He should have resigned in protest. And then spoken out.
Of course, he might have lost his pension, as Bill Clinton was abusing his authority to silence such opposition, with his supposedly "Republican" SecDef Bill Cohen. And note the MSM-complicity in effectuating the silencing back then to push their liberal censorship of uncomfortable realities [from Alamo-Girl's DSL]:
WorldNetDaiy 3/29/99 Geoff Metcalf “…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...According to what I consider reliable sources, in 1997 24 -- count 'em, twenty-four -- generals retired early. I am still in the processing 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? …”
Thanks for the ping and DSL ditto!
That is an excellent article. In fact, I remember Inhofe taking to the floor of congress using many of these facts to berate the current state of the military, thanks to Clinton cutbacks. He specifically pointed out how we've had more military "deployments" under Clinton, than we had total since the end of WWII.
I also recall the early retirements by a number of Generals in protest of Clinton policy. Sadly, unlike today, the media never paid any attention to the underlying problems that existed within the Clinton DoD. Heck, you don't have to look any further than the number of hostile actions we took through the 90's and how the media never had any concern for collateral damage or civilian casualities.
Clinton bombed Iraq on 4 seperate occasions and never was there a concern for the damage it might have caused to the civilian population. Hell, as reporters poured into Iraq to count (and still count) the dead bodies that resulted from this recent conflict, they remained suspiciously absent during the 78-day aerial bombardment of Serbia and Kosovo.
What makes this even more outrageous, is that there were claims...and even evidence, that the US/NATO were intentionally violating the Geneva Conventions. From the deliberate targeting of SerbTV, to the bridge that the civilian commuter train #393 traveled, to electrical grids and public utilities...Wesley Clark violated some of the basic rules of Geneva. Hell, there was even a foreign indicted issued against Clark that listed him as a war criminal, yet you wouldn't know that from our media's coverage.
From Somalia to Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan and Sudan, the media NEVER stepped foot in these nations to document the death and destruction that Clinton's agressions may have caused. Even the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmacuetical plant in Sudan was treated as a benign incident...with media labeling it an "aspirin factory."
This was much more than an aspirin factory, as this plant produced about 50% of the medicines this country needed to fight tuberculosis and Malaria. In fact, one published report I read from years ago claims that as many as 10,000 people may have died as a result of not having access to these medicines. I can guarantee that if this was a Bush attack, we would've heard about these deaths...not to mention the lawsuit that followed and the multi-million dollar payout that our government agreed to.