For those who watch the weekend political chat fests, it is abundantly clear that Senator Hillary Roddam Clinton is contradicting herself on her Iraq "War" position.

Recently, the woman who inspired the Sonics to write one of their best songs said that if she had been President in 2002, "we would not have gone to war with Iraq."

Well, considering that we HAVEN'T gone to War with Iraq, as stipulated under Article One of the US Constitution (the document that gives her and George Bush their seats and salaries) one might wonder what dimension she calls home. But let us assume for a moment that this undeclared military operation is acceptable according to the rule book for our national government. What, then, are we to make of her comments leading up the the "war"?

Did she not tell us in 2002 that if Saddam Hussein was not stopped, he would continue to develop weapons of mass destruction? Did she not say that her intelligence sources all indicated that Saddam was an "imminent" threat who needed to be removed from power?

To give the woman some slack, perhaps she meant that he needed to be removed, but NOT by military means, and instead, by the UN, somehow.

But if that were the case, why did she vote to give President Bush "authority to use military force" in order to remove Saddam?

One might want to keep this in mind, and ask Mrs. Clinton when she visits the state.