Bush III on Iraq

[Belsnickel]

Apparently, Jeb can't seem to make up his mind on what he would've done in regards to Iraq.

This is definitely an interesting development for him because it is fair to say that the situation in the Middle East will be a bigger hurdle for him to overcome than the other candidates because of the family connection. He is now saying he wouldn't have pulled the trigger based on what we know now, but do we think that is pandering or is he sincere?

[BmorePat87]

(05-14-2015, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Apparently, Jeb can't seem to make up his mind on what he would've done in regards to Iraq.

This is definitely an interesting development for him because it is fair to say that the situation in the Middle East will be a bigger hurdle for him to overcome than the other candidates because of the family connection. He is now saying he wouldn't have pulled the trigger based on what we know now, but do we think that is pandering or is he sincere?

Awkward position and one his handlers should have had worked out months ago.

[Millhouse]

He is probably sincere, as a lot of people have changed their minds in hindsight (including many democrats). I think this is a non-story though, as that what-if question can be brought up for what all past presidents have done.

Its like saying "Hey Hillary, back in the 1939 when FDR was prez, would you have turned away a ship of 900+ Jewish refugees from Germany like he did, in hindsight?"

[StLucieBengal]

For all the handlers and network bush has he just keeps messing up.

he would be better off running as a democrat. That's basically his policies.

[*bfine32*]

Is this really the best the Left has; a fluid answer to a hypothetical question?

[Belsnickel]

(05-14-2015, 11:06 PM)Millhouse Wrote: He is probably sincere, as a lot of people have changed their minds in hindsight (including many democrats). I think this is a non-story though, as that what-if question can be brought up for what all past presidents have done.

Its like saying "Hey Hillary, back in the 1939 when FDR was prez, would you have turned away a ship of 900+ Jewish refugees from Germany like he did, in hindsight?"

Well, like I said, I think if he jumps completely into the fray the Iraq situation will be more of an issue for him than it will be for any other candidate, right or left, just because of the family issue. I get that we have had a lot of people change their minds over the years based upon current information, but his answer has evolved over the course of a week, which shows he may not even know his answer or may not agree with the answers he is giving in some way.

(05-14-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this really the best the Left has; a fluid answer to a hypothetical question?

It's an important one to both sides of the aisle, though. With Jeb being the third member of the Bush family seeking the Oval Office and the two before him both getting involved in that country, Iraq will be a topic he cannot avoid. Everyone, right, left, middle, upside-down, will all want to know about his opinions on that because it will be seen as a measure of his similarities or differences from his father and brother.

[Steeler Eater]

Quote:"If we're all supposed to answer hypothetical questions, knowing what we know now, I would not have engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq. That's not to say that the world is safer because Saddam Hussein is gone. It is significantly safer."

Yes, we are much safer having stirred the hornets nest that is the Middle East with our stick of freedom, as they are now thanking us by planning even more attacks on American soil. We really needed ISIS to be roaming through those countries now and slaughtering countless people the way your brother pretty much did before there were any rules in Iraq. Genius.

[xxlt]

Gail's take (below) on Jeb is pretty much spot on. Funny thing: he isn't a declared candidate officially, but said the other day he is running which meant he was in violation of one of the few campaign finance laws we still have since he is running a PAC. Nothing like announcing you are running for President and admitting you are a criminal in the same breath. Funnier thing: in spite of all this above and that below he is the strongest candidate the GOP (sort of) has at this point. Hillary could show up at an event and reveal she transitioned to "Elmer" 40 years ago and is coming out, that she killed four small woodland creatures with her bare hands on the way to the event, denied an NRA member the right to do kill them and then for spite took his gun and shot him with it, and that she is an atheist and a zombie, and she'd still be a more attractive candidate.

(By the way, I am not a Clinton fan. I'm all in on Bernie Sanders.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/opinion/gail-collins-wow-jeb-bush-is-awful.html?_r=0

[WhoDeyWho]

(05-15-2015, 09:58 AM)Steeler Eater Wrote: Yes, we are much safer having stirred the hornets nest that is the Middle East with our stick of freedom, as they are now thanking us by planning even more attacks on American soil. We really needed ISIS to be roaming through those countries now and slaughtering countless people the way your brother pretty much did before there were any rules in Iraq. Genius.

I voted for his brother twice, but at some point we just have to say enough of these political dynasties.  That goes for the Clintons too.  As awesome as this country is, with all the intelligent leaders and innovators that we have, are you telling me the Bush's and the Clinton's are the best that we can do?  

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2015, 11:42 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I voted for his brother twice, but at some point we just have to say enough of these political dynasties.  That goes for the Clintons too.  As awesome as this country is, with all the intelligent leaders and innovators that we have, are you telling me the Bush's and the Clinton's are the best that we can do?  

It's what they want to shove down our throats and so it's the crap they try to sell to the people. The unfortunate thing is that enough people buy into it to make it happen.

[Bengalzona]

(05-14-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this really the best the Left has; a fluid answer to a hypothetical question?

Are you saying that the Right is okay with hypocrisy and position reversal?

