fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Jeb Bush’s Continuing Evasions on Foreign Policy

Like Bush's other evasions, avoiding the question about regime change in Iran does nothing to reassure skeptics.
Jeb Bush CPAC

Jeb Bush claims not to know whether he favors regime change in Iran:

 

I suppose it’s a good sign that Bush considers overthrowing a foreign government to be something that requires “some thought,” but it’s a strange evasion in response to a fairly straightforward question. Like Bush’s other evasions, it does nothing to reassure skeptics that he isn’t just as hawkish and reckless as his brother was on foreign policy. The refusal or inability to answer these questions gives everyone another reason to think that Bush isn’t well-prepared on the subject. Is it plausible that someone touted as a possible presidential candidate for more than a decade hasn’t given this topic much thought? At least one of Bush’s advisers, John Hannah, is a vocal advocate of regime change in Iran, so presumably Bush is familiar with the argument in favor of regime change. If he disagrees with that argument, it is in his interest to make that as clear as possible early on so that his critics don’t assume the worst about his views. Everything we know so far about Bush’s views and his advisers tells us that he probably does support pursuing regime change in Iran. If he doesn’t, now would be the time to clarify his position.

This is hardly the first time that Bush has ducked important questions on foreign policy with an evasion. When he was asked recently what mistakes he thought his brother made while in office, Bush avoided the question again with an even weaker excuse:

Bush has previously said that the intelligence used to justify the start of the Iraq war was flawed, but he pushed back against a question Friday about whether his brother had made any other mistakes with his foreign policy.

“I’m not going to get into that,” he said. “That’s not particularly relevant in a world of deep insecurity, focusing on the past is not really relevant [bold mine-DL]. What’s relevant is what’s the role of America going forward?”

While this allows to Bush avoid criticizing his brother, it’s a nonsensical answer from someone who wants to be president. Any minimally competent candidate has to be able to comment on and discuss major foreign policy issues from the recent past. That includes the record of Bush-era foreign policy. Not only are voters entitled to know what a candidate thinks about these issues, but it is especially important for candidates with no foreign policy record to speak of to show voters what they consider to be good and bad judgments from the past. If Bush can’t or won’t answer these questions because he feels some obligation to his brother not to say anything critical of his record, that’s just one more reason why voters should reject his dynastic candidacy. If Bush doesn’t think his brother made any serious mistakes while in office, that’s also something that voters need to know when trying to decide whether there are any meaningful differences between them on policy. All signs so far indicate that there aren’t any, and it is up to Bush to prove otherwise.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here