Posted on 05/17/2015 7:04:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Jeb Bush began a talk the other day by addressing the issue of his brother George, noted architect of the Iraq war, and he did not shrink from the challenge. "I can't deny the fact that I love my family," announced Jeb.
So if you suspected that the Bush Thanksgivings in Kennebunkport resemble "August: Osage County" -- with lots of screaming, sobbing and clawing -- you probably feel pretty silly right now.
On a more pertinent question -- whether the war was a wise idea -- the answer is not so clear. The former governor of Florida first said that, knowing what we know now, he would have favored the invasion. He then claimed he misunderstood the question.
Had he known that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Jeb said later, "I would not have gone into Iraq." But he mainly wants to avoid the whole issue, which he dismisses as "a hypothetical."
If you're looking for deep, searching reflection on the Iraq war, the 2016 presidential campaign may not be the best place to look. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last year found that 71 percent of Americans and 44 percent of Republicans think the war "wasn't worth it."
But nearly all Republicans and many Democrats supported it at the time. So the less said on the subject, most of the candidates doubtless feel, the better. Most prefer to "focus on the future," as Jeb urged.
This desire not to dwell on the past often comes from the same candidates who invoke the Munich agreement of 1938, a failed attempt to appease Adolf Hitler. But how a candidate assesses the lessons of the past is one of the best ways to get a sense of how a president would behave in the future -- which is also "a hypothetical."
Among Republicans, there has never been much interest in acknowledging what a catastrophe the Iraq war was. In 2012, Rick Perry said the U.S. should send troops back to Iraq. In 2008, Mike Huckabee was still insisting Hussein might have had WMD: "Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean that it wasn't planted." In 2012, Mitt Romney affirmed, "It was the right decision to go into Iraq."
Some current candidates have been a bit less enthusiastic. Ted Cruz tiptoed, noting that WMD were the reason for our invasion. "Without that predicate, it is difficult to imagine the decision would have been made to go into Iraq, and that predicate proved erroneous," he said, in a masterpiece of sterile verbosity. Marco Rubio said he would not have attacked Iraq based on today's knowledge -- though in March, he defended the invasion.
But neither they nor any of the others -- with the obvious exception of Rand Paul -- have renounced the basic worldview that produced it. The Republicans almost unanimously favor an aggressive stance based on brawny slogans and an assumption of American omnipotence.
Scott Walker sounds as though he misses George W. Bush: "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us." Rubio says America must have the mightiest military forces in the world, as if we don't already.
Paul is the only entrant willing to disavow the reckless adventurism of the Bush-Cheney years. When other Republicans blamed Barack Obama for the rise of the Islamic State, Paul disagreed, faulting those who mounted the Iraq war for "the chaos that is in the Middle East."
He's an outlier, and not just in his party. Hillary Clinton, who as a senator voted for the war, concedes she "got it wrong." But if the experience made her reassess her basic assumptions, she has kept it secret.
The unanticipated consequences of the Iraq invasion didn't keep her from pushing Obama to use air power to topple Moammar Gadhafi -- which led to another unanticipated disaster, in Libya and beyond. Clinton insists on sticking to that same approach in spite of all the times it has let us down.
Since 2001, our interventions have not only fallen short, but blown up in our faces. What should be clear is that when presidents resort to military force, they usually lack an understanding of the countries they attack, a due regard for the commitment required and a full appreciation of all the things that could go very wrong.
If the candidates haven't learned those lessons yet, they'll probably get another chance.
Sure, he made mistakes. Just like Clinton, and just like Obama to deny such past wrongs, does not help the future.
Since the Korean War, every war we have fought has been won by the skill and valor of our armed forces. In every case victory has been given to our enimies by the TREASON of the Democrat Party. Same thing with Iraq. The Democrat Party leadership is more dangerous and evil than ISIL.
Here are two videos of the Obama Administration claiming Iraq is one of the Administration's “Greatest Achievements”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOcPCrGRs6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6BoQp2yBZE
Now your LIBERAL revision of history is disgusting.
Mr. Chapman is a card-carrying member of the Democrat Propaganda Ministry. If Republicans spend the next nine months looking for a candidate who can make the Iraq War un-happen, who wins? Hillary, that’s who.
'Conservative' order is gone. The liberal idea of fixing things and keeping the world safe is in vogue. Islam will destroy even more now.
Whatever the Iraq war was supposed to accomplish, this is what it accomplished in reality:
It empowered Iran, by ousting their principal foe - Saddam - and replacing him with a government run by Iran-allied Shiites.
And no, it wasn’t Obama who put the Shiite gov’t into power, it was the Bush administration.
Please. Obama lost the Iraq and the Middle East. By mucking up the following:
1. Egypt
2. Libya
3. Syria
you don’t have to be a Democrat to recognize the Iraq war was a mistake. In fact, every GOP candidate for president — every one of them — is saying the Iraq war was a mistake.
Iraq became an ally of Iran during Bush’s first term. The new gov’t that replaced Saddam was pro-Iran.
bush did the world a great favor by creating fruit basket turn over in the fertile crescent.
It is all going as planned. Iraq and syria are split asunder into natural divisions. The Kurds are now autonomous in their region. The Iraqi threat is gone. Iran is being isolated. Hezbollah and Hamas are weakened
Bush was prescient and could see further into the future than those who see only a daily news cycle
Iraq fell to the US and its Bush’s Fighting Coalition (as opposed Obama’s Coalition). The US by 2008 and secured Iraq. Period. Obama won the election, claimed Iraq as a crowning achievement and then promptly lost the Iraq War by withdrawing US Forces. That is what happened.
These natural forces of Islam, killing each other, are now doing it easier with the fall of Iraq. Are we better of now with Saddam gone? I would say no. Nor do I discount that Obama hasn't helped at all. Nor does that take away from the GOP as well of supporting such bombings of instability.
Interesting opinion. Every GOP candidate for president — including Bush’s brother — disagrees wth you, so you need to get in touch with them, not with me. Every one of them, from Cruz to Santorum to Rubio to Jeb, says the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Take it up with them,
The gov’t that was elected in Iraq was pro-Iran, made up of guys who’s been living in Iran when Saddam was in power. Do some reading, it’s not hard.
That doesn’t really matter. Current political expediency has nothing to do with historical reality.
Again, you’re arguing with the GOP leaders. They all say that invading was a mistake. Drop them a line and let them know that you know better.
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.