The person who needs to apologize for what the USA has done to Iraq is George W Bush.

I still do not understand the Faux Debate that the LEFT is having about whether or not Clinton needs to apologize for her vote to authorize the Bush to attack a country that did not attack us. Points being missed here:

1. No one is asking if an apology is appropriate. It is assumed it is. Because while going after Clinton for being "calculating" (a code sexist term for BITCH just as "articulate" is code racist term for "My God! That negro is SMART!!" ) no one seems to be care if Edwards apology is also "calculated". Edwards apology is the right political move for 08 so it must be sincere. THE POSSIBILITY THAT CLINTON ACTUALLY SEES NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE HAS NOT OCCURRED TO ANYONE INSISTING ON AN APOLOGY. There is, in fact, no "calculation".

2. I never thought the war was correct, just, or moral. However in 2002 there were reasonable Democrats who believed that Iraq was the logical next military move. Bush lied- dishonest information was handed out like candy on Valentine's Day. Senator Clinton made a choice to vote for authorization. What was she thinking!!!???
A. She knew Bush was spewing bullshit and voted yes anyway. OR
B. She did not know Bush was a lying scheming war mongering fiend, assumed he had the country's interest at heart - as most Americans did in 2002 - and having lived with a President believes they should have power in time of crisis to make bold moves. Further she thought the men and woman in the White House would competently prosecute the war if it came to that - and voted yes.
Of course if CHAOS was the goal (and it seems it was) the Bush team did a great job.

3. Let's say the whole thing is about political calculation on her part - and clearly this is at least partially true - apologizing is a bad political move. FOR GOD'S SAKE DO WE WANT A DEMOCRAT TO WIN OR NOT? AND NO MORE BULLSHIT ABOUT HOW IT DOES NOT MATTER ANY WAY - CUZ WE WANT A "REAL" CHOICE - NEWT OR CLINTON? McCain OR CLINTON? - contrary to the flavor of the month club - Rudy is a nonstarter so forget him - he'll be long gone by this time next year - ROMNEY OR CLINTON? BROWNBACK OR CLINTON? These are not "real" choices?? DOES ANYONE THINK WE WOULD BE HEARING ABOUT FBI ABUSES IF THE GOP HAD WON LAST NOVEMBER????

and sorry kids - Edwards is a fine man who will end in Clinton's cabinet- And Obama - well I like this man a lot - but I simply will not gamble that he might be another Lincoln - regardless of how good he is on camera - 2 years in the U.S. Senate, a few autobiographies, and sex appeal ARE NOT ENOUGH IN 2008. and like it or not - Obama simply will not win the general. Iraq Hussein Osama. Barak Hussein Obama. I wish we were less vapid as a country. We are not. McCain or Newt would run Obama off the road in the general. But 4 more years of ignoring global warming, not developing oil alternatives, GOP judges, and attacks on gays, and empowered religious bigots IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Unless Gore changes his mind, Clinton is still our best chance.

PS - I would listen to Hagel if he runs as an Independent. His voting record is putrid, though.

PPSS - I repeat the deification of Obama is A. inappropriate until he proves himself and B. in large part because of unconscious sexism on the Left.

ANYONE BUT THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE!!!

IS NOT A PLATFORM TO RUN ON AGAINST THE GOP IN 2008