The following day, the U.S. Senate voted to give George Bush a green light to use military force against Iraq. Clinton voted "yea" with the majority. Only 23 senators opposed the legislation.

After things began to turn sour for the U.S. in Iraq, Clinton became a vocal opponent of the war. However, she never admitted to being wrong on her Senate vote. When asked why she opposed the war while voting for it a few years before, she never gave a coherent answer.

U.S. public opinion began to swing in favor of a U.S. withdrawal. On January 13, 2007, Clinton made a trip to Iraq and concluded that the war was a losing cause for the U.S. She was now a "peace" candidate. After meeting al-Maliki, she met the press and gave some juicy quotes to ABC News:

• In an exclusive interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking" and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.
• "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work," she said. "And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?"
• "I’m skeptical that the Iraqi government will do what they have promised to do, and that I think is the concern of all of us who have heard this before," she said. "All the promises, and intentions in the world don’t substitute for action and we haven’t seen a lot of action."

The article also mentioned: Clinton traveled wearing body armor and surrounded by a phalanx of soldiers and security guards.

Well, she lost the nomination to Obama who outdid her on the anti-war lies that became commonplace for the campaign. In those days, opposing the war was the in-thing to do, regardless of past statements.

Once Obama won the nomination, he began to revert to the pro-war statements made by many in 2003. A one-time opponent of the "surge" in Iraq, he saw the error of his ways and stated that the surge worked "beyond our wildest dreams." There was no mention of the reality of the surge: the construction of 28 enclaves with 12-feet-high concrete and barbed wire walls (which were constructed by cement imported from Israel), or the final solution of cleansing Baghdad of its Sunni population at the hands of Iranian-backed militias while the U.S. authorities gave a blind eye to the genocidal actions. Plus, many U.S. soldiers assisted the militias in their activities.

Today, Clinton is the spokeswoman for U.S. policies to the world. She and Obama are on the same page. Obama has reneged on the deal to have U.S. soldiers out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and Clinton is heralding the Iraqi success story.

On April 25, 2009, Clinton was in Baghdad. Well, not really Baghdad, but the huge armed fortress called the "Green Zone." She proudly told the press that Iraq is on the right track. According to Al-Jazeera News of April 25, 2009:

If Iraq is on the "right track," it is certainly a bizarre one. Most U.S. citizens now say, "The war is over. Iraq is finally free and democratic."

Let’s look at Iraqi democracy. The latest elections included ballots the size of billboards. Hardly any voter could understand them. The offices and candidates were not easily identified. One had to vote for "blocks" of individuals, many with no names.

Today’s Iraq has a quota system of cabinet appointees that reflects religious and regional lines. Imagine if the U.S. government would put into effect the same system. It would look something like this: three cabinet positions must be Roman Catholic; two Methodists; one Presbyterian; one evangelical Christian of no particular denomination and Muslims, Jews and atheists would split one cabinet position with each entity serving a four-month stint and then turn it over to the next minority. If this sounds absurd, it is the current system in "democratic" Iraq.

Also, imagine if the Democratic Party was declared illegal. Its members would not be able to vote and hold any kind of government job. Plus, if one of its members held a picture of John F. Kennedy in public, he/she would be sentenced to two years in prison. As crazy as this sounds, it happened in Iraq. The nation’s largest political party was declared illegal by a U.S. citizen (Paul Bremer) who did not speak one word of Arabic. Former Ba’ath Party members are non-citizens. Displaying a picture of Saddam Hussein in public carries a two-year prison term.

The absurdity of Iraq’s new "democracy" is something that would make a fiction writer envious. Yet, U.S. politicians are hailing this nonsensical system and the public believes it.

There is one thing for sure that Ms. Clinton never mentioned. If she decided to leave the Green Zone and take an unguarded tour of the city of Baghdad dressed as she was in the Green Zone, she probably would be found chopped to pieces in some alley way with a message such as "pervert" written on her body. If this is the "right track," I wonder what would have to happen until she would say that Iraq was on the wrong track. Actually, she did say that, but not about today’s Iraq. She implied the "wrong track" about the non-violent and productive Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion. I’ll leave it to the reader to assess which Iraq was going on the "right track."