Why no one should consider voting for Jeb Bush.

[zinfamous]

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

bizarro thread, this one.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

you know that is patently absurd; and even a partisan hack such as yourself can sit back and realize how truly stupid this is. The middle east has been on a wave ever since Bush Co decided stir shit up. All roads lead to the Bush family, and you fucking know it.

So your neighbor dumps his trash on your lawn, then blames you for letting him dump it there, and your other neighbor for failing to clean it up properly?

shit man, you don't even try anymore.

Obama has a real spine, unlike that Bush fucker--he doesn't rage his way into foibles, rage his way into dragging our country into endless wars and financial ruins. he actually THINKS before deciding. Something you should try, at least once in your life.

The collective conservative circle jerk that has become so anti-thought, so anti-intelligence is getting tired. You guys are clowns, and would simply entertain the rest of us, if only you didn't have idiots up on a puppet stage bending to your pus-addled brains.

 

[rudeguy]

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:


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


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


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.


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.


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

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

Yawn

 

[IronWing]

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.

As long as we have a sizable percentage of the electorate willing to vote for the Bush family, the moral, decent, intelligent patriots of this country have reason to worry. That braindead intellectual zombies keep electing the criminal, fascist, and treasonous Bush filth into public office is a grave concern.

 

[fskimospy]

Yawn

I don't know why you keep trying to peddle this bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

House Results:

215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

Senate Results:

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution.
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution.

That means if the Democrats had their way Congress wouldn't have authorized military action against Iraq.

You've repeatedly tried to sidestep this fact by doing a two-step where you say Congress authorized the war and Democratic "leaders" voted for it, all while never mentioning that Democrats as a whole rejected it. You frequently accuse other people of being shills or dishonest. Leaving out information like that is pretty damn dishonest, and it's worse because we both know you know better.

Stop trying to shovel bullshit and hope that nobody notices.

 

[mindmajick]

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.

Nice. Well done.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yawn

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.

Yawn, indeed. You've aptly demonstrated your mind is closed and you won't consider anything that challenges your entrenched partisan dogma. In other words, you are content to be brainwashed.


Edit: and as Eskimospy nicely shows, the majority of Democrats voted against it.

 

[Nebor]

That means if the Democrats had their way Congress wouldn't have authorized military action against Iraq.

You've repeatedly tried to sidestep this fact by doing a two-step where you say Congress authorized the war and Democratic "leaders" voted for it, all while never mentioning that Democrats as a whole rejected it. You frequently accuse other people of being shills or dishonest. Leaving out information like that is pretty damn dishonest, and it's worse because we both know you know better.

Stop trying to shovel bullshit and hope that nobody notices.

If the democratic leaders voted for it but couldn't convince the rest of the Democrats to do so, that means the Democrats must have some pretty poor leaders. :hmm:

 

[Bowfinger]

If the democratic leaders voted for it but couldn't convince the rest of the Democrats to do so, that means the Democrats must have some pretty poor leaders. :hmm:

This is news?

 

[PokerGuy]

That means if the Democrats had their way Congress wouldn't have authorized military action against Iraq.

That might be true for house democrats, but the majority of senate democrats voted for it. Not only that, but in the context of this discussion, the one specific democrat who will be the candidate running for president voted for it herself. This entire thread is about how one should not vote for Jeb because he theoretically would have been for it as well..... wile ignoring that hildabeast actually did vote for it.

I have no problem saying the republicans bare the brunt of the blame for an ill-advised war, starting with the white house.... but you also can't absolve the dems who voted for it, they are just much to blame, because without them the republicans would not have had the votes. The ones who voted against it are absolved.

 

[nageov3t]

they should start asking this question at the debates, like they asked the GOP candidates last election if they believed in global warming, evolution, etc.

"knowing what we know now, would you have supported the Iraq war?"

anyone who raises their hand will be immediately escorted off the stage and banned from serving the government in any capacity.

 

[fskimospy]

That might be true for house democrats, but the majority of senate democrats voted for it. Not only that, but in the context of this discussion, the one specific democrat who will be the candidate running for president voted for it herself. This entire thread is about how one should not vote for Jeb because he theoretically would have been for it as well..... wile ignoring that hildabeast actually did vote for it.

I have no problem saying the republicans bare the brunt of the blame for an ill-advised war, starting with the white house.... but you also can't absolve the dems who voted for it, they are just much to blame, because without them the republicans would not have had the votes. The ones who voted against it are absolved.

