Jeb Bush: I would have invaded Iraq

[JimH52]

Jeb was trying to be honest. Sorry his manner of answering disappointed you.

I would be more inclined to agree if he had not previously answered in exactly the opposite manner, then spent four days walking it back to his Final Answer, yes?

come on man, he screwed up. he answered the question he thought she was going to ask rather than the question she actually asked.

This is much ado about nothing, Jeb is not going to be the GOP candidate.

I agree that it is likely that Jeb is not going to be the GOP candidate.

I disagree that it is much ado about nothing.

I also disagree with your assessment that he 'screwed up' with respect to the understanding and answering of the question.

He knew exactly what was being asked, and he had known for weeks or months, prior to that time, that the question was going to be asked.

And, if not, he has no business holding himself out as sufficiently competent to take-on any sort of national leadership or governing role, never mind the Presidency itself.

Hell, any 15-year-old taking a high school poli-sci or history class could foresee the nature and timing of that question.

So could Jeb Bush.

This wasn't a screw-up.

He began the sequence by supporting GW Bush's decision.

Then he spent the next four days back-pedaling, until, in the end, he came-off looking like the Cowardly Lion, who could not stand by his convictions, nor his own brother.

For shame.

If he had any ghost-of-a-chance of obtaining the GOP nomination, it seems quite possible that this little four-day -long charade, has squashed any such chance.

Speaking strictly as a matter of personal opinion... you're trying to defend the indefensible in this narrow context, Red, and it won't wash.

Sorry.

Let it go.

my intent is not to defend jeb bush. I never supported him and never will.

are you saying he gave the wrong answer because he is stupid or because he did not listen carefully to the question?

He obviously had a planned talking point to deliver and started the delivery when he heard the word 'iraq'.

If I could choose the GOP ticket, it would be Kasich/Rubio. How about you?

I am saying that Jeb made the mistake of giving any kind of answer, because it was a No-Win scenario for him, no matter which way he answered.

I am saying that Jeb knew exactly what was being asked, at the time or the original question-posing, all protestations to the contrary on his part notwithstanding.

It was going to be The Obvious Question of his own candidacy and a blind man could have seen it coming a mile off and that he saw it coming too and simply flubbed it by serving-up an answer of any kind.

I've already served-up a Damned-if-I-Do-and-Damned-if-I-Don't solution which I perceive would have sufficed, and defused the situation, but, I, too, could very well be wrong.

Nobody over the age of 10 believes he 'misunderstood The Question'.

As to a decent GOP ticket... I truly don't know yet... I'm still thinking that one over.

You don't think he and his dozens of advisers understood the question? You really believe that or are your just trying to shock us?

And please answer my previous question concerning your brother. Would you not hand over your brother if you knew he committed murder?

 

[Kondor3]

Would you throw YOUR brother under the bus?

I wouldn't.

Kind of depends what he did, wouldn't it?...

Nope.

...If my brother was an ax murderer, yeah, I'd throw him under the bus in a heartbeat...

Disagree... your commitment to family differs from my own, apparently.

...If my brother started a war based on a lie, completely mucked up the operation, got 5000 Americans and a million Iraqis killed, allowed the Iranians to dominate the middle east, then yes, I would throw him under the bus...

Disagree... I have already served-up my own personal solution for handling such a situation... it will have to stand or fall upon its own merits.

...I also wouldn't claim that I should be president because of my family connections, which is what Jebby is trying to do here.

Agreed.

Ditto for Billary.

Wait....you are saying that if your brother committed a murder you would harbor him? Is that what you are saying?

Nope... and you don't get to put words into my mouth, either.

 

[JoeB131]

Sooooo, he should have refused to answer?

He should have said. "based on what we know today, I would not have attacked Iraq, based on what we knew at the time, I, and almost everyone else including both Clintons, would have supported the attack"

Except that would be a lie. The point is, Clinton didn't order an all-out invasion in 1999, when he had pretty much the same dubious evidence.

The underlying flaw of the 'Congress gave me authorization' argument is that Bush misused the authorization. Saddam had ALREADY agreed to allow inspections to resume. But allowing inspections to resume was never Bush's goal.

You don't deploy 4 divisions and six aircraft carriers to theater if you are just trying to pressure someone into allowing inspections to resume. Bush's intent was always to go to war.

