Re:I personally (Score 1)

Please remember that at that time some very credible people (General Colon Powell, for instance) said that intelligence indicated that a known unstable leader who'd used WMD's before was again in possession of them. What's more, that same intelligence showed that this insane leader made purchases of materials necessary to produce an atomic weapon and may have refined plutonium enough to deliver at least a "dirty" bomb. No one, not even Senator Obama, knew that the intelligence was a bald-faced lie. Frankly, I doubt that even General Powell knew that. It is even remotely possible that President Bush himself didn't know, but most assuredly his puppet-masters did.

Senator Clinton didn't "vote for war". She voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a negotiation tactic in what was presented as an escalating and dangerous situation. AND.. If a known madman has his finger on "the button" that could start a conflict whose results will be measured in half-lives, I want a leader who will make the tough decision to act militarily. Given the information at the time, she made the *right* decision. As she's said many times after that, if she'd known of the lies, faulty intelligence and the abuses that President Bush would commit with the approved authority, of course she would not have approved.

Obviously, what was wrong was the lie upon which all these decisions were based. I sincerely hope that someday people are held accountable for that treasonous act.

With all due respect to Senator Obama (and please believe I *really* like the guy), what if some new threat manifested, where good intelligence shows a clear and present danger requiring expedient action. I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would act. She proved she can make that difficult decision. Would he?