Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military
Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military
Today, the Service Members Legal Defense Network released a Pentagon statement that “includes the first language from Pentagon leaders suggesting that lesbian and gay service personnel should continue to use their skills in support of national security efforts, even after facing dismissal under the law.” The statement reads:
These separated members have the opportunity to continue to serve their nation and national security by putting their abilities to use by way of civilian employment with other Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, or in the private sector, such as with a government contractor.
The Pentagon’s statement recognizing gays marks a positive step forward. In the 1990s, the military’s policy was that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” claiming the prohibition was necessary for “group cohesion.” In March, backed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Gen. Peter Pace controversially claimed that the “military should not condone immoral acts,” referring to homosexuality.
But the Pentagon still will not call for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Since the policy was instituted in 1993, at least 11,000 servicemembers, hundreds of whom had key speciality skills such as training in Arabic, have been forced out of service. With our currently overstretched armed forces, the military could lure as many as 41,000 recruits if gays could serve openly.
With the State Department facing a dearth of Arabic translators, yesterday, Reps. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY) urged the Department to hire bilingual gays expelled from the military as a result of DADT:
We are writing to urge the Department of State to take a specific step — the hiring of our unfairly dismissed, language-qualified soldiers — so our nation might salvage something positive from the lamentable results of this benighted policy. … under-investment in critical foreign languages presents an urgent and immediate threat to our national security, a threat that cannot be ignored while we train new foreign-language experts.
Read the Pentagon’s statement HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Not good enough. Get rid of the policy completly!
June 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pmToo little, sorry.
Dump this silly assed policy. Get sex out of politics. Why does anyone care who’s screwing whom? Ridiculous! If you don’t like gay sex, THEN DON’T DO IT.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pmGee, I wonder if this has anything to do with low recruitment figures…
June 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm#3, ya think? :)
They should bring back the draft. Then support for this occupation would go down to 5% (can’t ever get rid of all the morons in our country). When it’s YOUR kid, you sure don’t want to see them go.
And I would love to see all the GOP kiddies be drafted first. NO deferments. Do not pass GO, just go straight to Iraq.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm#3 has a hidden agenda against homosexuals. Read what he wrote on the other thread:
He is a homophobic scum-bag.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pmThe republicans wouldn’t have such a hard time with gays if they would just stop watching all of that gay porn.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pmI know a whole lot of people that will turn gay if the draft comes back….does this mean that option to op out of a draft will not exist?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pmemployment with other Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, or in the private sector, such as with a government contractor.
hey, if its good enough for Torrie Clark!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:19 pm95% of my gay-lesbian friends are much, much smarter than GW Botch’s boot licking Generals…
June 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pmThis is ridiculous. The policy is so flawed it must be scrapped. And how insulting-you aren’t good enough (straight enough?) to serve in our military, but we will contract with you, because we don’t have enough straight people with your brains, skills and experience. Show your patriotism-get a job supporting the country and military that booted you out.
Phony, lame, pitiful, pathetic baby steps by the military is intolerable in the 21st Century. Many of our institutions are still behaving like religious regressives, and that is a terrible detriment to our society and national honor.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pmHe is a homophobic scum-bag.
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
I didn’t know you and CT were lovers — Congratulations, Mr P!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pmHomosexuals belong in San Francisco, not corrupting the morale of our armed forces.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pmOne of the few great bipartisan actions of recent Democrats…and they want to gut it. Figures.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pmComment by Zooey — June 26, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Zooey, I was just using that as an illustration of Not American’s anti-gay thinking.
You know I still love you!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:40 pmm12 = male, age 12
He’s MAF54’s boyfriend.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThis is funny, the gay-bashing Repukes suddenly defending gays.
That just proves they’re all closet cases…and hate themselves.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pmWell,
There’s no excuse for Daryll, Jake, CTV1, Primus, et. al. to enlist now!
Go get em, Rainbow Brigade!!!!
And don’t forget to bend over for the soap!!!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pmWell, gee, if “separated” openly gay service members are good enough to work for the Department of Defense, then you’d think that DoD (which controls the whole effin’ military) wouldn’t object to gays and lesbians also actually SERVING IN UNIFORM.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThis sounds like a way for the Pentagon to claim to not discriminate against gays and lesbians while maintaining the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. So, I wonder just how this works in the recruiting process? If the recruiters now “ask” and if the recruits “tell”, then the recruiter gives them a pamphlet titled “101 Ways for Gays to Serve Without Making Soldiers Worry You’re Coveting Their Ass in the Showers”?
I didn’t know you and CT were lovers — Congratulations, Mr P!
Comment by Zooey
I’m sending them a Cookie Bouquet!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pmZooey, I was just using that as an illustration of Not American’s anti-gay thinking.
You know I still love you!
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Ok, we got it. Can we let it go now?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pmI’m sending them a Cookie Bouquet!
