Ted Cruz on invading Iraq knowing what we know now: Nope. Chris Christie: Nope. Jeb Bush: I’m … not sure
posted at 11:31 am on May 13, 2015 by Allahpundit
Watch the three (short) clips below. Having Christie and Cruz, two guys at opposite poles of the party, give the same answer to this question is all the proof you need that it’s the “correct” answer politically, even in a primary filled with hawkish voters. That goes double for Jeb Bush since the Iraq albatross around his neck is twice as heavy as it is for everyone else; there’s a reason why he’s been telling audiences for months that “I’m my own man.” And yet, having seen this question twice now from two friendly-ish interviewers in Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity, knowing that it’s the one topic more than any other on which he needs a very good answer, Bush whiffed. Both times. How’d that happen?
I could almost understand it if he was taking a defiant pro-war approach a la Quin Hillyer in today’s NRO, betting that Republican voters have invested so much political capital in defending the invasion over the past 12 years that they’d reward a candidate who took their side unapologetically. That would be an odd approach for a guy who’s resolved to preserve his general-election appeal to centrists even if it means angering righties in the primaries, but it’s not crazy to think you can’t go wrong trying to out-hawk the rest of the field in a GOP contest. Hannity gave him a chance to make that case, though, and Bush … passed. He said he doesn’t know if he’d order the invasion knowing then what we know now, the one answer guaranteed to irritate everyone. Now super-hawks like Rubio can slam him for being weaselly and indecisive and more dovish opponents like Paul can slam him for doubling down on an intervention that cost the party the presidency and both houses of Congress. Before this week, I would have guessed that Team Jeb had prepared a script for him on Iraq and insisted that he memorize it within the first hour after announcing his presidential exploratory committee last winter. As it is, he’s claiming that he hasn’t thought enough about this subject to give Hannity a definitive answer. Amazing.
What explains this? Did Jeb Bush really decide to run for president, fully aware what his main obstacle was, only on the condition that he not be asked to distinguish himself from Dubya too much on Dubya’s biggest liability?
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
House backs Rep. Clark (D-MA)’s request that DOJ prioritize online harassment investigations
From “HOPE” to hopeless: Creator of iconic Obama poster not happy with subject
Federal sources: Denny Hastert was paying someone off to conceal past sexual misconduct
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Brit Hume hardest hit.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:33 AM
The correct answer: Would I invade Iraq if I had known ahead of time that I would be succeeded by a President who would do everything in his power to surrender what we accomplished, give comfort to the enemy, and endanger the United States? No.
Darin on May 13, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Jeb-Jeb, just go home.
Flange on May 13, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Faux’ twisting over Jeb’s idiocy was hilarious.
It was better than Hillary calling on Mrs. Roosevelt.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:34 AM
weedisgood on May 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM
The only thing that bugs me about these answers is that Saddam DID have WMD. They all act like he had nothing at all. At least set the record street when answering.
Jack_Burton on May 13, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Jeb Bush is not ready for “prime time”.
Redstone on May 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Any answer to that question shows how dumb these guys are.
Why expose yourself to criticism to a hypothetical question? If these guys were asked “Knowing what you know now, would you have dated your now-sister-in-law instead?”, I’m pretty sure we’d get a answer that shuts down the question.
Kelly is really baiting these guys for some reason.
BobMbx on May 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Seriously…
…and I mean SERIOUSLY as in “I absolutely promise…”
…if Jeb Bush ends up with the GOP nomination, I will NOT be one of those guys who said “I’m staying home” who ends up supporting the nominee because he’s better than the Dem.
In this case, the margin by which Jeb is better than any potential Dem nominee is so marginal so as to be irrelevant.
I’ll stay home or vote third party.
DRayRaven on May 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM
If they had asked him, “Mr. Bush, do you support the invasion of America by illegal immigrants?” he would have answered “YES!!!!!!” before the interviewer even finished asking the question.
Redstone on May 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM
Just promise to never again nation-build in the hellhole that is the Middle East.
