Enough with the "had I known then what I know now" talk.

Hillary Clinton just released a statement that makes it very clear that she has no intention to push the
Senate -- or lead the country -- to get out of Iraq anytime soon. This is a Mack-truck-wide opening --
especially for Barack Obama. Both he and Edwards should use this and exploit it to the hilt.

The statement is at http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=273563&&

Today, Senator Byrd announced on the Senate floor our intention to introduce legislation which
proposes October 11, 2007 -- the five-year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the
use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the
October 11, 2002 authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the
failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of Congress and the
American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing
course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe that this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have
a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment
in 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to a year and I believe a full
reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the authorization is overdue.
This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change,
and the Congress has passed legislation that requires change. It is time to sunset the
authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality,
it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort
to require a new authorization resolution for these new times.

If Clinton believes "it is time...to end this war as soon as possible"...

• Why do we need to wait 5 months before we "review" the Iraq authorization?

• Why do we need to wait 5 months before having "a full national debate so
  the people can be heard"? Haven't we already had a national debate?
  Weren't the people already heard in November 2006?

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is -- again -- using pupulist language to trump up her opposition to military
force in Iraq and mislead the American people about what she is doing on this issue.

There is a reason why the new sign-up feature on Clinton's Web site -- "DEAUTHORIZE THE WAR" in
giant capital letters, followed by an invitation to "Join Hillary in her call to bring an end to the war by
cosponsoring her resolution to deauthorize the war" (emphasis mine) -- requires visitors to sign up
right then and there, with no link to the statement itself:

Hillary Clinton is NOT moving to "deauthorize the war."

Look at the statement. Clinton proposes:

• an "expiration date" for "the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq"

• "reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the authorization" [of the use of force in Iraq]

• "a new authorization resolution" [of the use of force in Iraq]

This is both a set-up and an excuse for Clinton to vote in favor of a funding-only resolution that
sets no timetable for troop withdrawal.

And it is not what Bill Richardson has in mind when he says, on his own Web site, that Congress
must "De-Authorize the War." On Tuesday, Richardson "called on Congress...to immediately pass
a resolution, under the War Powers Act, that would de-authorize the Iraq War and provide a rapid
timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces." (emphasis mine).

According to Richardson's press release, "only Congress has the authority to authorize war, and
can also vote by resolution to de-authorize the war -- which would require the military to remove
all American troops from Iraq. Such a resolution does not require a Presidential signature and would
therefore not be subject to veto."

This is not what Hillary Clinton is saying. Indeed, Clinton is very careful to note that that Bush vetoed
legislation reflecting the will of the American people for "changing course" in Iraq and for "beginning"
to bring our troops home.

Whatever her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton is not moving to "de-authorize the war."

She is moving merely to extend the war under different "terms and conditions."

Obama, Edwards, and all of the Democratic presidential candidates have to start
calling Clinton out on this. Today.