Posted on 05/20/2015 3:02:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
You wouldn't know it by all the negative comments each one has received over time on this website by the purists.........
As Mark Levin always says, “Jeb Bush is the dumbest of the Bushes.”
Jeb Bush CLEARLY wasn’t retarded when he figured out that marrying an American could only end in disaster (or, at least, typically ends that way).
But, yea, he’s clearly lost it since that bit of sanity.
if we’re faced with a choice between Bush III and Clinton II in November 2016... i honestly don’t know what i’ll do. i can’t see how Bush III would be any different in the White House than Clinton II.
i live in a “purple” state so my vote does actually matter, but these two are opposite sides of the same counterfeit nickel.
maybe i’ll start praying for the zombie apocalypse to arrive before then.
Jebby is an inbred New England blue-blood. America needs him or Hillary about as much as a third nipple. Those two pukes live in a bubble of elitism and don’t give a crap about the average American.
And yes, he is somewhat “special.”
Emphasis added.
All he needs is a beanie with a propeller on top to complete the look.
That’s the stupidest statement I have ever read on FR. Are you x’s special-needs grandson?
I actually don’t think he’s stupid. He’s one of those people whose minds race so fast their speech can’t keep up with it. That’s not stupid, it’s just unprepared.
Ann nailed when she said he doesn’t read. Because he’s been counting on being the nominee, he hasn’t felt he’s had to do any work. I guess he’s been intending to rely on advisers.
His character just sucks. What someone upthread said about throwing W under the bus, the way he accuses anti-amnesty folks of being racists . . . and all of Ann’s column . . . should be enough to get him off the stage.
BTTT
.....and Christie.
Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away."
Perfectly describes why we are this mess today.
Yes, Christie! I used to think Ann was pretty smart until she started endorsing RINOs. She lost her creds in a hurry.
He’s out of touch, like Thurston Howell without the charming wifey.
You should have read the column before posting. It could have saved you from coming across as a moron.
Ann is building a case that we should have invaded Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein. She brings some facts together supporting her argument. So far so good.
But she ignores information that doesn't support her argument. She doesn't discuss the conditions that complicated the outcome in Iraq. She ridicules those who would disagree with her.
An opinion columnist can do something like that. A policy maker, a decider in chief, can't. If you're going to make the decision to go to war you have to examine all the evidence and consider both sides of the question.
That's why we should be glad that Ann Coulter isn't making policy. She doesn't weigh one argument against another to come to a considered conclusion. She says the most provocative thing she can in the most provocative way and doesn't think it through to the consequences. That's her right as a columnist, but it's no way to make foreign policy.
Unforeseen events such as the election of Obama do not make her answer wrong. It seems you are unable to keep both things in your head at the same time: how things were then and how they are now. Bush’s decision did not cause the election of Obama and the subsequent chaos in the Middle East. That was accomplished by the persistent lies and Bush Derangement Syndrome and demonization of the Republicans, not by Bush’s action, which was correct at the time and so is Ann in saying it was.
Was, at that time. Get it?
Between two possibilities -- 1) Saddam still in power and launching a WMD attack on the US and 2) Saddam out of power and sectarian groups forming terrorist regimes after we left the country as we eventually would sooner or later -- I'd say the second was more likely.
What we know about the US and what we know about the Middle East ought to have been enough at the time to make the idea of our staying in long enough to really change the region unlikely.
Jeb is not “the Bushes.” He’s a weasel who will say anything to get elected. Same MO as Obama.
I’ve heard of straw men but never a straw scenario, and you’ve invented two of them. We never went to war because Sadam would bomb the U.S. if we didn’t. That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard on this subject. And Bush wasn’t responsible for our leaving—Obama was, so anything that happened after we left was his doing, in spite of much advice to the contrary from people who knew the Middle East.
Everyone saw it at the time as another ploy in his political campaign for 2012. He listened to his base, who are the purest pacifists in the world when it isn’t a Dem war.
Everyone knows all of this. How come you don’t?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.