John the Libertarian on May 13, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Patrick Buchanan vindicated again.
Do y’all realize how better the world would be had we nominated Buchanan in ’88 instead of Bush?
ReaganCajun on May 13, 2015 at 11:41 AM
My answer would be that it would depend on whether my generals saw a way we could start by securing the border between Iraq and Syria.
Since the justification was keeping WMDs out of the hands of bad actors, and it’s extremely likely that much of Saddam’s WMDs went across the border to Syria during the beginning stages of the war, if you can’t prevent the WMDs from being sent away, there isn’t a lot of point. You’re just putting them into the hands of a Syrian bad actor instead of an Iraqi bad actor.
This is worth the life of even one US soldier why, exactly?
But if you can show a reasonable possibility of capturing those WMDs, getting them into US hands so they can actually be destroyed, so that Iraq, Syria, Iran, ISIS, whoever, don’t have them available at all… yeah, I might consider it.
Of course, “knowing what we know now,” that the next President would give away all our gains after I was out of office… maybe not.
GrumpyOldFart on May 13, 2015 at 11:42 AM
That is the correct answer.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Even if everything our intelligence told us was true, we never should have invaded Iraq. We should have finished completely in Afghanistan before we even thought of trying to start another war.
The US should not be the police of the world nor should we ever nation build. Nothing but mad mojo happens when we try.
txaggie on May 13, 2015 at 11:43 AM
I maintain that Elizabeth Warren would be a significant improvement over Jebba the Bush. First, she would destroy TBTF banks, a worthy target that none of the Republican candidates (with possible exception of Rand Paul) seems to be swinging at now. And second, she will bring about the collapse of the country so much sooner, I might actually enjoy a breathe of constitutional freedom (if I survive the bloodbath that inevitably precedes it).
As for Hillary, she can as well *be* another Bush. What difference does it make?
Rix on May 13, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Pointing out that the worst President in history wouldn’t have happened if the previous President wasn’t demeaned by the media, doesn’t really bolster the guy who is still the worst.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Hindsight is 20/20. I do think going forward though, we have to think about the power vacuum we create we create when we take these dictators out. Some of them are not the worst we will see. Saddam was horrible, no doubt, but ISIS and Iran filling his power vacuum is horrendous.
melle1228 on May 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Adjoran/joana will set y’all straight.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM
The only thing I like about the Pauls is that they would audit the Fed.
John the Libertarian on May 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Dummy, worst, obama, second worst Carter, who rejoices for obama…then all the rest.
Weed is not good for the environment.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM
Wake up, on topic.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Boehner and McConnell are Jeb-azz-dwellers.
All are worse charlatans than obama/Reid. The latter say what they’ll do.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 11:53 AM
I’m not so sure already. The enthusiasm with which the younger Paul polishes McConnell’s knob is kinda chilling my enthusiasm.
Rix on May 13, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Saddam had to be removed. Period.
Knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t have tried the democracy experiment there – certainly not without politically cutting up the country (if not de jure, then de facto) first so the rational actors in each sector would have an argument to keep the lunatics from taking over.
When you are a Sunni tribal leader dreaming about peace, it is hard to oppose the Sunni lunatics when those lunatics are the ones carrying the weight of fighting against the Shia lunatics who are trying to crush you under their boot heel, taking revenge on you for what Saddam did.
Oh, right. That’s what I was saying back then.
It wasn’t rocket science back then and now we have the hard proof, yet it is still being ignored.
fadetogray on May 13, 2015 at 11:54 AM
Nope another liberal fail, Bush’s favorability has been above Zero’s on recent occasions. Seriously , there can’t be anyone worse than Zero, however if Hillary were elected…..
Tater Salad on May 13, 2015 at 11:56 AM
…this is an exercise in futility…there are lots of things people would do differently if they had a crystal ball…why don’t we talk about what we’re gonna do about the problems we face now…
…and this fascination with allowing the Left-Tard media to set the “narrative” needs to stop…Odooshbag surrendered whatever gains we made when he failed to secure a Status of Forces agreement but the Left-Tard media will NEVER EVER acknowledge that and pin this to Bush…it’s freaking 2015 already let it go…
Pelosi Schmelosi on May 13, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Good answer.
