Fer it before he wuz agin it
Jeb Bush told Megyn Kelly on Fox News that he, along with many people in the Senate in 2001, would’ve done exactly what his brother, former President Bush did when confronted with 911; pursue a course of war. That was certainly a clear answer. But later, Mr. Bush, while being interviewed by Sean Hannity, said he didn’t understand the question as it was posed by Ms. Kelly, called it a” hypothetical” and said he didn’t know what he would’ve done.
Perhaps supporters of the war who are also Bush’s supporters put pressure on him to recant. But his follow up is one of those things that make you go, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …
But before it looks like this is bagging on Jeb Bush, consider:
– Theantimedia.org said Rand Paul was against the Drug War before he was for it
– The New American says General Norman Schwartzkopf was against the 1991 Gulf War before he was for it
– Twitchy.com says John Kerry was for the Iraq war before he was against it
– Fox News says former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards was for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
– The Daily Kos says Mitt Romney was for the Vietnam War before he was against it.
– Outside the Beltway says Senator John McCain was for trading taliban prisoners for Army Sgt. Beau Bergdahl before he was against it
– Wizbangblog says former President Bill Clinton was for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
– Politicususa.com says Paul Ryan was for the war in Syria before he was against it
– Foreign Policy magazine says President Obama says he was against the authorization for the war before he was for it
– Politicalwire.com says former Vice President Dick Cheney was against the Iraq was before he was for it …
… and on and on.
Clearly, Mr. Bush doesn’t want to throw his brother under the bus for the 12-year Iraq War. But you don’t hear Republicans speaking of George W. with the same reverence of Ronald Reagan. That says something about how party faithful on the right see the Bush Doctrine.
The larger point is politicians change their minds for their own reasons like all of the rest of us. Except when we do it, it isn’t necessarily a judgement on our character or mental faculties. It won’t necessarily destroy our lives or give people license to judge us for the rest of our lives because we were human.
Interviewers need to bring up inconsistencies like this during subsequent interviews. To not is to deny constituents, whether they’re listening to business leaders or politicians, the opportunity to truly understand their thought process. And once recants like this are being discussed, the interviewer needs to press the question to the edge of journalistic decorum.