Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark reversed an earlier opinion that he likely would have voted for war in Iraq, telling a cheering college-town crowd the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported.
Clark sought to blunt a controversy that arose as he opened his campaign. The core is his resume as a retired four-star general with the credibility to challenge President Bush and oppose the war in Iraq.
Many of his backers expressed surprise when Clark told reporters he probably would have voted to authorize the use of force.
What we have here is a man who doesn't know what he thinks until his political handlers (the Clintons, apparently) feed it to him. I can respect either view on Iraq; I supported the idea (with the acknowledgement that it would be a risky move), but I can understand the arguments of those opposed -- at least, those who have actually thought about the issue rather than reflexively opposing Bush. But you've got to pick one or the other. I can't respect a man whose "opinions" change from day to day in response to what he thinks he has to say to get elected.