 

[JimH52]

Would you throw YOUR brother under the bus?

I wouldn't.

Kind of depends what he did, wouldn't it?...

Nope.

...If my brother was an ax murderer, yeah, I'd throw him under the bus in a heartbeat...

Disagree... your commitment to family differs from my own, apparently.

...If my brother started a war based on a lie, completely mucked up the operation, got 5000 Americans and a million Iraqis killed, allowed the Iranians to dominate the middle east, then yes, I would throw him under the bus...

Disagree... I have already served-up my own personal solution for handling such a situation... it will have to stand or fall upon its own merits.

...I also wouldn't claim that I should be president because of my family connections, which is what Jebby is trying to do here.

Agreed.

Ditto for Billary.

Wait....you are saying that if your brother committed a murder you would harbor him? Is that what you are saying?

Nope... and you don't get to put words into my mouth, either.

Then you would harbor a criminal. COOL!

 

[Kondor3]

I would be more inclined to agree if he had not previously answered in exactly the opposite manner, then spent four days walking it back to his Final Answer, yes?

come on man, he screwed up. he answered the question he thought she was going to ask rather than the question she actually asked.

This is much ado about nothing, Jeb is not going to be the GOP candidate.

I agree that it is likely that Jeb is not going to be the GOP candidate.

I disagree that it is much ado about nothing.

I also disagree with your assessment that he 'screwed up' with respect to the understanding and answering of the question.

He knew exactly what was being asked, and he had known for weeks or months, prior to that time, that the question was going to be asked.

And, if not, he has no business holding himself out as sufficiently competent to take-on any sort of national leadership or governing role, never mind the Presidency itself.

Hell, any 15-year-old taking a high school poli-sci or history class could foresee the nature and timing of that question.

So could Jeb Bush.

This wasn't a screw-up.

He began the sequence by supporting GW Bush's decision.

Then he spent the next four days back-pedaling, until, in the end, he came-off looking like the Cowardly Lion, who could not stand by his convictions, nor his own brother.

For shame.

If he had any ghost-of-a-chance of obtaining the GOP nomination, it seems quite possible that this little four-day -long charade, has squashed any such chance.

Speaking strictly as a matter of personal opinion... you're trying to defend the indefensible in this narrow context, Red, and it won't wash.

Sorry.

Let it go.

my intent is not to defend jeb bush. I never supported him and never will.

are you saying he gave the wrong answer because he is stupid or because he did not listen carefully to the question?

He obviously had a planned talking point to deliver and started the delivery when he heard the word 'iraq'.

If I could choose the GOP ticket, it would be Kasich/Rubio. How about you?

I am saying that Jeb made the mistake of giving any kind of answer, because it was a No-Win scenario for him, no matter which way he answered.

I am saying that Jeb knew exactly what was being asked, at the time or the original question-posing, all protestations to the contrary on his part notwithstanding.

It was going to be The Obvious Question of his own candidacy and a blind man could have seen it coming a mile off and that he saw it coming too and simply flubbed it by serving-up an answer of any kind.

I've already served-up a Damned-if-I-Do-and-Damned-if-I-Don't solution which I perceive would have sufficed, and defused the situation, but, I, too, could very well be wrong.

Nobody over the age of 10 believes he 'misunderstood The Question'.

As to a decent GOP ticket... I truly don't know yet... I'm still thinking that one over.

Sooooo, he should have refused to answer?

He should have said. "based on what we know today, I would not have attacked Iraq, based on what we knew at the time, I, and almost everyone else including both Clintons, would have supported the attack"

My own solution may be found in Post #432...

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq Page 44 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

For right or wrong... for better or worse.

 

[JoeB131]

To Kondor,

The problem with your notion of brotherly loyalty is that loyalty to family outweighs common morality.

My brother and I did actually have a discussion like this once, when the UnaBomber's brother turned him in after recognizing the rants in his New York Times manifesto as things he had heard him say before. My attitude was, if I had ever gone that far off the rails that I was blowing people up, I would hope my family would turn me in before I hurt anyone else.

The thing is, the House Bush has been fighting this vendetta against House Hussein for 25 years now. This wasn't an error in judgement, this was a deliberate philosophy that goes back to when both Bush brothers and most of their henchmen signed on to the PNAC charter.

 

[Kondor3]

...please answer my previous question concerning your brother. Would you not hand over your brother if you knew he committed murder?

