Jeb Bush Won't Talk About Wars His Brother Started

[Synthaholic]

She voted to authorize the use of force.

As a last resort. It was permission for George Bush to make the decision whether to invade or not.

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

 

[hadit]

She voted to authorize the use of force.

As a last resort. It was permission for George Bush to make the decision whether to invade or not.

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

 

[regent]

If his brother's war had turned out to be the success predicted, Jeb would be riding all over his brothers coattails. It was a bomb so what can Jeb do, pretend it never happened, or his brother was wrong?

As a last resort. It was permission for George Bush to make the decision whether to invade or not.

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Does Congress have access to the same information that a president is privy too, absolutely not. Did Congress have doubts about what Bush was telling the Congress apparently they did. We now know Bush was wrong. Hillary made the correct call, support the president with funding but let the president make the decision. If Bush was right he could take the glory, if wrong, he could be defended on the message boards by Republicans.

 

[hadit]

If his brother's war had turned out to be the success predicted, Jeb would be riding all over his brothers coattails. It was a bomb so what can Jeb do, pretend it never happened, or his brother was wrong?

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Does Congress have access to the same information that a president is privy too, absolutely not. Did Congress have doubts about what Bush was telling the Congress apparently they did. We now know Bush was wrong. Hillary made the correct call, support the president with funding but let the president make the decision. If Bush was right he could take the glory, if wrong, he could be defended on the message boards by Republicans.

Then there won't be any problem with people treating Jeb and Hillary re the war in the way they should be treated, Jeb as a bystander who had nothing to do with it and Hillary as an active participant who did authorize it.

 

[regent]

If his brother's war had turned out to be the success predicted, Jeb would be riding all over his brothers coattails. It was a bomb so what can Jeb do, pretend it never happened, or his brother was wrong?

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Does Congress have access to the same information that a president is privy too, absolutely not. Did Congress have doubts about what Bush was telling the Congress apparently they did. We now know Bush was wrong. Hillary made the correct call, support the president with funding but let the president make the decision. If Bush was right he could take the glory, if wrong, he could be defended on the message boards by Republicans.

Then there won't be any problem with people treating Jeb and Hillary re the war in the way they should be treated, Jeb as a bystander who had nothing to do with it and Hillary as an active participant who did authorize it.

Bystanding is OK for bystanders but not for potential presidential candidates. Having opinions on world events is expected of candidates-brother or no. If Jeb continues testing the waters he will be asked even more questions, it goes with the political game. In short, Jeb's, I don't want to talk about the past, ain't gonna work, even Jeb knows that.

 

[hadit]

If his brother's war had turned out to be the success predicted, Jeb would be riding all over his brothers coattails. It was a bomb so what can Jeb do, pretend it never happened, or his brother was wrong?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Does Congress have access to the same information that a president is privy too, absolutely not. Did Congress have doubts about what Bush was telling the Congress apparently they did. We now know Bush was wrong. Hillary made the correct call, support the president with funding but let the president make the decision. If Bush was right he could take the glory, if wrong, he could be defended on the message boards by Republicans.

Then there won't be any problem with people treating Jeb and Hillary re the war in the way they should be treated, Jeb as a bystander who had nothing to do with it and Hillary as an active participant who did authorize it.

Bystanding is OK for bystanders but not for potential presidential candidates. Having opinions on world events is expected of candidates-brother or no. If Jeb continues testing the waters he will be asked even more questions, it goes with the political game. In short, Jeb's, I don't want to talk about the past, ain't gonna work, even Jeb knows that.

Right, and the bigger the deal the democrat press makes out of questions about the war, the more the door opens to dig into Hillary's involvement. IOW, this isn't going anywhere.

 

[Synthaholic]

As a last resort. It was permission for George Bush to make the decision whether to invade or not.

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Hillary and Chuck Schumer, of all people, could not vote to tie Bush's hands, as the Senators of the state that was attacked on 9/11, since Bush argued that he had intelligence that he could not share with Congress that linked Saddam to the attack.

 

[hadit]

Let's be real here. She knew very well what Bush would do if authorized, and gave permission to do it.

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Hillary and Chuck Schumer, of all people, could not vote to tie Bush's hands, as the Senators of the state that was attacked on 9/11, since Bush argued that he had intelligence that he could not share with Congress that linked Saddam to the attack.

So it WAS political expediency.

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you now claiming that all the Republicans at the time were lying when they said - through November, December, January, February - that Bush was trying to solve things diplomatically?

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Hillary and Chuck Schumer, of all people, could not vote to tie Bush's hands, as the Senators of the state that was attacked on 9/11, since Bush argued that he had intelligence that he could not share with Congress that linked Saddam to the attack.

So it WAS political expediency.

No, it was voting the way their constituencies demanded.

 

[hadit]

What does that have to do with the fact that Congress could have gone back to Bush with a refusal to authorize hostilities?

It has nothing to do with that. We're not talking about that.

You're claiming that Hillary knew it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to war. Yet Republicans spent that entire time saying that it wasn't, that Bush was looking for a diplomatic solution.

So either you're wrong or Republicans were lying - which is it?

They could easily have insisted on diplomatic overtures only. They did not.

That's because Republicans paraded endlessly before the TV cameras to say "don't tie the hands of the Commander in Chief". Republicans argued that if Saddam knew force was off the table he would never comply.

