to see if the Democrats can shed the image of being complete wimps on national security. It goes back to Jimmy Carter and his inept handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis whereby he allowed students to take our embassy and hold Americans hostage for 444 days. As soon as Reagan took the oath, the hostages were released.

The image continued through the Mondale and Dukakis campaigns and ended only in 1992 when the threats we faced seemed lesser thanks to Ronald Reagan's destruction of the Soviet Union. We elected Clinton because we -- mistakenly it turns out -- believed that we were in a new era of peace around the globe. Sure, we had the wars in the former Yugoslavia occurring, but it didn't effect us here. As for Rwanda, Clinton and the UN had no problems letting the Tutsi's and Hutu's exterminate each other. The only major battle was in Mogadishu, but that was an operation started by George H. W. Bush so it was easy to pull out and wash our hands of the problem. Or so we thought.

In 1964, I was in high school. As a Catholic, I had been allow to bask in the glow of the first Catholic to be elected President of the United States. During a math exam, the glow was extinguished. Camelot was no more. One year later, Barry Goldwater was a conservative and he wanted to be President. Today, Goldwater would be considered a moderate. He wanted what was best for the United States. He was ridiculed when his slogan was tampered with by the ad, "In your heart you know he's right ......... far right." Goldwater lost badly but the seed he planted grew.

Sixteen years later, Ronald Reagan introduced his brand of conservatism. He lowered the tax rates and made America strong. The tax rates in 1970 were abusive. A married couple making over $215,000 was in an incremental tax bracket that took 70% of the income earned over $215,000. For a couple making over $85,600 it was 59%. By 1986, the highest tax rate was 50%. By 1987, the highest tax bracket was 38.5%. Ronald Reagan created a significant change in the federal tax system.

George H. W. Bush followed and the era of moderation continued. However, the extreme right wing conservatives started to flex their muscles. They were more religious. They were more honest. They would balance the budget. They would lower taxes even more. President Bush was not a lackey for this group and he paid the price.

Bill Clinton saw what the country wanted. He tempered liberal positions with conservative concepts. He created a moderate agenda. The country got stronger. The budget was balanced. Taxes stayed low. But the right wing movement was growing and the Bush family learned that it was better to join this movement than to fight it. George 43 learned this lesson well.

The Republican party is hoping that Hillary is the candidate they have to face:

Conversations with Republicans gathered here for the biennial Midwest Republican Leadership Conference reflect a party unenthused or just plain uncertain about their potential White House nominee. But GOP faithful also seem quite confident and even upbeat about the prospect that the senator from New York is, as Rove put it, the "prohibitive favorite to win the nomination."

That likelihood, they say, is good news for any hopes of keeping the White House and getting other Republicans on the ballot elected.

I tend to agree with that synopsis, Hillary is easily the most polarizing politician in the race. Republicans would vote for Stalin before Hillary and Democrats are mixed. Looking at the numbers, let's say that 25% of the nation is self-described Republican and 25% is Democrat, the Democratic party is split so figure Hillary gets 80% of that vote. Now, that leaves a large swath of undecideds who will dictate this election. Those middle ground people are the ones who will swing the results and I would hypothesize that the four years of George H. W. Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Bush 43 have left them a bit fatigued with the entire Bush/Clinton leadership paradigm.

The GOP nominee will be critical to how the election plays out. If it's Fred Thompson, all bets are off as he has not proved himself and the debates will be crucial. If it'sRudy Giuliani, I'd say he would win, just as I believe he would have beaten Hillary when she first ran for the Senate and Rudy bowed out because of cancer.

The Dems have had a chance to prove themselves and have disappointed the base greatly. Unless they can actually make things happen they promised in the campaign that brought them power, they are facing a huge schism that will tear them apart.

The primaries are playing out in an unusual fashion. The Democrats are locked in and the GOP nomination is up in the air between Thompson and Giuliani. The next several months will be very telling as to the direction of the general election.

Another missed opportunity for our country's MSM to underscore the obvious. The press in the USA treats Bush far too well and the press in other countries treats him like an elected official, not a king. On Thursday, Bush & Blair held a press conference at the WH with reporters from here and England. When King George entered the room the British press did not stand up and that irritated him. He also didn't like questions.

The whole idea that he would accept any level of responsibility for the biggest mistake ever doesn't cross his mind. The violence in Iraq? 'Unsettling'? Unsettling? 11 guys die in a day, over 2,900 dead and 25,000 wounded Americans are unsettling? Well, he did say that things are 'bad' in Iraq. This a day after he said things are improving and Maliki is 'the guy for the job'. What job pray tell? Dogcatcher?

The testiness of the exchanges with the reporters showed. Bush was so insistent that his position (whatever it is today) that he was even taking questions that Blair was going to answer. At one point Blair just half heartedly pointed at Bush as in, 'Go ahead, you know you want to.' There is also a link to the relevant clip.

Follow below the flip for just one of the highlights when Bush tried to answer a reporter who asked if he (Bush) was in denial.