Reply #86: It always seemed to me that...

[wyldwolf]

Clark spoke as an analyst - a tactician. He could be against the war yet still speak positively of the military's performance in it.

He wasn't paid by CNN to be a political analyst. It wasn't his job to speak of the moral and political implications of the Iraq war.

I agree some of his early statements on it appears to contradict each other, but I'd like to refer back to some of his earliest comments on it...

September 2002

If there is to be a military operation against Iraq, then certainly NATO participation should be sought...

From Oct. 9, 2002:

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.

"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can’t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

These comments and sentiments are quite similar to those of Howard Dean.