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2015, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's an important one to both sides of the aisle, though. With Jeb being the third member of the Bush family seeking the Oval Office and the two before him both getting involved in that country, Iraq will be a topic he cannot avoid. Everyone, right, left, middle, upside-down, will all want to know about his opinions on that because it will be seen as a measure of his similarities or differences from his father and brother.

If both sides of the aisle think a hypothetical answer to an event that happened over 12 years ago is an important issue; then I would suggest they need to reassess what they think is important.

Do folks think Saddam Hussein is coming back? Is Jeb going to assert there are WMDs in the Iraqi Dessert?

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2015, 12:03 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Are you saying that the Right is okay with hypocrisy and position reversal?

No I am saying it is absolutely hilarious that folks are trying to turn this in to something

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2015, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If both sides of the aisle think a hypothetical answer to an event that happened over 12 years ago is an important issue; then I would suggest they need to reassess what they think is important.

Do folks think Saddam Hussein is coming back? Is Jeb going to assert there are WMDs in the Iraqi Dessert?

Well, his change on the position within a week shows a lack of firm principles. But the answer is important to many because it can speak to whether he is his own man or whether he will just tow the family line. Admitting that it may have been a mistake shows an amount of independence that many voters will like to see in a candidate. Not to mention there is a trend away from the interventionist policies that is occurring right now in the voting populous.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-14-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this really the best the Left has; a fluid answer to a hypothetical question?

Is this really the best the right has? Nepotism?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2015, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, his change on the position within a week shows a lack of firm principles. But the answer is important to many because it can speak to whether he is his own man or whether he will just tow the family line. Admitting that it may have been a mistake shows an amount of independence that many voters will like to see in a candidate. Not to mention there is a trend away from the interventionist policies that is occurring right now in the voting populous.

Bush has disqualified himself way before this.... And if that last sentence is true then it will be Bernie Sanders vs Rand Paul.

I think that as much as people want to say they don't want intervention the sheep will get scared and vote for Clinton, Bush, or some other progressive/neocon

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2015, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, his change on the position within a week shows a lack of firm principles. But the answer is important to many because it can speak to whether he is his own man or whether he will just tow the family line. Admitting that it may have been a mistake shows an amount of independence that many voters will like to see in a candidate. Not to mention there is a trend away from the interventionist policies that is occurring right now in the voting populous.

You cannot make this stuff up. It simply shows that he had 2nd thoughts about the way he answered a hypothetical question. He clarified his stance yesterday when he stated he would not send Troops knowing what we know now. He further admitted he answered as he did originally in an attempt to not throw his brother and father under the bus and also out of respect for the families that lost loved ones there. To me that screams principles.

He did not waffle on a "real" issue. He tried to show respect to his family and the families of fallen Soldiers while answering a make-believe scenario.

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2015, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You cannot make this stuff up. It simply shows that he had 2nd thoughts about the way he answered a hypothetical question. He clarified his stance yesterday when he stated he would not send Troops knowing what we know now. He further admitted he answered as he did originally in an attempt to not throw his brother and father under the bus and also out of respect for the families that lost loved ones there. To me that screams principles.

He did not waffle on a "real" issue. He tried to show respect to his family and the families of fallen Soldiers while answering a make-believe scenario.

I just call 'em how I see 'em. Anyone that waffles like that I question their principles. As well as their ability to handle the pressure of the job if they can't handle questions like that.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-15-2015, 11:42 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I voted for his brother twice, but at some point we just have to say enough of these political dynasties.  That goes for the Clintons too.  As awesome as this country is, with all the intelligent leaders and innovators that we have, are you telling me the Bush's and the Clinton's are the best that we can do?  

I think this country is long overdue for a completely new voice, not some rehashed Bush/Clinton candidate.

I'm mostly conservative, but the thought of Jeb Bush makes me vomit in my mouth a little, while the thought of Hillary Clinton makes me want to projectile vomit.

Btw, if Bush is the republican nominee, it'd be funny if there was another hanging chad issue in Florida.

[Section 126]

(05-15-2015, 08:33 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I think this country is long overdue for a completely new voice, not some rehashed Bush/Clinton candidate.

I'm mostly conservative, but the thought of Jeb Bush makes me vomit in my mouth a little, while the thought of Hillary Clinton makes me want to projectile vomit.

Btw, if Bush is the republican nominee, it'd be funny if there was another hanging chad issue in Florida.

I'd bet my retirement that Bush won't be the nominee. It's sad that the name is toxic (great marketing by the opponents, W really did get a bad rap. Proof is in the white glove treatment O gets with the same, or worse, policies) but even if it wasn't, I don't think he'll excite enough people to get the vote. I don't think he's necessarily great at anything, including leadership. If we hadn't gone through the Democrat mess with the housing market, economic collapse, and all the foreign and domestic policy blunders since, he might have done just fine. Right now we're in a hole that we need to get out of and I'll be pushing the button for someone who can get us out.

With that said, if it's his name at the top of the ticket, I'm volunteering every second I have to get him in. My liberal friends who supported Hillary got amnesia when O won and forgot all of the nasty things they said about him. My conservative friends? They didn't vote because of McCain's voting record and policies. I'm happy that they have great principles, up to the point that people like that guarantee a loss.