The past two days have been tumultuous for Jeb Bush, specifically concerning his comments in an interview with Megyn Kelly.
When asked, “On the subject of Iraq…Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?” Bush responded by saying, “I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton…” Kelly immediately followed up asking, “You don’t think it was a mistake?” To which Bush gave a long, convoluted response blaming the Iraq invasion on faulty intelligence and poor military strategy.
Taking the comments at face value, Jeb Bush said that retrospectively, he is still in favor of the Iraq war. In 2015, saying that with all our current knowledge you would still invade Iraq is like saying that Neville Chamberlain was on to something when appeasing Hitler prior to World War 2. It is a statement founded on fundamentally faulty logic and tragic misinterpretations of history.
Republican pundits and talking heads jumped all over Bush after this interview. Many questioned his sanity, and left Politico’s Roger Simon questioning not if, but how many times Jeb was dropped on his head. Bush endured a bashing for a news cycle, but defenders soon came to his side.
Ann Navarro, a weathered GOP strategist, followed up with Bush after the interview, asking him to clarify his comments. After consideration and distance from the interview, most likely realizing the widespread implications of supporting such an absurd position, Bush said that he misheard the question, and answered the question without considering its retrospective nature.
While such a deep misunderstanding seems suspect, let us assume for a minute that this was in fact a mammoth misunderstanding. That does not account for a few troubling parts of Bush’s response.
First, misunderstanding or mishearing such a direct, softball question then continuing to defend such a preposterous position after a skeptical follow up is cause for concern. If Jeb Bush is to stumble on this question so early in the race, additional gaffes are certain to come in the future.
Additionally, consider the justification Bush provided upon Kelly’s follow-up. Bush claimed that faulty intelligence was the primary cause of the alleged mistake to invade, however, this is factually inaccurate. The Senate Intelligence committee found that the Bush Administration, “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
Regardless of the true intentionality behind Jeb Bush’s response, neither he nor the GOP needed this blunder.
This interview was bad for Jeb Bush not only due to the negative attention, but also because he’s been hailed as the moderate of the Republican field. Consider this: a main worry concerning the viability of Bush’s candidacy is his ability to make it through the Republican primary while holding his less-than-hyper-conservative viewpoints. He will inevitably be forced to shift to the right to gain the nomination, and much like Romney, would be forced to flip-flop on some issues to win the general election. This process will open Jeb Bush up to valid and substantial criticism for lacking a consistent message and being disingenuous. Having to go back on unnecessarily inflammatory remarks such as the ones concerning the Iraq war will only add fuel to this future fire.
The GOP is also in trouble. Jeb Bush was, and still may be, the front-runner to win the nomination. Every mistake he makes decreases the odds of a moderate opponent for Hillary in the general election, in turn hurting the GOP. Additionally, the other front runners for the GOP nomination have little to no foreign policy experience. Foreign policy credentials will be at a premium, and decreasing one’s legitimacy in that realm over such a simple question is simply inexcusable.
When Megyn Kelly asked, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?” The answer should have been one word: no. In trying to defend his brother’s decision to invade Iraq, not only did Jeb further associate himself with the toxic Bush name, he made life unnecessarily difficult not only for himself, but for the party as a whole.
Photo: Wikipedia
