Hold their feet to the fire.

I want to know why presidential candidates voted to give Bush a blank check to go into Iraq and do what ever he wanted to, at any cost. I know they are saying that their votes were based on information and assurances they had at the time - but I want to know what their reasoning and analysis was. Did they trust George Bush?? Please! Even back then, there were good reasons to doubt him. I remember reading critics who pointed out that we didn't need to rush into war. Bush made the weapons inspectors leave Iraq when they had found nothing. (He's claiming that Hussein made them leave, but that isn't true.) I read lots of warnings that war was neither necessary nor wise.

Surely a U.S. Senator had access to that same information. So - how did they reason away those objections to war? Personally, I think they voted us into this mess out of political cowardice. They were afraid to be labeled as soft on terrorism. I want to know just how craven their vote was.

It is not enough for me to hear a candidate say he's sorry. I don't suppose I'll ever find out the real reason they voted for war but I won't accept the flimsy way out of it of, "I'm sorry." I want to know how they evaluated the objections to attacking Iraq.

Hillary's refusal to say she's sorry for that vote sounds to me like pure political calculation. She doesn't want to be called a flip flopper and she does want to be tough on terrorism. (even though attacking had nothing to do with fighting terrorism)

I wish Howard Dean was running again. Do I want him as President? No, I don't. But I do want to have his voice included in the debate. He gave us straight talk and was really beaten up by Republicans. Then he was proven to be right. Do you remember his saying that the capture of Saddam did not make us any safer? We need politicians who will say what they think , even when there is a political price for it.