DraftClark2004.com Misrepresenting Clark Positions on Iraq War?

Daily Kos: Initial Thoughts About Clark

Kos brings up three memes circling around the Clark candidacy. The second (Clark voted Republican in the past) Kos diffuses himself. The third (Clark is being too tame) isn't going to be a problem if we ever see Clark square off against Commander Bunnypants in a debate.

I'd like to address the first, a variation of the "anti-war" Clark. Unfortunately, Kos attributes a summary statement written by a "draft Clark" website to Clark:

The United States needs to keep homeland security and the war against terrorism at the top of our list of national priorities; we can't be distracted by other entanglements, including Iraq, that might divert our attention.

* "The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."
* The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

DraftClark2004

The bolded paragraph is bolded at the website, and is clearly meant to summarize the following actual statements of Clark.

This doesn't blunt the point Kos is trying to make, however. The second unbolded paragraph is a direct quote from an uncredited online article about Clark's Iraqi war doubts:

Clark's argument, in simple terms, is that unless the United States can bring a strong coalition into a war against Iraq, it may put itself in greater danger. The chief threat to U.S. security right now is al Qaeda, he argues. Disarming Iraq is important too, he says, but it's not the most urgent task. The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

Leadership for America.org

Since the DraftClark2004 website didn't include a link to this quote, their use of the "priorities" sentence is a plagarism. Furthermore, had they linked to the article, it would have immediately cleared up any mistaken impression created by the summary statement. Why didn't they?

For the record, Clark's position has always been consistent:

The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when.

Wesley Clark: Let's Wait to Attack

You don't misunderstand a statement like that. The Bush Administration chose war as a goal instead of law. They quickly eliminated any peaceful solution, and brought the crisis to a point where war became inevitable. Only then did Clark reluctantly endorse the ensuing war:

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

FAIR

Why weren't relevant quotes like these included in this summary? Why is DraftClark2004 misrepresenting what Clark said?

It couldn't have anything to do with this tangled mess, could it?