Comment by Not Canadian
I’m sure they’ll be so pleased.
Peace.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pmWhy do the republicans think that the troops will be staring at gay guys asses, but DoD people won’t be staring at the gays asses?
Why do republicans think all of our troops are so queer curious that they can’t kill people while a gay ass is around?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:51 pm#15
How many generals do you need to listen to before you understand?
Colin Powell opposed this ridiculous position, so Clinton retired him.
“I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.â€
“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. ”
Democratic Chairman Sam Nunn of Virginia:
the provision was “as fair as we can be to the individuals involved, while, at the same time, maintaining the kind of unit cohesion and military effectiveness that we expect our military services to be able to carry out and perform for the country.”
“Many soldiers experience a forced association 24 hours a day. They work together; they eat together; they share living space together; they train together; they shop for groceries together; they worship together. Same-gender sexual attraction in such a ‘forced association’ environment is something that civilians rarely experience and cannot fully understand” (Statement of General Gordon Sullivan). “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell†thus accommodates the reasonable privacy concerns of heterosexual service members and reduces the sexual problems that may arise when some members of the unit have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts and others do not. These same concerns for privacy and sexual tension explain the military’s policy of providing service men and women with separate living quarters.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pmDonde esta Santo Daryll?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pmWhy do republicans think all of our troops are so queer curious that they can’t kill people while a gay ass is around?
If they are, that’s all the more reason to keep homos OUT!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pmHey if they’re killing for us, do we really get a say in who they’re screwin’?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI’m getting them something they can use right away.
A K-Y and Trojans Bouquet.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pmHomosexuals belong in San Francisco, not corrupting the morale of our armed forces.
Comment by m12
Zogby poll of troops in December, 2006:
According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.
So much for your morale argument. And what would you know about military morale anyway?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pmI do not care if you are gay or straight. Let’s strive for peace.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pmThese separated members have the opportunity to continue to serve their nation and national security by putting their abilities to use by way of civilian employment with other Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, or in the private sector, such as with a government contractor…
Or the GOP. Oh, wait, a huge number of them are already in the GOP.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pmm12: You are an infant when it comes to sexual issues. There is not enough room in San Francisco for all gays.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:01 pmCandyce
I think m12 meant “morals” rather than “morale”. Of course, I also doubt he understands either concept, within or outside the military.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI’m getting them something they can use right away.
A K-Y and Trojans Bouquet.
Comment by Tom3
Gee, Tom3, will this largesse come from your personal stash?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI think the headline is very misleading. The Pentagon still doesn’t want gay people in the military, they’re just willing to let them work in civilian jobs that would benefit the military. It demonstrates a faint increase in intelligence “Hey, we’re all out of translators!” but no real tolerance.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:02 pm“Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military”
After seeing this headline, gee, I’d have to say someone at TP has a sense of humor…
June 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm“And don’t forget to bend over for the soap!!!!!”
Comment by Not Canadian
I thought you were anti-torture, Mr. Unamerican. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pmTrudi Julie-Annie probably wore a dress to get out of the Korean war.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm#28
So you want 27% of the entire military force to quit to shove in a couple thousand homos?
Brilliant!
June 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pmMore bad news:
June 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pmAP
US chiefs: Iraq not ready to hold ground
I think m12 meant “morals†rather than “moraleâ€. Of course, I also doubt he understands either concept, within or outside the military.
Says the leftie who thinks he knows better than general after general, each with 30+ years of service, and some on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:06 pmComment by m12
Said perfectly. Peter Pace’s Vietnam service never mattered to any of them, was never a mention.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:12 pmSo you want 27% of the entire military force to quit to shove in a couple thousand homos?
Brilliant!
Comment by m12
_____________________________
No, the 27% should say “Yes, sir” and do their job. If they can’t complain about the mission, they shouldn’t be able to complain about their colleagues sexual orientation.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm#41
It’s not even just Peter Pace. Go back to 1993 where the entirity Joint Chiefs opposed President Clinton’s policy.
Then he fired them all.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pmnot corrupting the morale of our armed forces.
Comment by m12
Oh, I think BruschCoâ„¢ has done a marvelous job of “corrupting morale”, L’il Buddy, far more than “homos”, as you like to put it, ever could.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pmSays the leftie who thinks he knows better than general after general, each with 30+ years of service, and some on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Comment by m12
____________________________
Exactly what do they “know” that I don’t know? This is not a “knowledge” issue anyway - it’s a moral, fairness, human rights issue. See my post at 42 for how the troops need to respond and they will if the brass tells them to do so.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pmHey, RoS…REALLY, REALLY missed you.
A lower class of trolls hit today. What rock do these people grow out of? Of course, we have the usual kiddies, but really. I feel icky just reading some of this trash.
