+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Bush III on Iraq (/Thread-Bush-III-on-Iraq)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Bush III on Iraq - WhoDeyWho - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 08:46 PM)Section 126 Wrote: 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.
I actually voted for Hillary in the democratic primary. I figured McCain had a better shot against her than Obama.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - bfine32 - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just call 'em how I see 'em. Anyone that waffles like that I question their principles.
...and I'll just question your vision if you think an answer to a hypothetical question is a determining factor of principle.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - Belsnickel - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 09:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I'll just question your vision if you think an answer to a hypothetical question is a determining factor of principle.
Is that not what the campaign is full of, candidates answering hypothetical questions? Isn't that what we are supposed to use to determine whether the candidate is who we see as the right person for the job?
RE: Bush III on Iraq - Millhouse - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.
I also think that the family issue was the cause of this to begin with. I dont think he was prepared to answer that question officially, and he didn't want to say anything publicly to disagree with what his brother did without talking to him first. They took a few days to not only get with George W. on this, but also came up with a solid stance on this going forward. That is my take on it. Personally I wouldn't go public unless I absolutely had to if it would hurt one of my brothers. I would do exactly what I said and make sure we are on the same page before I did
Regardless this will become a non-issue since the election is 18 months away. If this happened next year however, then that would be different.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - Benton - 05-15-2015
(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?
It does raise some concern. The allegation, unfounded or not, was that w used the excuse of hypothetical weapons as a way to fix his father's legacy. The concern is how far the apple fall?
RE: Bush III on Iraq - bfine32 - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 09:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is that not what the campaign is full of, candidates answering hypothetical questions? Isn't that what we are supposed to use to determine whether the candidate is who we see as the right person for the job?
I would probably consider what they've done more so than what they say. But of course there will be "what if" questions, but the vast majority will be about current issues. I'm not sure how much stock I'll put into questions about if you could get into a time machine and go back 12 years with the knowledge you know have.
I'll take more stock in their track record and answers they give to current affairs and future trends. But to each their own.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - bfine32 - 05-15-2015
(05-15-2015, 09:32 PM)Benton Wrote: It does raise some concern. The allegation, unfounded or not, was that w used the excuse of hypothetical weapons as a way to fix his father's legacy. The concern is how far the apple fall?
Of course it will raise concerns; especially with his opposition. I just do not see the answer provided to a back to the future question as a determination of the man's principle.
FWIW, he has said he misinterpreted the original question and took it as if you knew what they knew then. most likely why his answer included "So would Hilary' and he even stated "knowing what they knew then" toward the end of his answer.
But folks are going to run with the sound bites.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - Belsnickel - 05-16-2015
(05-15-2015, 09:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take more stock in their track record and answers they give to current affairs and future trends. But to each their own.
I don't put more stock in it, I just acknowledge that this is a part of campaigning and there are things that can be learned from these sorts of things. Unlike some people I have no dog in any fight with these candidates and am looking all over the spectrum in hopes of seeing someone I like. So even the little things grab my attention.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - bfine32 - 05-17-2015
(05-16-2015, 07:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't put more stock in it, I just acknowledge that this is a part of campaigning and there are things that can be learned from these sorts of things. Unlike some people I have no dog in any fight with these candidates and am looking all over the spectrum in hopes of seeing someone I like. So even the little things grab my attention.
It appears Rand Paul agrees with you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/rand-paul-we-still-have-chaos-in-iraq/?wprss=rss_politics
Quote:Paul said Democratic presidential front-runner and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton should face similar scrutiny.
"They should ask her, 'Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic?," said Paul, adding, "I think the war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the question of, 'Should we have gone into Libya?'"
Of course the difference is that Hillary would have to answer for something she actually did.
RE: Bush III on Iraq - Belsnickel - 05-17-2015
(05-17-2015, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears Rand Paul agrees with you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/rand-paul-we-still-have-chaos-in-iraq/?wprss=rss_politics
Of course the difference is that Hillary would have to answer for something she actually did.
I agree. We absolutely should be questioning that decision. Our actions in Libya helped to foster instability in the country.