• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

From 1946 to 1991 the United States of America deployed military
troops to eight foreign campaigns. From 1992 to the present (The Clinton
reign), the United States of America has deployed military troops to
33 foreign places.

The Internet tends to recycle significant data as the network of
telling 10 people to tell 10 people to tell 10 people expands. Recently
I received a gaggle of messages listing data I had reported in a
September 1998 WorldNetDaily column.

  • 709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel

  • 293,000 reserve troops

  • Eight standing army divisions

  • 20 air force and navy air wings with

  • 2,000 combat aircraft

  • 232 strategic bombers

  • 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with

  • 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles

  • 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads

  • Four aircraft carriers

  • 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases,
    shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.

All of the above are GONE … history … they have been attrited by
the Bill Clinton “Reduction in Force” from the military of the United
States of America. A foreign enemy did not destroy those significant
assets. They were not combat losses. Those military assets have been
eliminated by civilian political policy wonks.

I am also attempting to determine how many Tomahawk Cruise
Missiles (at about one million dollars a copy) have been expended.

… AND how much of that ordnance has
been (or will be) replaced?

Have the mainstream media mandarins alerted you to our military
atrophy? Have you seen it on ABC, NBC, CBS or the Clinton News Network
(CNN)?

The Clinton department of propaganda has succeeded (kinda) in
suppressing a significant protest, which has gone virtually unreported.
Some of us have been complaining about the “perfumed princes” (Colonel
Hackworth’s phrase) in the Pentagon. The complaint has been “… why
don’t you military types DO or SAY something about the serial
absurdities of the administration’s foreign policy?”

Well, in fairness, we know the military can’t itch and moan about
their civilian leaders. However, they can, and have done something.
According to what I consider reliable sources, in 1997 24 — count ‘em,
twenty-four — generals retired early. I am still in the process of
confirming names, dates and replacements (if any). On July 7, 1997, in
what is being called a mass protest over the conditions in the military
(primarily because of administration policy) 24 generals quit. They
reportedly had fought a losing battle to correct, modify, or mitigate
the politically correct, operational tempo, and repeated “hey you”
deployments. They tried to address the problems with readiness (or lack
of) and pay. They tried, and they failed to compel the administration to
fix what is wrong. Then, in a final act of courage and commitment (two
concepts alien to this administration), they ALL went to see Secretary
of Defense Bill Cohen, and RESIGNED. Twenty-four general officers
representing 600 years of combined military experience tendered their
resignations. THAT is a big deal. … So why haven’t we heard about it?

The White House and Cohen reportedly told them, what they (the
generals) were trying to do, would not be allowed. Those twenty-four
generals were not going to be allowed the publicity that the mass
resignations were intended to achieve. According to multiple sources,
the generals, who had committed their lives to serving their country,
were threatened with court martial. However, that wasn’t apparently a
big enough stick for the illegitimate spawn of maximum spin control. The
non-disclosure statements (of the generals) were changed in order to
include a NEW requirement. The amended (ex post facto) non-disclosure
statements compel the generals not to discuss their resignations.
Failure to comply would result in punishment and loss of retirement
benefits. If that sounds like blackmail … it is.

So how could the office of propaganda cover up the mass resignations
of 24 generals? Allegedly, Cohen informed them they would not be
replaced. Their positions would be streamlined and their previous duties
would be spread out among remaining generals. The “spin” was a tongue in
cheek: “Thanks for helping us consolidate general officer slots in the
wake of reductions in force.”

So how DO you hide the resignations of 24 generals? Well, you don’t
announce the resignations en masse; you spread them out over several
months. Which is just what happened. Less than a half dozen of the
vacated positions were refilled.

If or when the Department of Defense provides us with a list of all
resignations by general officers since July of 1997 including names,
rank, last duty assignment and date of separation, we will post it here
on WorldNetDaily.

Meanwhile, this Kosovo absurdity hangs like another millstone around
the neck of career military strategists. The Pentagon reportedly warned
the president that joining NATO in an offensive “created more problems
than it solves.”

Clinton reportedly has become the personification of my cliché that
“Some people just don’t want to be confused with FACTS which contradict
their preconceived opinions.” Bill-Jeff was/is determined to send
bombers, and doesn’t give Jack-spit about the professional opinions or
insights of military planners. According to a source quoted in Capital
Hill Blue, “This campaign is a White House operation, not a military
action. …” Tell that to the U.S. servicemen who have and will bleed
and die. One professional planner warned the “Commander in Grief,” “…
there could be sizable and unnecessary U.S. casualties.”

In what must have been déjà vu all over again for Defense honcho Bill
Cohen, the disagreement between the military and the White House got SO
heated that Cohen warned the Joint Chiefs to “keep their troops in line
on this one.” Remember: this administration has a history of ignoring
the advice of military and intelligence experts, preferring to listen to
appointees who won’t let facts get in the way of their blowing smoke up
the skirts of their patrons.

Capital Hill Blue reported “The tension here is incredible,” says one
military source. “We have officers who talk privately of defying orders,
but no one is willing to risk their career to stand up to the president
of the United States. It just isn’t done.”

Well, in July of 1997 24 generals DID stand up to the president of
the United States. They were willing, and in fact, DID risk their
careers. Who are these men? Where are these men?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.