Earlier this week it was JEB, now Rubio dives face-first into the quicksand:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that he would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq given what he knows today, becoming the latest candidate to weigh in on a question that has tripped up likely GOP rival Jeb Bush.
“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it,” said Rubio.
But Rubio might also find himself in a rhetorical thicket as result of his remarks. In an interview with Fox News in March, Rubio said he didn’t think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.
“I don’t believe it was. The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn’t run Iraq,” said Rubio.
Rubio’s defense here is that, in the March interview, he was asked if he thought the Iraq War “was a mistake,” whereas yesterday he got the same hypothetical “knowing what we know now, would you have gone to war” question that tripped JEB up. Those are definitely two different questions, so technically he can give two different answers, but then the takeaway is that Marco Rubio, today, thinks the Iraq War made the world “a better place,” but, knowing that, he wouldn’t have gone through with it if he’d been President back in 2003. As a feat of political communication, that’s a hot mess, and as a statement of Marco Rubio’s resolve as a leader, it kind of makes him sound like a wimp.
Speaking of JEB, he’s gone from “yes I would still invade Iraq” to “I don’t understand simple questions when they’re posed to me” to “I won’t answer that question because it disrespects The Troops” to “of course I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, are you nuts?” in less than a week. Coincidentally, over that same period of time his chances of being our next president have gone from “well, maybe” to “hmm” to “LOL” to “are you fucking kidding me?” Well done, excellent politicking.
Seriously, it’s been 12 years, and these guys can’t handle an inevitable question about Iraq any better than this? If you think the war “made the world a better place,” then own it! Make your case! Don’t tell the cheerleaders on Fox how great the war was for all concerned, and then turn around and tell the Council on Foreign Relations that you wouldn’t have supported it! Conversely, if you can’t say you’d still order the invasion knowing what we know today, don’t go yapping about how great the war was anyway! You’re not going to get away with the multiple choice thing, and as unpopular as your consistent support of the war might be with the general electorate, all this floundering about looking for a battery of inconsistent answers to satisfy every possible voter is going to prove even more unpopular.
The Foreign Exchanges Companion 
I can easily see why anyone who previously made statements in support of that war would have trouble owning it now. Speaking about it honestly requires an unusual level of philosophical courage, one hardly ever asked of potential candidates. It’s like admitting (if you’re white) that your own ancestors participated in the slave trade, or the genocide of native Americans. We all know that’s true, but no one wants to say it. The candidate would have to admit that thousands of military personnel and millions of innocent foreign civilians all died in vain. That Saddam Hussein ALSO died doesn’t begin to justify their sacrifice.