Please do not compare this situation to the MacArthur-Truman spat...”old soldiers never die, they just fade away...” Can’t the President just, “fade away” at this point?
I'll settle for his resignation because of his incompetence and being an all around dumbass.
I suggest he "GO DOWN FIGHTING!"
and put Obama through the fiery furnace of "the truth," as the General see it.
... 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?