Jeb’s Rookie Mistake :How Could he be Unprepared for the Iraq Question? James Taranto
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jebs-rookie-mistake-1431455227
Jeb Bush, in contrast with some of his prospective rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, is an old political pro. He first ran for office more than two decades ago and served two terms as governor of the third most populous state. Politics and public service are in his blood: His generation of Bushes is the third to serve in elected office and the fourth in government.
So how did he make such a rookie mistake?
WSJ.com has the transcript, from an interview with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly. Regarding Iraq, she asked him: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
His reply was unequivocal: “I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”
Kelly pressed: “You don’t think it was a mistake?” Bush acknowledged “mistakes took place”: Prewar intelligence was “faulty”; “we didn’t focus on security first” after toppling the Baathist regime; and that lack of security prompted “the Iraqis” to turn against the U.S.
“By the way,” Bush continued, “guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as well? George W. Bush. . . . So just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.”
Then again, it might. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, in a piece titled “Jeb Bush’s Disastrous Defense of the Iraq War,” compares George W. Bush favorably with his younger brother:
In his memoir, Decision Points, W. wrestled with the dilemma of his decision to start a war on the basis of bad intelligence. Only W. did not call the intelligence “faulty,” as Jeb had. W. called the intelligence “false.”
“The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false,” George W. Bush wrote.
Even though W. still argued that the world is “undoubtedly safer” without Saddam Hussein, he knew the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that he used to justify the invasion was “a massive blow to our credibility—my credibility—that would shake the confidence of the American people.”
“I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it,” George W. Bush wrote. “I still do.”
More important, given that George W. won’t be seeking the presidency again, is York’s observation regarding the inevitable Democratic nominee: “As for whether Hillary Clinton would have authorized the invasion ‘knowing what we know now’—it’s hard to believe that Jeb Bush is serious when he says she would. Of course she wouldn’t.” She has said as much, and an answer to a hypothetical historical question is unfalsifiable.
The main trouble with Jeb’s comment is he didn’t answer the question—which is to say that he ignored the premise, “knowing what we know now.” Let’s take a crack at answering that question.
York seems to define “what we know now” narrowly, as referring only to the failure to find stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Our own answer—perhaps an eccentric view—is that if we’d known that, we’d still have favored the invasion, as our arguments for it did not rest heavily on WMDs.
But there are many other things we know now that we didn’t in 2002 or 2003 (and Jeb Bush, to his credit, alluded to some of the following points in the interview). We know that although Saddam’s regime fell easily, pacifying Iraq proved immensely difficult. We know that public support for the effort, and Democratic political support, collapsed within a few years. We know that it never recovered, notwithstanding the success of the 2007 surge. We know that public discontent over the war helped elect a president who was opposed to it as an ideological matter. We know that Barack Obama withdrew all American troops in 2011. And we know that into that vacuum moved the Islamic State, which rivals Saddam in brutality and exceeds him in ambition.
Add all of this up, and it is difficult to deny that the consequence of invading Iraq was catastrophic, at least from the standpoint of 2015. To be sure, the consequence of not invading might have been awful, too. But given the choice between a certain catastrophe and an uncertain outcome—the way the Kelly question was framed—the right answer is obvious. If only things were that simple in real life!
To the list of things we know now, let’s add two that are particularly relevant to Mrs. Clinton. First, having voted in favor of the Iraq war is a serious strike against any candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Second, an unrepented-for vote for the war is a fatal strike.
Mrs. Clinton thus has two (nonfatal, but potentially damaging) strikes against her vis-à-vis Iraq: Her vote for the war, and her (almost certainly) cynical flip-flop. That was likely what Jeb Bush was trying to get at when he cited Mrs. Clinton in answer to Kelly’s question. But by evading the question rather than taking it on forthrightly, he turned Mrs. Clinton’s weakness into a comparative strength.
Apologies All Around
Shortly after we published yesterday’s column on Mark Halperin’s ridiculous interview with Ted Cruz, Halperin issued an apology:
We wanted to talk with Senator Cruz about his outreach to Latino voters the day after he spoke at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. My intent was to give the Senator a chance to speak further about his heritage and personal connections to the community through some casual questions. I rushed through the questions, and that was a mistake—it led to poor tone and timing. I also understand why some felt the questions were inappropriate. As for asking Senator Cruz to welcome Senator Sanders to the race in Spanish, that was meant to be the type of light-hearted banter that he’s done with us before on the show. In no way was I asking Senator Cruz to “prove” he was an “authentic” Latino. I apologize to those that were offended, and to Senator Cruz. I promise that I will work to make the tone and questions better next time.
To which Cruz replied on his Facebook page:
Mark Halperin is a serious and fair-minded journalist. Today he kindly issued an apology for some silly questions he asked me in an interview. The apology was unnecessary—no offense was taken, nor, I believe, intended—but is certainly appreciated.
I’m proud of my Cuban heritage, my father’s journey from oppression and prison in Cuba to freedom in America, and also my Irish-Italian heritage on my mother’s side. Both are integral parts of who I am today.
The 2016 Republican field is shaping up to be the most diverse in history, and I look forward to a robust and substantive conversation about how we work together to turn around our current stagnation and expand opportunity for everyone to achieve the American Dream.
All American college students should aspire to emulate Cruz’s grace in responding to rudeness.
Comments are closed.
