The errant former ambassador plays the “what-if” game and concludes that Barack Obama has no right to claim consistent opposition to the war.

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama’s distortion of George Bush’s folly into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn’t there. I remember what was said and done… …There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton’s actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone.

Wilson can only pull this argument off by mischaracterizing Clinton’s position in the debate leading up to the war:

Senator Clinton’s position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path.

So let’s look at what Senator Clinton actually said in that floor speech — it is a classic case of Clintonian triangulation. I excerpt for reasons of brevity, but I strongly recommend that everyone read the whole thing.

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster…This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament…However, this course is fraught with danger…
…Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons…But there are problems with this approach as well…
…While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq…[I]f we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution…
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated…If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

And that’s basically what happened — what Congress did (passed the resolution), what the United Nations did (pass resolution 1441), what Saddam Hussein did not do (comply with the inspectors, as Hans Blix said in early 2003), and what President Bush ended up doing (“attacking him with far more support…” etc. etc.).

Clinton can still plead that she was misled by faulty intelligence. She can even blame the administration for providing it. But Wilson simply lies when he writes that “Bush rejected her path.” Bush followed her path. Their paths were identical.