Jeb Bush goes after Hillary on Iraq?

Does he REALLY want to go THERE?

Arguing that Clinton, as secretary of state, “stood by” while Iraq fell apart and as the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, took root across Iraq and Syria puts Bush on offense, shifting the conversation away from whether the war itself was a mistake. (Bush admits now, after stumbling on this question for four days in May, that the invasion was a bad idea.)

“ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat,” Bush will say, according to excerpts of his speech released Monday by his campaign. “And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge … then joined in claiming credit for its success … then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away.”

Bush’s speech is also an attempt to harden negative perceptions about Clinton’s globe-trotting tenure as America’s top diplomat.

…..

“If Jeb Bush wants to spread blame for the situation in the Middle East, he doesn’t need to look much further than his next family reunion,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Correct The Record, the organization tasked with running Clinton’s rapid-response operation. “Jeb championed former President George W. Bush’s destructive foreign policy from Day One, from the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence to the strategy regarding ISIS.”

Clinton’s official campaign held a conference call Tuesday afternoon, putting senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan on the line with reporters to argue that Clinton’s tenure in Foggy Bottom was spent rebuilding relationships with allies after George W. Bush’s “policies that for eight years set the cause of American leadership back.”

More…

Note…

Whose BROTHER got America into Iraq… and THOUGHT we had won there?

Update….

With his call for support of Sunni allies, he echoes a main theme of the Obama approach. And his support for increasing the Pentagon budget reflects to a considerable extent the policy of the Obama administration. But that has faced opposition from some Republicans in Congress who have sought to freeze military spending as part of efforts to cut back the size of government…

More…

Share on Facebook

37 thoughts on “Jeb Bush goes after Hillary on Iraq?”

  1. Let’s be plain about what Bush ( and likely ALL the Republicans (except maybe for Paul ) are advocating with all their double talk,

    A PERMANENT large American OCCUPATION force in the Middle East.

  2. Yeah after we destabilized Iraq thanks to his brother the only way to keep peace in the area would have bwen through a major occupying force that would have been resented by the locals and been a target for terrorist groups.

    Had we kept that occupation over the last 6 and a half years we’d be looking at American deaths in the tens of thousands by now.

    Lets hear the so called liberal media challenge Jeb on that.

    It doesn’t matter though. As Zreebs said, Jeb is a total dud as a candidate. He’s going after Hillary like he’s the front runner, and he clearly isnt.

  3. Trump looks like he wants to knock Bush out early. He keeps calling Bush “weak” and the my guess is that the crits will stick.

  4. William Galston has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal: “There are only five candidates with a plausible path to the Republican nomination: two sitting senators ( Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), two sitting governors ( Scott Walker and John Kasich), and a former governor ( Jeb Bush). They represent a choice among very different persons, but also—and more fundamentally—between competing strategies for the future of the Republican Party.”

    “From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so.”

    This is, I would say, the mainstream (if we can still use that word) Republican take on the nomination. These are the candidates acceptable to the establishment. But, the question remains, can the establishment still dictate the eventual nominee?

    Bush has the endorsements and money necessary to stay in the race — even though he is a terrible candidate. Can the establishment put him over this time? Well, for one, he would have to win some primaries and a caucus or two.

    Still a long way to go…..but, I agree with Galston’s conclusion.

  5. I still don’t think Trump will get the nomination, but Goldston, Jack, Keith and James assume that Republicans are neither crazy nor stupid to nominate someone like Trump. In fact, many are both.

  6. Yeh,you’re right.They are.

    I feel though that Trump won’t be around when the race is really being decided in the March/April period.

    Indeed, I think there is only a 50/50 chance that he will still be around for the Iowa caucuses.

  7. “Jack, Keith and James assume that Republicans are neither crazy nor stupid to nominate someone like Trump. In fact, many are both.”

    Thanks for not mentioning the delusional.

  8. No, we know exactly how crazy and racist a huge segment of the Republican voters are – and how they love the Trump message. A message that the Party leadership has cultivated over the last 50 years. But, in the past, the Party leadership has been able to control the nominating process. They may change, but not soon enough to nominate a clown like Trump. But it does explain why you support him Manila .

  9. The GOP leadership will have a difficult time controlling the nominating process against Trump.

    Trump will exploit a situation if he is treated unfairly. He will use the chips that he has, and will not quietly live by some unwritten rules.

    Jack may be right that there is a good chance that Trumo is out by Iowa, but either way, he will not go quietly.

  10. Agreed with Jack and Zreebs reg. 50/50 that Trump is out before Iowa, but four major news yesterday makes me reconsider.

    1. Hillary’s two top secret e-mails. From a probe of 40 out of 30.000. This sounds more serious suddenly.

    2. Jeb’s 5% polling in Iowa and his attacks on Hillary on Iraq, and pushing for more troops in Iraq. This is almost like a death wish for his campaign.

    3. Trump’s stunning polls in Iowa on major issues like the economy, immigration, terrorism, change Washington, and chances of winning.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/the-amazing-thing-about-cnns-iowa-poll-is-donald-trumps-leads-in-everything-besides-the-horserace/

    4. Sanders’s continued rise and first lead on Hillary in NH.

    Add in a driving theme of (factual) corruption and donor-rigged game, which heavily benefits Sanders and Trump, and damages Bush and Hillary.

    This looks very unpredictable.

