For those who claim that Wesley Clark was against the Iraq war from early on, I want to point out Clark's own words, written in Washington Monthly in September of 2002. I'll block quote where he firsts mentions Iraq, but if you read the whole article, you'll see that Clark clearly viewed Iraq as just the next logical step in the war on terror after Afghanistan. He laments that we didn't have enough allies, that's about it.
From the Washington Monthly -
Some Americans seem to take a certain delight in Europe's outrage. But the fact is that this outrage is undermining our ability to carry out the next stages of the war, including, perhaps, toppling Saddam Hussein. We don't necessarily need Europe's full military support for a war against Saddam. But we need its diplomatic support now and its assistance in the aftermath. Without this support, others will have an excuse for not cooperating. This has already begun to happen. King Abdullah of Jordan recently explained to The Washington Post why his country, which borders Iraq, could not be used as a staging area for a U.S. invasion force: "If it seems America wants to hit Baghdad, that's not what Jordanians think, or the British, [or] the French . . . "
Read the whole article for yourself and you'll find that Clark clearly portrays Iraq as a logical and sane next step in the war on terrorism after Afghanistan. His only complaint, which happened to be the only deal breaker for the pro-war centrists too, is that Britain goes along. Clark laments that we don't get more countries involved in the folly, but apparently, even by September 2002 Clark isn't concerned as to why people like myself were protesting the Iraq war.