Your idea of what is considered a "firm stance on Iraq" is a bit generous.

If the following Clark musing and specualtion pre-war is what you consider a firm stance:

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Then this board is full of 'firm stances'. Does speculating that finding water on Mars wouldn't surprise you mean we should invade it? We'd have about as much luck finding WMD's.

Well since you find offense to my usage of language here then you can interpret it any way you wish. I just wish to bring to attention an obvious flip-flop for the benefit of certain Democratic voters (or should I say for certain Democratic policy makers?).

Originally posted by THENEO
Well since you find offense to my usage of language here then you can interpret it any way you wish. I just wish to bring to attention an obvious flip-flop for the benefit of certain Democratic voters (or should I say for certain Democratic policy makers?).

I'm not offended, I'm just calling it spin. Saying it's a flip-flop is a bit of a stretch. And THAT insight is for the benefit of voters as well.

There are much more recent and relevant OBVIOUS flip flops you can post if you're concerned about voters.

Like Rumsfeld saying he knows the WMD's are in big piles around Bagdad. WHOOPS... I never said that.

One doesn't get elected without vehemently disagreeing with the incumbent.