It all depends on the nature of the murder and the nature of the underlying circumstances now, doesn't it?

If my brother killed another person because he was insane, I would probably hand over my brother.

If my brother killed another person as part of a conscious and intentional act of evil, merely for the sake of doing evil, I would probably hand over my brother.

If my brother killed another person in the commission of a robbery or in a fit of rage (passion, jealously, etc.) then, I would probably not turn him in, and might very well even temporarily harbor him, until he could make could his getaway, while encouraging him to turn himself in, and also encouraging him to leave, as quickly as practicable.

If my brother, as a political leader, made a wrong decision to go to war, which many might call murder, I would not throw him under the bus, nor give aid and comfort to those seeking to censure or sanction or condemn or punish him.

And, of course, once I had served-up such a refusal, I would not back-pedal, to the detriment of my brother, merely for political gain.

Such spinelessness is not to be trusted with the safety and well-being of The Nation and The People.

Hope that helps to clarify things.

 

[Kondor3]

To Kondor,

The problem with your notion of brotherly loyalty is that loyalty to family outweighs common morality.

My brother and I did actually have a discussion like this once, when the UnaBomber's brother turned him in after recognizing the rants in his New York Times manifesto as things he had heard him say before. My attitude was, if I had ever gone that far off the rails that I was blowing people up, I would hope my family would turn me in before I hurt anyone else.

The thing is, the House Bush has been fighting this vendetta against House Hussein for 25 years now. This wasn't an error in judgement, this was a deliberate philosophy that goes back to when both Bush brothers and most of their henchmen signed on to the PNAC charter.

My No. 467 (above) may be of some help in mitigating that perception... I dunno.

 

[Kondor3]

To Kondor,

The problem with your notion of brotherly loyalty is that loyalty to family outweighs common morality.

My brother and I did actually have a discussion like this once, when the UnaBomber's brother turned him in after recognizing the rants in his New York Times manifesto as things he had heard him say before. My attitude was, if I had ever gone that far off the rails that I was blowing people up, I would hope my family would turn me in before I hurt anyone else.

The thing is, the House Bush has been fighting this vendetta against House Hussein for 25 years now. This wasn't an error in judgement, this was a deliberate philosophy that goes back to when both Bush brothers and most of their henchmen signed on to the PNAC charter.

A little too House Atreides v. House Harkonnen for my taste, but I take your meaning.

And, of course, going on-record as a member of a particular mindset is not the same thing as pulling a trigger.

Given my personal aversion to Political Family Dynasties in the United States, I would probably not have supported Jeb's candidacy, anyway.

But, now that he's screwed-the-pooch and (1) supported his brother, early-on, then (2) back-pedaled and reversed himself and caved into pressure and given aid-and-comfort to those seeking to further deride and condemn his own brother, any ghostly wisp of a chance that I could ever support his candidacy has now evaporated.

But that's a matter of personal opinion, and my choice.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraq was a mistake then, now, and forever. No, redfish, the entire world did not support it, not the inspectors, not 157 congressional Democrats, not tens of millions of Americans. It was not an error, it was crime.

Bring our folks homes, re-invent the Border Patrol to secure the borders, build the AF and Navy as shields for the homeland, and continue building our energy independence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraq was a mistake then, now, and forever. No, redfish, the entire world did not support it, not the inspectors, not 157 congressional Democrats, not tens of millions of Americans. It was not an error, it was crime.

Bring our folks home, re-invent the Border Patrol to secure the borders, build the AF and Navy as shields for the homeland, and continue building our energy independence.

 

[Slyhunter]

Sooooo, he should have refused to answer?

He should have said. "based on what we know today, I would not have attacked Iraq, based on what we knew at the time, I, and almost everyone else including both Clintons, would have supported the attack"

Except that would be a lie. The point is, Clinton didn't order an all-out invasion in 1999, when he had pretty much the same dubious evidence.

The underlying flaw of the 'Congress gave me authorization' argument is that Bush misused the authorization. Saddam had ALREADY agreed to allow inspections to resume. But allowing inspections to resume was never Bush's goal.

You don't deploy 4 divisions and six aircraft carriers to theater if you are just trying to pressure someone into allowing inspections to resume. Bush's intent was always to go to war.