Hate is such a beautiful thing to a republican.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pmSo the Pentagon is telling qualified homosexuals to go work as contractors or in the States Department and the States Department is being urged to take them in. This means that they will be better paid, have a better chance for advancement and have no chance of being killed. Well I would would say that is a slap in the face to the heterosexuals that seem to be deemed expendable because they are of the right sexual orientation. Who is really being discriminated here? I know the DADT is discriminatory but I just wanted to point out the idiocy behind the Pentagon’s thought process.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pmNo, the 27% should say “Yes, sir†and do their job. If they can’t complain about the mission, they shouldn’t be able to complain about their colleagues sexual orientation.
What if they do quit? Are you going to find enough homos to replace all of them?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pmPentagon thought process = oxymoron
June 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pmExactly what do they “know†that I don’t know? This is not a “knowledge†issue anyway - it’s a moral, fairness, human rights issue.
No, it is a military issue, governed by military policy. Why exactly would soldiers listen to you over General Pace on his area of expertise?
They know about unit cohesion. Read General Sullivan’s testimony in post 23.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:22 pmOh, I think BruschCoâ„¢ has done a marvelous job of “corrupting moraleâ€, L’il Buddy, far more than “homosâ€, as you like to put it, ever could.
Tell that to the majority of the military who voted for him. Twice.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pmThey know about unit cohesion. Read General Sullivan’s testimony in post 23.
Comment by m12
I seem to recall a time when blacks were placed into separate units because the moral of the units would be damaged. AS recently as WWII, I believe. Don’t forget the big uproar about women too. The right just needs another group to displace their hate and vitriol onto.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pmI seem to recall a time when blacks were placed into separate units because the moral of the units would be damaged. AS recently as WWII, I believe. Don’t forget the big uproar about women too. The right just needs another group to displace their hate and vitriol onto.
Colin Powell is black, last time I checked. I think he might know something about that.
“I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.â€
“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. â€
June 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pmThe Military: After thinking about it, we decided we loves us some homosexuals!
June 26th, 2007 at 9:29 pm“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. â€
Comment by m12
Says you. Say that to another and they are likely to disagree with you. It all depends on which side of the bigot fence you sit on.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pm#55
So now General Powell is a bigot? Those are his words from 1995.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pmSays you. Say that to another and they are likely to disagree with you. It all depends on which side of the bigot fence you sit on.
Comment by dlet — June 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Well sure, if that person is racist, like yourself!!!
Don’t you have a swastika to sew on a jacket?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:33 pmm12
Military leaders should listen to “me” (I would say “us”) because it is their job to protect the rights of ALL Americans, not just those they find “morally acceptable”, and to be accountable to “we the people”. The military is supposed to be subordinate to the civilian population, thus the President is an elected official who serves as Commander in Chief and Congress as representatives of the people decide where they are deployed. When you grow up, you’ll see the wisdom of your elders.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:34 pm“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. â€
Comment by m12
It’s a theory based on virtually no information, only prejudice. If the military actually had divisions riddled with uncloseted gays and morale collapsed, they’d have an argument. As it is, it is merely supposition based on prejudice, which is exactly what happened in the US military in regard to Blacks. All of this was said about Black troops and then it was proven false.
It’s the sophistry of the homophobe, nothing more. And frankly, anyone who continues to make his argument about gay troops by referring to them as “homos” has such an obvious agenda of fear that it’s barely worth addressing.
One more thing to be afraid of i’m12: ayrabs, joos, and the homos. Run and hide!
June 26th, 2007 at 9:35 pmThen he fired them all.
Comment by m12
When did this happen?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:39 pm#58
Your ‘theories’ would destroy 200 years of military precedence in our nation. The military has never answered to “we the people”, nor to 535 members of Congress. Rather, the chain of command critically answers to a single man.
Civilian control of the military has never descended into setting of war policy by nonprofessionals! I suggest you read this piece.
http://www.unc.edu/ depts/ diplomat/ AD_Issues/ amdipl_3/ kohn.html
For a variety of reasons, military establishments have gained significant power and achieved considerable autonomy even in those democracies that have long practiced civilian control. In some countries, the military has in practice kept control over much of military life; in others, governments have never managed to develop the tools or the procedures, or the influence with elites or the prestige with the public, to establish supremacy over their armed forces. For the most part, however, a degree of military autonomy has grown out of the need to professionalize the management of war. In the last two centuries, war has become too complex–the preparations too elaborate, the weapons too sophisticated, command too arduous, operations too intricate–to leave the waging of combat to amateurs or part-time practitioners. As a result, the professional military’s influence has grown, either from circumstance or from necessity.
Forty years ago, the great theorist of civilian control, Samuel P. Huntington, argued in The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Practice of Civil-Military Relations, that the way to optimize civilian supremacy was to recognize such “autonomous military professionalism.” An officer corps focused on its own profession–and granted sufficient independence to organize itself and practice the art of war without interference in those areas which required technical expertise–would be politically neutral and less likely to intervene in politics.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pmTell that to the majority of the military who voted for him. Twice.
