Why no one should consider voting for Jeb Bush.

[Jhhnn]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-college-democrat-told-jeb-bush-brother-created/story?id=31041091



Maybe she's exaggerating but while Saddam Hussein was a terrible person he was also no friend to religious fanatics like those who formed ISIS.

Yeah he'd go in anyway... too bad Senator / Sec. of State Clinton also supported the war initially although I do believe she was more definitive in saying in hindsight that was a mistake....

I am not happy that we'll probably see Bush v Clinton part Deux

That doesn't accurately represent Clinton's position at the time. Pertinent bits from her floor speech at the time-

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/...-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq#

As history reveals, she was mistaken in taking GWB at his word.

 

[rudeguy]

That doesn't accurately represent Clinton's position at the time. Pertinent bits from her floor speech at the time-







http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/...-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq#

As history reveals, she was mistaken in taking GWB at his word.

Can you please (calmly) explain to me how you can accept Hillary being mistaken in believing Bush but you can't accept Bush being mistaken in believing the intelligence reports?

I keep trying to understand that part and my brain can't figure it out.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can you please (calmly) explain to me how you can accept Hillary being mistaken in believing Bush but you can't accept Bush being mistaken in believing the intelligence reports?

I keep trying to understand that part and my brain can't figure it out.

I agree that's a valid point. I've said before we can't say for sure that Bush himself lied about Iraq WMDs. He truly may have been misinformed.

That said, key people in his administration did lie, specifically including Cheney and Rumsfeld. They actively crafted anti-Iraq intelligence, willfully distorting data and cherry-picking the most lopsided assessments to create a dishonest excuse for their predetermined agenda. They lied to America; it's quite possible they also lied to their boss.

 

[HomerJS]

Can you please (calmly) explain to me how you can accept Hillary being mistaken in believing Bush but you can't accept Bush being mistaken in believing the intelligence reports?

I keep trying to understand that part and my brain can't figure it out.

I can accept Bush being far more culpable. Cheney was behind the scenes ensuring how intelligence was presented.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...put-pressure-on-CIA-to-back-his-opinions.html

 

[rudeguy]

I agree that's a valid point. I've said before we can't say for sure that Bush himself lied about Iraq WMDs. He truly may have been misinformed.

That said, key people in his administration did lie, specifically including Cheney and Rumsfeld. They actively crafted anti-Iraq intelligence, willfully distorting data and cherry-picking the most lopsided assessments to create a dishonest excuse for their predetermined agenda. They lied to America; it's quite possible they also lied to their boss.

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

 

[Bowfinger]

That doesn't accurately represent Clinton's position at the time. Pertinent bits from her floor speech at the time-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/...-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq#

As history reveals, she was mistaken in taking GWB at his word.

Yep, that's a popular bit of revisionist history for the Bush apologists, that Democrats share equal blame because they voted for the war. Congress was told Bush needed the AUMF as leverage in negotiations with Iraq. We were assured force would be used only as a last resort. THAT is what many in Congress voted for. In reality, of course, the Bush administration had no interest in negotiating with Iraq and instead rushed to war.

That said, I do blame Congressional Democrats for being stupid enough -- or more accurately, cowardly enough -- to hand Bush that loaded gun. It was clear Bush and his cronies were eager to attack Iraq. Clinton deserves some of that blame. It's one of many reasons I'm not a fan.

 

[Bowfinger]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

First, not everybody shares my view. Second, because he's the guy at the top and gets blamed for everything that happened under his watch, just as so many people today blame Obama for every bad thing that happens.

Third, because if Bush truly was deceived, it was greatly due to his own incompetence. There were plenty of sources challenging the tainted intel, but Bush insulated himself in a bubble of like-minded handlers. Further, it was clear that Bush wanted an excuse to attack Iraq, so he had no interest in validating propaganda that supported his agenda. Bottom line, Bush is the single person most responsible for our unilateral attack on Iraq, and for that he deserves condemnation.

