The key here is that you are speaking of two different periods of time. For the war's initiation, like Hillary, I would have voted for providing the presidential authority to strike. The issue was that close, and, I assume, the information at the disposal of the Senate supported such a stance. For thepresent with the benefit of hindsight, encompassing all that we've learned in the interim, the vote to authorize war powers was dead wrong. First and foremost, the intel on the two pillars of invasion -- WMD and terrorist ties -- simply did not hold up to time, scrutiny and analysis. Arguably, those reservations should have been raised at the time authorization was sought, but two factors, at least, stymied such a clear-eyed view: the inexorable mood of the country itching for decisive (additional) action against our perceived antagonists, and the trust a duly-elected President of the Uniteed States should be deemed to have regarding such matters. As to the mood of the country, in their personal thoughts, where it played out, aye-voters must examine -- come to terms with -- whether their mature, best judgment was skewed by popular sentiment, contrary to the way a courageous representative should behave in a representative democracy. I will state the second issue plainly: was it another error of judgment -- at the time of the war's initiation -- to trust the president, that is, to give him the benefit of the doubt ... before matters played out further to give a more reliable reading on that issue.
