He would have voted for the Iraq War, Tinklenberg explained, based on the information provided at the time.
But Tinklenberg criticized the Bush Administration for poor planning.
It's not just a matter of when the United States should pull out of Iraq but what will happen to the people left behind, he explained.
Tinklenberg 2.0, in 2007 said:
“While there’s not a lot of consensus on what the path should be, they absolutely reject the idea we should do a status quo thing,” he said.
Stepping back to the larger issue of preemptive war — invading a country because its deemed a threat rather than waiting to be attacked — Tinklenberg indicated he would not take such a vote.
“I certainly cannot imagine a situation in which I would support the use of a preemptive military strike,” he said.
“That’s one of those hypothetical things that you don’t know what in the world the conditions would be,” said Tinklenberg.
So, based "on the information available at the time, Tinklenberg supported a preemptive strike on Iraq, but would not now? Seems like he's looking for the best of both worlds.
Check out the rest of the 2005 campaign announcement, it's rather interesting seeing Tinklenberg 1.0 versus Tinklenberg 2.0.