The issue is never the vote on Iraq. Even if you argue that the resolution was a vote to go to war, it was never a vote to occupy Iraq. Nonetheless, Hillary was clear on the speech she gave in voting yes that the resolution was an authorization to go to war as a last resort. She was specific that the inspectors be allowed to complete its work. That clearly implies that her vote was to give Bush the tool to threaten and move Saddam to let the inspectors do their job. Otherwise without the tool, Bush becomes an emperor without clothes in the eyes of Saddam.

One can Monday QB the hype from the Bush before the invasion as a sure sign of his intent to invade, but that tool has been used by the US and others in the past to give teeth to its threat. At the least, Congress owes it to public who voted Bush into office to accord him some respect and trust that he'll use the tool like the others before him.

And from what we now know of Bush, its most probable that he would have gone ahead with the invasion even without the vote. And what would everyone do, including Hillary and Barack, once we were already in there? Cheney and Rove knew all too well they own the patriotism card.

The issue is not the vote. The issue is Bush misuse and abuse of the tool given to him and his power grab. It's easy to lose sight of the ball simply because you're grasping for something that may bring Hillary down. Barrack's claim is not straight talk and is political opportunism.

Well said. In talking with a friend who is definitely far left of center I asked if he supported the war in Iraq from the outset. He stated that he did. When I asked why he would trust a president so diametrically opposed to his points of view and who he always branded a liar, he stated "I never thought he could lie about something like this." The bush administration provided doctored intelligence to our senators and reps, leaving them with no idea that Bush's claims against Iraq were false. Obviously, in 20/20 hindsight, had we known the skeptical nature of our intelligence, we would have thought twice about Bush's motivations. It's tantamount to finding out that FDR lied and Pearl Harbor was never bombed (which was not the case). This issue is being used only to attack Democrats, but Republicans (mostly) don't appear to have supported the action taken on the basis of faulty intelligence either.

Hillary claimed on the floor of the Senate that she knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She knew this not only because she trusted the inf. the Bush admin. fed her but also because she was intimately involved in her husband's admin. in the 90's.

Hillary was clearly attempting to set herself apart and above potential rivals for her future run at the Presidency.

At any rate, she was either a) lying about her involvement in Bill's admin. b) lying along with George Bush, c) she was duped by someone (Bush) whom everyone claims is an idiot or d) telling the truth thereby destroying the primary argument many now use against the current President.

I'll vote for "a" that she is a liar. History bears this out quite well. Even Carl Bernstein, who liberals the world over love for his Watergate reporting, says she had and has a problem with truth-telling. "d" is a good answer too. Obama, while not as experienced, was certainly more intelligent.

I'm suprised that someone like yourself wrote such a well-crafted post would fall so deeply for the old "it depends on what 'is' is." regarding Hillary's war vote. The simple fact of the matter is that she voted for this to not be seen as cowardly or un-Presidential. How pathetic is that? At least George Bush believes his own lies.

You act as if everyone bought Bush's lie and agreed to vote on the measure (whether it was to go to war--or a blank check to do whatever was necessary). However, there was at least one senator and a couple of reps who did not vote in the way that Clinton did, citing not enough information, not to mention several politicians (including Obama) that spoke out against the invasion.

The truth of the matter is, there was not enough information to justify invading Iraq. It wasn't as if Bush's lie stated that we could or would be bombed by Iraq (as if) immediately. Certainly there was no rush to invade given the lack of history of Iraq ever having the means to seriously threaten the U.S., such that more evidence and more time could have been demanded of the President. Even after the country and the congress "found out" that Bush lied, Clinton refused to sign the Levin amendment which, essentially would have let her say I'm sorry I was wrong, but I made my decision in good faith (not really sure that she did) and acknowledge that Bush fooled me once, but I won't let him do it again.

Instead, Clinton appears to have been to worried about showing the country that she is a strong leader--- as strong as a man. In doing so, she overlooked the obvious---the country does not want a strong male president that is so worried about getting out from under his father's shadow that he makes stupid choices, nor do it want a strong female leader who bases her decisions on proving that she is just as good/strong as a man---and makes stupid choices.

I have to go back to the core issue which I stated in my original post. Do you really believe, in honesty, that Hillary would have invaded Iraq had she been president given the vote of authorization?

It's like if I'm a gun dealer and I sold you a gun since you had the legal right to buy one, then you used it to murder someone, am I guilty of your crime?

In my posting, Hill and others sold Bush the gun and he used it to invade Iraq. Are they guilty of Bush crime?