As my own extension of the exercise I referenced in my last post, I went digging even deeper into my own blogging past and landed on my first pre-Ricochet post. This one was at a little start-up called RedState in 2006. Here is the reposting of it on Ricochet with the requisite added modern commentary before and after:

While my own perspective is not likely of much interest to most of you (So be it.), I did enjoy the exercise in the middle of last week regarding first posts…revisiting mine was useful for anyone paying attention. Again, it reinforced my confidence that I remain solidly anchored while so much in my country (and in this neighborhood alike) have proven to be anything but. (Prove me wrong!). That got me digging deeper. My first words ever in a neighborhood such as this were at a place called Tacitus(.org) in March of 2004 on a post citing the top five reasons for conservatives to appreciate FDR where I interjected the March of Dimes into the conversation. My interest in that group of writers led to a very early membership at RedState.  After much lurking, in what will not be so shocking to astute readers, my first post (in part) addressed the intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency of the Democrat-Media-Uniparty complex across the late Clinton and following Bush administrations. Read carefully, there may be a quiz at the end:

___  ___   ___

GENERAL CONDUCT (RedState on April 21, 2006)

I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed elsewhere…

Recent events concerning retired Generals have had me searching some dark corners of my memory banks for a little nugget from not so long ago.

This morning I found it in this Geoff Metcalf commentary from March 29, 1999 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19536). In regards to Generals disagreeing with an administration:

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.

To be somewhat fair, I know nothing about Geoff Metcalf and don’t make a habit of getting my news from WorldNetDaily so I have no earthly idea if this is true. I certainly don’t remember ever hearing anything else about this situation. However, given what we know today about THAT administration, it sure makes you think. (Or should I say “what we don’t know” about that administration…where is that full Barrett Report anyway?)

If true in anyway, it strikes me that this might make an interesting comparison on how a Presidential administration handles such criticism from military/ex-military and how these things are portrayed in the press.

From where I sit, we currently have a group of retired officers freely giving interviews, having press conferences, and appearing on whatever cable “spin” show they choose. This administration appears to be perfectly willing to “crush the dissent” by publicly debating the issues out on the very uneven playing field that is the MSM. This sure seems to be causing quite a stir among a “news reporting” class that couldn’t even be bothered to type up some fake documents about what may very well have been some real military news less than a decade ago.

Courage.

___   ___   ___

There is a lot in there…the reference to the Barrett Report (the investigation…delved into allegations that President Clinton had used the U.S. Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service as political tools against American citizens), Republican inclusion/collusion with Democrat agendas (What is it with Senators from Maine?), and of course the media double-standards across administrations of different parties. And for those too young to understand, that last line is a mocking poke at none other than Dan Rather. 

But again, firmly anchored since (at least) 2006.