So let me see if I have this straight…
Jeb Bush was asked if, given what we know now, he would have authorized the invasion of Iraq. He said yes.
Then he said he misheard the question and did not know what he would have done.
Then he said he would not answer the question because that would be a "disservice" to our troops.
Then today he answered the question and said that given what we know now, he would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq.
Okay, is that it? And if so, is there a more inept way to handle that question? A way that makes people think you're trying to give the answer that your advisors tell you best matches the polling data and you can't even get that right?
Here's the thing I can't help thinking about this. I remember when the Vietnam War was in its later stages. To criticize the handling and wisdom of that war was to open yourself to attacks that it was (a) treasonous to even suggest the war was not a necessary and noble cause and (b) tantamount to spitting in the faces of those who'd served and desecrating the graves of those who'd died.
It was an insult to those who'd fought because you were saying they'd fought and/or died in vain and it was an insult to your country because you were saying it made mistakes. Jeb started to go there with his "disservice" answer but obviously, someone told him he couldn't take that position for very long. The Iraq War is now officially indefensible.
So now we have Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and a few other candidates seeking Republican votes and saying, "If we'd known then what we know now…" And we have Jeb Bush joining in.
George W. was nowhere to be seen at the last two Republican National Conventions. I have the feeling we're not going to see him at the next one, even in the unlikely event his brother is the nominee. In fact, that unlikely event got a whole less likely today.