Funny, when Clinton was President, Active Army Officers DID criticize him

[Up2Late]

...AND his Secretary of Defense WITHOUT the so-called "liberal media" getting all upset, and nobody lost any rank or were forced to "retire" early either. Thanks to Harry Shearer for posting this "memory-jogger" at the huffingtonpost.com in his "Eat the Press" Column

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/institutional-memory-who_b_19208.html>,

and on his weekly radio show "Le Show" <http://www.harryshearer.com/leshow/index.html> today.

...Here's a memory-jogger, from the Washington Times:

"Loss of trust and confidence"

By Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson 14 March 1999

President Clinton and his Secretary of Defense make much of the importance of "credibility" in defending NATO's involvement in Bosnia and now in possibly waging war on Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, a huge gap in trust and credibility separates these politicians from the troops they would send into the field to fight and die for NATO's "credibility." A young active-duty captain in the U.S. Army Special Forces has published a letter in the Fayetteville Observer-Times (2/17/99), in which he states,

"As a United States Army officer, I have always loved serving my country. Military service is a higher calling, a desire to protect something greater than myself. There should also be security in knowing that the president is our commander-in-chief. As a civilian, the president swears an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land and is ultimately answerable to the American people. I have always believed that, even if our civilian political leadership makes mistakes, they are honest mistakes, made with the good intentions of protecting the United States."

With that said, he goes on to say:

"But something remarkable has happened. The Senate has acquitted a president of impeachable offenses, a president who deliberately misled both the American people and a jury in a civil lawsuit. This disturbs me so much as a military professional that I feel compelled to express my views publicly."

Then he tells us the hard facts.

"I distrust my commander-in-chief. When called upon to serve in a 'hostile fire zone,' I will question the justness of the cause. I will worry that my subordinates' lives are being risked to cover up another of the president's false statements. I also worry that Congress may fail to hold the president accountable for breaches of integrity, perhaps even if those breaches risk the lives of American soldiers."

He concludes,

"I still love my country and the Army, but I have lost my trust and belief in the credibility of our civilian leadership."

Memory. It's a cool thing for media types to have, and not just to keep track of anniversaries of major stories.

(more at link below, don't forget to check out the comments, there are more memory-joggers there too)

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/institutional-memory-who_b_19208.html>

[LiberalFighter]

1. What does this young captain think about the current CIC?

[Nomen Tuum]

9. I bet he belongs to this

http://www.forceministries.com/

[Scriptor Ignotus]

21. gee thanks for posting that

you just scared the crap out of me. We better watch what we say and do or else the Jesus Ninjas are gonna get us!

[TheBaldyMan]

10. probably 100% bushbot because Bush hasn't lied under oath.

he lies habitually but refuses to answer questions under oath.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Oath to protect and defend the Constitution has been violated.

1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendements for starters.

[TheBaldyMan]

13. "but he has only had a blow job from Geoff Gannon and you can't prove it

so stop saying that", a quote from Bob Boudelang.

Forensics went over Geoff's combats with a steam cleaner so there never will be.

[Erika]

2. And the WMD's are where? Or the drones or mushroom clouds?

Biolabs? Flowers for U.S. liberators?

How sad for this author.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Let's see ...... if he was a Captain at around the time of Bosnia ......

.... and he got normal promotions ..... he'd be ... what? a light bird or full bird now. Betcha he's hot in the line for one of those soon-to-be-vacant general slots.

Hoo-boy ...... Kaptain Kool-Aid

[Old and In the Way]

4. That's true and scarey.....

A senior military made up of syncophants and end-timers...just what we need.

[Up2Late]

5. Want to see something even more ridiculous, I found a full copy of this...

...commentary, and Dr. Atkinson gives the guy's full name!

I don't know if you have any connections in the Personnel department, but here's a link to the full commentary if you care to look him up: <http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FORUM3-14-99.html>

Note: It might be a fake name (Captain Morgan), this is the Washington Times after all.

Make sure to read past Dr. Atkinson well told story of his time flying sorties in Vietnam, he really goes off the deep end once HE starts insulting the then Commander-in Chief.

[blue cat]

6. Gasturd! n/t

[av8tor05]

7. Not really a true comparison.

As a recent Army retiree, I can firmly attest that there is absolutely NO room for service members to criticize our civilian leadership. If you are not happy with the choices that the civilian leaders are making you have only one option, get the hell out.

In your original post you stated "Funny, when Clinton was President, Active Army Officers DID criticize him," inferring that said criticism was common place, especially among senior officers. The article you reference states: "A young active-duty captain in the U.S. Army Special Forces has published a letter in the Fayetteville Observer-Times (2/17/99), in which he states..."

