That is not exactly what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting that all of us that you have insulted for talking about the same old things only respond to those arguments that you make which are reasons and show some thought and mental effort on your part. Which so far, in my reading of your posts, would add up to a very small percentage.

It seems to me that you are justs throwing out bullshit off the top of your head designed to get the maximum response for the minimum effort on your part.

Your premises are simplistic, childish crap.

Yes it is Bush's War. But Clinton's vote was not a simple vote to invade. That's not what the resolution said. Clinton, Kerry and the other Democrats who supported the resolution, voted to give President Bush an open ended mandate to deal with the Iraq. The resolution, in effect said. "Mr. Bush we trust your judgment and ability to deal with the threat from Iraq and we give you a free hand to do so." The wording was very clever on the part of the Neocons and provided them a stick to beat up on anyone who voted yes in subsequent elections.

On the other hand Obama did not vote to keep troops anywhere. What he did vote for was money to support the troops who were already in place. From what I have seen of Obama, I can't imagine him voting to give someone like Bush a free hand. As a Constitutional law professor. I can't imagine him giving the President powers like that without an open declaration of war.

The difference between Hillary and Obama is subtle but it is very clear. It has nothing to do with policy. It is a fundamental and clear difference in approach. Obama puts forth his positions clearly and invites debate and input from all sides. Hillary keeps her cards hidden and plays them only when she is forced to.

Obama's approach is much more likely to get the important things done.