The 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq has become a centerpiece issue for presidential primaries for the 2016 election, with candidates struggling to get their positions settled.
Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton seems to be the latest trying to distance herself from her votes in favor of the war, declaring them “a mistake, plain and simple.”
She’s not the only one grappling with the issue, however, with Republican Jeb Bush first endorsing and then disavowing the war in recent weeks, claiming he “misheard” the question.
In the more crowded Republican race, it could become a much bigger issue, as many of the candidates are trying to portray themselves as the hawk of all hawks for the sake of fund-raising, but also coping with the reality of just how unpopular that disastrous war was.
Some are trying to thread the needle on the issue, insisting the invasion was a mistake, but the war was won by George W. Bush and lost by Obama, while others seem eager to just distance themselves from the conflict at all costs.
Ultimately, even those who weren’t around to vote on the matter are going to have to make some statement on the war as decision-making precedent, particularly with the questions of being lied into that war looming large in the American public’s minds.
Poor JEB…he was caught between a rock and hard place by that tricky female wannbe reporter. Being one of the original signers of the PNAC letter urging, even begging, for the invasion of Iraq, he couldn't very well admit that THEY were wrong, now could he? On top of that, it was his bro who pulled the pin on the invasion, so well, it's family and he can't diss the bro. But on the other hand, because the invasion was such a colossal abject failure that will surely haunt the US for generations to come he has to look like he wouldn't have done the same thing as his sibling – even if he would have and clearly admitted it, before his handlers got him to back off the truth for the sake of the campaign, of course. Can't have the truth out there to tarnish the facade they want to project for the rubes who will believe almost anything for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.
A systemic problem you understand, for the slave owners we call Founding Fathers, they knew for a fact that you can’t have honest government when there is legalized bribery of politicians, which is why a donation (bribe) to gain favor with a politician is not a criminal offense and why nothing short of a Revolution will put Empire USA out of it’s misery.
…wasn't just an error-in-hindsight. For one thing, it was premised on the notion that another gov't ought not to have toys as scary as yours …that such things are contraband such that you oughta be burgled by well armed costumed folks … especially if the toys poison or infect rather than just burn, puncture, pulverize, or dismember you as do 'our' more humane weapons. A further premise was that they ought to prove they have no such toys, and that there's something sovereign about 'our' suspicions that they do. …almost like you were supposed to think like a SWAT team… Or almost like Israel wanted the Bush regime to relate to Iraq kinda like JFK had to Israel wrt it's nuclear weapons program… I believe they do like to reverse roles like that–e.g., people other than themselves using 'human shields,' committing 'genocide,' etc.
I don't know–are the prospects done with excuse-themes like better-safe-than-sorry / 20/20-hindsight yet?