For those who do not know, a Captain in the Army, Air Force or Marine Corps is a junior officer (Officer level 3 or O3) with about 5-7 years of service (27+ years of age) while an Navy Captain is a senior officer equivalent to an Arny Colonel (approximately 27 years of service or 47+ years of age).

No matter the rank we do not want to have a system where our military questions our civilian leaders (of either party), that is how military juntas evolve as well as military dictatorships.

How I shed some light on this topic.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Good points, av8tor05

Welcome to DU. :hi:

I retired in 1997. My hubby was an Army aviator (maintenance test pilot) who retired in '89. Always nice to see another military retiree join our discussions. Far too many don't know much about what the military is all about.

I agree with what you said for the most part. The young captain who wrote that letter was certainly an aberation, and I hope he was punished. Sadly, he may not have been. While most officers obeyed the rules on not criticizing the CinC publicly, too many of them did a lot of complaining among themselves and turned a blind eye when a very few went public.

It's almost funny, or would be if it weren't so dangerous to our country. One of the right-wing memes going around right now is that these retired generals who are calling for Rummy to go is that the military was politicized by Clinton. Yeah, well, everything wrong is always Clinton's fault. But the truth is, if the military was politicized in the 1990s (and before), it was the Republicans who were doing it.

Still, it was my experience that the most senior officers during the Clinton administration (most of whom won their stars under Republicans) were never openly critical of Clinton, his political appointees in the Dept of Defense, or their policies. About the worst I saw were those who seemed to resist supporting the fighting in the Balkans. But when push came to shove, they did their jobs and kept their mouths shut, or they retired a little earlier than they'd origianally planned. None of them were so disgruntled that they felt the need to speak out after they retired.

I do believe it is the right and duty of these retired generals to voice their opinions of the civilian leadership.

[av8tor05]

16. Thank you.

I too am a retired Army Aviator :^P

[Up2Late]

22. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this was common or a rampant...

...problem among the Jr. Officers in the 1990's, just the blatant hypocrisy and double standards being shown by Congressional Republicans and the RW noise machine.

You know if this guy did the exact same thing now (in 2006), this "young Captain" would be facing an immediate court-martial.

[erpowers]

8. Real Soldier

I know that some who retired during the Clinton Presidency criticized Clinton after they retired; however, is there or was there any proof at the time that this was from a real Army Officer. I think a real officer would have worried about being court martialed. In addition, this was written in the Washington Times.

However, I see your point and you are spot on. When retired military criticized Clinton for just getting a blow job and lying about it the Republicans loved it. They were always patting these types of people on the back. Now that Bush has clearly lied to the American people and the American soldiers on numerous occasions and a Defense Secertary has made numerous bad calls (WMD in Tikrit and war will only last 5-6 months) during this war, generals who are retired should not criticize either one of them. Each day the Republicans show their hypocrisy.

[cantstandbush]

11. I was about to post a question on this. Thanks for posting the link.

Shouldn't everyone of those who criticized Clinton while "active" be put on the spot by the "liberal" media?

[NJmaverick]

14. Which is worse

President Clinton lying about a blow job or a military officer violating Article 88? In my opinion it was the republican officers, because their serious breech directly involved their jobs as opposed to Clinton's PRIVATE life.

[MH1]

17. Especially worth noting as we approach the *35th anniversary*

of a certain young Naval officer voicing concerns about the Vietnam War:

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

For which he has received more than his share of attacks for "criticizing" the leadership during a time of war.


(That anniversary is April 22nd, btw, when that Naval veteran will again be speaking on issues of war and dissent, at Faneuil Hall in Boston. More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2574096&mesg_id=2574096 )

[Canuckistanian]

18. Tsk, tsk, tsk. So much indignation

And over what? An indiscrete affair that directly affected maybe 3 people? What a fucking drama queen.

And apart from a handful of retired officers, no one is uttering a peep about the many, many, verifiable and FAR more damaging lies of the current resident of the White House.

Such is the power of fear in the country.

IOKIYAR is now the official rule of law and don't even dare questioning it.

[underpants]

23. I have a standing $100 offer

show me what Clinton's perjurous statements were.

Show them to me and I will give you $100.

No one has collected. Why? No one ever presented perjurous statements. He was never convicted of perjury. The Starr report has no statements that it can point to. The impeachment managers could never identify what statements that he made that were perjurous.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Yeah, but he WANTED to

And that was good enough for a Democratic presidential impeachment.

[Mr_Spock]

19. court-martial that soldier!

fair is fair - hunt him down under the new environment of intolerance and meet out his punishment

[cassiepriam]

20. You forget, Repugs have a completely different set of rules in life.

They can do whatever they want. Period.

[Supersedeas]

24. the chattering classes double standards are too numerous to list