Midas on May 13, 2015 at 11:59 AM
LOL.
I don’t normally point and laugh at those with obvious mental challenges, but *damn*…
Midas on May 13, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Um, not much has changed since 2003. The WMDs were a minor reason, mostly there because it was something important UN countries pretended to care about. So, yes, definitely we should have invaded knowing what we know now. What we shouldn’t have done is elected Obama and pulled out early.
Count to 10 on May 13, 2015 at 12:02 PM
And somehow Obama managed to do just that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/02/americans-say-obama-is-the-worst-president-since-world-war-ii-thats-not-his-real-problem/
But I digress.
As far as the topic of this thread, what an idiotic response by Jeb. This guy should just bow out already.
GOPRanknFile on May 13, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Easy. Jeb Bush just thought the Presidency is his because he’s entitled to it. I don’t doubt for a second that’s what he thought then and what he still thinks, and it’s exactly what Hillary believes too. It’s what most people running for President think about themselves. That they’re so special, amazing and unprecedented in the realm of politics, which is why Americans should vote for them. Or illegals, if you’re Jeb Bush. Or dead people, if you’re Obama/Hillary.
Aizen on May 13, 2015 at 12:05 PM
I’m so sick of the BS hypothetical’s and second guessing put forth by abject idiots which play into liberal stereotypes. They destroy the party with this nonsense and they don’t even realize it.
Gee, knowing what we know now- would we have attacked Germany in the 1930’s? Japan? Entered Vietnam? Crucified my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
It’s stupid and pointless garbage.
But let’s whip every candidate with it as some type of exercise in meaningful discourse.
We attacked and executed based on the best information available at the time. And you know what? It would have been a successful action except for the boob in the White House and his dolt Secretary of State who wants to now take his place.
I loath Jeb Bush and wish he would drop out of the race. But he at least gave a thoughtful answer.
But you know, it’s his brother *wink, wink*.
There are way too many oxygen thiefs in this world.
Marcus Traianus on May 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Really? This is why Obama won? The people were mad about invading Iraq? How often was that brought up on the campaign trail? How many times in the debates with McCain was that the central issue?
This smacks of revisionist history.
Neitherleftorright on May 13, 2015 at 12:10 PM
I never understood why it would have been a bad idea to split up the country? At a minimum, give the Kurds their own place in the north. Build them a cargo capable airport so they don’t have to worry about having a see port and leave them a few cargo planes.
But, power loves a vacuum. No way we could go in and wipe out the leading arse and not expect a bigger arse to take his place. We could just have to wipe out that arse later.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 12:10 PM
So now all the severe conservatives agree with Ron and Rand Paul? I wonder if any of them will be decent enough to offer an apology for smearing the Pauls as isolationists?
TBSchemer on May 13, 2015 at 12:13 PM
People in the media act like because his last name is Bush, that he knows what he is doing.
Take aside his horrendous views, his campaign has been amateur hour since day one.
He simply has no idea what he is doing, virtually every public appearance is a clown show filled with gaffes.
Redstone on May 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Yes. Why answer a stupid question at all, you will end up looking stupid because the question was stupid.
Neitherleftorright on May 13, 2015 at 12:17 PM
OT – coincidences
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM
Beautifully put.
thebrokenrattle on May 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM
So that you are clear:
1. Obama – general U.S. hating
2. FDR – socialist control and expanding the government
3. LBJ – expanding the welfare state, that was decreasing
4. Wilson – socialist that led the way for the rest
5. Carter – coward, destroyer of pride
6. Hoover – all he had to do was follow Coolidge’s lead
7. Bush 1 – never should have been on Reagan’s ticket
8. Nixon – an embarrassment
9. Bush 2 – NSA, Homeland Security, wasted perfect opportunity to reduce the government
10. Clinton – embarrassment, not higher on the list because Newt got him to heal
Your boy is at the top of the dung heap as being the worst.
