James Rubin is Talking Out of his Ass (RE: Kerry and Iraq)

[liberalpragmatist]

I have seen nothing to imply that Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq. Though he hasn't come out and explicitly said that (IMO, he should), his public statements in his acceptance speech and in recent events make clear that he *would have done things differently*.

However, people are quoting James Rubin, one of Kerry's security advisors from a Washington Post interview/article in which he said that even without WMDs, Kerry as President would "probably still have gone to war." That's ridiculous. Look at Kerry's public statements and it's clear that's not the case.

And as the Post itself said in the same article, Kerry said just the day before to the Post, he only *might* have gone to war - basically an acknowledgement that he would not have, but straddling just enough to keep Rove and BushCo from attacking him by saying Saddam Hussein would still be in power if Kerry were President.

Rubin's statement doesn't square with anything Kerry's said.

[MajorFlaw]

1. Shrub is making this too easy. If the question is, knowing everything

that we do now would you go to war, the answer is obvious. No WMD's, no tie to AQ, and the inability to install a democracy at gunpoint. If shrub were smart he would be arguing that the decision had to be made with the best information that was available at the time. Kerry must be waiting for the debates to answer this question directly.