Comment by m12
“…there is reportedly such deep concern among the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) about the Bush administration’s plans to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure that some of them have threatened to resign in protest; and the Bush administration’s “surge” now has tens of thousands of more troops going to Iraq against the advice of much of the military.”
That Brusch… one hecka Deciderer-In-Chief, Li’l Buddy!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm#59
We have another general here? Or someone who thinks he knows better than them?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
Wrong, of course. He’s false equating sexual orientation and sexual behavior. The first is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic, just as is the color of the skin.
All the evidence to date suggests that he’s wrong on the rest of his argument, given that gay men and women serve openly in other armed services and that they serve with distinction in our own services even now.
But then, you already knew that and were just trolling.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:47 pm#60
Early in his first term. The powers of the Presidency let him pick some new Generals who agreed with him, but he couldn’t get rid of the Democrats on both Armed Service committees who strongly opposed his policy.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:48 pm“Or someone who thinks he knows better than them?”
LOL… Yup, why shouldn’t we think we “know better than them,” when their position is contradicted by literally all of the available evidence, not to mention that generals like them were wrong about the integration of the military, done over their objections, and women in the military, also done over their objections.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pmEarly in his first term. The powers of the Presidency let him pick some new Generals who agreed with him, but he couldn’t get rid of the Democrats on both Armed Service committees who strongly opposed his policy.
Comment by m12
More specifics, please.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pmWe have another general here? Or someone who thinks he knows better than them?
Comment by m12
Are you a general?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:51 pm#68
Nope, which is why I listen to what they say about this policy.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:52 pm“Your ‘theories’ would destroy 200 years of military precedence in our nation.”
LOL… Yup, just as allowing blacks and women to serve “destroy[ed] 200 years of military precedence in our nation.” Somehow, our nation survived.
“The military has never answered to ‘we the people,’”
Actually, yes, it has, and intentionally so, since our system was set up that way.
“nor to 535 members of Congress.”
Wrong again, since those 535 members of Congress fund the military.
“Civilian control of the military has never descended into setting of war policy by nonprofessionals!”
And again, yes, it has, frequently. I suggest you do your homework before you make yourself look even more foolish.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm61
Nice cut and paste there m12.
You should read the Constitution. It’s very enlightening how the founding fathers provided for exactly what I stated. The military does not make policy but aligns its procedures to civilian demands. The military leaders have control of the operations in the field but they answer to the civilian leaders. Demanding that people of any faith, color, creed, sexual preference, etc be integrated fully into the military is a policy decision and the responsibility of civilian leaders, executing that policy is technical and the responsibility of the military leaders. If the military leaders don’t get that, then they should be replaced by the Commander in Chief.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm“Nope, which is why I listen to what they say about this policy.”
Even when they’ve been proven wrong on similar policies in the past? Even when gay men and women are serving with distinction in quite a few other armed forces? Even when generals like them said the same thing about the British military and all recent reports have conclusively showed that those generals were dead wrong?
Interesting. And quite revealing.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:54 pmIt’s very enlightening how the founding fathers provided for exactly what I stated. The military does not make policy but aligns its procedures to civilian demands. The military leaders have control of the operations in the field but they answer to the civilian leaders. Demanding that people of any faith, color, creed, sexual preference, etc be integrated fully into the military is a policy decision and the responsibility of civilian leaders, executing that policy is technical and the responsibility of the military leaders. If the military leaders don’t get that, then they should be replaced by the Commander in Chief.
You are correct. Military leaders will follow their directives. Unfortunately, they will be following them with a smaller force. Is that what you want?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:55 pmNope, which is why I listen to what they say about this policy.
Comment by m12
I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, in the NY Times, 1/02/2007
June 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pmm12
How exactly would there be a “smaller force”? Besides, you are probably too young to remember the procedure known as “the draft”.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pmHow exactly would there be a “smaller forceâ€? Besides, you are probably too young to remember the procedure known as “the draftâ€.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Yeah, but he’s certainly familiar w/ the concept of “smaller”….
June 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pmHow exactly would there be a “smaller forceâ€? Besides, you are probably too young to remember the procedure known as “the draftâ€.
People will quit. What other alternative do they have if they wish to not serve with homosexuals?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pmYou are correct. Military leaders will follow their directives. Unfortunately, they will be following them with a smaller force. Is that what you want?
Comment by m12
First you have to prove (good luck) that even the small percentage of military personnel who now say they’re “uncomfortable” with gay soldiers would actually leave the military. Is that what happened when the Army was integrated? Uh, no.
