Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I supported the war and still do.
Thank you for posting this. I am too angry with Jeb Bush today to think straight.
I have never seen a more stupid wrong harmful action taken by anyone in my entire my life.
He has already harmed his country and he has not even been nominated. Talk about the shot heard ’round the world. How excited the editors are today at the New York Times. Vindication at last. Jeb just did what they couldn’t do in the eight years GW was in office. Another chapter for Howard Zinn. Another Vietnam. It WAS Vietnam. We told you so.
I had a sliver of hope that maybe Jeb was as smart as his brother.
And he can never take those words back. He has just consigned the Iraq War to the “mistakes we’ve made.”
Unbelievable.
GW needs to come out today and say, “I love my brother, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
If GW does not respond to Jeb, then GW is letting down all of the people who followed him for eight years down to every enlisted soldier.
It isn’t about GW. It is about all of them. The people who followed him.
I always thought GW was a servant leader.
He needs to fix this out of respect to the people who followed him.
The sad part is how uninformed he his. The simple answer is I would of still invaded but not occupied the nation or ran the occupation vastly differently.
It is pathetic how simple minded so many people are on the war. You can be for the invasion which was only a few weeks but against everything else that followed. That is my position still invade but don’t disband the Baath party and the army but co-op them and slowly weed out the criminals through close integration of the U.S. military and Allies.
This is all fine and good. I have had my share of debates on this issue arguing most of these points. I did that for about four years almost non-stop. I’ve done my best. Nothing more can be squeezed out of that sponge. History has been revised.
It matters little if Jeb Bush can make the case better the second go-round. The best he could have hoped for was a successful 40 yard punt. What he did was fumble the ball and the other team scored another touchdown.
One of the many reasons I find his entrance into the race appaling is that inevitably we will now all have to re-litigate all this Iraq business, which in itself is a loser for Republicans focusing on where they are percieved to have screwed up badly. Everyone’s mind is made up. It’s a waste of air and a distraction. Thanks Jebbie!
To see, once again, a Bush fail to adequately articulate this worn-out argument, that an unpaid commentor at an obscure web site can make better, makes me question my own sanity.
It seems the Bushes want to be let looose in the political china shop, break all the dishes and leave it for others to explain all the reasons it was a good idea.
Wondering now what Bush protege Colin Powell has to say on the subject. Let’s get Don Rumsfeld and the whole gang back to debate again!
“Jeb’s Verbal Misfire …”
It runs in the family. “Read my hips” cost his dad an election, at least he’s getting it out of the way early!
Nice post.
Exactly right. Out of respect for the thousands of people who died and the thousands more who were wounded for life.
It was clear to me at the time that he had misinterpreted the question, thinking she was asking him if he would have done it with information available at the time. His point was …
Jeb’s political adversaries, both left and right, of course immediately seized on the opportunity to declare him either historically ignorant or foolish. His critics to his right, including Rubio and Paul, didn’t cover themselves in glory.
Is this about the war or about Jeb? And his political rivals, what are they supposed to do at this point? Do you think Jeb and his team are going to cut other Republicans any slack?
How many more times do we have to cover for inarticulate Bushies? Is there some kind of DNA marker that runs in this family making them incapable of explaining things to the public?
Jeb has not impressed me as a candidate in any way. He sounds okay giving a speech, but he looks horrible. Bad posture, conciliatory, supplicating gestures and an air of clueless entitlement. He’s another ‘nice guy’ and he’s trying to prove himself as one. I see no compelling ideas and no approaches to government that will even slightly change direction even if he were
KingPresident.He is wonky and a non-fighter. We’ve had enough of Republican political pacifists – happy to send men into combat but give Liberty Medals to their future rivals (who abandoned her war position early) and try not to offend Democrats.
Very well done, Rand.
Marci – You are so right about W. He and his administration let the people who served and sacrificed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere down by not punching back and defending their missions. He owes it to them to do so now, even if it hurts his brother’s ambitions.
I hope GW speaks up and soon.
The sad fact is that two things can be and are equally true: (1) invading Iraq and remove Hussein was the right call, and (2) Obama’s actions have put Iraq on a trajectory far different from what was possible in 2003. There will be continuous kinetic conflict in the Middle East for at least another decade and it could well end only with mushroom clouds exchanged by Sunni and Shia.
