Yesterday, according to a piece in Politico, the former governor of Florida has changed his mind again (my emphasis):
“I’ll tell you, taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal,” the former Florida governor told a crowd of roughly 200 people who attended a forum on national security at St. Ambrose College.
So which is it? Was the war a good idea or not? Hard to tell from Jeb's public statements.
As for the use of torture, the Republican front-runner is equally difficult to pin down:
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Thursday declined to rule out resuming the use of torture under some circumstances by the U.S. government.
The former Florida governor said that in general, he believes torture is inappropriate, and that he was glad his brother, former President George W. Bush, largely ended the CIA's use of the techniques before he left office. The CIA used waterboarding, slapping, nudity, sleep deprivation, humiliation and other methods to coerce al-Qaida detainees — methods the military would be prohibited from using on prisoners of war.
"I don't want to make a definitive, blanket kind of statement," Bush told an audience of Iowa Republicans, when asked whether he would keep in place or repeal President Barack Obama's executive order banning so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA.
Torture is "inappropriate"? I thought it was illegal. Isn't that why his brother came up with the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Because he didn't want to be considered a war criminal?
Let me see if I've got this straight: Jeb's not sure whether the Iraq War was a good idea or not, and he's not sure whether torture is "appropriate" or not, or whether he'd use it again as president or not.