OT but worth discussing yet another reason not to trust Hillary:

Hillary Concedes...Nothing.

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

The responsibility Clinton said she accepts was helping clear the way for Bush's path in Iraq.

"I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said.

Compare that to her Oct 10, 2002 words:

"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. 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."
~ Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)

I'm not saying the Bush administration is lily white, now or ever. But as much as I've read it in the news pages and letters to the editors of everything from TIME Magazine to my local paper, I still was floored to see the myriad signs from the anti-war protest shown online today, actually accusing Bush of "war crimes" and lying, and calling for his impeachment. It's truly amazing what the American Public (at least tens of thousands of them) believes hook, line and sinker from the likes of the predominantly left-leaning news media. I guess that makes The Chicago Tribune's journalists liars and "guilty of war crimes" too, then, just because the American Public Says So:

"After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege." ~ The Chicago Tribune.
Published December 28, 2005

The Chicago Trib and The New York Times reported another accurate fact that remains grossly underreported by the mass media--thus also by the public--and completely ignored by Hillary:

"We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year...Hussein didn't have illicit weapons stockpiles to wield or hand to terrorists. Subsequent investigations have concluded he had the means and intent to rekindle those programs as soon as he escaped UN sanctions." - Chicago Tribune, Dec. 2005

(Funny, but isn't that last sentence exactly what Hillary said in the last sentence of her 2002 quote above?)

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." - The New York Times, Nov. 3, 2006.

Those who froth at the mouth saying "Bush Lied" ought to read that Trib article in its entirety. The Trib doesn't give Bush a free pass. But the article does explain how the "Bush Lied" charge originated and also why it doesn't hold water:

By not stressing what wasn't known as much as what was, the White House wound up exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong.

Those flawed assertions are central to the charge that the president lied. Such accusations, though, can unfairly conflate ["mix together different elements"] three issues: the strength of the case Bush argued before the war, his refusal to delay its launch in March 2003 and his administration's failure to better anticipate the chaos that would follow. Those three are important, but not to be confused with one another.

Which apparently is what the majority of the American press and people have done anyway.

Amazing what you can learn if you stop watching CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC for a few moments.