"Saddam Hussein ... will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

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.

Now this much is undisputed.

------------------------------------

Some bullshit Bush speech pimping the Iraq War? Nope--the floor speech of Senator Hillary Clinton, supporting that war and voting to give Bush the authority to go ahead with it.

Do you really want to vote for somebody whose judgement is so bad that not only did they jump on board for the worst foreign policy blunder in ~40 years, but they continue to refuse to acknowledge that that decision was wrong?

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

excerpt just down from your quotes:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option

That she KNEW it was a bad idea, and voted to hand Bush a blank check anyway, sacrificing who knows how many lives on the altar of looking strong to the voters, would make her sociopathicly self-centered and ruthlessly calculating to a horrifying degree. Personally, I'd rather believe the better of her--that she honestly believed the "intelligence" she was fed and was simply duped, showing incredibly poor judgement and instincts, but not bloodlust or casual disregard for the lives of the people involved.

No matter how much they try to paint Edwards and Obama as being pro-war, there's only one Dem candidate who supported the Iraq invasion from day 1 and continues to claim that it wasn't a mistake up to the present moment.

You did read the OP, right?

...a Republican President.

treason.

bringing out all these reminders of why I haven't liked my senator hillary since Oct 2002. the shillarys won't care ..they have no boundaries.

Wait... She DID say all those things. It isn't "propaganda" to be reminded of something you don't like. Here's an example of propaganda: you claiming that Obama was doing crack in 1964.

Why did you vote against the amendment that would have PREVENTED Bush from rushing into war?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

She did attempt another amendment, like Levin, but without giving UN the power. But, it also failed.