The 8 : 33 Ratio... or... how Clinton deploys his (our) troops... : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The American Military's Massive Decline Under Clinton

The Excrement Of Propaganda

By 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.

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 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 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?

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 clichi 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 dij` 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?

) 1999 Western Journalism Center

-- Andy (, April 04, 1999



Notice that when I challenged this 8:33 ratio on another thread, A David Icke link for Spidey at and asked Andy to list the 8 instances and the 33 instances, he did not even attempt to do so.

When you go to the referenced article on the Sightings site, The American Military's Massive Decline Under Clinton at, you'll find that the author provides not one detail to support those 8 and 33 numbers.

Clearly this is just a smear campaign.

For one specific example uncontested by Andy: Vietnam. Clearly and obviously the commitment of U.S. military forces to that area alone by either President Johnson or President Nixon far exceeded the total of all military commitments by President Clinton. Yet the article author would have you believe that the Vienam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, with over 50,000 names of soldiers who died there, commorates only some minor fraction of the military involvement under the Clinton administration.

What we have here is the current anti-Clinton BIG LIE. The 8:33 ratio simply HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.

-- No Spam Please (, April 04, 1999.

P.S. I ask anyone wishing to contest my position to first provide the simple facts to back up the 8:33 assertion -- list the 8 and the 33. If you can't, you have no business defending that assertion.

P.P.S. Note that the author of the article attributes U.S. military deployments during 1992 to Clinton. Apparently he is so unfamiliar with the basics of fact-checking that he did not even bother to find out that during the entire calendar year of 1992, plus the first three weeks of 1993, the President of the United States was George Bush, not Bill Clinton.

What does that tell you about the likelihood of factual correctness in the rest of the article?

-- No Spam Please (, April 04, 1999.

I have written to Mr. Metcalf asking for a breakdown - I have my own one but I don't want to muddy the waters even further.

As I said on the other thread No Spam, do take a look at the big picture and ask yourself why Clinton is running down the military whilst simultaneously constantly involving us in conflicts that do not concern us. Why the treasonous gift of missile technology to China? Why yuogoslavia NOW - why not Rwanda or a host of other conflicts where "ethnic cleansing" has involved up to two million people?

What is your breakdown No Spam? - I'm sure you've been up all night with your copy of Jane's and various Almanacs :)

You can't go around calling David Icke, Jeff Rense and Geoff Metcalf liars on a public forum like this without some sort of proof of your own.

Put up or shut up.

-- Andy (, April 04, 1999.

The specifics may not be correct but the concept is. The rate of deployment for troops has greatly increased during the last 6 years. Numerous "peacekeeping" and humanitarian commitments, coupled with bone deep cuts in forces has lead to a severe strain on both active and reserve forces. Many also see the decline in training, supply and new equipment acquisition at the same time we are stretching thin. Its no accident that we are about to run out of air launched cruise missles. I personally know many members of the Air force who are sick of it and have left or are getting out.

On top of that most members of the armed forces I know hold the Comander in Chief in as much contempt for his lack of character and poor policies as he held the Military in his youth.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), April 04, 1999.


>do take a look at the big picture and ask yourself why Clinton is running down the military

The reduction in U.S. military started at the end of the Reagan administrationm and has continued since then. It's a matter of simple economics -- we can't afford to keep our military at the peak reached during the 1980s. Now that the Evil Empire has folded, our multi-trillion-dollar push to bankrupt their nuclear arms buildup succeeded, and now we adjust our national budget accordingly. That started not only before Clinton, but even before Bush (debated in Congress at the end of the Reagan years).

>whilst simultaneously constantly involving us in conflicts that do not concern us.

My current issue regarding U.S. military is that the claims being made about the magnitude of Clinton's military actions versus those of previous administrations are absurdly incorrect. My criticisms aim to correct the comparison in accordance with historical fact.

>Why the treasonous gift of missile technology to China? Why yuogoslavia NOW - why not Rwanda or a host of other conflicts where "ethnic cleansing" has involved up to two million people?

I'm not trying to discuss those issues.

