So, there's this thing with the other general (is it the dude who's on Edwards staff now?) who called him the perfumed prince and all that BS, and there's the New Yorker article, and I'm not buying it, generally. But there's only one thing I find disturbing, and I'd like Clark supporters to clear it up for me. At the last debate, instead of saying what actually happened regarding Clark losing/leaving his job, Clark chose to say that he didn't know why those allegations were ever made. Huh? Can someone enlighten me as to what actually happened? Am I missing some obvious article or explanation somewhere?