Not for Hillary

Tod Lindberg’s claim that Hillary Clinton's vote for “the authorization of the war” is a problem in her run for President is accurate for two reasons.

First, most liberals still falsely believe Saddam’s WMD capabilities were not a threat even though her husband used military force against Saddam several times for that very reason. Too many liberals continue to believe there was no real evidence that Saddam had WMD in spite of the irrefutable fact that Bush's father's Administration provided precursor WMD materials to Saddam and stood by quietly while he used them to mass murder the Iraqi Kurds and then assisted him in using Chemical WMD to mass murder Iranians.

The other more important reason her vote is a problem is because it assisted the Bush Administration in launching a war that has turned out badly. Very badly. Some may have predicted that or believed invading Iraq was a costly distraction from going after Bin Ladin, or would only make global matters worse in the long run. There is simply no way anyone could have rationally predicted the abysmal performance of the Bush Administration execution of its war powers... and it’s repeated incompetence in mismanaging a war while at the same time mismanaging a vital occupation.

I still don't support Hillary for President. Why? Because, she is a brilliant politician. While there is no doubt in my mind that she would be a better President than any Bush (no pun intended) or even her own husband, I no longer believe in politicians. As I see it, the only person who is really qualified to lead our nation out of it’s divisions and failed policies is an individual who is not a politician. Someone who is an authentic person first and a true leader second. I can only hope that either party nominates just such a candidate in 2008. There appears to be a few from both parties that fit this description.