I have no desire to absolve the people who voted for it, but overall the Democrats did not support it.

I actually feel bad for Jeb here as there's probably no answer he can give that would be a good one. You're either shitting on your brother or endorsing a huge mistake. Additionally, Republican primary voters don't actually think the Iraq war was that bad an idea.

I thought this was a fairly decent take on it:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bushs-bumbling-on-iraq-may-hurt-him-later-rather-than-sooner/

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
I have no problem saying the republicans bare the brunt of the blame for an ill-advised war, starting with the white house.... but you also can't absolve the dems who voted for it, they are just much to blame, because without them the republicans would not have had the votes. The ones who voted against it are absolved.

No, they aren't:

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.

The Bush administration bears the primary responsibility. Congress shares some responsibility.

 

[Jaskalas]

That means if the Democrats had their way Congress wouldn't have authorized military action against Iraq.

Negated if you manage to nominate the candidate who did.

 

[chucky2]

If the democratic leaders voted for it but couldn't convince the rest of the Democrats to do so, that means the Democrats must have some pretty poor leaders. :hmm:

Haha, more like the Dems knew that the Reps would have the votes necessary to approve, so were able to vote to better fluff their constituency come re-election time.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have no desire to absolve the people who voted for it, but overall the Democrats did not support it.

I actually feel bad for Jeb here as there's probably no answer he can give that would be a good one. You're either shitting on your brother or endorsing a huge mistake. Additionally, Republican primary voters don't actually think the Iraq war was that bad an idea.

I thought this was a fairly decent take on it:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bushs-bumbling-on-iraq-may-hurt-him-later-rather-than-sooner/

There is an easy answer. Given what we know now no I wouldn't or given what we know now I would have done this ...

 

[PokerGuy]

No, they aren't:

The Bush administration bears the primary responsibility. Congress shares some responsibility.

Nonsense, that's just the tired old "oh, poor us, we were sooooo misled" argument. That just doesn't hold any water. Without congressional approval the white house could not have gone ahead. Those who voted for it, regardless of party (and that means almost all repubs, and many dems) are to blame for providing the authorization. Revisionist history and pretending to have been a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed crap) doesn't work.

As I posted earlier, the central premise of the thread is to say one should not vote for Jeb based on what he said he might have done at that time, while blissfully ignoring that the other candidate actually DID vote and provide authorization for the action.

In other words, the usual partisan hackery and drivel.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is an easy answer. Given what we know now no I wouldn't or given what we know now I would have done this ...

I agree, that's a much more logical question. Asking someone what they theoretically would have done at the time, knowing only the information that would have been available to them at the time is one thing. Asking them what they would do, given the information we've learned since then is another. There is zero doubt in my mind that hildabeast would have done the same thing Bush did had she been in the white house, whether she'll admit it now or not. Regardless of theoretical conjecture, the FACT is that she voted to authorize the action, no going back and changing that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nonsense, that's just the tired old "oh, poor us, we were sooooo misled" argument. That just doesn't hold any water. Without congressional approval the white house could not have gone ahead. Those who voted for it, regardless of party (and that means almost all repubs, and many dems) are to blame for providing the authorization. Revisionist history and pretending to have been a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed crap) doesn't work.

Are you denying the Bush administration promised that the use of force would be a last resort? Indeed, while I won't assert that Bush personally lied about Iraq's WMDs, he did lie about his intention to use force against Iraq.

As I posted earlier, the central premise of the thread is to say one should not vote for Jeb based on what he said he might have done at that time, while blissfully ignoring that the other candidate actually DID vote and provide authorization for the action.

In other words, the usual partisan hackery and drivel.

Except as Jhhnn already showed us, her words at that time contradict your revisionist history: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37403292&postcount=251

The partisan hackery and drivel is yours.

 

[Bowfinger]

I agree, that's a much more logical question. Asking someone what they theoretically would have done at the time, knowing only the information that would have been available to them at the time is one thing. Asking them what they would do, given the information we've learned since then is another. There is zero doubt in my mind that hildabeast would have done the same thing Bush did had she been in the white house, whether she'll admit it now or not. Regardless of theoretical conjecture, the SPIN is that she voted to authorize the action, no going back and changing that.

Fixed.

