9/11 proved that there is a threat. Subsequent events proved that it’s manageable and that only the approach taken by BUSHCO can make it worse. Sadly both Clinton and Obama are more similar to Bush than is good for us, with Hillary being a tad closer than Barack, at least in their public pronouncements. Obama has spoken of a way forward that is visionary and has also done any number of things to reasonably bring into question his commitment to his own statements.

It would be wonderful if absolute answers were as clear as you indicate, but they’re just not.

May I point you to the last paragraph of blue-highlighted quotes from Hillary’s speech near the bottom of your post?

9/11 as a factor in her decision to vote for the war.

That alone should vote her off the island.

There are a couple of telling points in this brief response, which I’ve seen from Obama supporters throughout this campaign.

First, this is not Survivor, this is the Democratic Party. We do not vote people off the island, and the winner-take-all, zero-sum-game strategy that this implies is precisely the reason why Obama is the divider, not the uniter, in this campaign. The term for what you’re doing here is moral exclusion – it is driving an intractable wedge based on some black-or-white litmus test. The problem? Many, many democrats will side with Hillary with this one, so you just voted all of them off your island as well. Have fun on your island! But while you’re there you might want to check out my earlier post relevant to the topic: Dehumanization ’08

Secondly, your trivialization of 9/11 is troubling. You seem to imply that any judgment tied to a response to 9/11 is suspect. Yes, the Bush administration lied and use 9/11 as a cover for a rush to war, and yes some Republicans like Giuliani have tried (unsuccessfully) to exploit 9/11 politically. But that does not mean that 9/11 never happened or that security concerns based on a memory of that terrible event should be ignored. Nor does it mean that Hillary Clinton, representing New York in 2002, should not have taken that event and its toll on her state into consideration.

There is a small, vocal part of the Obama camp that seems to want to treat 9/11 as a TV show that America can just change the channel on because we’re weary of watching. There’s a psychological appeal in their language about turning the page. But this world is not a TV show. When it comes down to it, I stand with most Americans in retaining an awareness that there really are serious security threats and they’re only (due to Bush’s abuses is blunders) getting worse and more dangerous for the U.S. I do not want a President who is reactionary or inexperienced in dealing with such issues. That is not “playing the fear card”, that is playing the reality card, which desperately needs to be played in this race. I believe Senator Clinton’s ground here was and is moral, consistent, and correct. George W. Bush’s ground was immoral and opportunistic. Obama’s ground – by playing both sides of the issue and covering his lack of experience with manipulative slogans – looks more to me like Bush than Clinton.

One could also make the argument that Obama’s wedge-driving over this issue is going to doom him against John McCain, but I don’t expect that to sway Obama supporters; they don’t seem to remember how many elections Democrats have lost solely on the issue of security, and how hard Democrats like Hillary Clinton have worked to show to America that Democrats can simultaneously be strong, smart, and moral in working through difficult security and foreign-policy problems. Her record and her initiatives put forward principled solutions, and she never underestimates the complexities ofo the challenges we’ll face. Obama’s approach is to drive a wedge one day and flex his muscles the next, making him appear both to be a flip-flopper (how can you be so against war and for unilateral invasion of Pakistan?) and a novice. This will not do much for his stature should he ever stand on the debate stage next to John McCain.

I have yet to hear from someone that was on The Hill when this vote was discussed.

Pam: If you have an address for AK please forward this request.

That is why I’m so conflicted about Obama and his supporters. He knows, as should they, that Hillary’s vote was well-reasoned. He knows that it wasn’t just a simple YES or NO. He has even said (in 2004, I believe) that he could not be sure that he wouldn’t have voted as Hillary did. His attempts to make this issue BLACK or WHITE just smacks of the same overly simplistic logic that the current administration has used for the last seven years. And that has resulted in failure on every front.

Still, I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, since more years of GOP control will surely lead to further ruin.

As we all know now in hindsight 20/20, Bush falsified the intelligent information about Iraq WMD. I remember vividly watching on TV, Colin Powell spoke to the UN council about the intelligent report that Iraq had WMD in this and this location. Now we know that it was a bunch of lies. Bush then abused the resolution and invaded Iraq without the UN security backing, which was in total violation of the resolution that Clinton voted for.

So all in all, I find it ludicrous that Obama is using it as his up point against Clinton. And for Obama supporters to swallow his argument without verify the facts for themselves is very ignorant. To me, given all the information presented at the time, given that Iraq had used chemical weapon against Kurd, Obama made a bad call to vote against the resolution.

However, I agree with the comment above that Clinton wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if she was the president in 2003. She has proven to be smarter and more tactful than to turn to a crude/cowboy/no-brainer/primitive method such as war.

9/11 as a factor in her decision to vote for the war.

That alone should vote her off the island.