The Red Pill

Wesley Clark flip-flops on Iraq already.
WSJ OpinionJournal

Last Thursday Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he "probably" would have voted in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing the liberation of Iraq. But on Friday, as the Associated Press reports, he said: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war."

So Clark is pro-war on Thursdays and antiwar on Fridays. And that's just in September. On Mondays in October, it turns out, he favors a rush to war. In the Oct. 14, 2002, issue of Time, Clark said the U.S. should "take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important." Had President Bush followed Clark's advice, America and its allies would have liberated Iraq by Thanksgiving, not dawdled until the spring.

Some, including the left-wing media watchdog group that styles itself Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, accuse Clark of being inconsistent. Clark's defenders will no doubt argue that this charge is unfair and smacks of religious bigotry. As Slate notes, Clark is Catholic and has a Jewish father. Is it "inconsistent" to eat meat on Thursday and fish on Friday, or to spend Saturday at the synagogue and Sunday watching football?

Seriously, though, why is Clark's disordered thinking on Iraq big news to begin with? After all, in 1991 Bill Clinton took a similarly weaselly position on the Gulf War, saying: "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." Yet when Clinton ran for president, no one much cared.