Now, Lincoln could be on the list as well, depending on how you look at what he caused. But, he stays off because of what he prevented.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 12:20 PM
My wife listened to his reply to Meghan and then Sean after the stuff hit the fan and then looked over at me and said, “he isn’t too bright is he?”
Neitherleftorright on May 13, 2015 at 12:20 PM
W was right.
There were WMD
The war was won.
Dems betrayed the Iraqis and threw away the victory.
Just like in Vietnam.
Sometimes I hate the defeatist/isolationist right as much as I do th left.
Malachi45 on May 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM
I don’t really think people in the media act like that, as if the Bush name automatically makes Jeb a serious, campaign-savvy candidate. I think it’s just that the media wants to push Jeb on the GOP electorate because he’d be the weakest general election candidate which is something that everyone should be able to see from a mile away.
As for those clown show public appearances, it’s the result of Jeb thinking he’s entitled and inevitable. Pretty much the same reason Hillary keeps proving how she’s also an amateurish candidate whose campaign is one giant circus act.
Aizen on May 13, 2015 at 12:23 PM
You do realize that this was a stupid hypothetical question with only a stupid hypothetical answer in reply? That it was an exercise in political masturbation that has no meaning or bearing on anything real, just fantasy, you realize that right?
Neitherleftorright on May 13, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Hmm, how to answer a question based upon a false assumption?
Dubya’s biggest liability is not Iraq. It’s the economic meltdown of 2008. I have a hard time believing the 2003 invasion of Iraq will be an issue for more than a handful of 2016 voters.
I have a lot of reasons to dislike Jeb. I honestly don’t care about his views on what we should do about Iraq in some alternative revisionist history timeline.
Chris of Rights on May 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Text of President Clinton’s 1998 State of the Union Address
…and they’re not asking Slick and The Skank this very same question because..??
Pelosi Schmelosi on May 13, 2015 at 12:31 PM
He didn’t listen to the question.
He had his talking points and spit them out.
It’s all on him.
Sure, on all the reasoning before this part.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM
The problem is not what would have done back in 2003, but what you are planning to do in 2017. I am worried that the Super Hawks are still have too much power in the GOPe. They are obsessed with Democracy in the Islamic world, and that they feel Iraq was not a failure, but a victory snatched away by Obama’s ineptitude. There is no doubt Obama is inept, but Iraq was not a success story even before we left and never would be as long as Islam was a central plank in their constitution and for that matter culture.
Bush, Rubio, and Graham seem not to have learned anything from Iraq. Because of this in ability to learn from past strategic blunders, they will do it again in Iraq, or worse take the Islamic democracy show to Syria, Libya, etc. if elected president.
This is not a battle between hawks and doves, but a battle between super hawks and realist hawks. The key word being “realism”, something Bush, Rubio, and Graham seem to lack. Being optimistic and hopeful that things will work out if we just invade is not enough…
William Eaton on May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Again, I will be completely repulsed if a country with 300 million people can’t come up with two major party candidates for President not named Clinton or Bush.
Given that choice, I may, just may, and I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but I may vote for Hillary.
On some of the issues I care most about, I believe that she might actually be to the right of Jeb. She’s far more of a hawk than he, and despite her recent pandering to illegals, I believe her earlier comments on the issues are closer to her actual beliefs. Given her Wall Street ties, she’s probably more likely to support a reduction on capital gains taxes as well.
Chris of Rights on May 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM
This shows what a disaster he would be. Hopefully, this enough that enough RINO’s and big money establishmentarians siphon away from him and open the wider for a much stronger candidate.
cdog0613 on May 13, 2015 at 12:43 PM
…and another thing….if the Left-Tarded media is gonna play this game of…
…with Jeb, will they also play this game with Hillary and her Slimeball of a husband…of course not…
…I can’t stand Jeb but I loathe the hypocritical Left-Tard media more…
Pelosi Schmelosi on May 13, 2015 at 12:44 PM
I’ve said we have no opposition party. But actually, Democrat infighting is the new opposition party. Once in a while things like this Trans-Pacific Partnership thing get nixed, and maybe the Patriot act extension (we’ll see). Republicans just give Obama whatever he wants.
Fenris on May 13, 2015 at 12:47 PM
When dealing with Islamic lands, ruthless power -that can annihilate an enemy if needed- is what they respect.
The Iraq war was fought on increasingly p.c. terms that scared no one after a year or two (although Khadaffy did give up his nuke program in fear, so there’s that… which Obama then squandered with a similar Libyan folly to the Iraq folly) when it became clear we were unserious about crushing the imperialistic-terroristic expansionist threat from islam.
profitsbeard on May 13, 2015 at 12:47 PM
That we had no intention of winning: I wouldn’t go into Iraq.
Iblis on May 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM
It wasn’t a bad idea. But the Turks didn’t want an independent Kurdish state, and Saudi Arabia didn’t want an (even more) overwhelmingly Shiite state, and such a radical makeover would require a lot of selling which nobody wanted to do. In hindsight, the Turks are probably thinking they should’ve pushed for it.
Fenris on May 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM
We are still too late in calling the ROP what it really is. A thuggish, humanistic plan to enslave the world. If we had been told this from the beginning, we wouldn’t have had such high hopes for a peaceful outcome in Iraq.
Deano1952 on May 13, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Over 2 million unaccounted for Iraqis…History will be the final judge not you and Bush will be judged harshly for the blood bath in Iraq.
weedisgood on May 13, 2015 at 1:02 PM
Jeb Bush was still being evasive in his Hannity interview. I can’t really understand why or what benefit he hopes to gain by not giving a definitive answer. Cruz got this one right, “Of course not…”
Without WMD, there’s congressional authorization. No political will to invade Iraq. Even Cheney and the neo-cons couldn’t have drummed up the political will with the WMD bogeyman.
village idiot on May 13, 2015 at 1:03 PM
Over 2 million damaged brain cells, is what you have. You might want to cut down on the next toke a little.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 1:04 PM
…DID SADDAM GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE…YES OR NO..??
Pelosi Schmelosi on May 13, 2015 at 1:07 PM
Well, what would the Turks and Saudi Arabia do about it, if the US redrew Iraq?
A real President would know this and use it to his advantage. But, since the current Pretender in Chief has given up any power the US held over…well… any country, it would be a little harder.
LoganSix on May 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM
I won’t stay home. I can just imagine that someone will use my ballot to vote for their favorite liberal. So I will vote, but will write in Ted Cruz if he fails to get the nomination. I vowed after voting for McCain, then Romney that I will never vote for another RINO for the rest of my life. I’ve had it with the GOPe.
Conservative4Ever on May 13, 2015 at 1:12 PM
Well, Saudi Arabia still can set the price of oil (although, they seem to be wanting to keep it low for now, and maybe some of that power is waning) and Turkey has been a major NATO bulwark on the borders of Europe (although I question their future commitment to that). They can still do plenty. Though I agree that would have been a better course, for all sorts of reasons which I don’t want to get into an extended discussion about. Except to agree about the “Pretender in Chief” characterization.
Fenris on May 13, 2015 at 1:13 PM
They should have taken the high road and said that invading Iraq was the right decision, just for the fact we kept the terrorists busy fighting us there instead of on the homeland. Yes, we should have skipped all the nation building nonsense, but fighting the insurgency there was the right thing to do. And we DO know that Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria, so all this about the WMD story being false is nonsense.
Faramir on May 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM
History will judge your obama/Hillary/Kerry, and all the blood baths they caused.
Aside from Iran, Cuba and ISO rising, what have they succeeded in? Name one of their foreign policy successes, dumbfruck, I triple dare you.
