The Washington Post's "Pinocchio Test": Marc Rubio earned 4 for his Iraq answer

The Washington Post delivers a "Pinocchio Test" every time a candidate says something that is not based on fact that's interesting to follow.  The reason it is a rating scale is because they check what they said for fact and it's a ranged scale, from 1 to 4, based on everything from possible misinterpretations and selective truth-telling to outright falsehoods.

Here's the scale:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/

Apparently, Marc Rubio got 4 Pinocchios for his "final answer" to Charlie Rose:

Charlie Rose: “If you look at the Iraq war, after finding out there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you, if you knew that, have been in favor of the Iraqi invasion?”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “Well, not only would I not have been in favor of it. President Bush would not have been in favor of it, and he said so.”

Interestingly, the WP claims that publications from the right have curiously truncated his answer to:

“Well, not only would I not have been in favor of it. President Bush would not have been in favor of it”

...leaving out the last part and the most important part of Rubio's answer, which is "he said so", of course;)

As for the rest, please see the article.  However, I found this part interesting and relevant for this forum.  Yesterday, there were claims here on this forum that WMD were found in Iraq.

Really? Because this article quotes George W. Bush stating himself that weren't any WMD found in Iraq in 2010:

"No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do. The false intelligence proved to be a massive blow to our credibility — my credibility — that would shake the confidence of the American people.”

(George W. Bush from his own memoirs, "Decision Points", 2010)

And we're still not hearing the word "I", as in,  "I made the wrong choice" and taking personal responsibility for his own chioces, at the time, as Hillary Clinton did - sorry.

And all she did was vote for the war.

But isn't the POTUS in charge of Intel as Commander and Chief and appointments to security organizations such as the CIA, the FBI, NSA and later Homeland Security?

And again, if George W. Bush would man up and make a public statement on this NOW,   today's Republican candidates would not have to answer for his past mistakes.

__________________________________________

Here's the URL to th article (it isn't appearing as a link from my view, though it in the link box in edit mode):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/18/marco-rubios-claim-that-president-bush-said-he-would-not-have-invaded-iraq/