This is the most painful 180 seconds of Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign so far

[OKNancy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/18/this-is-the-most-painful-180-seconds-of-marco-rubios-presidential-campaign-so-far/?postshare=2121431969119847

Marco Rubio has had a very good last month or so. From his presidential announcement in mid April until, roughly, Sunday morning, that is.

On Sunday morning, this happened.


--------go to link to see video--------

That's Rubio's back and forth with "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace over Iraq. At issue is whether Rubio flip-flopped in his views on Iraq from saying it was not a mistake to invade the country to insisting that knowing what we know now he would not have done so.

Look, I generally get Rubio's position. He is saying that it wasn't a "mistake" because George W. Bush couldn't have known or, at least, didn't know, that reports of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction were false. But, given the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge that those reports were false, Rubio believes that the war should not (and would not) have been conducted.

(Sidenote: Rubio's insistence that even George W. Bush would not have got into Iraq knowing what we know now isn't, well, right. The Post's FactChecker gave Rubio four Pinocchios for that claim this morning.)

[Hoppy]

1. Am I correct in recalling that the Bush Whitehouse and its neo-cons

were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Yes.

They had discussions and plans by 2000.
They were just looking for that..."new Pearl Harbor" to justify it.

[jberryhill]

2. Meh

The first question was ambiguous - "Was it a mistake to go to Iraq?" - isn't specific as to whether it is was a mistake at the time or in retrospect.

HOWEVER:

At the end of the day, it was much more than a "mistake", because they were deliberately cherry picking, cooking and exaggerating whatever slim shreds of "evidence" they did have. It was clear that "there are no WMD's" was the answer they didn't want, and they would keep asking the question until someone gave them the answer they did want.

Secondly, this notion of having to make a decision based on "the information you have at the time" also fails to take into account the necessity of taking into account the consequences of that information being incorrect. This is why people shoot family members because they hear a noise in the night, and conclude it is a burglar, instead of a spouse who is breaking in because they lost their key. It's perfectly valid to believe - to some degree - that someone breaking into a house at night is a burglar, but even then one should reach a high degree of confidence in that hypothesis before taking the extreme and irreversible measure of shooting at someone in the dark.

You don't just make decisions "based on the information you have". You should make decisions based on the information you have and, further, the consequences of that information being incorrect.

[rurallib]

3. reinforcing the concept of "clown bus"

be very scared if this idiot wins.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. As much as I have chosen to follow Rubio's march into inanity

I actually do understand what he was trying to say, and Chris W. should have let him say it.
Finally at the end of the clip Rubio gets a chance to make a distinction between then and now as a decisive factor.

[FSogol]

6. Rubio's answers over his finances were even more embarrassing. He weaseled himself around innocent

softball questions while looking worried. The guy will self-destruct soon because he is a total poseur. I expect him to go catatonic the minute he gets a tough question. Has there ever been a debate where one candidate lies on the floor in a fetal position, sucking his thumb?