Interesting, the above reply should be from me...

She made a decision you disagree with. He made a guess you agree with. It still doesn't say anything about his judgment.

Right, she had access to the information, didn't read it, and made the wrong decision. He had no access to the information, therefore also didn't read it, and made the right decision.

If you'll recall, Obama was not a member of the Senate in 2002 and thus would not have had an opportunity to read what was then a classified document, the NIE. So, no, it doesn't worry me at all. Secondly, it is the job of those in government to make good decisions. Sen. Clinton's decision to enable the President to send US troops to war, however, seems to have been based on what she considered her political viability and enabling her to be seen as "tough enough" for her potential presidential run (come on, we all knew it was coming), and not on the merits of the issue itself. Thomas Hicks points out in Fiasco that Paul Wolfowitz had been agitating for an Iraq invasion even before 9/11, but that the tragedy opened a window of sorts for the policy to matter in the eyes of the electorate. Your point that we voted for the war must also come with the caveat that the executive branch spent months making_the_case to go to war. The american people didn't just up and decide we wanted a preemptive war with Iraq. (?!) In any case, we should hold our lawmakers responsible for making sound decisions even if it means standing up to a rogue presidency -- especially if they see themselves in the oval office themselves one day. Clinton's admission last night (finally) that her first Iraq vote is the thing she most would have wanted to take back completes the circle.

The case to go after Saddam was that Iraq presented a convergence of interests - humanitarian interests, WMD dangers, a likelihood for collaboration with terrorists, even oil (though they'lll never admit it). For all you talk about the case being obviously manufactured, Iraq was the centerpiece of the Republican 2002 election campaign, and they won resoundingly. America voted for the Iraq War. That's why the opposition in the new Congress was so tepid. Democracy had spoken, and we got what we asked for. Clinton didn't read the entirety of the final Iraq report, she's admitted. She did talk to the people who wrote it. She'd been reading reports and attending briefings on Iraq for years. I'm not worried that she didn't read the entire however-many-page report. But if you are worried, it must really worry you that Barack made a decision and didn't read any of it. If I were in Congress, I would have voted for the funding, too. But I wouldn't have pledge unequivocally not to vote for funding, either.

The war in Iraq was never a deliberate response to intelligence estimates and was in many ways the administration's response to 9/11. Remember that the discredited link between Al-Caida and Saddam was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and (for many) sold the case to go to war. That it was so obviously a manufactured reason is what makes it stink so badly. Starting an unprovoked, pre-emptive war with scant international support (and, as it has turned out, poor intelligence) is bad policy, period. Add to that the fact reports that Sen. Clinton did not read the whole of the intelligence report, and your "informed decision-making" argument seems to lack substance. Appropriating dollars for armor and troop support is a completely different question. That vote was necessitated by the fact that American troops were on the ground without the adequate supplies -- as Sen. Obama noted from his visit to Afghanistan. If the government has sent troops abroad it is the responsibility of good government to provide from them.