The Note: Jeb Bush: 3 Days, 4 Different Answers About Iraq

--IT ALL STARTED WITH ONE QUESTION posed by Fox News' Megyn Kelly: "Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion" of Iraq in 2003? And over the last few days,Jeb Bush, who is not yet an official presidential candidate, has struggled to grab hold of one answer. Here's a look back:1. YES. "I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got." --Jeb Bush on Fox News' "The Kelly File" (aired Monday, May 11)
2. I DON'T KNOW. "I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about, given what people knew then, would you have done it ... knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and the focus on security ... the simple fact is, in the last few years of my brother's presidency, the surge was quite effective to bring security and stability to Iraq, which was missing in the early days ... that security has been totally obliterated by [this] president's pulling out too early, and now these voids are filled by this barbaric, asymmetric threat ... I don't know what that decision would have been. That's a hypothetical." --Jeb Bush on The Sean Hannity radio show (Tuesday, May 12)
3. I WON'T SAY BECAUSE TALKING ABOUT IT DOES A DISSERVICE TO THOSE WHO SERVED. "The problem with hypotheticals is two-fold. One, when I was governor I got to -- I felt it a duty, I didn't have to -- to call all the family members of people who lost their lives and I don't remember the total number but it was easily over 100. And I felt it a duty to do that because I admired the sacrifice of their families. And I admired the men and women -- mostly men -- that made the ultimate sacrifice. So, going back in time and talking about hypotheticals -- what would have happened what could have happened, I think, does a disservice for them." --Jeb Bush at a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada (Wednesday, May 13) Jeb Bush Suggests Asking
4. PROBABLY NOT. "Talking about the future is more than fair. Talking about the past and saying, how would you have done something after the fact is a little tougher. ... Of course, given the power of looking back and having that -- of course anybody would have made different decisions. There's no denying that. But to delve into that and not focus on the future is where I need to draw the line." --Jeb Bush in a gaggle with reporters after a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada (Wednesday, May 13) Jeb Bush Suggests Asking

Click to expand...

Read more @: The Note: Jeb Bush: 3 Days, 4 Different Answers About Iraq

Yes, no, maybe. I don't know. Can you repeat the question? You're not the boss of me now. So confused... Thats quite a development of positions overtime. But thank you for basically confirming that you you are basically running for POTUS.

He needs to get more organized on this, he is going to be nonstop challenged on the prior actions of everyone else that shares his last name. Especially his brother.

3 different answers, not 4, and one opinion.

Fiddytree said:

3 different answers, not 4, and one opinion.

Click to expand...

Which one is the "opinion"?

Politics fosters obfuscation. Why don't voters value a person who sticks to their beliefs, preferences and plans? Why do voters prefer political theater to political reality? It's always been this way. It doesn't say anything positive about society.

TheDemSocialist said:

Which one is the "opinion"?

Click to expand...

Probably the one where he slips and says he's a candidate?

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: The Note: Jeb Bush: 3 Days, 4 Different Answers About Iraq

Yes, no, maybe. I don't know. Can you repeat the question? You're not the boss of me now. So confused... Thats quite a development of positions overtime. But thank you for basically confirming that you you are basically running for POTUS. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

I respect Jeb Bush, like him as a person and a leader, and I hope he's the next President of the United States, so I'm perhaps biased here, but I don't see this a four different answers.

And let's not forget that George W. is his brother and they are in a very close and loyal family and the media is trying to get him to diss on his brother and he's just not going to do it.

In the first question, as proven by his reference to Clinton, he interpreted the question to be if he was President at the time would he have made the same decision. In the second question, he was clarifying that he misinterpreted the original question and expanded on his answer. In the third question, he's not going to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake because it dishonors those who fought the war on behalf of the US and the coalition. In the final question, he's just saying let's move on and look to the future.

All four answers are consistent and an expansion on his view as it progressed over three days.

Pretty decent of him, in my view, to keep addressing the questions honestly and in a straight forward way, not weaseling out, and unlike the current occupant of the White House, he doesn't have a cadre of flunkies who rush to microphones to try to interpret what he said or meant to say or was thinking, etc. He does it himself.

He can expect lots of these gotcha attempts by both the media and other candidates. He's maintained an even temper and approach so far, in these early days, and I expect him to continue as such and hone his message as he moves along. One thing clear, however, is that he doesn't back away from issues he cares deeply about and positions he believes in even when those issues and positions aren't in line with some other people's views.

TheDemSocialist said:

Which one is the "opinion"?

Click to expand...

