Wilson mystifies me. reason would seem to dictate that as a fierce opponent of the rush to war, he would side with other fierce opponents to the war over those who directly helped enable the war. yet he goes to enormous lengths and exposes himself to (rightfully) scathing ridicule to attack the one candidate who should be his natural ally and prop up one the one candidate who lacked the very sort of backbone to oppose the war that he, Joe Wilson, has railed against for years now. why would he do this?

although, i'd be much more interested to hear what his wife thinks of the race and the candidates positions; she always struck me as the dominant personality and intellect.

Bill Clinton's piece from the Guardian does not support your point. In the portion you quote, Clinton refers to the period following the passage of the UN disarmament resolution (1441). In the face of what appeared to be Saddam's halfhearted compliance, Clinton notes, "hawks in America" (plainly referring to the so-called neocons) were pushing for an invasion. Clinton goes on to praise Tony Blair for championing an additional UN resolution, to which the Bush administration agreed, setting forth deadlines for Saddam's compliance under threat of (UN sanctioned) force.

Of course the fact that the neocons in the Bush administration had favored an invasion of Iraq since before Resolution 1441 (indeed, since before 9-11) comes as no surprise. However, your statement that the neocons had a lock on Bush's foreign policy in October 2002 is false. At that time, there were two camps within the Bush administration: Powell and others favored working through the UN. The decision to push for a resolution represented a victory at the time for Powell (however short lived and, in retrospect, illusory).

Wilson's point is that it is manifestly unfair to lay the blame for Iraq on Hillary Clinton's shoulders, as if she was with Bush every step of the way. The reality is more nuanced. (As is the reality of Obama's "opposition" to the war). Unfortunately, such subtlety does not go over well with a Democratic primary electorate fed up with 8 years of toothless opposition. Hillary would have been far better off acknowledging her mistake early on.

Then there's this one big problem with Amb. Wilson's assertions: EVERYBODY who was following the debate at the time knew that Bush and company wanted to go to war. Those of us around the country who watched the Senate vote on the use of force knew the Senate was being asked to endorse a war. Is Wilson telling us that people in Washington DIDN'T KNOW AS MUCH AS WE DID??? Get out of here. Because people around the country who were opposed to the war knew that this was a crucial vote, we were shocked to see major Democrats like Senator Clinton fall into line behind the conflict. We respected and honored those few--like Senators Chaffee and Corzine (the latter alone in the NY and NJ delegation)--who voted no. If we weren't bamboozled then what was wrong with Senator Clinton's judgment then?

Thank you bluevoter!

Since March 2003, I've been asking myself how I could read the signs so accurately while Senators Clinton, Kerry and Edwards could get their vote so horribly wrong. And for the record, Al Gore also warned the world what was about to take place. So I too, find Ambassador Wilson's viewpoint now to be disingenuous, not to mention Hillary Clinton's.

What's wrong with admitting you made a mistake? These candidates are all humans, prone to error. That's one of the things I like about Senator Obama -- I've heard him admit to mistakes on the campaign trail.

Senator Clinton's intransigence on this issue only serves to remind me of George W. Bush. And I'm disappointed to see Ambassador Wilson and his wife aiding and abetting Clinton's stubbornness.

Since I am not a member of Congress, privy to briefings, I was protected from the best version of stroked intelligence. I was able to read reporting by those without a dog in the fight, and that showed how thin the argument was for invading, and how eager Bush was to invade for any reason.

Those lucky few that get the high-level briefings love the feeling of importance that goes with being on the inside. A few that consulted their better nature knew to suspect the unseemly enthusiasm exhibited by the White House. But others bought into the fraught excitement of planning war. I don't care if it was hard to resist the pressure; if it was easy anyone could be good at governing.

Anyone listening to the intelligence presented as too secret to be used publicly should have smelled a rat.

What Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and the rest who claim to have been fooled lacked at that time was courage. If they couldn't see through the lies then they never again should be entrusted positions of leadership. If they know and they still voted for the war, it was because they lacked courage and they never again should be entrusted positions of leadership. Shame on us if we provide them any support now.

"It's one thing to field attacks like that from the Republicans. But when Karl Rove takes over the Democratic Party, and the tone and direction is set by Hillary Clinton -- this is a day I never thought I'd see."

Nor, did I.

I respect what Joe and Valerie have been through Anne contributed to out country, but a few things to keep in mind..

#1. Joe Wilson voted for GWB. That is his political preference, the canidate to the right. I'm not sure his endorsment sways me when he couldnt' see through Bush in 2000.

#2. Hillary should have done her home work and read the nie. After reading it she should have resisted the urge to triangulate.

#3. Even with out the nie, there were those of us with out clearance who still knew Bush was bluffing. With the international atmosphere after 911, even Iran was on our side. All Bush would have had to have done to get the world on our side to invade Iraq, was to show the world some evidence that Sadam eithier was a threat, or involved in terrorism. Every one would have been behind us. His life would have been so much easier. The truth is be didnt have it. Any body who couldnt see that, Wilson included, was engaging in group think. Obama showed true courage and leadership for speaking up on the issue when it was unpopular to do so. Yes it would have been nice if he had a larger soap box to do it from than a state senate seat, but he showed more expereince of mind (wisdom) than Clinton did from her lofty post, and 35 year perspective.

"Obama himself acknowledged, the decision on the authorization for use of force was not as simple as it is made out to be"

This is not an accurate representation of Obama's views. At a critical time of the Kerry/Edwards campaign he diplomatically refused to speculate when asked what he would have done had he been in the Senate. He said "''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,.. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

"Thus, her position in favor of the authorization as a tool to bring about international inspections, and not a unilateral invasion, was not, as it has come to be seen, a vote for war."

This 'nuanced' view doesn't wash. It reverts to the question of judgement. Why?

Her choice of tools was poor:

Anyone knows that if you want to put a nail in the wall, you don't use a sledgehammer or you're going to get a gaping hole.

Anyone who read the text of the bill knew it provided full authorization for war, not inspections.

There is one thing that seems to be missing in this debate. Separating the war from the occupation. The complaint is that the was has cost us thousands of lives, billions of dollars and our international reputation. It wasn't the war, it was the occupation that caused these problems. Going to war in Iraq was a relatively simple matter that was over in a couple of months. The Bush administration did the job they tried to do. It was the really crappy decisions made following the war that have gotten us into the current mess. Hillary voting for the war authorization wasn't a bad decision based on the information, true or false, at the time. She and the rest of Congress didn't have much say afterward on how the occupation was going to be handled. If the war had gone well and there were decent policies put in place to manage the aftereffects, we would conceivable be in much better shape there now. I believe that it would have been pretty difficult to predict how badly the administration was going to screw up over and over again in Iraq and create the quagmire.

This campaign season has been an eye opener. Who would have thought that some well respected people like Larry Johnson, Joe Wilson and Paul Krugman would prostitute their good records and abandon their areas of expertise to go on a politicking rant to trash Obama?
I have concluded that their behavior is a form of elitism......they have their noses out of joint from watching a newcomer dare to put them on notice that America needs to change the 'bigger picture', the very world view which these 'experts' had previously developed and held to in their careers. Hillary fits into the older 'big picture', and she gives them a comfort of continuity without challenging them to another test of upgrading their thinking.

Regarding the preamble, you say

It specifically mentions in the preamble the commitment promised by Bush to work with the Security Council to obtain all necessary resolutions - it is then repeated in Sec.2, b.

The commitment to which you refer is a mitigated commitment: "President Bush committed [...] to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, [...], or action will be unavoidable’’.

Whether the authorization is based (predicated) on ONE of the numerous items in the preamble or not, the actual resolution never requires that all necessary resolutions be obtained at the Security Council. So it is irrelevant.

Furthermore Section 3b explicitly authorizes the President to use force as HE determines necessary to enforce the Security Council resolutions! (see below)

Actually the bill is predicated on Bush obtaining all Security Council resolutions

If we're predicating, let's look at the verbs: support/encourage vs. authorize. There are no mitigating if/then clauses:

In Section 2(2) (there is no 2b) Congress 'supports' and 'encourages' the President to 'obtain...action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy ...and strictly complies with ... Security Council resolutions..." It does not 'require'. It demands nothing. It abdicates its power.

Section 3 authorizes the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as HE determines to be necessary [...] in order to— [...]
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Nothing is ever required of President Bush prior to the use of force is.

Section 3b is, essentially, a requirement to inform Congress 48 hours after use of force.

And if that isn't enough evidence for you about the what this bill was about, then consider the resounding defeat of all proposed amendments to qualify the authorization (the Spratt and Lee Amendments in the House and the Byrd, Levin and Durbin Amendments in the Senate). Their defeats are more than a clear indication of what this bill was about. Indeed, that's why it was titled "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ" (caps in original)

Anyone voting for Obama only because he is perfect may be convinced by Joe's attack-piece. But, for many like myself Obama still holds up incredibly well in comparison to Hillary.

He did take the correct position on Iraq.
She didn't read the NIE and enabled Bush.

Concerning Iran, the New York Sun squashed her earlier attempts to equate his Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. See below. She was enabling Bush again, not having learned her lesson on Iraq.

New York Sun: "Contrary To The Suggestion From Mrs. Clinton's Camp, Mr. Obama's Proposal Was Not Exactly The Same As That Of The New York Senator" On Iran. The New York Sun reported, "Contrary to the suggestion from Mrs. Clinton's camp, Mr. Obama's proposal was not exactly the same as that of the New York senator. He made clear in his remarks a year ago that the residual American force that might counterbalance Iran would operate only at the invitation of an Iraqi government making progress on resolving the country's internal strife. Mrs. Clinton's use of the term 'vital national security interest' suggested she would seek to thwart Iran even if the Iraqis fail to get their house in order."

I would have liked to have seen some hearings from the sub-committee he chaired. But, he did do some important things like passing new measures to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. Introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act and legislation to increase accountability of American security contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan by subjecting the contractors to U.S. criminal law.

She voted against the ban on use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

For what reason should I vote for Hillary instead of Obama?