From the New York Times (via PowerLine):

Rand Beers, a former National Security Council official in the Clinton and Bush administrations before he left to help Mr. Kerry formulate his foreign policy positions, said in an interview on Wednesday: "We have said we think there are four elements" in Mr. Bush's approach to the war that are clearly different from how Mr. Kerry would have handled the confrontation with Mr. Hussein.

"Rushing to war is one, doing it without enough allies is two, doing it without equipping our troops adequately is three, and doing it without an adequate plan to win the peace is a fourth," Mr. Beers said. "If you want to add a fifth, it's going to war without examining the quality of your intelligence."

So let me get this straight: Kerry, who, as Senator, served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, missed 38 of 49 public hearings they had when he "served" there, and did not even read the Iraqi intelligence report before voting -- would somehow have been more exacting in his examination of said intelligence than the current sitting President?

Speaking as a voter: How, exactly, am I supposed to believe that?