Astounded

There are only three reasons anyone could have voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
1) They honestly believed that it was a good idea, regardless of the facts
2) They were ignorant of the facts
3) They felt that they needed to for political reasons

I can't see how any of these are acceptable. Number one is obviously inexcusable, although unfortunately more common than it should be. Number two also holds no water for me. There were hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out against this legislation and the whole cloth "facts" that the neo-cons and wart mongers ginned up as talking points. To claim ignorance or hide behind the "I was duped" meme begs credibility.

This brings us to option number three. A number of Clinton supporters have pushed back on Obama's claim that he was opposed to the war from the start by claiming that since he was not in office and did not have to cast a vote on the issue, he is getting an unfair free pass. "There is no telling what he would have done had he been forced to vote," the argument goes. Perhaps. But there is one hundred percent certainty what every other candidate would have done. Even if there was a 99% possibility that Obama would have voted yea - which there is not - it is still less than the certainty of Clinton or McCain. And what were the "costs" of a nay vote? Potential political retribution from constituents? I am not sure which astounds me more: the fact that so many people would vote for a candidate who chose their own personal fortunes over the lives of even one person, let alone the hundreds of thousands who have perished since that vote or the fact that if Clinton is the nominee, I will end up voting for her too.