“One person in the audience here pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote for military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war and withdraw the troops. The senator replied with her familiar talking points: She said she did not see her vote as one “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels.
“If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give the president the authority,” she said to applause from many of the 1,000 people gathered on the fairgrounds here in eastern Iowa, near the Mississippi River.
What she left out of her answer today, among other things, was that she said in 2002 that she was casting her vote for military action “with conviction,” and that most members of Congress at the time were well aware that a vote for military action could likely lead to war in Iraq. At the time, she said that she believed “the best course” was to pursue stronger weapons inspections through the United Nations.
One of her likely rivals for the Democratic nomination, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, has repudiated his similar vote in 2002, calling it wrong and apologizing — going much further than Mrs. Clinton has been willing to go.
...
For her part, Mrs. Clinton said she wanted to “bring the Iraq war to the right end,” but she also acknowledged, referring to the likely 2008 presidential field of candidates, “That’s easy to say and everyone coming to Iowa is going to say it.”
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28cnd-hillary.html?hp&ex=1170046800&en=cc99d0e54c08d953&ei=5094&partner=homepageIt's too easy, as Sen. Clinton admits, to make noises against the Iraq war, now that it's crystal clear even to the most insider of Washington insiders that it's unpopular. She and Edwards (and Kerry and Hagel) are showing some inkling that they can follow the lead of the people on Iraq. Can any show that they can lead on the question of Iran? Or would they have to wait until we're mired in another war to be able to take a position against it?
This is an urgent question that should be addressed to both HRC and John Edwards (and Obama and the rest) every chance there is to get an answer: "Do you support going to war against Iran to stop its nuclear program or to stop its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shiite parties in Iraq? Where do you stand on the the future of military conflict in the Middle East, post-Bush."