Schadenfreude on May 13, 2015 at 1:15 PM
If you really believe history is the final judge, then you are sick in the head. All progressives have this disease.
Once you realize history is as big a pile of garbage as MSNBC’s “news,” real thinking can begin.
fadetogray on May 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM
I stand by what I have said elsewhere: “Nation-building” works, but only if you have the patience for it. The imperialist Japanese were just as fanatical as the theocratist Muslims. What it took to make the change was to make our arguments for liberty and capitalism to the grandchildren of those who saw us as “invaders.”
And without knowing anything more about them, you automatically count them as “killed by Bush.”
If they died in a sandstorm, they were killed by Bush.
If they were kidnapped by Iranian intelligence teams, they were killed by Bush.
If they escaped as refugees into Turkey or Jordan or wherever and have been living under a false name, they were killed by Bush.
If they were buried in mass graves by Saddam before, gassed by Assad during, or crucified by ISIS after, they were killed by Bush.
If they survived, joined ISIS and have since illegally crossed the US border as members of a sleeper terror team, they were killed by Bush.
If they are doing fine right where they always were, but have chosen to go off the grid for their own safety, or even if just the paperwork that shows their legal existence has been lost or destroyed and that doesn’t bother them, they were killed by Bush.
My cat had four paws.
My cat is dead.
Socrates is also dead.
Therefore Socrates must have had four paws.
What kind of engineer are you again? I want to make sure you never design anything I might actually use.
GrumpyOldFart on May 13, 2015 at 1:33 PM
You’re a history writer? I thought you were a stoned sanitation engineer?
Wow… you sure you’re tokin weed and not shrooms?
Neitherleftorright on May 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM
it seems idiotic to answer a hypothetical like that. Saddam was still way worse than ISIS is. Leaving Saddam and his sons in power would have just opened paths to some other horrors. Knowing what we now know would of course allow to avoid some of the mistakes that were made during the occupation. Like being there with too light footprint. Or follies such as Abu Ghraib. Or leaving too early,
kittysaidwoof on May 13, 2015 at 2:06 PM
The invasion was well before the 2004 campaign season.
The roughest years were early on.
Bush won in 2004 by a larger margin than his first election.
Iraq was at its most stable (in the relevant years) by 2008.
Yet Obama won because of Iraq…?!?!
How does someone posit such nonsense?
anuts on May 13, 2015 at 2:06 PM
And Hillary voted for it… and you still lavish support on her like a good little bootlicker.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Perhaps you should atone for the blood on your own hands before pretending to care about the blood on others.
One difference between the Republicans and Democrats… there’s at least one faction within the Republican party trying to clean it up. Where’s the corresponding one in the Democrat party? [crickets]
dominigan on May 13, 2015 at 2:11 PM
Over 55+ million unaccounted for Americans… History will be the final judge, not you, and liberals like you will be judged harshly for the blood bath in modern America with your support for the barbarity that is abortion.
dominigan on May 13, 2015 at 2:12 PM
I see Bush getting completely destroyed in the debates. He’s not particularly charismatic and seems to get flustered easily.
jmangini on May 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM
Bottom line here.
Reagan would never have invaded Iraq the first time.
He would have deployed the Navy to ensure shipping lanes, but that’s it.
Ronald Regan was no war monger. He was a VERY practical man and HATED war. My gut tells me that if he had a third term to see the fall of The Wall, he would have spent most of it on domestic issues like balancing the budget and tax/education reform.
The last thing he would have done was throw America into a 3000 year old Civil War.
Bring the troops home. Put them on the Southern Border. Enforce the laws. Abide by the Constitution. Stop bankrupting America. Repeal Obama/Clinton Care. Let’s buckle up and SAVE America!
Quit fartin’ around in the freakin’ Desert!
