I’m amazed — amazed that this might actually be the first time he’s said it. Reid crossed the Rubicon months ago. It’s not like Waffles to be so far behind the curve on histrionic anti-war rhetoric.
He sounds like he doesn’t believe it, as well he shouldn’t. The “war of choice” distinction is no distinction at all (and especially hypocritical in Kerry’s case) while the bit about there being no grander ideological context to explain this one simply wishes 9/11 out of existence. To say that the war has backfired as a method of liberalizing the Middle East and reducing terrorism is one thing; to say that there wasn’t or isn’t some broader struggle against terrorism that requires liberalizing the Middle East is something else. Soft Trutherism, maybe. Call it what you like.
No mention of KIAs here either, you’ll note. We can give him a pass on that; reducing the subject to a statistic for comparison purposes is distasteful. But I have a feeling that if, God forbid, Iraq levels should ever approach Vietnam levels, he’ll find that comparison much less distasteful than he does now.