"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq...The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.

LINK to her statement.

And Obama?  According to the Nation:

Will Obama do that before November? "The answer is no, in all candor," says the senior Obama adviser. "Obviously it's a dynamic situation, and he'll continue to analyze it."

So, yet again, Obama tries to play it to both sides.  He sure has a lot of "analyzing" to do, whether it's school vouchers or social security or keeping American mercenaries from raping and killing civilians in the name of our country.  

Taylor Marsh breaks it down: LINK to story

"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

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.

[...]

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

"She was somewhat fearful of Bush's rush to war"?  =  "Oh, dear, what will we do, what will we do?  What if he goes to war...?"

Come on.  She has made more speeches (which apparently are the things that really matter), added more resolutions, written more letters and supported more resolutions to stop this stupid war than Obama has.

He gave ONE SPEECH and that is the entirety of his reason for being president.  She has myriad ACTIONS behind her.

But, no, those actions just show that she is "somewhat fearful" but not actually outraged or demanding answers.  If that is how you want to categorize her actions, then I think you should use the same yardstick for Obama's vaunted speech against the war--that he was only somewhat fearful that it would go awry.  Certainly, given his later politically motivated equivocations, I could certainly buy this argument.