Reply #54: Just a point, here, sf

[mikehiggins]

Clark was in a position to lobby for those million and a half targets of racial cleansing BECAUSE he was in the military. He was under no obligation to do so. In fact, it caused him a lot of trouble, fighting for those folks, and was one of the things he did that led Cohen and Shelton to announce his retirement before he even knew he was retiring.

It is much easier to get along with the folks on top if you go along with the folks on top. That holds true in any line of endeavor. For a general to take on the military establishment for some civilians who have no strategic significance to the Pentagon (or to the Republicans in the House and Senate like Tom Delay and Hastert and Fritch and their ilk--ever wonder why Clark is labeled "Clinton's General"?) is not a good career move, and he knew that going in. Standing by and watching it happen was, to Clark, like standing by and watching the Jews get marched into Buchenwald. It was wrong, he knew it and he took action against it, even though it eventually cost him his cushy job in NATO.

How many other candidates can point to something like that in their resume?