Colin Powell can rationalize his prejudices any way he wants, but they are no less prejudices for all that.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pmGates was against it before he was for it. Now that black volunteers for death in Iraq have slipped 38%, gays have moved up the ladder of human sacrifice.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm#74
You know very well that he is in a small minority among those who have been part of the JC.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:02 pmQuit the military? Oh, they let you do that now? So, those troop members in Iraq who are sick of the war can just put in their two week notice? Cool!! OK, m12, you win the argument.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:03 pmJohn M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, in the NY Times, 1/02/2007
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Uh oh. Now i’m12 will have to dismiss this particular general because his opinion is wrong. Must not have been a real general.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:03 pmYou know very well that he is in a small minority among those who have been part of the JC.
Comment by m12
For the record, I called this one before i’m12 actually posted it. Dang TP.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pmUh oh. Now i’m12 will have to dismiss this particular general because his opinion is wrong. Must not have been a real general.
Comment by gummitch
You called it! :D
June 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pm#74
You know very well that he is in a small minority among those who have been part of the JC.
Comment by m12
I don’t know that. I do know that he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which means he knows about the miliatry than me, or YOU, for that matter. For him to raise to the level of Chairman means he must have ben in the Army a pretty long time, and been pretty good at what he did, ya know what I mean, Li’l Buddy?
Dismiss him as being part of a small minority if you need to, but I think his opinion carries more weight than yours.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pmQuit the military? Oh, they let you do that now? So, those troop members in Iraq who are sick of the war can just put in their two week notice? Cool!! OK, m12, you win the argument.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
But will they be able to find enough homos to take their places? :D
June 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pmDismiss him as being part of a small minority if you need to, but I think his opinion carries more weight than yours.
It does. But does it carry more weight than General Pace, General Myers, General Powell, General Sheridan, and all the others?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm“People will quit.”
That’s what they said in Great Britain and in every other country where gay men and women were allowed to serve openly. Funny thing, though, people didn’t quit. Weird, huh?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm“But does it carry more weight than General Pace, General Myers, General Powell, General Sheridan, and all the others?”
Yup. Next question?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pmPeople will quit. What other alternative do they have if they wish to not serve with homosexuals?
Comment by m12
You seem unclear on the concept. You don’t “quit” your job in the military.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pmOf course, if you’re George Bruschâ„¢, you don’t even have to show up, but trust me, Li’l Buddy, you wouldn’t have that privilege.
It does. But does it carry more weight than General Pace, General Myers, General Powell, General Sheridan, and all the others?
Comment by m12
Probably about equal weight. BTW, who are “all the others”?
And where are those specifics about Clinton canning the generals?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm“What other alternative do they have if they wish to not serve with homosexuals?”
Dear heart, they already serve with homosexuals. Most servicemen and women have worked alongside someone who is gay, many of them openly gay.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pmQuit the military? Oh, they let you do that now? So, those troop members in Iraq who are sick of the war can just put in their two week notice? Cool!! OK, m12, you win the argument.
Liberals on this site have asserted that enlistment and re-enlistment rates have plummeted due to soldiers being unhappy with the war. If you believe that, what do you expect soliders who are unhappy with gays to do?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm“what do you expect soliders who are unhappy with gays to do?”
To continue serving, of course, just as have soldiers in the other military services where gay men and women serve openly.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pmLiberals on this site have asserted that enlistment and re-enlistment rates have plummeted due to soldiers being unhappy with the war. If you believe that, what do you expect soliders who are unhappy with gays to do?
Comment by m12 — June 26, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Maybe the real reason enlistment rates have plummeted is due to the fact that there are so many homos in the military?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm#94
Good luck with that! Other nations maintain a weak and meager fighting force; they don’t need that 27%.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pmwhat do you expect soliders who are unhappy with gays to do?
Comment by m12
___________________________
I’ll type it real slowly this time. They…should…shut…up…and…salute…and…do…their…job.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pmIf I were a trainer in boot camp and a new recruit had a problem with a fellow soldier who was gay, I’d have that recruit digging the biggest a** latrine he could imagine with the gay soldier giving him orders about the design.
Maybe the real reason recruitment is down is because we have a bunch of non-homosapiens running the executive branch of our government.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm“Good luck with that! Other nations maintain a weak and meager fighting force; they don’t need that 27%.”
ROFLMAO… Dear heart, you do realize that Israel is one of those countries, do you not? And that Great Britain, our number one ally in Iraq, is another? Poor guy… can’t think of a single rational argument.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm“I’ll type it real slowly this time. They…should…shut…up…and…salute…and…do…their…job.”
And all the evidence to date shows that that is precisely what they will do.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:23 pmBush is the one who needs “the 27%”. Funny how that number or one close keeps showing up in Bush’s approval rating. Coincidence? I think not.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:23 pm#97
Funny thing about that. I doubt that those soldiers really care about what PLC thinks.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pm“Funny thing about that. I doubt that those soldiers really care about what PLC thinks.”
