Jeb Bush: I would have invaded Iraq

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper is a filthy libertarian, so his opinion is immaterial.

I am not filthy, but I will accept being labeled a libertarian.

Will you accept being labeled a left wing zealot?

I am not left wing at all, but, yes, libertarianism is as filthy as communism.

 

[Flash]

[

I am not left wing at all, but, yes, libertarianism is as filthy as communism.

Libertarianism.

You mean believing in personal responsibility, personal accountability, fiscal responsibility, minding your business and keep the government as small as possible is the same as communism?

Interesting.

 

[rightwinger]

[

I am not left wing at all, but, yes, libertarianism is as filthy as communism.

Libertarianism.

You mean believing in personal responsibility, personal accountability, fiscal responsibility, minding your business and keep the government as small as possible is the same as communism?

Interesting.

Libertarianism as in ...I got mine, **** everyone else

 

[gipper]

[

I am not left wing at all, but, yes, libertarianism is as filthy as communism.

Libertarianism.

You mean believing in personal responsibility, personal accountability, fiscal responsibility, minding your business and keep the government as small as possible is the same as communism?

Interesting.

Libertarianism as in ...I got mine, **** everyone else

As usual you have it backwards.

What we have today is a federal government that makes sure only the top .01% gets theirs and ***** everyone else.

But sadly blindness to reality is a sad trait you possess.

 

[BlackSand]

The GOP and the Dems are going to have to pony up a none neo-con if either wish to win. We in the GOP want your vote but you won't have a neo-con for whom to vote, though. Go look at HRC.

Name a GOP candidate you would like to support in the 2016 Presidential Election.

.

Now? Kasich and Paul. Black Sand, what you think about me is immaterial.

I am not going around saying what I think about you (I don't really think about you at all to be honest).
Thanks for answering anyway ... Good Luck getting either one of those the GOP Nomination though.

I think it is funny you picked Kasich and Paul ... They do have a few things in common though.
They are both middle of the road in the majority of the policy ... And they both have issues that put them far outside the base.
I guess extreme isn't the real problem as long as the candidate sucks and cannot win.

Kasich would have a better chance running as a Conservative Democrat ... And Paul should just bite the bullet, run Independent and have his Ross Perot moment.

.

 

[NoNukes]

[

Your reading comprehension is really poor.

You trying to blame Obama's failures on Bush is poor.

Bush initiating the war is no excuse for Obama fighting it for three years, calling it a success and then ******* it up because he was more interested in playing golf and raising money for the Democrats than he was in paying attention to foreign policy.

You didn't answer the question. Was Obama lying to the American people when he called the Iraq War a success?


Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success US news The Guardian

Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success

You just do not get it, which comes from typing instead of thinking.

 

[Flash]

[

Libertarianism as in ...I got mine, **** everyone else

How about don't use the government to steal from me?

You provide for your own well being and I will provide for mine.

That is fair isn't it?

 

[Flash]

[

You just do not get it, which comes from typing instead of thinking.

What I get is that in 2008 I voted for a candidate that heart felt convictions about immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq while you voted for a candidate that continued the war for three years, called it a success and is back to bombing and more troops on the ground. He also escalated the war in Afghanistan and bombed Libya, that had nothing to do with the security of the US.

What you don't get is that you voted for a dickhead that has been at war for every day of his seven years in office but yet you try to blame Obama's failures on somebody else.

The question you didn't answer is when Obama called the Iraq War a success was he lying to the American people or was he simply confused? Incompetency or dishonesty?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think it is funny, Black Sand, that you don't have a clue that Paul and Kasich are squarely within the GOP mainstream base. Those far to the right - Perry, Cruz, etc - are out of the GOP mainstream base.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxation is not theft, Flash, when passed by our legislators.

If you are unhappy about that, work for new legislators.

 

[NoNukes]

[

You just do not get it, which comes from typing instead of thinking.

What I get is that in 2008 I voted for a candidate that heart felt convictions about immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq while you voted for a candidate that continued the war for three years, called it a success and is back to bombing and more troops on the ground. He also escalated the war in Afghanistan and bombed Libya, that had nothing to do with the security of the US.

What you don't get is that you voted for a dickhead that has been at war for every day of his seven years in office but yet you try to blame Obama's failures on somebody else.

The question you didn't answer is when Obama called the Iraq War a success was he lying to the American people or was he simply confused? Incompetency or dishonesty?

You do not know who I voted for, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rightwinger]

[

Libertarianism as in ...I got mine, **** everyone else

How about don't use the government to steal from me?

You provide for your own well being and I will provide for mine.

That is fair isn't it?

Like I said...I got mine, **** everyone else

 

[Genevieve]

"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."

I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.

Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian

I would like to think that Jeb just misunderstood the question.
But
If not, that might be a deal breaker. If we go to war again there has to be a better reason than the one that took us into Iraq.

 

[Flash]

Taxation is not theft, Flash, when passed by our legislators.

If you are unhappy about that, work for new legislators.

Taxation is legalized thievery. It is acceptable when the money is used for a few necessary government functions like Defense, courts, police etc. However, it is despicable when it is used to take money from people that earn it and give it to people that did not earn the money such as in in welfare, subsidies, bailouts and entitlements.