I'd also note that the "war criminal" charges come not just from the act of invading Iraq, but also many illegal and abusive actions that happened under his tenure. The most glaring example is our use of torture, authorized by his administration.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you please (calmly) explain to me how you can accept Hillary being mistaken in believing Bush but you can't accept Bush being mistaken in believing the intelligence reports?

I keep trying to understand that part and my brain can't figure it out.

The biggest reason is that Bush didn't care what the intelligence reports said. The famous Iraq national intelligence estimate that people cited as the reason to attack Iraq was indeed faulty, but it's origin is particularly telling. It was delivered in October of 2002, which is well after Bush issued his call to the international community for support for an invasion of Iraq. More tellingly, the NIE was never requested by Bush at all, it was requested by a Senate committee.

Long story short, what that means is that not only did Bush make this decision before the authoritative intelligence estimate had been made, he never bothered to ask for one to begin with.

 

[IronWing]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

Because Bush is a war criminal. It was his call and he chose war.

 

[waggy]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

1st) because you aren't a democrat.

2nd) he was at the top of the GOP. he was supposedly in control.


I agree with you though. I am more pissed at the agency's that gave him that information. I don't blame bush or those that voted for the war.

I blame those in charge of the agency's being to willing to lie and doctor evidence to start a war. why would they do that? who is better off after the war? not the Iraq people. Not the US soldiers. Not the US taxpayers.

 

[bshole]

I still can't believe Jeb said it. Good christ, is he politically blind? Is he as retarded as his bro? How in the holy hell would he think this helps him? Well at least he didn't mention as Sarah Palin!

After spending months distancing himself from his family’s political legacy, Jeb Bush surprised a group of Manhattan financiers this week by naming his brother, former president George W. Bush, as his most influential counselor on U.S.-Israel policy.

“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him,” Bush said Tuesday, speaking to a crowd of high-powered investors at the Metropolitan Club, according to four people present.

 

[fskimospy]

1st) because you aren't a democrat.

2nd) he was at the top of the GOP. he was supposedly in control.

I agree with you though. I am more pissed at the agency's that gave him that information. I don't blame bush or those that voted for the war.

I blame those in charge of the agency's being to willing to lie and doctor evidence to start a war. why would they do that? who is better off after the war? not the Iraq people. Not the US soldiers. Not the US taxpayers.

Can you address what I said? Bush wasn't acting on the intelligence assessments given to him by those agencies, he had already decided on a course of action before their assessment was given. More importantly, he never even asked for it.

How is that anything but damning?

 

[Genx87]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

Because in all honesty we were going to take out Iraq regardless of the intelligence reports. It was on the table since 1998 that regime change in Iraq was a national goal. 9-11 allowed whoever was in power(that being Bush) a great excuse to follow through under the guise of the war on terror.

Personally I think they crafted the intelligence reports they wanted to justify to avg Americans we needed to spend trillions of dollars taking out an old enemy. So the Bush administration is rightfully the target of rage by people who think it was a terrible waste of national resources.

They sold the Americans on a lie, one we happily believed because Muslims and nuclear weapons scare the shit out of us after 9-11.

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, not a bright move to state that your mid-east policy advisor is the same guy who basically dowsed the whole region in gasoline and hit it with the proverbial flamethrower. Smooth move ex-lax.

 

[blankslate]

I am more pissed at the agency's that gave him that information. I don't blame bush or those that voted for the war.

But it wasn't like that prior to 9/11 eleven. When it comes to warnings of an attack maybe some people are aware of the Presidential Daily Brief that was delivered by courier to President Bush in August of 2001 but according to author Kurt Eichenwald in his book "500 Days: Truth and Lies in the Terror Wars" that Presidential Brief on August 6th was the culmination of a series of warnings the administration received throughout 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57dm3ZbCN2Y&t=33m55s
^here is a part of a 20 minute long interview with the author. It starts at the part where he is explaining the August Memo. The the beginning of the interview is about 30 minutes into the video after the David Frum portion is finished if one is interested in watching it in its entirety (which I have more than once).

There are allegations that the CIA was leaned on to emphasize or look at links between Iraq and 9/11 which turned out not to be very credible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war...

Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.

Let's be clear. Certain members of the Bush administration wanted a was with Iraq... in fact they probably goofed by calling it at first "Operation Iraqi Liberation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM&t=0m27s

Lay the blame where the blame belongs... yes the intelligence agencies didn't always get it right but the administration didn't listen to them as well as they should have either.... it turns out that they were more diligent in their attempts to warn the administration they served than most of the public is aware of.


.....

 

[mindmajick]

But it wasn't like that prior to 9/11 eleven. When it comes to warnings of an attack maybe some people are aware of the Presidential Daily Brief that was delivered by courier to President Bush in August of 2001 but according to author Kurt Eichenwald in his book "500 Days: Truth and Lies in the Terror Wars" that Presidential Brief on August 6th was the culmination of a series of warnings the administration received throughout 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57dm3ZbCN2Y&t=33m55s
^here is a part of a 20 minute long interview with the author. It starts at the part where he is explaining the August Memo. The the beginning of the interview is about 30 minutes into the video after the David Frum portion is finished if one is interested in watching it in its entirety (which I have more than once).

There are allegations that the CIA was leaned on to emphasize or look at links between Iraq and 9/11 which turned out not to be very credible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html




Let's be clear. Certain members of the Bush administration wanted a was with Iraq... in fact they probably goofed by calling it at first "Operation Iraqi Liberation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM&t=0m27s

Lay the blame where the blame belongs... yes the intelligence agencies didn't always get it right but the administration didn't listen to them as well as they should have either.... it turns out that they were more diligent in their attempts to warn the administration they served than most of the public is aware of.


.....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-h-silberman-the-dangerous-lie-that-bush-lied-1423437950

 

[hal2kilo]

I still can't believe Jeb said it. Good christ, is he politically blind? Is he as retarded as his bro? How in the holy hell would he think this helps him? Well at least he didn't mention as Sarah Palin!

Got to be one of the biggest political blunders that I have witnessed in my entire life.

Stick fork in, turn.

 

[rudeguy]

Got to be one of the biggest political blunders that I have witnessed in my entire life.

Stick fork in, turn.

Yep. The only thing I could imagine that would be worse is forcing the whole country to redo its health insurance system and having the president tour the country telling Americans that "if they like their plan, they can keep their plan, if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor" only to have that be an enormous lie. Or to force people to use a website to acquire that insurance and then have the website not function after years of "work" and hundreds of millions of tax dollars wasted! Oh now that would be one of the biggest political blunders ever!

 

[hal2kilo]

Yep. The only thing I could imagine that would be worse is forcing the whole country to redo its health insurance system and having the president tour the country telling Americans that "if they like their plan, they can keep their plan, if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor" only to have that be an enormous lie. Or to force people to use a website to acquire that insurance and then have the website not function after years of "work" and hundreds of millions of tax dollars wasted! Oh now that would be one of the biggest political blunders ever!

The Republican plan for fixing our horrible health care system was so much better.

Oh yea, I forgot. They never had one.

 

[zinfamous]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

From the horse's mouth "I'm the decider!"

That's why. It's still his responsibility, regardless of anything else--he's the damn President. If he actually had the balls that he often pretended to have, then he would have told the fat heartless man to sit the fuck down and do the job of any real vice president: nothing. He also never had the brains to realize he was being duped in this way, unless he really was all into it.

I actually try to give the fool some benefit of the doubt by explaining his actions as a puppet dangled by the committee formed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and eventually Rove to find the perfect gas bag to funnel their treachery.

In the end that really isn't much of a respectful analysis of the man, but I think it is the most positive analysis that history could ever leave him with.

 

[zinfamous]

Yep. The only thing I could imagine that would be worse is forcing the whole country to redo its health insurance system and having the president tour the country telling Americans that "if they like their plan, they can keep their plan, if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor" only to have that be an enormous lie. Or to force people to use a website to acquire that insurance and then have the website not function after years of "work" and hundreds of millions of tax dollars wasted! Oh now that would be one of the biggest political blunders ever!

already hitting $500mill in medicare savings, and raising each year. Actual costs are stabilizing, which has never happened before. The projected savings increase every quarter. Millions more insured than ever where before.

