You might ask this question: Why would she say this in 2007 knowing full well that she'd be running for president the following year, and presumably expecting to have an excellent chance of being elected? Why start chipping away at popular support for the executive's powers when her goal and perhaps her expectation at the time would have been to acquire them for herself and use them to her heart's content?
Watch the video and you'll see what I mean. If you don't want to watch the whole 15 minutes, skip to around the 13-minute mark and watch from there. Hat tip to Hot Air on this one:
The simple answer to the question is also the most obvious. Hillary will say whatever B.S. she wants at a given moment because she can always pretend later that she never said it, and she is reasonably confident the media won't call her out on it.
The more complicated answer involves the context of the times. In 2007, Democrats had just re-taken control of Congress and they were thought to be ascendant politically. Hillary probably figured that if she found herself in the White House circa 2009, it would be with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi carrying her water on Capitol Hill. so there would be no harm in trying to kneecap George W. Bush by insisting that the same two people get vetoes over things he did.
By the way, I don't ever remember Bush proposing to go to war with Iran without congressional authorization, do you? The only wars Bush undertook were Iraq and Afghanistan, and he sought congressional approval for both, and got it. (And Hillary voted in favor both times.) So what's her argument about, exactly? If she's simply dropping dishonest innuendo designed to make it sound like Bush would attack Iran without Congress on board, well gosh, that makes her awfully disingenuous, doesn't it? Hard to believe.
