Jeb Bush’s Four Different Answers to the Same Iraq Question

The likely presidential candidate now has a clear answer on whether, knowing what he knows now, he would have gone into Iraq in 2003. But it’s been a long four days.

Jeb Bush participates in a discussion with the National Review editor Rich Lowry, during the National Review Institute 2015 Ideas Summit April 30, 2015 in Washington, D.C.
National Journal
May 14, 2015, 11:17 a.m.

It took a little while, but Jeb Bush now has a clear answer to this question: Knowing what we know now, would he have invaded Iraq in 2003?

“Knowing what we now know, I would not have engaged,” the former Florida governor said in Arizona Thursday. “I would not have gone into Iraq.”

Bush had been exceedingly hesitant to answer the question just a few days ago, when it first cropped up in a Fox News interview on Monday night. And it doesn’t seem as if he’s enjoyed repeatedly getting asked about his brother’s decision-making while traveling around the country this week.

Here’s how Bush inched toward a final answer.

Monday

In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Bush was asked:

“On the subject of Iraq—obviously very controversial—knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”

He responded:

“I would’ve, and so would’ve Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”

Tuesday

It took no time for attacks to come after Monday’s comment, from all sides. “You can’t still think going into Iraq now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do,” conservative radio host Laura Ingraham said Tuesday. “That’s like you have no ability to learn from past mistakes at all.”

In a radio interview later that day with Sean Hannity, Bush got another shot and tried to clarify.

First, Hannity:

“You gave an interview yesterday where the question of Iraq came up, and knowing what you know now, would you go in…. You said ‘yes, and so would Hillary,’ and I took that to mean, based on, you know, if it was the same moment with the same intelligence, would you do it based on that moment. The media seems to be taking it another way, and I want to see if I could clarify that today.”

Bush’s response:

“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about, given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, you know, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and the lack of focus on security. My brother has admitted this, and we have to learn from that.”

Hannity tried asking Bush again what his decision would’ve been with “20/20 hindsight.” Bush’s response:

“I don’t know what that decision would’ve been. That’s a hypothetical. But the simple fact is, mistakes were made, as they always are in life.”

Wednesday

By this point, Bush began to nail down a response strategy: Blame the question itself.

At a town hall event in Nevada, Bush said, “If we’re going to get into hypotheticals, I think it does a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot.” He continued, saying, “Going back in time and talking about hypotheticals—what would have happened, what could have happened—I think, does a disservice for them. What we ought to be focusing on is what are the lessons learned.”

Three people at the town hall asked Bush some form of the Iraq question.

Thursday

The definitive answer, given at a Tempe, Arizona, town hall:

“Here’s the deal: If we’re all supposed to answer hypothetical questions—knowing what we know now, what would you have done—I would have not engaged,” Bush said. “I would not have gone into Iraq.”

That answer should bring this round of Iraq questions to an end. But with an official presidential announcement expected soon, more are coming—and they’ll likely get a little more complicated than this hypothetical.

What We're Following See More »
MANAFORT STEERED HIM WORK IN UKRAINE
Prosecutors Weighing Whether to Charge Greg Craig
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

A long-running federal investigation into former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig "is reaching a critical stage, presenting the Justice Department with a decision about whether to charge a prominent Democrat as part of a more aggressive crackdown on illegal foreign lobbying." Federal prosecutors in New York have transferred the case to Washington. ... The investigation centers on whether Mr. Craig should have disclosed work he did in 2012 — while he was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — on behalf of the Russia-aligned government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine. The work was steered to Mr. Craig by Paul Manafort."

Source:
AUTHORIZED TO UNLOCK PHONES
Feds Raided Broidy's Offices Last Year
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal authorities raided the office of Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy last summer, seeking records related to his dealings with foreign officials and Trump administration associates, according to a sealed search warrant obtained by ProPublica. Agents were authorized to use the megadonor’s hands and face to unlock any phones that required fingerprint or facial scans."

Source:
REPUBLICANS SAID VOTE WAS A WASTE OF TIME
House Approves Resolution to Release Mueller Report, 420-0
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Justice Department to make special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and full report public and available to Congress. The 420-0 vote came after a fiery debate on the House floor, during which some Democratic lawmakers were admonished for their criticisms of President Donald Trump. Republicans said the resolution was unnecessary and a waste of time, but ultimately joined Democrats to approve it. Four Republicans — Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted 'present.'"

Source:
SAME JUDGE THAT JUST SENTENCED MANAFORT
Stone Trial Set for Nov. 5
4 days ago
WHY WE CARE
IS MUELLER'S TOP PROSECUTOR
Andrew Weissmann Stepping Down
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"One of the most prominent members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating Russia's attack on the 2016 presidential election will soon leave the office and the Justice Department, two sources close to the matter tell NPR. Andrew Weissmann, the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, will study and teach at New York University and work on a variety of public service projects, including his longstanding interest in preventing wrongful convictions by shoring up forensic science standards used in courts, the sources added. The departure is the strongest sign yet that Mueller and his team have all but concluded their work."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login