Funny thing; I doubt that those soldiers really care about what m12 thinks, either. Weird, huh?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pmAnd all the evidence to date shows that that is precisely what they will do.
Comment by PaulB
__________________________________
Correct. And I would hypothesize that people like m12 get yellow stains in their underwear to match the stripe down their back if they have to sit next to a gay.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pmIf you believe that, what do you expect soliders who are unhappy with gays to do?
Comment by m12
I’m sorry, but that’s just flat out an irrational disconnect. If soldiers are unhappy w/ the situation in Iraq, what the F*#k does that have to do w/ gays? If you’re going to argue a position, make sure you have a position to argue.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pm#103
Perhaps not, but they probably care what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pmBut will they be able to find enough homos to take their places? :D
Comment by Zooey
If they look in the GOP, they will. ;-D!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 10:28 pmFunny thing about that. I doubt that those soldiers really care about what PLC thinks.
Comment by m12
June 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm____________________________
Funny thing is I can finally agree with you. The soldiers are too busy doing their job to care about what I think…or whether or not their fellow soldiers are homosexual or not.
I’m sorry, but that’s just flat out an irrational disconnect. If soldiers are unhappy w/ the situation in Iraq, what the F*#k does that have to do w/ gays? If you’re going to argue a position, make sure you have a position to argue.
The liberal argument is that soldiers unhappy with military policy will refuse to re-enlist, or that recruitment will be down. So why exactly do you want to make this 27% unhappy?
It’s quite rational; I’m sorry if it’s over your head.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm“Perhaps not, but they probably care what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks.”
ROFL… Is this the best you can come up with? Of course they don’t; not on something like this. You still can’t deal with the fact that all of the evidence is against you, can you?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pmPerhaps not, but they probably care what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks.
Comment by m12
Do you mean someone like Pace, or someone Shalikashvili?
I’m still waiting on those specifics…
June 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pmPerhaps not, but they probably care what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks.
Comment by m12
__________________________
OK, that makes twice now I agree with you! You’re right if the JCs send out an order that homosexuals are to be fully integrated into the military and treated with the respect and dignity of any American citizen, then there would be no issue.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pmIt’s quite rational; I’m sorry if it’s over your head.
Comment by m12
And I’m sorry if your head is up your ass. Where are your specifics about Clinton firing generals because he “liked homos”???
June 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pmDo you mean someone like Pace, or someone Shalikashvili?
I’m still waiting on those specifics…
Given that Shalikashvilli supported DADT when he served as Chairman, I guess you can pick either one. As PLC said, they value the opinion of their senior officers.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:34 pmm12
If a soldier won’t serve or re-enlist because there are …oooh, scary homosexuals…also in the military, then so be it. They aren’t really interested in actually serving to protect the freedom of EVERYONE or they are cowards and, therefore, don’t belong in the military.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:35 pmGiven that Shalikashvilli supported DADT when he served as Chairman, I guess you can pick either one. As PLC said, they value the opinion of their senior officers.
Comment by m12
And given that Shalikashvili has publicly stated he’s changed his opinion, I guess we can assume he’s grown as a person, which you clearly have not.
STILL waiting on those specifics…
June 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm“If a soldier won’t serve or re-enlist because there are …oooh, scary homosexuals…also in the military, then so be it.”
Yup, but m12 knows that there will be so few of these that it isn’t worth the trouble to even consider it. Notice how he’s carefully avoiding dealing with the actual evidence?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:37 pmGiven that Shalikashvilli supported DADT when he served as Chairman, I guess you can pick either one. As PLC said, they value the opinion of their senior officers.
Comment by m12
______________________________
And the senior officers followed the CIVILIAN law, known as DADT, whether they agreed with it or not. If Clinton had the support in Congress, he would have opened the military to homosexuals without the DADT political/civilian compromise.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:37 pm#115
So you are willing to shrink an already stretched military? Well, alrite, I’ll leave you to that opinion.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pm“So you are willing to shrink an already stretched military?”
Dear heart, since you have no evidence that the military will shrink, and we have evidence that it will not, forgive us if we don’t take this argument any more seriously than your other arguments.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:42 pmSo you are willing to shrink an already stretched military? Well, alrite, I’ll leave you to that opinion.
Comment by m12
This is all personal conjecture. You have NO idea what would really happen.
BTW, where are the specifics about Clinton canning the generals?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:42 pm#121
I haven’t had time to look. What specifics are you looking for?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm#120
There’s no need to forgive anything. You have already proven you don’t take military leaders seriously. I don’t expect different treatment.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pmm12
I said “if”. I don’t believe the premise on which you base your argument. I doubt that 27% of soldiers would leave the military based on this issue.