If you don't remember that, then either you were too young at the time or you weren't paying attention. Either way, I shouldn't have to be re-presenting basic information.

So, Hillary couldn't vote "Nay" because Republicans were taking to the microphones? Is she a principled leader or a craven politician who will do anything to ensure her continued political viability, aka, a democrat?

Hillary and Chuck Schumer, of all people, could not vote to tie Bush's hands, as the Senators of the state that was attacked on 9/11, since Bush argued that he had intelligence that he could not share with Congress that linked Saddam to the attack.

So it WAS political expediency.

No, it was voting the way their constituencies demanded.

Interesting the extremes to which you will go to absolve Hillary of any responsibility for her vote. She knew a "Yea" vote meant armed hostilities and gave it. Apparently, you think she didn't mean it, but was forced to, all against her will and stuff. That's not leadership.

 

[Synthaholic]

She knew a "Yea" vote meant armed hostilities and gave it.

False. She voted to not tie Bush's hands.

It was totally his decision to invade Iraq.

 

[hadit]

She knew a "Yea" vote meant armed hostilities and gave it.

False. She voted to not tie Bush's hands.

It was totally his decision to invade Iraq.

And it should not have been. Congress abdicated their responsibility to declare or not declare war. I do not accept for a moment that she thought a "Yea" vote meant anything other than hostilities. why else would Bush even come to Congress in the first place? Her vote was pure political expediency, ensuring hostilities while attempting to duck responsibility for it. It's still a moot point, because if anyone wants to query Jeb about the war, it opens a can of worms for Hillary. The last she wants is to be held responsible for anything, ala Obama.

 

[cnm]

Her vote could only ensure hostilities if Fuckwit43 was determined to invade, no matter what, and was again lying to Congress and the nation via the terms of the AUMF. If Fuckwit43 was not determined to invade no matter what, Hillary's vote would not ensure hostilities.

That Hillary had realised Fuckwit43 was in fact dissembling to Congress and the nation is not proven. What was proven was that Fuckwit43 was determined to invade.

Too, it has been demonstrated that Hillary was irresponsible, along with others who voted for the AUMF.

 

[mudwhistle]

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has no interest in "re-litigating" the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which began under his brother's administration.

"I won't talk about the past," Bush said at a Friday press conference when asked how he would have handled the conflicts differently, according to The Washington Post. "I'll talk about the future. If I'm in the process of considering the possibility of running, it's not about re-litigating anything in the past. It's about trying to create a set of ideas and principles that will help us move forward."

The governor, who is almost certain to jump into the 2016 race, said that instead he would focus on a positive vision for the country that revolved around the future. He will elaborate on that vision when he delivers what his aides are describing as a major foreign policy address in Chicago next week.

It's unlikely Bush will be able to avoid the subject for long. Democrats are already pointing to his brother's legacy, which has left U.S. forces in the Middle East more than a decade after their initial deployment. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars remain unpopular -- with a 2013 poll finding majorities that said the campaigns were not worth the tremendous sacrifice. Some Republicans, too, are likely to criticize Bush over the matter. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another would-be presidential candidate with libertarian leanings, has spoken out against false pretenses used to justify the war.

More: Jeb Bush Won't Talk About Wars His Brother Started

"I won't talk about the past." Of course Jeb doesn't want to talk about the wars his brother started. Is he ashamed? However, if those wars had been popular - he wouldn't stop talking about them. Jeb has a rough row to hoe.

Let's talk about the wars Obama started and will start. Mkay?

 

[hadit]

Her vote could only ensure hostilities if Fuckwit43 was determined to invade, no matter what, and was again lying to Congress and the nation via the terms of the AUMF. If Fuckwit43 was not determined to invade no matter what, Hillary's vote would not ensure hostilities.

That Hillary had realised Fuckwit43 was in fact dissembling to Congress and the nation is not proven. What was proven was that Fuckwit43 was determined to invade.

Too, it has been demonstrated that Hillary was irresponsible, along with others who voted for the AUMF.

How many times has the POTUS come to Congress asking for the freedom to initiate hostilities with another country that did NOT result in said hostilities?

 

[regent]

So once Hillary voted to give Bush authority as the president saw appropriate and necessary, Bush had no choice. Suppose Bush had decided it was not necessary and appropriate what would have happened to Bush? Would Hillary and those that voted the authority for Bush to use force as Bush thought it necessary and appropriate been angry?

 

[Synthaholic]

And it should not have been. Congress abdicated their responsibility to declare or not declare war.

I agree with this.

 

[hadit]

So once Hillary voted to give Bush authority as the president saw appropriate and necessary, Bush had no choice. Suppose Bush had decided it was not necessary and appropriate what would have happened to Bush? Would Hillary and those that voted the authority for Bush to use force as Bush thought it necessary and appropriate been angry?

No one will ever know, because it didn't happen.

 

[hadit]

And it should not have been. Congress abdicated their responsibility to declare or not declare war.

I agree with this.

I would go a step further and criticize Bush for not insisting on a formal declaration of war.

 

[zeke]

Apparently, you think she didn't mean it, but was forced to, all against her will and stuff. That's not leadership.

Now Barack Obama voted AGAINST the funding for war in Iraq. Now that's leadership. Don't you agree? You must. If voting against the war in Iraq is your criteria for leadership, you must love Obama. Right?