If other people elect shithead legislators that uses the force of government to steal my money then that is thievery no matter what the process. Democracy can produce thieves just like any other corrupt institution.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I would like to think that Jeb just misunderstood the question.
But
If not, that might be a deal breaker. If we go to war again there has to be a better reason than the one that took us into Iraq.

Jeb is a seasoned politician and should have known better than answer that question. He was not on his A game.

He should never answered a hypothetical.

His answer should have been along the lines of:

"I was the Governor of Florida after 911 and did not have either the intelligence reports or the military counsel that the President had so I cannot say what I would have done." " When I become President of the US I will work to protect the security of this country".

 

[BlackSand]

I think it is funny, Black Sand, that you don't have a clue that Paul and Kasich are squarely within the GOP mainstream base. Those far to the right - Perry, Cruz, etc - are out of the GOP mainstream base.

I think it is funny you don't have a clue what is Mainstream and try to act like you do.

If Paul and Kasich were within the GOP mainstream base ... They wouldn't have a problem getting nominated.
So if they don't get nominated ... Then it is safe to say they aren't mainstream ... At least not with the base.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think it is funny, Black Sand, that you don't have a clue that Paul and Kasich are squarely within the GOP mainstream base. Those far to the right - Perry, Cruz, etc - are out of the GOP mainstream base.

I think it is funny you don't have a clue what is Mainstream and try to act like you do. If Paul and Kasich were within the GOP mainstream base ... They wouldn't have a problem getting nominated. So if they don't get nominated ... Then it is safe to say they aren't mainstream ... At least not with the base..

If they don't get nominated does not mean they are not mainstream, Black Sand. However, that means every GOP candidate in the last two cycles, by your reckoning, except McCain and Romney, were not mainstream: not Huckabee, Thompson, Perry, Santorum, Trump, Cain, Bachmann; when Kasich is nominated. that means Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Perry, etc., were just too far right.

 

[Londoner]

The Cold War and War on Terrorism were less about direct threats to national security, and more about having the necessary context for intervening in key regions so that the resources of those regions could be pulled into the U.S.-governed global market.

In 1997 Bill Clinton approved regime change in Iraq based on the analysis of the PNAC, which included Chaney, Bolton, Pearl, Wolfy, etc. They convinced Bill that if the world's largest remaining energy resources were controlled by forces hostile to U.S. interests, than it could open the U.S. to financial ruin. Bill understood this very well. For instance, Hussein was part of a movement that planned to switch the world's oil currency from the dollar to the Euro. This would have devastated the U.S. Economy.

Carter predicted the problems that we would encounter RE Middle East. He said that if we don't decrease our petroleum use by using every possible method (from conservation to alternative energy sources), than we would be tied to the Middle East in ways that would require extremely complicated and expensive forms of military intervention. And he also predicted that it would be a "PR" nightmare because we would have to hide our real reason for intervention.

But the point remains, when the energy problem surfaced in the 70s, we sided with Reagan and Big Oil over Carter. That is to say, we decided that involvement with the Middle East was a better bet than building a "moon shot" around alternative energy and smarter transportation/production systems. We are now lying in that bed. Clinton understood that our choice to go "all in" behind Reagan, big oil and the Middle East meant that we needed to annex Iraq, as did Bush. The silly rhetoric about how "freedom is on the March" is just PR bullshit for FOX monkeys.

The strength of the U.S. Economy was built on our ability to control the resources and economy of other regions. All of us have lived quite well from this arrangement. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

(As for the silly lefties protesting Iraq. If you don't want the oil that Chaney had the courage to kill for, than ride your ******* bike to the next Greenpeace rally.)

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you for your feedback.

I do not see any of that as "retarded", but you are welcome to point-out which aspect(s) of the cited text, above, that you find to be so.

Meanwhile...

Jeb Bush (apparently) spoke his mind on the subject, and I have found his words (as reported in the article referenced in the OP) to be honest, principled and thoughtful.

He is telling us that he would do the same thing, given the same intelligence.

And that statement by itself should automatically disqualify him from the Presidency.

He took an action that wasn't warranted on intelligence that was incomplete and turned out to ultimately be wrong. He did so against the advice of his military advisers, who told him that he would need at least 500,000 troops to maintain order in Iraq. He did so without letting the UN, which was making progress in verifying that there were no WMD's, finish its job.

Given American sentiments regarding our misadventure in Iraq, and his hopes regarding the Presidency, it requires no small measure of intellectual courage to do such a thing.

No, it doesn't. He just hopes that Americans are ignorant enough to forget how badly his brother miscalculated, because he can't run on 'Trust me, I'm the SMART Bush Brother."

The decision to invade seems vastly more defensible than if we had not had such intelligence...

Don't think that's right?

Ask any of these Democrat Senators who voted to invade, based upon such intelligence, on October 11, 2002...

that was an authorization to use force, based on the notion that we would have international support AND after all other diplomatic options had been exhausted. And, yes, a lot of those senators were cowards. They looked at polls and not evidence. they saw most Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (he didn't) and panicked.

 

[Slyhunter]

I think he waited too long to go in, gave time for Saddam to hide his WMD's in Syria. We should've invaded a month earlier than we did. We allowed Collin Powell to stall for time for Saddam.