It's relevant because if Bush's scores had been higher then the argument could be made that he didn't get AA because he didn't need AA. But to be fair, one man who got AA and went on to poor performance does not mean AA is a bad idea in its entirety.
No, just that what happened to Bush (or what did not happen to him) is no longer worth discussion. I have no idea if your article is correct or not, it's not worth the effort to look and see.
You betcha. But we're all set for the next time someone berates Obama (who, newsflash, cannot be releected) as an AA beneficiary.
Regardless of whether or not he can be re-elected, Obama is a lot more relevant than Bush these days. If you're implying he is not, then you're more of a fucking imbecile than I had previously thought.
Then discuss AA with relevant policy and people. Or did you want to waste time talking about how AA could have helped Frederick Douglas during the Civil War?