Jay Nordlinger on Clark and his numerous about-faces:

Clark is almost never "credited" with being as flaky and offensive as he is. He repeatedly charges President Bush with personal culpability in the death of 3,000 people on September 11. He completely exonerates the Clinton administration, saying that it had no time to do anything about al Qaeda (seriously). He claims that the Iraq war was a great diversion from our alleged failures against al Qaeda, and that this diversion was the trick of "neocons." (The general has gotten with the lingo.)

Check out Clark: "I suspect [Bush's] advisers said, 'Now, Mr. President, you know, there's no guarantee we could ever get [bin Laden]. You know, it's, you know, you ought to go somewhere, you know, go somewhere easy, do something easy like taking care of Saddam Hussein, and he's probably connected . . .'"

Wait a second: Saddam was supposed to be easy? What happened to quagmire?

But that's another point altogether.

I give you some more Clark, from just the other day, with Chris Matthews: "Ultimately, all of this was passed through a political filter. Karl Rove — he passed judgment on it. He even sent out, apparently, a memo back in early 2002, saying 'George W. Bush is going to run on his war record.'" Asked whether the president was spilling American blood for electoral advantage, Clark answered, "I can't say that. I can't prove it."

"I can't prove it"? Whatever kind of campaign Clark is running, it is not honorable, in my view.

And, by the way, why should a senseless war be popular — give a president electoral advantage, instead of disadvantage?

Clark is a viable candidate who has impressive credentials and foreign policy experience. That may help him, but the fact that He praised Bush as recently as Sept. 2002 is going to be pounded into the public.