Jeb Bush’s waffling on transvestite soldiers and Iran tells us about his character
Jeb Bush talks frequently about a big tent. But it wasn’t until yesterday that I realized that his reference to a “big tent” was actually about a man wearing a dress.
Bush reportedly said he was “fine” with transgender persons openly wearing the uniform as long as the Pentagon determines that doing so would not undermine U.S. troop morale.
“If you can accommodate people who are transgendered and deal with making sure the military’s comfortable with this and making sure that the overriding principle ought to be how do we create the highest morale for the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen… and if you can accommodate those two concerns, then fine,” he told Yahoo News.
So Bush has no opinion of his own whether transvestites in the military will have any effect on morale. He has no opinion whether a man in a military dress skirt might hurt unit cohesion, or the increased depression and suicides from people suffering from gender dysphoria might affect split-second decisions in combat.
This is Bush’s way of passing the buck, of approving of a far-left policy without appearing to endorse it directly. This is a policy that was a joke on a TV show called M*A*S*H thirty years ago, wasn’t even on any one’s radar two years ago, and now all of a sudden is a “civil rights imperative.”
One wonders: if there arises a new grievance movement that requires the immediate sandblasting of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from Mount Rushmore, because they owned slaves, and replacing them with Patrice Lumumba and Che Guevara, what will be Jeb Bush’s reaction? Will he say, “I’m OK with it as long as the National Park Service has no problem with it”? Will he have the courage to stand up to the race-baiting crowd? Somehow, I doubt it.
And then Bush waffled on whether he’d repeal the Iran deal if he became president.
Bush, looking to position himself as an electable conservative in a sprawling primary field thrown into turmoil by the unexpected rise of Donald Trump, reiterated his opposition to the Iran agreement, which will ease economic sanctions on the country in exchange for a decade of limitations to its nuclear program.
But he stopped well short of promising he’d undo the deal and basically dismissed other Republicans who’ve done so as panderers, telling reporters that it’s unlikely he — any president, really — would take such a drastic step immediately upon taking office.
“At 12:01 on January, whatever it is, 19th , I will not probably have a confirmed secretary of state; I will not have a confirmed national security team in place; I will not have consulted with our allies. I will not have had the intelligence briefings to have made a decision,” Bush said. “If you’re running for president, I think it’s important to be mature and thoughtful about this.”
Is this really such a hard question to answer? Why is Bush making a big deal about this “first day” comment? Does it matter if he repeals the agreement in the first day or the first week?
If you read carefully, you will see that in all the words he said, nowhere did he say he would actually repudiate the deal. This talk of “repeal on the first day” is a smokescreen Jeb is using to leave himself wiggle room to keep the Iran deal in place.
What does this tell us about his character? For one thing, Jeb Bush is not the man to disassemble the leaning tower of governance that Barack Obama has created. For another, if a liberal group creates an issue that it labels as “civil rights” or “justice,” Bush will be very timid about confronting it. I used to admire Bush for at least being an honest liberal Republican, but now, with his non-answer answers, he is reminding me more and more of Scott Walker.
This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.