I often can't even read David Brooks becasue I get so annoyed, but today I thought his article was revealing. His article, No Apology Needed, (sorry but it is behind the wall) defends Hilary Clinton's position on the Iraq war by looking back on her statements in 2002 and 2003,
She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.
Therefore Democrats shouldn't take her to task for her vote now because she never intended that vote to turn into the debacle that is the Iraq War. I think David Brooks feels a kinship with this position himself.
I am reminded of a child who, when confronted by the broken lamp, says "But I didn't mean to do it." It is the parent's role to point out to a child that intent is not the only factor. Even if it was completely unintentional, the lamp still got broken and for that you will be held accountable. There may even be aggravating circumstances involved (like playing catch in the living room) that will increase the accountability.
I believe Hilary Clinton is appalled at the horrors of the George Bush's Iraq War. However, the argument that no harm was meant is not good enough. The voters who keep asking her about the AUMF vote are taking the role of the parent in pointing out that good intentions are not the issue and it is past time to take accountability for the consequences of her actions.