Marc Robbins — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:11:28 GMT

There’s a hole in this article. While Clinton’s position in October 2002 was bad, one could argue that she really didn’t support the use of force but only its threat. And while one could wish she pushed harder for withdrawal, things get messy once troops are in combat.

What I’d really like to know about is whether her views evolved between October 2002 and March 19, 2003. That’s when the war might have been stopped, or at least we could tell if what she now says about her October 2002 vote was real or rationalization. Did she stand against going to war after the inspectors went in and after they continually reported finding nothing?

How about a follow-up, Spencer?

The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com: Comments by Marc Robbins