I just read this through, also being interested in Clark's genesis. But the author of this piece considers it a criticism of Clark that he opposed military intervention in Iraq and refused to join in the demonisation of the United States' enemies. Clark clearly was an establishment figure, as was, say, John Stockwell, but his present-day opposition to US imperialism is not a sign of poor judgement, except to hawks. I guess that the real meaning of this article is that the author, a liberal moving to the right, passed Clark, a conservative moving to the left.
-- Jim heartfield