I'm impressed with Hillary Clinton.
That's not an easy thing to say. But she shows backbone by refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
Sure, she recites the "if I'd known then what I know now ..." line.
That's just plain sense.
If President Bush slipped into a moment of honesty, surely to God he would say the same thing.
But apologize? No. Because, guess what? None of us knew then what we know now. And Sen. Clinton isn't going to be bullied into begging for forgiveness from the anti-war wing of her party.
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," she said in New Hampshire last week, The New York Times reports.
That's a pointed reference to Barack Obama, who wasn't in the Senate in 2002, and John Edwards, who also voted for the war resolution but has since repudiated it.
The response to Clinton's refusal has been rough, the Times adds, noting: "the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her."
Given the political climate today, where your stand on Iraq seems to have replaced abortion as THE litmus test issue for Democrats, Clinton has taken a risk. Not a Joe Lieberman risk. She's opposed to the war now. But the fact is, she meant what she said back in 2002.
Here's an exerpt from her statement on the Senate floor in support of the war resolution:
"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."
The real problem now is not so much that the United States invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons but that it has not done the job very well beyond getting rid of Saddam Hussein himself. Instead of apologizing for decisions that were made in 2002, the people who want to lead this country need to figure out where we should go from here.
I'm not going to agree with Sen. Clinton about a lot of issues, but at least she's showing the kind of strength we need in a president. If she won't back down to demands for an apology she has no reason to offer, then she might stand up just as forcefully for our national interests.