Ok, to take your points one by one, Nerd, I don't see that Clark's comments in the British press AFTER the invasion was already launched are nearly as relevant as his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee BEFORE it was launched -- and there, when he hoped to have some influence on our actions, he argued forcefully and at great length against Richard Perle's pro-war testimony.   Even in the British press, while praising Bush's 'resolve', he had reservations about what remained to be done (reservations that have been amply vindicated). And yes, he said nice things about Bush & co. at that fundraiser (though he'd already put in print his substantial differences with the Bush team). But, hell, the man's a diplomat (surely no bad thing at this juncture in time); he was hoping (as many Americans hoped) that Bush meant what he said about unifying the nation; he was hoping (like Powell?) for more international direction to American foreign policy. It didn't work, but to say he didn't try is to say that you haven't read his book Waging Modern Warfare, followed his comments as CNN commentator, or of course read his testimony -- it sounds like you've read what the press has chosen to print (including that unfortunate answer to a reporter -- yes it was a "bobble", and it was also the result of trying to be totally honest and wondering if at that time he might not have wanted the president to have "leverage," in other words, doing the kind of thinking out loud and considering all alternatives that I'm doing right now . . .) He's learned that you don't think out loud to reporters, (or make jokes to them, either), but there's not much he can do about the complexity of his thought -- except say, "read the rest of it."   And then judge for yourself. Karl Rove is hoping you won't bother. I'm hoping he's wrong.