The FACT is she, along with Congress as a whole, voted to give Bush the force card as a last resort, to pressure Iraq to cooperate. I think even that was irresponsible -- you don't give a child a loaded gun and tell him to go play -- but it is not the same as voting to actually invade. That falls squarely on the Bush administration. Bush was the Commander in Chief, Bush was the self-declared decider, not Congress.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I agree, that's a much more logical question. Asking someone what they theoretically would have done at the time, knowing only the information that would have been available to them at the time is one thing. Asking them what they would do, given the information we've learned since then is another. There is zero doubt in my mind that hildabeast would have done the same thing Bush did had she been in the white house, whether she'll admit it now or not. Regardless of theoretical conjecture, the FACT is that she voted to authorize the action, no going back and changing that.

I'm kind of with you however Hillary would not have Cheney running the show either. I'm speculating that is the reason no one was held accountable for that disastrously incorrect intel. Cheney wanted war.

 

[Meghan54]

Are you denying the Bush administration promised that the use of force would be a last resort? Indeed, while I won't assert that Bush personally lied about Iraq's WMDs, he did lie about his intention to use force against Iraq.



Except as Jhhnn already showed us, her words at that time contradict your revisionist history: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37403292&postcount=251

The partisan hackery and drivel is yours.

The world is completely black and white for some, denying them the realization that the world is actually shades of grey. Almost makes you think they're robots.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Hey conservatives, your Bush is showing again; http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note...s-iraq/story?id=31037863#.VVSw2y3oTgU.twitter

--IT ALL STARTED WITH ONE QUESTION posed by Fox News' Megyn Kelly: "Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion" of Iraq in 2003? And over the last few days, Jeb Bush, who is not yet an official presidential candidate, has struggled to grab hold of one answer. Here's a look back:

1. YES. "I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got." --Jeb Bush on Fox News' "The Kelly File" (aired Monday, May 11)

2. I DON'T KNOW. "I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about, given what people knew then, would you have done it ... knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and the focus on security ... the simple fact is, in the last few years of my brother's presidency, the surge was quite effective to bring security and stability to Iraq, which was missing in the early days ... that security has been totally obliterated by [this] president's pulling out too early, and now these voids are filled by this barbaric, asymmetric threat ... I don't know what that decision would have been. That's a hypothetical." --Jeb Bush on The Sean Hannity radio show (Tuesday, May 12)

3. I WON'T SAY BECAUSE TALKING ABOUT IT DOES A DISSERVICE TO THOSE WHO SERVED. "The problem with hypotheticals is two-fold. One, when I was governor I got to -- I felt it a duty, I didn't have to -- to call all the family members of people who lost their lives and I don't remember the total number but it was easily over 100. And I felt it a duty to do that because I admired the sacrifice of their families. And I admired the men and women -- mostly men -- that made the ultimate sacrifice. So, going back in time and talking about hypotheticals -- what would have happened what could have happened, I think, does a disservice for them." --Jeb Bush at a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada (Wednesday, May 13) http://abcn.ws/1IBKjWr

4. PROBABLY NOT. "Talking about the future is more than fair. Talking about the past and saying, how would you have done something after the fact is a little tougher. ... Of course, given the power of looking back and having that -- of course anybody would have made different decisions. There's no denying that. But to delve into that and not focus on the future is where I need to draw the line." --Jeb Bush in a gaggle with reporters after a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada (Wednesday, May 13) http://abcn.ws/1IBKjWr

 

[PokerGuy]

I have no desire to absolve the people who voted for it, but overall the Democrats did not support it.

Last I checked, votes do not happen as a "party". Those dems who voted against it are not to blame, those who voted for it (and that's a majority of the senate, including hildabeast) share blame.

I actually feel bad for Jeb here as there's probably no answer he can give that would be a good one. You're either sh*tting on your brother or endorsing a huge mistake. Additionally, Republican primary voters don't actually think the Iraq war was that bad an idea.

I disagree, there's a very reasonable answer: "given the intelligence provided at the time and the advice provided at the time, I would have probably made the same decision. In light of all the information we've learned since then, I would not."

That doesn't throw his brother under the bus, but also acknowledges that in light of what we now know the whole thing was not a good idea. Hindsight is always 20/20, nothing wrong with learning from information you gain along the way.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just a reminder to everyone. Our current congress has learned not to be involved in giving the president authority to use force. They still have not voted about force against ISIS its better for them to leave the responsibility to the president that way nobody has to support any action that could have a bad result.