"Are we reaming out George W. Bush for invading Iraq and deposing a murderous dictator, or are we reaming out George H. W. Bush for NOT invading Iraq and deposing a murderous dictator?"

The latter. Apparently George H made a speech with something to do with Iraqis overthrowing Saddam. The story goes that as a result of this speech, Iraqi started an uprising and as result, a large number of Iraqi got killed by Saddam's forces.
Now, as far as I recall I don't remember George H making any promises of using the US miltary to help a uprising.
I do know for example, that in the cease fire agreement an oral agreement was made that Saddam could use helicopters- because a lot of the bridges had been demolished in war. In other words the US airforce wouldn't shoot down these helicopers. AND apparently this was a MISTAKE because this "allowed" the Iraq miltary to use helicopers in other ways (bending the agreement- which was intended to allow emergency type access to areas which couldn't be reached because disabled bridges). Now, this "error" was later "clarified", but I'm guessing this that for some time period, this had some deleterlous affect perhaps in regards to Shite and possibly Kurd "uprising" (or Saddam crackdown)- I don't know the extent of this affect, other than it was a "regrettable error".
Then of course I remember the media crisis in terms the Kurds in the north, and how Bush "appeared" slow to respond and got a bunch critism from the press for this.
Now, from what recall George H did promise to legitimate any new govt or group which formed. But the extent of assistance, I'm not sure if any miltary assistance promised or suggested as possible, or what. The other aspect of this was what was actually occurring on the ground in Iraq at the time of George H making these statements- was he speaking in response to some Iraqi activity or did this activity follow from his statements.