The first interview demonstrated he did not answer the question as the interviewer intended. He instead gave the opinion that, given what they knew it 2001-2002, he and Hillary Clinton would have pressed forward. This isn't a shocking statement by any means, and as recent scholarship has at least decently illustrated, had significant legs to stand on. Counter factual analysis makes it fairly probable that war would have happened, with its design and aftermath planning being the likely difference in a Gore administration.

He did not endorse the view that he would have invaded with all of the hindsight afforded to us (as was the interviewer's intent).

Liberals and Leftists, on the other hand, presupposed that this was in fact an endorsement of Bush being willing to go in even after hindsight provided us with all of this extra information.

Bush, meanwhile, also stated that he wasn't entirely interested in playing the woulda coulda shoulda game. Then, finally, he relented and said, no, he would probably not have invaded.

Bush had a messaging problem-one that deserves criticism. However, he didn't really move back and forth on much of anything.

So, in sum, here's what Bush was thinking the entire time: given the information we had at the time, it was likely I would have invaded, however, if hindsight was afforded to me, I would not have gone in. However, again, this woulda coulda shoulda game is not very productive.

It sounds rather coherent and reasonable to me. The problem was, and he should really do work on this so as to not screw it up so badly in the coming months, he screwed up in messaging it in one statement.

Fiddytree said:

3 different answers, not 4, and one opinion.

Click to expand...

I suspect his first answer was his actual true opinion and the others are just trying to cover his own ass and mitigate the damage he did with that first answer.

haymarket said:

I suspect his first answer was his actual true opinion and the others are just trying to cover his own ass and mitigate the damage he did with that first answer.

Click to expand...

That is probably right. What is amazing, though, is that he didn't have an answer ready for this question. Its pretty obvious that if it were known that Saddam had no WMD's there would have been no war resolution, so, no war. The good news for republicans is that they have a number of choices other than Bush for 2016, unlike democrats who have one option and have to defend everything she says and does.

Fletch said:

That is probably right. What is amazing, though, is that he didn't have an answer ready for this question. Its pretty obvious that if it were known that Saddam had no WMD's there would have been no war resolution, so, no war. The good news for republicans is that they have a number of choices other than Bush for 2016, unlike democrats who have one option and have to defend everything she says and does.

Click to expand...

The scary part is that perhaps Jeb did have an answer for the predictable question and he gave it to us.

I agree with the observation about the Dems in 2016. I still have a suspicion that Clinton will stand down at some point - I only hope it is sooner to allow the party to present the best possible candidate.

haymarket said:

The scary part is that perhaps Jeb did have an answer for the predictable question and he gave it to us.

I agree with the observation about the Dems in 2016. I still have a suspicion that Clinton will stand down at some point - I only hope it is sooner to allow the party to present the best possible candidate.

Click to expand...

Agreed. A Bush v Clinton would be the worst possible matchup for 2016. Bush's answer on Iraq just made that possibility a bit less likely. As for Hillary, I don't see her stepping aside, but one never knows. More than likely someone will have to step up and beat her in the primaries.

Fletch said:

Agreed. A Bush v Clinton would be the worst possible matchup for 2016. Bush's answer on Iraq just made that possibility a bit less likely. As for Hillary, I don't see her stepping aside, but one never knows. More than likely someone will have to step up and beat her in the primaries.

Click to expand...

You very well could be correct. I never thought it would be Bush in 2016 - I think Walker has the greatest potential to be the candidate who could win in November if he can get the nomination.

Clinton install the favorite as I think she could win because the electoral demographics are on her side. However, I think she would not be a great president and its time we moved on. Its going to be interesting to see what happens when the nation has to look at an aging Hillary every day for month after month after month. I plead guilty to the sexiest overtones that are implicit in that statement but its true just the same no matter how politically incorrect it sounds. The woman is simply not aging well and I wonder if she will grate on the public between now and next year.

Right now - I see nobody beating her in the primaries since that is greatly a function of money and organization and the two who have stepped forward simply cannot match even half of what she can put forward in terms of weaponry.

My fear is the that we end up with Hillary by default and then between July and November the process sets in where the nation turns against her. The only thing that would save the Dems would be if the GOP turns hard right and gives us Cruz or Paul or somebody who seriously damages themselves in the primaries with the middle.

The Best Thing that Jeb Bush could do is get up there an say "Look....my brother was and is an idiot. I am not my brother and am much smarter than him. Judge me by me, not by the actions of my imbecile brother". Anything short of that is going to result in continuous damage to his campaign.

'-Jeb Bush you're a traitor!
But dont worry, cause I wont kill(scold) you!
You betrayed yourself, the story of America!'