His stand on the war hasn't been that flipfloppy, actually, I don't think. He's a Senator - he's not directly involved with the CIA, and if the CIA is telling him Iraq has WMD, and that's the only evidence he has on the table, then his only option is to trust what they're saying and make decisions based on their evidence. Bush, however, is much more directly involved with the CIA and, I believe, should be aware of whether there are any questions around the verifiability (word?) of the intel. There's fairly strong evidence that Bush was pushing them to discover "evidence" of WMD because he was set on going in there. Kerry, however, wasn't privy to those manipulations, and he can't be held responsible for acting on the false intel the way that Bush can.
When you look at it in that light, I think it makes sense. Kerry defended his vote to go into Iraq because at the time he thought they had WMD. Now we know they don't, and what he's saying is that a.) if he were Bush he wouldn't have gone in because he would have had a better handle on what the hell was going on over there, and b.) he would never have handled this war and reconstruction as shoddily as Bush has done. That makes total sense to me and I might well have said and done the same things Kerry has done.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2004-09-13 08:51 pm (UTC)When you look at it in that light, I think it makes sense. Kerry defended his vote to go into Iraq because at the time he thought they had WMD. Now we know they don't, and what he's saying is that a.) if he were Bush he wouldn't have gone in because he would have had a better handle on what the hell was going on over there, and b.) he would never have handled this war and reconstruction as shoddily as Bush has done. That makes total sense to me and I might well have said and done the same things Kerry has done.