Further, I would “unstretch” the military by not putting them in such ludicrous positions as being in the center of civilian war crossfire. Our military would be less “stretched” if less of our soldiers were not “stretched out” in coffins because of the occupation of Iraq.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:45 pm“There’s no need to forgive anything. You have already proven you don’t take military leaders seriously.”
On military matters, I take them seriously, dear, assuming that they have proved themselves knowledgeable. On social issues, where their statements are directly contradicted by all of the available evidence, and by history, no, dear, I don’t take them seriously.
“I don’t expect different treatment.”
LOL… Given your inability to deal with the actual evidence, you’re getting precisely the treatment you have earned.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pmI haven’t had time to look. What specifics are you looking for?
Comment by m12
Names, dates, PROOF that it actually happened, ya know? I did Google “Clinton” and “Joint Chiefs of Staff” and “firing” and didn’t get any hits on any of those word combos. Did you make that up?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pmIt’s been fun but I have to get some sleep. Carry on against the oppression, fellow progressives.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pmHa! What option do they have if they wish to not serve with homosexuals? They can go back to civilian life, where homosexuals and heterosexuals abound. They will have to deal with reality. Gays exist. Gays are patriots, too. Gays and straight folks don’t have to deal with sexual behavior-just with human behavior. Isn’t it about time that the anti-gay folks grow up?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pm“Names, dates, PROOF that it actually happened, ya know? I did Google ‘Clinton’ and ‘Joint Chiefs of Staff’ and ‘firing’ and didn’t get any hits on any of those word combos. Did you make that up?”
Of course he did. All you have to do is look online for a list of the various people who have served on the JCS to realize that m12 was basically making shit up. Wikipedia, for example, shows the following:
Chairman — Powell was replaced in September, 1993
Vice Chairman — David Jeremiah was replaced in February, 1994
Army Chief of Staff — Gordon Sullivan was replaced in June, 1995
Air Force Chief of Staff — Merrill McPeak was replaced in October, 1994
Chief of Naval Operations — Frank Kelso was replaced in April, 1994
Commandant of the Marine Corps — Carl Mundy was replaced in June, 1995
On a cursory look at the history of each of these positions, these men served for the same terms of office that their predecessors and successors did: four-year stints, for the most part.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:09 pmI haven’t had time to look. What specifics are you looking for?
Comment by m12
Geez, I’m beginning to think he was lyin’ to us, fellas. I’ve even looked on Conservapedia, and I can’t find ANYTHING anywhere about Clinton sacking generals over the “Gay thing”. Now, why do you suppose he’d lie about something like that?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pmComment by PaulB
I kind of figured that out, PaulB. I just wanted to make the little SOB squirm. Whoever “m12″ is, he’s a smarmy lying little sack of S*#t and I just wanted to draw that out as much as I could.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmThe Gay (TM) makes m12 feel all icky…..and fascinated.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pmThe Gay ™ makes m12 feel all icky…..and fascinated.
Comment by Zooey — June 26, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:31 pmThe Gay (TM) makes m12 feel all icky…..and fascinated.
Comment by Zooey
Ya got that straight. Ever see the episode of The Simpsons where Homer steals cable and Bart discovers “Pussycat Theatre”? He starts running a porn theater in the house for all the other boys in the neighborhood.
There’s this hysterical moment when the boys are all watching something, and that cheesy organ music is pumping away in the background, and you hear this line of dialogue…
“Ewww, that’s gross… yet oddly compelling…”
THAT’S how “Li’l m12″ comes across whenever he starts in on gays.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm“I kind of figured that out, PaulB. I just wanted to make the little SOB squirm.”
Alas, trolls like that do not squirm.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:42 pmAlas, trolls like that do not squirm.
Comment by PaulB
Yeah, but you notice, he did run off at that point. I’m going to have to remember to bring that one up next time he’s around, spouting off.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOne could go so far as to say he took off once he had been “outted”…
June 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pmI kind of doubt it, actually; he had been stubbornly ignoring facts the entire thread. I suspect he just left ’cause his mom called him to dinner.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pmI kind of doubt it, actually; he had been stubbornly ignoring facts the entire thread. I suspect he just left ’cause his mom called him to dinner.
Comment by PaulB
More likely she needed her dress back so she could go to her second job.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“Ewww, that’s gross… yet oddly compelling…â€
THAT’S how “Li’l m12″ comes across whenever he starts in on gays.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
That’s great!
Oddly enough, I have never seen a single episode of The Simpsons.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:56 pmComment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 26, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Thanks, Mr P.
I can use the formatting keys, but the TM thing no longer works for me.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:58 pm*sigh*
Comment by Zooey — June 26, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
you can’t use “caps”
June 26th, 2007 at 11:59 pmjust lower case “tm” ™
June 27th, 2007 at 12:00 amThe Gay ™
June 27th, 2007 at 12:06 amThanks, Mr P!