This places the US Iraq War of 1990-2011 clearly in an academic and not a current policy setting. That conflict is now of a piece with the League of Nations’ British Mandate of Mesopotamia. When in the far distant future the dust settles, the boundaries and nations are going to look far different from 2011.
On October 10, 2002 the US Senate passed the House version of The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq; I’m pretty sure the vote was 77-23. It listed 26 cassus belli, possession of WMD was not one of them.
This drives me crazy! I watched the coverage of the run-up to war intently. Every time Bush gave a new cassus belli the media would say that he was giving too many different reasons and he should stick to one. Now no one remembers any of the reasons except wmd. Bush lied, people died. No blood for oil Baaaaaaaaaaa!
Sometimes all the pollsters and spin doctors and analysts–and historians–miss something basic and human. I don’t think Jeb should be running–for a lot of reasons. But I didn’t react to his comment as a “misstep.” First, his meaning was clear. But second–no matter what he in fact believes now, would a man who could casually put a knife in his own brother’s back when it was politically expedient appeal to you? He wouldn’t to me.
That’s one reason of many excellent reasons to reject dynastic politics. We have a moral instinct about these things–we don’t compel wives to testify against husbands. Whatever the facts, however you feel about the W.’s decision, we deep down know it’s morally unnatural for a brother to betray a brother. I’m sure people feel that instinctively, whatever the pundits say.
And at some level, people must have a creeped-out feeling about Rand Paul, who has to publicly put the knife in his old man to sound even vaguely electable. Even if they don’t say it, that’s got to be there.
Some people have too much family baggage to run. It’s just the way it is.
Comparing Jeb Bush to Rand Paul is quite a stretch. Nice try.
Exactly so. And about Rand Paul too. How could anyone ever trust Jeb after that? That was my first thought.
After I calmed down, I realized the worst of it all is how stupid Jeb has to be to have done this in the first place. Did he think it would garner points with the Left? If so, he is truly deluded.
Someone who is that unaware shouldn’t be in the White House handling foreign affairs. The president has to be very careful about what he or she says.
Only in the too-much-family-baggage department. I don’t think that’s a stretch.
Seeing that his son, George P., has political aspirations, I didn’t think the Jeb would run. Afterall, George P. launched Ted Cruz in 2009 by opening doors to major donors for him, via Maverick PAC.
That final point seems to be the biggest hurdle that Jeb has to win, the “anti-dynasty” sentiment. Every argument against him seems to end up with “No More Bushes”.
At the time I did not think GWB’s main reason for invading Iraq was WMDs and while removing it’s dictator from power was a wise goal, as it currently is in several other countries, the method GWB chose was in my opinion not the best. There were several other ways of accomplishing the same objective which would have involved far fewer lives being loss and far less dollars being spent. When GWB had his chance to go and fight, he did everything in his power to avoid it, it is too bad he did not exercise the same hesitancy when other’s were being put in harms way.
I generally support Paul, if not the man himself for President most of his ideas and the direction America and the GOP should be going. I take it you don’t.
But it’s almost a non-sequitur in how different these two ‘situations’ are, which leads me to think you are taking a cheap shot, and going off the range with it as well.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a family member on public policy. Yes, it might not be comfortable, but this isn’t the equivalent of testifying against your spouse in court either. The fact is Jeb’s situation is 100x more problematic since both his father and brother have been the last TWO Republican Presidents and he’s seeking to be the third.
Rand Paul’s father was a congressman who ran for President, never won, and garnered only 5% of votes in his loss(es). Rand Paul has always had divergent ideas and ideals from his father. Rand Paul is more sane and significantly more hawkish than his father. To imply that he’s changed his views as though the libertarian ideals are passed down geneticlly and he’s posturing now to get elected is pretty low.
Mice can look like elephants, but they aren’t related.
Easy to pile on. Give Jeb my sympathy vote. So he screwed up a question, but it was clear what he was trying to say, and he admitted it. Anyone else would have been properly criticized, but gotten a pass. One misstep and he’s not qualified for anything according to his critics. I don’t like the “no-break” school of political science. There’s that inflexible mindset that creep out. The hard right is no better than hard left in this regard.
Now if you’re down on Bush for Immigration or Common Core fair enough. That wasn’t his bungle on Kelly. He’s getting a death sentence for starting a war he didn’t start. His bad (dumb) response to the easily anticipated Iraq question is being used to hammer him for what really angers the right: Common Core, Immigration and his last name.
