Occupation is a whole lot more than simply a "boots on the ground" criteria. The playing around in the political, social, and economic process is relevant as well.

But the republicans, as much as they can be jerks, are not idiots.  They write these things to put people like Clinton in a quandry.  They have to choose between real things with downsides on either choice.  In this case, Senators had to choose between a resolution that authorized force following international action and agreement, or rejecting that resolution and allowing Bush to interpret it however he wants.  (I think he would have probably announced that there was no support for working with the international community, he would have invaded anyway, and all of the republicans would have said for years that democrats passed up a chance to have a final round of inspections which would have averted the war.)  

Even Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution, which was a pretty frank admission that his supporters like to pretend didn't happen.  Just like they pretend he didn't pull his anti-war speech off his website when he ran for US Senate, and they pretend he didn't endorse pro-war Joe Lieberman over anti-war Ned Lamont.

Everyone knew that Bush wanted to invade Iraq.  Everyone knew that Bush would invade whether this resolution passed or not.  Pretending that this resolution was the only thing that allowed him to invade, and pretending that the defeat of this resolution would have avoided the invasion is just  fantasy.

On a 4-choice multiple choice question, you have a 25% chance of getting it right. And if you pick the right answer, does that mean you knew the answer?

No.

I don't think he was either wise or prophetic.

And she has said that the WOT in Iraq and at large will not end with her presidency.

That is not what I meant, however.

My statement there was about Clinton's judgment, and how little trust people can put in it when she's spent five years attempting to shift blame to anyone or anything else, and vigorously deny any personal responsibility for her vote.  If she came clean, I could at least put that to bed, that she's not just in the typical politician mold, that she can accept responsibility and, yes, blame, when that is appropriate.

I remember defending Kerry's vote vigorously because he was the candidate I was stuck with.  

I see no reason to do it again.

That said, I have serious doubts that if anyone could go back to what was going on in 2002 having no knowledge of what followed, to watch all that news coverage, the things President Bush and his people were saying, all the way up to the vote for the AUMF, that person could have no doubt about what was actually going to occur if the AUMF passed.

Frankly, my personal belief is that anyone who truly didn't see that coming has such poor judgment that I doubt they should never represent people in Congress, let alone sit in the White House.

So, do I think half of Congress is just really that dumb?  No, I do not.

I don't buy that Hillary Clinton though Bush would use the power he had been granted in a responsible manner.  I actually thought the same thing of John Kerry in 2004, but this country was so far gone by that point that I felt we could elect a cardboard stand-up President, and less damage would be done to the country than if Bush got a second term, and so I played along with the game of "We really thought the AUMF would be used diplomatically."

The reality is, I don't think anyone who voted for the AUMF had any doubts that it would lead to war.  I think the diplomacy angle was really used by politicians who may have knew that it was the wrong thing to do, but who felt they couldn't politically afford to vote against it.  Of course, you can't tell the people you're representing that you just voted for war based on political expediency, and there really was a justification in holding a war over Saddam's head(which is what a smart President would have done), and out of this was born the narrative of how these people could vote for the AUMF and "believe" that they had not voted for war.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

WMD was still unknown at the time. 42% of DEm Sen voted against the resolution.