Rove tried that in 2003.  Wasn't true then either.

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...[emphasis added]

...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.
(See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

And finally, Clark's statement to AP about the resolution on October 9, 2002 in an article titled:
Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy :
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports "A" congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

It's a sad state of affairs when Bob Kerrey can credibly criticize you from the left.

John P. O'Neill's Wall of Heroes includes Wes Clark:
http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/heroes.html

Clark stance on PNAC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x30610

"Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, "even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever".

Ousting Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action, the general writes, dismissing it as a "Cold War approach".

Clark criticises the plan to attack the seven states, saying it targeted the wrong countries, ignored the "real sources of terrorists", and failed to achieve "the greater force of international law" that would bring wider global support.

He also condemns George Bush's notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. "There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea," says Clark."

Found on Independent Media TV: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2654...

This is taken form a long thoughtful review of Clark's book "Winning Modern Wars". The review is on a Pro Clark Web site, but he reason they are Pro Clark includes his position vis a vis PNAC:

"Clark describes the decision by the Executive branch to escalate the war and concludes:

"And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns; it would attempt to make the strongest case possible in favor of its course, regardless of the nuances of the intelligence; and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations...."

"Clark spends time to detail some of the inside apparatus of policy making - taking the time to explain the importance of the quadrennial National Security Strategy of 2002 - before getting to his main thrust. Because Iraq was not organically connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 - the mission had to be sold as being a short strike to overthrow an imminent threat. This precluded an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of overthrowing Saddam, and therefore, when the invasion ended, and the occupation began - everyone was underprepared, including those who had backed the war policy. In order to convince the American people this was another "in and out" along the lines of Grenada, Panama, Haiti and the first Gulf War - the preparations for the occupation had to be minimal - lest they betray foreknowledge of the real cost. It smacks of Hitler failing to order winter uniforms for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR.

In tomorrow's entry will be on the remainder of Clark's argument, where Clark turns the corner - from accusing Bush of following long standing misguided dream by the far right wing in the form of the Project For A New American Century, and hence producing a failed policy, and an occupation which everyone denied until we were engaged in it - to a larger problem of America as an Empire."

Unfortunately I got that from an archive site and can't find part two of the review. Here is the link:
http://www.draftclark.com/archives/004406.shtml

Some more stuff, this from May 15th 2003 newpaper coverage of a talk by journalist Richard Dreyfuss:

"The image of the United States has changed in the eyes of the world," Dreyfuss said. "We are no longer viewed as the beacon of democracy, but as the bully on the playground that picked on the weakest kid to beat up in order to intimidate others.

Dreyfuss is an award-winning independent journalist whose cover article in the April issue of American Prospect magazine, "Quicksand: Iraq is Just the Beginning," was the title for the forum. His articles on national and foreign affairs appear routinely in The Nation, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and other publications...

In his American Prospect article, Dreyfuss wrote: "Six years ago, in its founding statement of principles, PNAC called for a radical change in U.S. foreign and defense policy, with a beefed-up military budget and a more muscular stance abroad, challenging hostile regimes and assuming `American global leadership.'" It was signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, among others. "The PNAC statement foreshadowed the outline of the president's 2002 national security strategy," he wrote.

The invasion of Iraq, as a component of this strategy, was not supported by many in the U.S. military, including Gen. Zinni and Gen. Wesley Clark, former head of the Allied Command, Dreyfuss noted, and top levels of the CIA, who knew there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor government ties to al Qaeda. terrorists."

The Link: http://www.fcnp.com/310/story4.htm

Finally I think parts of this article from a right wing Anti-Clark persspective was cited above in the thread somewhere, but here are some very relevent quotes from an article trying to make Clark out as a crack pot for EXPOSING the extent of PNAC influence. This from October 2, 2003:

"Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory"

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a "bizarre," "crackpot" attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War...

... Relatively few American voters have even heard of the Project for a New American Century or remember the Committee on the Present Danger, so the flap is unlikely to sway many votes immediately. But if the interview contributes to a sense of General Clark as something of a loose cannon, that might have an effect on voters seeking a steady leader to guide the nation in the war against terrorism...

...A director of the Project for a New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, called General Clark's comments "bizarre."...

... "This is a guy who could barely win a war in Kosovo," Mr. Scheunemann said. "Now Wesley Clark is running for president by running against a think tank?"

Here's that link: http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...

Oh by the way, here is a link to a great buzzflash interview with the co-author of "Hunting the President", Gene Lyons where he outlines the attack campaign the Republicans will use against Clark, among other things. This from October 22, 2003:

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear."
That link: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

Shall I repeat the right wing smear against Clark for trying to expose PNAC? Yes, I think so: "General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a "bizarre," "crackpot" attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War."