Hillary Clinton did not bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to give George Bush authority to go to war in Iraq. The report raised serious doubts about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destructions.
Hillary still won't apologize for her vote, claiming it was "a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time." What "facts"? The claims of Bush and Cheney?
Recently Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the core of Iran's national army, a terrorist organization. Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb -- former Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan -- called the Resolution "tantamount to a declaration of war."
Hillary justified her support for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution by stating, "The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program." What intelligence was Hillary basing this statement on? The National Intelligence Estimate now states clearly that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Was Hillary again willing to place her trust in Bush and Cheney's false assertions?
Will Hillary now apologize for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, which was based on factual assertions that have proven to be false?
If not, what does that say about Hillary's much-touted foreign policy experience as first lady and her judgment in matters of war and peace?
Hillary is clearly the most hawkish of the Democratic presidential contenders. Yet her hawkishness, like so many of her policies, seems based more on political calculation than on facts.
Democratic primary/caucus voters -- particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire which will likely determine if Hillary is "the inevitable nominee" -- should take this into account in deciding whether Hillary has the experience and judgment to lead the country in matters of war and peace.