If you are having issues with your insurance, and I know you are, then look to your state that willfully chose to ignore the exchanges out of political hubris, or your employer who chose the same--pure political bollocks.

but this is funny: I don't recall a discussion of Bush's abject failure going straight to but but but: Obama!

 

[rudeguy]

The Republican plan for fixing our horrible health care system was so much better.

Oh yea, I forgot. They never had one.

Funny. Democrats keep saying Obamacare was based on a Republican plan. So which is it?

The point is that Democrats are still obsessed with George W Bush and are in a state of panic because another Bush very well could be in office again. This thread is a perfect example of the Liberal obsession with all things Bush.

The OP and many "elite" members here have constantly called Bush a war criminal and have predicted Obama would have him jailed and charged with treason and war crimes.

Here is the reality these Democrats need to face:

George W Bush acted with the approval of Congress. Your Democrat leaders voted for the war. You cannot demonize W while excusing Democrats who voted in favor. It just shows that you don't care about the war, only demonizing W.

If you actually cared about war crimes, you would be calling for Obama to be charged with murdering Americans with drone strikes. But the Democrats don't seem to mind that. That's all in a day's work for Obama.

Obama has caused far more deaths worldwide than W ever did. Obama's gutless decisions allowed Syria, ISIS, Yemen, Ukraine, untold world events to get way out of hand. All because Obama doesn't have the spine to actually make a decision.

The Democrat obsession with Bush is only there to try to distract from Obama's huge failures and Hillary's glaring flaws. But hey...keep telling yourself it is all Bush's fault. Meanwhile those of us with half an IQ will keep laughing at you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

but this is funny: I don't recall a discussion of Bush's abject failure going straight to but but but: Obama!

Your right...it's generally the other way around.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-h-silberman-the-dangerous-lie-that-bush-lied-1423437950

One op-ed deserves another: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/republicans-still-denying-bush-lied-about-iraq.html

The Bush administration deliberately lied America into war.

 

[Bowfinger]

So then why all the Bush rage? Why do people still gnash their teeth and call him a war criminal? I just don't get it?

This is one of the issues I have really tried to see from the other side and I just can't understand it.

Clearly you have not, given several people just made a sincere effort to explain it to you. You've chosen to ignore us in favor of parroting the same half-witted BushCo talking points, the talking points we've already shown you are false:

[ ... ]
The OP and many "elite" members here have constantly called Bush a war criminal and have predicted Obama would have him jailed and charged with treason and war crimes.

Here is the reality these Democrats need to face:

George W Bush acted with the approval of Congress. Your Democrat leaders voted for the war. You cannot demonize W while excusing Democrats who voted in favor. It just shows that you don't care about the war, only demonizing W.

No, they really didn't, but keep shoveling that BS.

If you actually cared about war crimes, you would be calling for Obama to be charged with murdering Americans with drone strikes. But the Democrats don't seem to mind that. That's all in a day's work for Obama.

Start a thread about it, then. It's just a duhversion in this one.

Obama has caused far more deaths worldwide than W ever did. Obama's gutless decisions allowed Syria, ISIS, Yemen, Ukraine, untold world events to get way out of hand. All because Obama doesn't have the spine to actually make a decision.

That's a perfect example of the usual partisan dunces blaming Obama for everything that happens in the world. It would far more fitting to blame Bush for those deaths, since his unilateral destruction of Iraq led to the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise. The fact of the matter, however, is the Middle East has been on the edge of chaos for centuries.

The Democrat obsession with Bush is only there to try to distract from Obama's huge failures and Hillary's glaring flaws. But hey...keep telling yourself it is all Bush's fault.

Umm, Sparky. This thread is because Jeb Bush is obviously running for President, and has shown he embraces many of his brother's most odious blunders. That makes it a current topic.

Meanwhile those of us with half an IQ will keep laughing at you.

I couldn't have said it better myself. You are as blindly partisan as they come. Rage on.