>What is your breakdown No Spam? - I'm sure you've been up all night with your copy of Jane's and various Almanacs :)

No, I thought I made it clear that I had not yet opened my almanac. It's been easy to provide counterexamples from memory so far.

>You can't go around calling David Icke, Jeff Rense and Geoff Metcalf liars on a public forum like this without some sort of proof of your own.

(1) I've been presenting proof.

(2) Perhaps you're not familiar with the differences between U.S. and British libel law. I have every right to go around calling public figures liars on a U.S. (yes, I know it's really the Internet) public forum _even if I had no proof_.

(3) I haven't called David Icke, Jeff Rense and Geoff Metcalf liars. What I've said about Icke is that he's demonstrated no respect for factual accuracy. I haven't called Rense anything. I've pointed out that Metcalf has provided no detail to support his 8:33 assertion. I have referred to a number of statements as lies, but do not attribute them to specific originators because I don't know who originated them.

>Put up or shut up.

If you've been reading my postings, you've seen that I _have_ put up, so whence comes this?

-- No Spam Please (, April 04, 1999.

Yes, a bit of independent documentation would be nice. The language of this piece reeks of typical Andy 'objectivity':

"political policy wonks"

"mainstream media mandarins"

"the Clinton News Network"

"Clinton department of propaganda"

"Bill-Jeff...doesn't give Jack-spit"

"blowing smoke up the skirts of their patrons"

Clearly, at some point, strong advocacy crosses the line into fanatical ranting.

This rant spends most of its time talking about the resignation of 24 generals at once. How do we know this really happened? Because it's being kept secret! Riiiiight. Then again, this is typical tabloid technique -- make preposterous claims, and back them up with assertions that the truth is classified so you can't verify it.

Nonetheless, Lincoln was right. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

-- Flint (, April 04, 1999.

Do you have any friends in the forces Flint? Ask around, know anything about a US military cadre in Paris? Know why the French never support the USA or Britain in our "excursions" on foreign soil? Do you know that the US and UK armed forces have been decimated in the last few years? Yet how many times have little and large gone in where they are not wanted in the recent past - and I'm including Yugoslavia in particular. Why didn't little and large finish off Saddam when they had the chance? See a pattern Flint? I doubt you do.

Blinkers, blinkers. Hear no evil, see no evil.

-- Andy (, April 04, 1999.


Yes, I see a pattern. There's a growing body of 'literature' about UFO abductions too. Conveniently, these space aliens use the same technique the government does - they erase minds (hide the evidence)! And oh yes, the media conspiracy. We know there is one, because nobody will admit to it.

When the 'proof' of something is that the proof is kept hidden, alarm bells should go off. I'd be a lot more comfortable with what you wrote here, if you'd provided *any* footnotes allowing the reader to verify any of this. We can't even talk to these '24 generals', since they aren't named and would be court martialed for talking anyway. How very convenient.

The pattern is exactly as I wrote: You can fool some of the people all of the time.

-- Flint (, April 04, 1999.

Oh my Flint, you don't believe in UFO's either? Just what kind of a nut are you. :) Tee hee...

-- d (d@dgi.old), April 04, 1999.

I asked you a simple question Flint - do you have any knowledge that the statistics posted on the net by Metcalf are false? If so, speak up and tell us.

-- Andy (, April 04, 1999.

Patience, Andy. Given a little time, I'll be able to find a left-wing- propaganda tabloid that fabricates (oops, I mean 'reveals') a completely different picture. Then we'll let our tabloids fight it out. The first one to say anything verifiable loses.

-- Flint (, April 04, 1999.

Andy, everyone here knows that youre just a demonic warmonger in sheeps clothing. Cut out the crap.

-- andyssecrets (, April 05, 1999.

Just for the record....Anything Brigadier and up CANNOT resign. They must request early retirement. Read USArmy Personnel Order 23-441 dated 3 Sept 1956. They CAN be fired (similar to impeachment, only military style. This is very, very seldom done...requires proof of high crimes such as treason, murder etc.

-- Lobo (, April 05, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