In the past week since President Bush appointed elder statesman Henry Kissinger to chair the new Sept. 11 inquiry commission, Washington columnists’ hardest job has been to come up with new witticisms (much like the one above) that attract readers to the text below as they exchange journalistic salvos across the bows of the nation’s most influential newspapers. The interminable icon will make a return to Washington from his private political consulting firm in New York to lead the long-awaited investigation into the causes of the U.S.’s inability to predict the terrorist attacks. No sooner had the announcement of Kissinger’s selection been made public, that The New York Times issued an acerbic editorial (‘Henry Kissinger’s Entangling Ties’) followed by a steady stream of by-lined op-eds- ‘The Secret Life of Henry Kissinger’, ‘He’s Ba-a-ack’, and ‘Well, Hello, Henry.’

The question of who knew what when was asked surprisingly soon after Sept. 11, but the idea of a formal panel did not gain momentum in Congress until victims’ families turned up the heat on lawmakers this year. Bush certainly could have avoided controversy on such a sensitive matter, but chose instead the man famous for his thick German accent (although an American citizen since 1943), secret bombing of Cambodia, support for Pinochet and closeness to Nixon. Such a maelstrom of pundit activity could easily have been avoided by choosing a lamb like Kissinger’s soon-to-be deputy George Mitchell. Bush may have lost the battle as he signed into law the bill creating the commission, but he is in the process of winning the war—by creating a diversion. The arrival of Kissinger on the scene has shifted the questions away from the nature of the panel’s historic investigation to a debate over Mr. Kissinger’s integrity and credibility—questions that cannot be asked of an icon, much less a god. The current debate is as futile as the appointment is ironic: that a man who conducted government in the shadows should now be in charge of judging how a government operating in the shadows conducted itself. Bush made a deft political move, one that may leave him and his reputation unscathed as the Sept. 11 commission comes nosing around the White House.

A far-reaching probe into the innermost recesses of the U.S. Intelligence Community and its failure to warn against or thwart the attacks could embarrass the White House and some of its allies in the war against terrorism, whose scope seems to broaden almost daily. The temperament of the new panel will determine how tomorrow’s history books look, what future generations say about the current administration, and how many more years the American people will keep Bush in office. An investigative approach (rare of a presidential panel) would bring juicy intelligence secrets to the nation’s front pages while an institutional approach would whitewash the failure of the Intelligence Community. Bush and the other Kissinger supporters seem to think he will steer a course through the middle, or at least disguise the conclusions enough to sell to the public and the administration.

Neal Pollack, writing for The New York Times, said that Kissinger “can shoot powerful laser beams from his eyes [and] kill vampires,” while Maureen Dowd of the same newspaper marveled in print at the reputation he still enjoys after having wiretapped back in the day so many of the same columnists who are now in charge of his new character check-up. Old-timer William Safire claimed that Kissinger has changed for the better and welcomed him back home to the beltway, while the Times editorial board questioned his ethical standards, especially his contention that his consulting firm’s corporate clients would not influence the work of the commission. What all these pundits have in common is an ease with quick wit and equally speedy retorts, and a collective feeling of sinking into the journalistic comfort zone of shared experience (Safire reminds us half a dozen times that he was there with Henry) and little new insight. Taking proxy jabs at each other through the body politik of Henry Kissinger, the analysts today see their role as purely that of sideshow entertainer, afraid of tackling the larger issues that will face the Sept. 11 panel.

Mr. Kissinger is an ironically-controversial and controversially-ironic figure. President Bush’s appointment was an inappropriate choice, given this absurdity. But ce qui est fait est fait It is as unlikely that Mr. Kissinger will indict the president himself as it is that he will risk his place in history just to keep his corporate consulting fees flowing. If and when the ink-letting surrounding Mr. Kissinger subsides, it will be time to focus the nation’s attention on the scope, the depth and the power of the new commission. History marches on.