ReaganCajun on May 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM
Ted Cruz 2016.
bluegill on May 13, 2015 at 4:08 PM
No, he whiffed one time. His conversation with Hannity was a clarification of what he very obviously misheard the first time. Why is this still being litigated on the basis of “what we know now” vs the basis of real time when the decision was made? It was the best possible decision given the information and context of the time, it had eff-all to do with invading the *pilots countries of origin and everything to do with a war on terror and those who enabled it, posing a threat to our own security.
Really unfortunate that Obama doesn’t share those concerns where hand-delivering WMD to Iraq is concerned. Or perhaps Bush should have just called off the war and left Iraq in the same state Juice Box left Libya, and eventually Iraq as well. God forbid we “export our values” and “nation build” to the extent it negatively impacts terrorism and averts failed states.
“SEAN HANNITY: I want to get to one last question, because I know you’re running out of time here. You gave an interview yesterday where the question of Iraq came up, and knowing what you know now, would you go in and I watched the media interpretation, you said yes and so would Hillary. And I took that to mean based on, you know, if it was the same moment with the same intelligence would you do it based on that moment. The media seems to be taking it another way and I wanted to see if I could clarify that today.
BUSH: Yeah, I need — thank you, because I was, I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about given what people knew then, would you have done it. Rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, you know, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and the lack of focus on security. My brother’s admitted this. And we have to learn from that. But the simple fact is that under — in the last few years of my brother’s presidency, the surge was quite effective to bring stability and security to Iraq, which was missing during the early days of the United States engagement there. And that security has been totally obliterated by the president’s pulling out too early and now these voids are filled by this barbaric, asymmetric threat that endangers the entire region and the entire world. So lessons learned. The United States needs to be engaged, we need to have the best intelligence in the world, we need to be — we need to make sure that our friends know that we have their backs. The best way to create — to lessen the chance of having American boots on the ground is to have a foreign policy that is strong and secure and consistent.
HANNITY: So in other words, in 20/20 hindsight, you would make a different decision.
BUSH: Yeah, I don’t know what that decision would have been, that’s a hypothetical. But the simple fact is mistakes were made. As they always are in life. This is not a — in foreign policy. So we need to learn from the past to make sure that we’re strong and secure going forward.”
Recon5 on May 13, 2015 at 4:52 PM
Were it my decision knowing what I knew then, I would have invaded Iran…Knowing what I know now, I still would have invaded Iran.
I didn’t think that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but something that could wait a bit.
The reason Iraq turned out to be a failure was because Bush let Colin Powell throw away the victory just like Bush the Elder did for Gulf War I
Going to the UN was a stupid and treasonous mistake both times and the entire nation building thing derived from the “we broke it we have to fix it” meme
halfbaked on May 13, 2015 at 5:45 PM
The Iraq War was the natural outcome of the First Gulf War. To separate one from the other is to deny what really happened. Saddam Hussein did not comply with the requirements put on him by the Coalition, so the Coalition finished the job and toppled his regime. America was in agreement with this move and the Democrats were scared to death to go against it.
Bush’s mistake was his compassion. He tried to help the Iraqis rebuild after the war. I am not as compassionate. I would have left my calling card and told them if they looked crossed-eyed at any of our allies in the region we would be back.
Nation building is messy, especially when you are dealing with people as depraved as the Iraqi leadership. The press saw an opportunity to over-emphasize every shred of negativity from the war and de-emphasize any positives so they could take it to the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. They lied so insistently and completely that they were able to deceive the American people.
The Republican leadership is so inept in public relations (most of their consultants are liberals even if they don’t admit it) that they had no idea what hit them or how to combat it. Most nationally recognized Republicans don’t even want to fight the battle for the truth anymore, because it is too hard against the onslaught of liars in the press.
jya lai on May 13, 2015 at 6:46 PM
Above poster is correct.
One conflict caused the next. What did OBL say motivated him? Our presence in Arabia from the first conflict.
We never should have invaded the first time.
Reagan would never have done it.
Buchanan said don’t do it.
Until the GOP returns to this way of thinking, Conservatism will never regain prominence in America and America will continue to slide into the abyss.
ReaganCajun on May 14, 2015 at 10:35 AM