Well this is a suprise. From NYT (similar piece in WP):

Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

General Clark also said in an interview that he would probably oppose President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the recovery effort in Iraq, though he said he could see circumstances in which he might support sending even more money into the country.

On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

OK, I give him major honesty points for confessing something that will probably cost him, and for confessing that he's highly conflicted and sees it both ways. That's how I often feel, and I respect a guy who doesn't live in a clear black and white world. But . . .

If he wants to make it with this campaign thing, he needs to grasp the concept of a sound bite pretty quickly, and come to grips with the fact that we're not all sitting there on the plane with him getting the full discussion. If he wants to run a campaign, he needs to communicate a few powerful ideas and communicate them clearly. Right now he's just muddying his own waters.

He's really going to need to get his act together.

----

Both pieces also have a lot of interesting stuff on his late-in-life conversion to the Dem party, which seems to have begun in 92.

And they gave a few more glimpses on his priorities/agenda. From the Times:

On the plane, General Clark also said he might support changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing the presence of gay men and lesbians in the military.

"I'd like to see the military relook the policy," he said. "I didn't say change it — I said relook it."

For example, General Clark said, the military might examine adopting a "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy patterned after one that he said was in place in Britain. Asked what the "don't misbehave" standard meant, the general responded, "I'm not going to set a policy with you winging it in the back of an airplane."

General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.

Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with — the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."