Over the years the honesty of politicians in general has come into question. Many instances have been uncovered when politicos have been doing and saying things they ought not be doing and saying. It didn’t help that Bill Clinton issued the "I didn’t have sex…” line to the American people as well as the "Can you define the word is’” statement. The former was the catalyst for his impeachment, although the liberals would have you believe otherwise. But the two faces of Wesley Clark eclipse this today. At first I thought he was just confused, and on certain levels I still do, but his two faces are starting to become more defined.

In an interview with 60 Minutes II, Clark exposed his two faces to Dan Rather. It would seem that he has two opinions on what he would have done if he had been required to vote on affording President Bush authority to use force in Iraq. The following depiction is all documented by CBS and is not taken out of context. It is what he said and it is undeniable.

Clark claims he didn’t realize reporters would ask him about his stance on the Iraq issue in his first post-candidacy announcement interview. The back-pedaling is incredible. Clarks stated, "At the time I did this, I made this statement [that I would probably have voted for the Iraq resolution], I was having what I thought was an informal - I wasn't clear whether it was on-the-record or off-the-record - discussion about the philosophy of sort of entering the presidency. And somehow the Iraq question got thrown in.”

CBS’ Rather responded, "Well, not ‘somehow.’ You knew - You knew that was coming.”

"No, I - actually I didn’t,” Clark replied.

Even Dan Rather was skeptical. "You're having a conversation with reporters. Whether it was intended to be on-the-record or off-the-record or in the background, I think you'll agree, if not, tell me, that on something as important as whether you would have voted to give the president the authorization to support to go to war or not is a situation where your ‘yea’ should be ‘yea,’ and your ‘nay’ should be ‘nay?’ And that was not the case.”

In this case Dan Rather is correct. You cannot have one opinion on-the-record and another opinion off-the-record. This demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that Clark is simply stating positions that he and his handlers believe the American people want to hear. This proves without a doubt that he will say anything to get elected. It reeks of Clintonian influence.

To take the matter further, and to further define the two faces of Wesley Clark we have the comments he has contradicted himself on with regard to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Again, these are quotes from NBC’s Today Show, 60 Minutes II and from the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner, a political fundraiser, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Again they are undeniable.

When Rumsfeld’s appointment as the Secretary of Defense was announced, Clark praised him to great lengths. NBC’S Matt Lauer asked, "What's your opinion of Mr. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense?” Clark responded with, "Well, I think it's an inspired choice. He's got great experience, he's got great international stature, he knows the issues. He's coming into familiar terrain.”

Then in May 2001, he said that Rumsfeld was part of a "great team…we need” for the post-cold war. "[I]n the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect this country from communism…communism lost. We won. Now we got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live.” He continued, "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush, we need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead…”

Now candidate Clark says the president shouldn’t have appointed Rumsfeld, "[I]f I were president, I wouldn't have appointed Don Rumsfeld. I wouldn't have picked him to be the Secretary of Defense because I worked around him. I knew what it was and what the system was, and he wasn't up to speed on the way the world had changed since the end of the Cold War.”

There you have it, the two faces of Wesley Clark, uncut, unplugged, raw, however you want to put it. He has displayed either his confusion or his deception. Either way he is not of the caliber of mettle a person has to be in order to be an effective leader of the free world. Putting Clark in office would set the United States up for four years of redefining what the word "is” ought to be…again.

A note to all you Clark supporters who no doubt will be infuriated with this piece: Should you plan to write to me protesting my stance on Clark, and protesting without all the facts and with revisionist propaganda is what you all do best, I would point out that any criticism of President Bush will not remove the stain of Clark’s statements; his words are his words, they are documented and undeniable. Perhaps instead of writing to protest the facts of this matter and continuing to slam your heads against the wall of reality, you should do a bit of research on your candidate rather than relying on the propaganda being spewed from his Clintonian handlers. Then you can write to him and ask him why he has lied to you. The stain on his name is almost as big as the stain Clinton had to contend with.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.