As the child grows, the child will learn by observation, intellectual and worldly learning, or otherwise acquired knowledge, and change his mind. Children will no longer believe in a stork, a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and other nonsense.

Religion is a little different, because children are being taught the super natural, something spiritual which they know from the start cannot be seen, felt, heard or smelled and is only in his imagination. Much like reading fairy tales and Harry Potter books.

So people will believe things that fill a gap. People will flock to Jim Jones, Applewhite, Moon, and other loonies if the god introduced to them in early childhood no longer satisfies their need. Most stay with the religion into which they were brainwashed, some are convinced, or convince themselves, that for some reason or other they convert to another belief.

In more worldly matters people will learn in school, but here they are influenced by what parents, tutors and clergy have instilled in their minds. Some will never accept the facts of evolution as opposed to the fallacy of creationism. Some try to combine the two, and somehow twist and contort to make them fit. Religion tells you that the earth is 12,000 years old, science puts the age in the millions of years. All life evolved says science, all life was created says religion. If god created man in his own image, whom does he resemble? Modern man? Neanderthal? Cro Magnin? Earlier ape like beings?

But along this learning cycle, was a person wrong at any time believing what they did or believed? Should a child spend the rest of his life apologizing that he once believed in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? The answer is 'NO', because that is what that child was forced to, convinced to, or allowed himself to believe.

Hillary Clinton, having been the wife of a U.S. President and probably conditioned to believe what came from the presidency was the truth (forget Monica here since this was driven by self-preservation and protecting self and family), she believed what she was told by Bush. Many in Congress were more critical, possibly some quality learned in their learning cycle, did not automatically believe Bush. Hillary Clinton did.
So was her vote wrong? If she was sincere, and really believed Bush, her vote was not wrong, keeping in mind that through her husband, the President, she knew that at one time Saddam possessed some of the weapons, most of them the U.S. sold to him, but after the Bush presidency began, she had no more extraordinary knowledge of what Saddam still possessed and what was destroyed.

So should Hillary now be required to apologize? No and Yes. She should not apologize for having voted for Bush's authority to use force, but she should apologize for not having been more critical back in 2002.

Bush and cabal should apologize for having cherry-picked and otherwise manipulated data to make a case for going to war. Can one imagine that all Intelligence data led to the wrong conclusion and none or very little indicated the truth? I say no way.

If looking for quarters in a jar where you save coins you will not notice whether it included tin pennies, wheat pennies or any other kind. All you pick are quarters. Bush and cronies just picked what looked like 'reason for war'.

Time to get off Hillary's back. She now knows that 'facts' presented in 2002 where manufactured.