Am I the only one who isn't confused about Clark's position on Iraq?

[dolstein]

Clark seems to be saying two things -- first, that he wouldn't have voted to go to war against Iraq, and second, that he would have supported a resolution threatening the use of force in order to give the president the kind of diplomatic leverage necessary to disarm Iraq without going to war. That sounds pretty close to Kerry's position. And it also sounds very similar to the kind of arguments I heard Lieberman making during the debate on the Iraq resolution -- that the best way to avoid a war was to give the president a strong hand to play at the UN. I don't find anything contradictory or hypocritical about this position.