Damn, if it's THAT easy, I mean if it's REALLY that easy, well, I sure could use a 6 figure government job. (With health coverage, limo, jet aircraft, residence, and full security package)

Haven't you been reading dailyhowler.com? You can say anything you like if it's about the Clintons. Probably you can also tell the truth if it lets you mock Al Gore (although this will go out of style any decade now.)

Every candidate should be forced to explain their actions before the war. This means more than saying "I'm sorry" as Edwards has done; it means H. Clinton, Edwards, et al explaining why they acted the way they did. Do they claim they were naive dupes? That they were blinded by ambition? If so, how can they really challenge the Republican candidate? Dingle's statements have actually been useful on this, see the flawed but useful:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/2_wars_2_votes_.html
Also, folks like Richardson, who were involved in the Clinton administration need to be forced to explain their actions and claims. Only Kucinich (and the ever ignored Sen. Gravel) seem to have a remotely reasonable position...

Given the jagurnaut of bull in '02 that managed to convince almost 80% of the public that invading Iraq was the only way to save America from a nuclear bomb, I'm prepared to forgive a politician for not wanting to stand in the way of an irrational mob.

... not saying Hillary is the best choice imaginable.

I do think we should distinguish, in our punishments/judgements, between Clinton's behavior and Edwards's. I really do prefer someone who has the spine to repent a terrible mistake and try to repair it. Haven't had enough time to read all of Edwards' output on the subject, but it does seem that if your starting point is the traditional believing of the exectuive branch rearding foreign and military intelligence--perhaps easier for a post-Vietnam guy like Edwards---then you might have been honestly convinced. Plenty of liberals not representing red states were convinced. And I was not one of them!

Given the jagurnaut of bull in '02 that managed to convince almost 80% of the public that invading Iraq was the only way to save America from a nuclear bomb, I'm prepared to forgive a politician for not wanting to stand in the way of an irrational mob.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I do not remember it that way at all. I remember a country that was pretty near split on Iraq right up until the bombs started falling. I keep hearing this excuse from people trying to carry water for the elected ones.

What politician, from the last two centuries and this one, DOESN'T KNOW A PRESIDENT WILL LIE. You think ANY of this crowd didn't. THINK AGAIN. Hillary IS married to BILL. (The meaning of IS,IS, BILL---BILL CLINTON---BILL, remember that BILL)

That poll looks like it was after Bush's speech saying that Saddam had 48 hours to get out, which isn't really what the policy was in any case ... I think it was lower a week or two before.

It's all like the song says: "Compared to What?" Yes, Edwards may seem reasonable compared to H. Clinton who may seem reasonable compared to Bush. But they were all nuts compared to anyone who really looked at the facts ... or even their vocal constituents (not that I'm letting the US public off the hook here...)

Democracy Now found that in late Sept '02 -- before Congress voted (and before Bush's deranged Cincinnati speech), calls to congress were overwhelmingly against war:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/038234

I have never for a minute doubted that them Clintons knows how to pretend real good.

In the words of ADAM CLINTON POWELL " If elected, I will refuse to serve."

Unfortunately I don't think she was pretending to support it...I think she really did (and does) support it. She's just pretending to be critical now that it's fashionable.

With rare exception, when a Democrat thinks he or she can can look tough by merely standing aside while The War Machine crushes a foe, that's what they do. Other considerations are peripheral.

Because when the turkey shoot winds down and the parades rev up, our triumphant Democratic "leaders" can smile and wave and preen from victorious convertibles before the adoring eyes of confetti-covered patriots.

And if the shit goes south, no problem. The humble Democrat can feign regret long enough to resemble a real human being. But atonement? Accountability? Allocution? Conscience? Ain't gonna happen.

here's how I look at it:

either they truly believe in the bullshit about the WMDs - and they are therefore, STUPID

or they were lying that they believed in the bullshit about WMDs - and therefore CRIMINALS

another way of putting this is FOOLS OR TOOLS - but, no matter what category they fall into,

THEY SHOULD NEVER, EVER HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AGAIN. THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE.

War is the most hideous of things, and someone who starts up a war is the most hideous of criminals.

Hey, I even think the American public who supported this war in February of 2003 should have their citizenship, and right to vote, revoked. They are too stupid to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. And too stupid to vote.