That’s putting it mildly. In his second day as a Presidential candidate, Wesley Clark was forced to eat crow and change his position on the most fundamental issue facing America today. How’s this for a Washington Post headline: “Clark Shifts Position on Iraq War Resolution”. One day after saying he “probably” would have voted for the Iraq war resolution (had he been in Congress, that is; a somewhat odd frame of reference since he is running for President), Clark did a 180 and announced: “Let’s make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war.”
Well, not if the vote was today, anyway.
Clark’s candidacy strikes me as the most over-hyped non-event since the Comet Kohoutek. To our younger readers–look it up.
BIG TRUNK adds: I thought when Clark stated that he “probably” would have supported the 2002 congressional authorization of force against Iraq but that he “was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did,” he was imitating Bill Clinton’s immortal statement regarding the 1990 congressional authorization of force against Iraq that “I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.” Turns out he was imitating George McGovern’s 1972 statement that he was 1,000 percent behind Tom Eagleton as his running mate for vice president immediately before he dumped him.
- Subscribe now!... Get rid of ADs!Support Power Line...VIP MembershipPresentsPower Line
Most Read on Power Line
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill