In 2002, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. She said this on the floor of the Senate:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

She sure sounded convinced that he was pursuing WMD vigorously, and that he had ties to terrorism, including Al Qaeda, if not the specific plans for 9/11.

In the speech she says we should attack Iraq with as much support as we can, and after the fact she has justified the vote as giving Bush leverage, rather than actually endorsing war. I don't think many Americans would buy that...how many Democrats would?

Here, Bill Maher asks her about her vote for the Iraq War, and asks, if she was fooled by George Bush, why should we vote for someone who was fooled by George Bush? First she laughs. Then she says "It wasn't as simple as that." She says she consulted a wide variety of sources before making that decision. Sounds like she's trying to say she wasn't fooled by false information.

But this source says:

While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.

See, this is the kind of shit that got Kerry into trouble. This isn't subtle, nuanced thinking. It's contradiction. If you were duped into making a bad decision, why take full responsibility for it? You shouldn't.

Basically, Clinton voted for the Iraq. She now says:

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday.

Well hindsight is 20/20. But politicians have to make decisions based on the information they have at the time. Some people in the conspiracy camp conclude that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD and wanted to invade anyway, but I don't think so. I don't think you can verify disarmament when dealing with an uncooperative regime, and in the face of uncertainty, with a country that has history shown nothing but deception and a continued willingness to acquire and use WMD, the most sensible thing to do is assume the worst.

It's the lack of consistency, responsibility, and commitment to principle that makes it difficult for me to vote Democrat. But at this point I'm not ruling it out.