  11. Sorry, I don’t think it is unpredictable at all. The “establishment” will not accept a Trump or a Sanders as their nominee, and while they may not be able to put over their chosen candidate, they still can stop someone from being nominated. And, candidates also need to have infrastructure to win primaries, it would be interesting to see how much of that Trump has in the early primary/caucus states.

    This email thing is much ado, but having said that, can be made to sound much more serious than it is. If we can all recall, back in the Bush Administration they used the RNC servers for government communication and then suddenly five million emails were lost. I don’t recall the Senate or the House having hearings on those communications, and how many of them do we think were “top secret.”

    As far as donors are concerned. It wasn’t really until the Clintons that the Dems actually began to level the fundraising playing field. There should be no unilateral disarmament until the laws are changed. In the end there is no way a Sanders, O’Malley, or a Webb can compete with the Republican billionaires — no way. And why do we naturally assume that money brings corruption? Obama can raise millions and his administration has been scandal free. And, other than a blow job and the associated fallout from that, so was Bill’s.

  12. Thanks for interesting input, Keith.

    So in the end – it will be Hillary & Jeb in the general in your view? What odds would you give them in their respective races?

  13. I’m very interested in what these “top secret” matters were all about.

    As we know the government is prone to label all sorts of stuff,”top secret,” often over matters of little interest.Then they will frequently declare something “top secret” retrospectively.,that is after it is fairly well known(crazy as that seems).

    I well remember, back in the seventies, the book,”Decent Interval” by ex CIA agentFrank Snepp, which described the Nixon/Kissinger strategy over the peace agreement in Vietnam which basically allowed our puppet regime to survive for couple of years before it’s inevitable collapse.After the book was out and read by thousands(one being me) it was essentially confiscated and heavily redacted.Silly,I know but such is the mindset of government censors.

  14. I think it will be Hillary. I’d be surprised if it’s Jeb though.

    I think that Trump’s lack of an infrastructure could be what does him in, I could see him leading in the polls in a state, but then surprisingly losing the state badly, and then his whole campaign falling apart.

  15. I concur with Keiths analysis re Sanders and Trump.

    Neither is going to be the nominee for the reasons he outlined.

    Indeed neither may actually win a single primary or caucus.Certainly,neither will win more than one or two,in my view.

  16. As of now, He seems to have no infrastructure at all.

    Basically Trumps campaign is wherever he happens to be.

  17. Jebs chances depend on how soon the field winnows out in my view.

    Kasich seems to be doing well in New Hampshire,has secured the support of former Sen. John Sununu and Tom Rath, sort of Mr Republican in the Granite state.

    While Jeb isn’t running well either there or in Iowa,there is still lots of time and he has lots of money. but seems to be having trouble garnering much attention,given the large number of and greater “flamboyance ” of other candidates.

  18. Things keep getting worse, when will the IRS look into this…..

    Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), “who has needed help with some everyday tasks such as preparing meals and physically getting around since suffering a debilitating stroke in 2012, put his live-in caregiver onto his campaign payroll,” the Chicago Tribune reports.

    “Kirk’s placement of his caregiver — who had no prior campaign experience — onto his campaign staff raises questions about whether Kirk used political donations to pay for personal expenses. Campaign finance records show that Kirk for Senate had paid his caregiver a salary totaling more than $43,000 from August 2013 through the end of 2014.”

    “Federal law says campaign funds cannot be used for expenses that would occur regardless of whether the person were running for or holding office.”

  19. I don’t think Jeb is out of the running yet, given what I have said about campaign infrastructure. He has the staff, connections, and endorsements to stay in the running. But that could change early. I can also see Cruz coming on when Trump fades – especially in the South.

  20. I think Kirk is toast.

    Problem is who else could IL Republicans turn to.

    Does Alan Keyes still have his apartment there?

  21. I don’t think Jeb is out of the running yet, but I do think he has fallen behind and now needs to outperform others in order to get back to where he was. But he is blander than Romney.

  22. Former tea party Congressman Joe Walsh is challenging Kirk for the IL GOP nomination. I saw him recently at the Swedish Days Parade in Geneva IL. I don’t know if Walsh can knock Kirk off or not, but I do know that Walsh can’t win a Senate general election race in 2016 – short of a scandal.

    There is a third Republican running for the nomination, but he is not a serious candidate.

  23. If Walsh were the nominee the Republicans would write off IL to focus on defending other seats like PA and WI

  24. I can also see Cruz coming on when Trump fades – especially in the South.

    The problem with Trumps campaign is that it is so disjointed and ill organized. His message needs to be put together and then he should try what Perot did, go on TV with pie charts or some other graphic to clarify and explain his point of view. That was hugely successful communication wise.

    Problem is he has alienated so many in the GOP infrastructure that a nomination would mean a lot of heavy lifting. Ne has to prove he can grow into the campaign so he can prove he can grow into the job. Being Mister know it all can go just so far.

  25. “Kasich seems to be doing well in New Hampshire,has secured the support of former Sen. John Sununu and Tom Rath, sort of Mr Republican in the Granite state.”

    Dotting the “I”?

  26. ‘Problem is he has alienated so many in the GOP infrastructure that a nomination would mean a lot of heavy lifting.’

    Excellent POINT Manila….

    …..few understand your point, which I have also made…

  27. On the contrary,

    MOST of us have said from the beginning that Trump has no chance at the nomination.

    Why do you continuously mischaracterize the actual discussion here?

  28. I’ll something on Jeb Bush having to defend his brothers history in Iraq later….
    Kinda knew Jeb was walking into this in going after Hillary and Obama on the subject…

Comments are closed.