The left's memory is rather selective, an unfortunate consequence of "Bush derangement syndrome."  The media are no better, a consequence of their pathetic love affair with President Obama.

So let's do a little Memory Lane walking and remember a few events.

Let's start with President Clinton speaking to the nation on December 1998:

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

Is it plausible that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton spoke about Hussein's WMDs over the next few days?  My guess is yes, especially considering Mrs. Clinton's own political ambitions.

Four years later, then-senator Clinton defended her vote with a rather firm statement about Hussein's WMDs:

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.

I will take Senator Clinton at her word.  In other words, I will accept that she voted for the war because she saw the information and concluded that Hussein had weapons and was likely to use them.

So what is she going to say today about that vote and the war?  She did call her vote a mistake, but I will need a bit more, as David Harsanyi wrote:

When a policy fails or the public turns against it, admitting that you wouldn't vote for it doesn't exactly make you Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 
If you or I knew what we know now, then we'd be (almost) perfect. 

And apologies are not an exemption from accountability. 

The problem with Clinton's position is that none of us ever knows "what we know now" when we make decisions. 

Her job, then, was to challenge the executive branch and remain duly skeptical of its case -- which she was not.

My guess is that she did not challenge the executive (President Bush) because she was convinced that military action was the only option to eliminate the threat.  Why?  Because she had the unique position of being married to a man who had made the same case as President Bush.

My preference is to put this second-guessing of Iraq 2002 behind us and deal with the reality of Iraq 2015.  However, the media owe us a similar question to Secretary Clinton.

Who told Mrs. Clinton that Hussein had WMDs?  I don't know, but she sounded very sure of herself when she voted to take out Hussein.  

Furthermore, she sounded even more convinced in March 2003, or about five months after the vote.  This is what she told the Code Pink Ladies a few days before the war started:

If Saddam were serious about disarming he would have been much more forthcoming. . .  The very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction?

Again, who told Hillary Clinton about Hussein's WMDs?  She sounded very sure of herself back then.

P.S. You can hear my show (CantoTalk) or follow me on Twitter.