Saddam never agreed to giving the inspectors full unfettered access.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where have all the posters gone who for years relentlessly defended Iraq as a brilliant idea even when we all knew now what we didn't know then?

That's the important question. The silent capitulation of the diehards.

If you are talking about the democrats like both Clintons who fully supported the Iraq fiasco, they are still out there but are pretending they did not say what they said back then.

The fact is that the entire world bought into the bad intel.

Personally, I never thought invading Iraq on the ground was the right thing to do. We could have removed Saddam by covert means and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Last I heard, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, key players, were still holding the view that invading Iraq was the right thing to do even knowing what we know now.

those idiots are wrong, whats your point?

Not to most of your RW pals.

 

[Redfish]

Iraq was a mistake then, now, and forever. No, redfish, the entire world did not support it, not the inspectors, not 157 congressional Democrats, not tens of millions of Americans. It was not an error, it was crime.

Bring our folks home, re-invent the Border Patrol to secure the borders, build the AF and Navy as shields for the homeland, and continue building our energy independence.

I think we are saying the same thing, fool.

It was a mistake that cost thousands of american lives and billions of dollars. Where you are off base is when you try to claim that only republicans (or only Bush) supported that fiasco.

both parties voted to authorize and fund it. The UK, EU, Germay, France, Spain, Saudi arabia, Japan, Russia, and the rest of the world bought into the bad itel, and thats what it was, bad intel on WMDs and Saddam's planned use of them.

If you would get off the partisan bullshit for just a few minutes you might start making sense.

 

[Redfish]

Where have all the posters gone who for years relentlessly defended Iraq as a brilliant idea even when we all knew now what we didn't know then?

That's the important question. The silent capitulation of the diehards.

If you are talking about the democrats like both Clintons who fully supported the Iraq fiasco, they are still out there but are pretending they did not say what they said back then.

The fact is that the entire world bought into the bad intel.

Personally, I never thought invading Iraq on the ground was the right thing to do. We could have removed Saddam by covert means and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Last I heard, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, key players, were still holding the view that invading Iraq was the right thing to do even knowing what we know now.

those idiots are wrong, whats your point?

Not to most of your RW pals.

thats not true. the vast majority of conservatives agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money. So was Viet Nam. If we don't learn from out mistakes, we will repeat them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish, you define American Creepy.

No, we are not saying the same thing. Only you are saying lies, such as, "Where you are off base is when you try to claim that only republicans (or only Bush) supported that fiasco." Only you are saying that, not folks who are American Normal.

It was a mistake that cost thousands of american lives and billions of dollars. Germany and France and Russia and others did not buy into the bad intel and refused to join the coalition. Spain left the coalition. Don't you dare try to say the NATO forces supported the invasion; they sure the fuck did not.

You need to follow this good advice, "If you would get off the partisan bullshit for just a few minutes you might start making sense" and stop being the face and voice of American Creepy.

 

[JoeB131]

My No. 467 (above) may be of some help in mitigating that perception... I dunno.

No, it was actually kind of retarded which is why I'm ignoring it.

 

[Kondor3]

My No. 467 (above) may be of some help in mitigating that perception... I dunno.

No, it was actually kind of retarded which is why I'm ignoring it.

Thank you for your feedback... I see it differently.

 

[JoeB131]

A little too House Atreides v. House Harkonnen for my taste, but I take your meaning.

That was exactly the point I was trying to get across.

Given my personal aversion to Political Family Dynasties in the United States, I would probably not have supported Jeb's candidacy, anyway.

But, now that he's screwed-the-pooch and (1) supported his brother, early-on, then (2) back-pedaled and reversed himself and caved into pressure and given aid-and-comfort to those seeking to further deride and condemn his own brother, any ghostly wisp of a chance that I could ever support his candidacy has now evaporated.

Again, guy, come back and talk to me after it's Hillary vs. Jeb, because that's what this is going to come down to. My guess, Hillary's poonany will scare you more than Jeb's brain-deadness.

 

[JoeB131]

Saddam never agreed to giving the inspectors full unfettered access.

not immediately. But they were in and that was a pretty good starting point.

Here was the thing, we all know that Saddam didn't have weapons now. He was trying to maintain the illusion he might have them to intimidate the Iranians and his own people. So, yes, it might have taken a couple of months to get Saddam to finally fess up and admit he didn't really have these weapons...

But that certainly would have been preferable to what we DID do.