Now that Jeb is on his heels what have you got? Cheers to John Bolton for dropping out of a campaign he was never in. What’s with these others who don’t stand a chance? Bolton has brains and ideas, but he’s practical. I don’t respect the fringies who only clutter up the field. That’s not a strong Republican bench. Rather, a bunch of egos all saying the same thing. They create an accurate impression of chaos that can only benefit Clinton. Bush, like him or not, is a serious contender.
Excellent post.
Walker, Rubio, Paul to name a few. Jeb doesn’t have an ego? I would have believed that if he opted to steer clear of the fray here, but his hat being in the ring is evidence of a spectacular ego. It’s one thing being a nobody who wants attention, it’s another for a guy who has had every advantage and great prospects for the future to decide that, in spite of everything, he should actually be President and is willing (or dumb enough) to re-litigate everything Bush and Bush related. Or we are all supposed to pretend his name is coincidental and predjudice and suspicions should be suspended to give the poor lad a chance at his dream. And newsflash: Jeb stands to lose almost as badly as a Trump or a Carson. Ask me why. I double-dare you.
It’s over.
See, here’s the problem:
1) Bush chose to make WMD the main and only justification for war. Can’t say now, 12 years later “hey why are you guys so obsessed with WMD anyway?”
2) Blaming Clinton isn’t going to get anyone out of any responsibilities for the miserable failure and mistake that Iraq was.
Not…even…close.
3) All other justifications are ex-post reasonings, which are, in fact, unsupported by the facts or actually contradicted by the facts. Iraq is in a far worst shape now: an Iranian proxy state and an AQ insurgency. Sorry, but it is precisely the facts after the invasion that point to the failure, not to it’s “success”.
4) So let me get this straight: not having a plan for AFTER THE WAR…is just a minor little thing. It’s not the equivalent of “rushing to war”?
5) So blame Obama is the standard strategy here.
And the counter-strategy offered here is: we should have staid in longer because 13 years just weren’t enough. And 2 trillion dollars were not enough. And 4,800 dead troops were not enough.
100 years?
That will win elections ;)
A much better place. No question about it. This question is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
As long as “conservatives” are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their mistakes and failures…than this only demonstrates that you are no different from the Left in any way.
And not worthy of governing.
Of course, it appears that many “conservatives” have taken the side of accepting the miserable failure that was GWB. And for that, they should be commended.
The ones engaged in fabricating history, as is obvious here, and simply engaging in the usual…and juvenile…”but Clinton did it too! And it’s Obama’s fault!” sort of arguments, certainly don’t deserve to govern.
More so, because they claim to be basing their arguments in “logic” and “philosophy” and pretending to be the “grown ups” among the competing political camps.
The Left, at least, makes no such pretenses.
So to answer this question:
1) No 150-600,000 dead Iraqis. No 2-3 million Iraqi refugees.
2) 4,400 US soldiers alive today. Tens of thousands of wounded soldiers, not wounded.
…but those are just the human costs…
3) No Iranian control of Iraq.
4) No AQ in Iraq.
5) No war in Syria.
6) No war in Libya
7) No massive flare-up in Islamism and Islamic terrorism
…but those are just political issues in the ME. Who cares about them?
8) No massive spike in oil prices for a decade.
9) No money flowing to Valdimir Putin’s Russia, allowing it to invade other countries and re-emerge as a threat.
…but those are other geo-political issues elsewhere. Meh.
10) No 2 trillion dollars of US money wasted on nothing.
11) Probably a much smaller recession in 2008, or at least one we could have weathered better if we still had that $2 trillion dollars, and we didn’t have to deal with massive oil prices for a decade.
12) No massive mis-allocation of military funds to fight insurgency wars, and to develop weapons for fighting insurgency wars, while abandoning and cutting back on other weapons programs.
The real question is: What the HELL did we gain from this war?
I agree with pretty much everything AIG says above except for one thing. I’m not sure it’s accurate to label the Bush defenders on this ‘conservative’ but maybe I’m misinterpreting the quote to mean, not really conservative. I resisted the term neo-con for a long time, it has some negative connotations but it’s safe to assume that everyone at the Barbra Streisand concert is a fan of her music and voice. Everyone who can’t see the folly in these incursions by now is a hardline neocon or we can call them single issue national security hawks if that sounds better.
The other unintended consequence of the war was…..Obama as President.