June 27th, 2007 at 12:06 amOddly enough, I have never seen a single episode of The Simpsons.
Comment by Zooey
OMG, are you serious??? A virgin???
June 27th, 2007 at 12:07 amOMG, are you serious??? A virgin???
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Um, yes TRoS, I am a virgin.
*checks sky for lightening bolts*
June 27th, 2007 at 12:12 am*checks sky for lightening bolts*
Comment by Zooey
Well, not that I would ever doubt your word…
(nervously glancing about for rolling pin swinging thru the air…)
June 27th, 2007 at 12:14 amWhat’s that quote from Shakespeare???
Me thinks thou dost protest too much!!!
Whenever someone like “Li’l m12″ starts in “the homos”, that quote immediately comes to mind. Like hitting a key on a cash register… the little flag pops up with that written on it, and the bell goes, Ka-ching!
June 27th, 2007 at 12:16 amMost of the GOPers in the Congress are closeted hypocrites who hire male escorts for sex, so the phobia in the military against Gays is ridiculous.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:20 amMost of the GOPers in the Congress are closeted hypocrites who hire male escorts for sex, so the phobia in the military against Gays is ridiculous.
Comment by Jay Randal
We never did find out who Jeff Gannon visited approximately 200 times in the WHOTUS, did we?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 amWell, not that I would ever doubt your word…
(nervously glancing about for rolling pin swinging thru the air…)
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Good, because I’m honest at all times. I am a Simpsons virgin. :-D
Does Jane whack your head with the rolling pin, too?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:26 amI did see Gannon’s escort website before it was taken off the Net, and he said he is a TOP only, does not kiss clients on the lips, and likes to dominate other guys. He also had a bunch of pics of himself nude pissing, so his clients liked to be “Golden Showered” by him. If he did Bush, then that means George is a fem BOTTOM who wants to be dominated > lol.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:35 amI am a Simpsons virgin. :-D
Comment by Zooey
Oooohhh, a SIMPSON’s virgin… well, that’s what I thought you meant (nervous pause…). I mean, what else could we have been talking about?
Does Jane whack your head with the rolling pin, too?
Naaah…
I duck too fast!!! Badda-bing!! Thank you… thank you… you’ve been a wonderful audience.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:35 amIf he did Bush, then that means George is a fem BOTTOM who wants to be dominated > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal
Ewwwww… thanks alot, Jay. Eight years of therapy down the drain!
June 27th, 2007 at 12:37 amReally odd thing about the Gannon website was him wearing military dog tags in all his pics. He had several pics of himself naked in different poses and the dog tags around his neck. Gannon/Guckert never served a day in his life in the military, but he fooled his clients into thinking he did. He had several endorsement letters on his site from military officers who said they enjoyed being dominated by him.
The Democrats in Congress should have investigated Gannon’s association with Bush, but they were afraid to have it come out that George might give BJs to guys, so not Gannon doing Bush like Monica.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:48 amI duck too fast!!! Badda-bing!! Thank you… thank you… you’ve been a wonderful audience.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
No, thank YOU, TRoS. You were a wonderful audience for the hijacking.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:50 am:D
No, thank YOU, TRoS. You were a wonderful audience for the hijacking.
:D
Comment by Zooey
I have to say, I was laughing my ass off on this end. I was literally ass-less until a doctor was able to reattach it the next day. I get the stitches out on Friday.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:53 amI have to say, I was laughing my ass off on this end. I was literally ass-less until a doctor was able to reattach it the next day. I get the stitches out on Friday.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Sometimes I get laughing so hard at the other TP commenters, I have tears running down my face. Especially with Juan’s friend’s unfortunate accident. :D
We should wait until Saturday to do another hijacking. You should be able to spend at least a little time with you newly attached ass.
Heh.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:59 amWe should wait until Saturday to do another hijacking. You should be able to spend at least a little time with you newly attached ass.
Heh.
Comment by Zooey
Agreed. My ass needs some time to reattach itself. Lord knows the kinds of comments this crowd would make if it fell off right in the middle of things. I wonder, do righties ever have actual “fun” like that, or do they just get all pumped up talking about gassing and hanging judges they don’t like, blah blah blah?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:04 amReally odd thing about the Gannon website was him wearing military dog tags in all his pics. He had several pics of himself naked in different poses and the dog tags around his neck.
Comment by Jay Randal
Geez, isn’t that probably a violation of some military code? I mean, I’m feeling kind of violated just hearing about it. Ya think the righties would have been all over that one. Come to think of it, naaah, they were all too busy, “studying the evidence”, “in private”…
June 27th, 2007 at 1:07 amI wonder, do righties ever have actual “fun†like that, or do they just get all pumped up talking about gassing and hanging judges they don’t like, blah blah blah?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
You know what, TRoS? I can’t even imagine it. I haven’t met one wingnut, in my family or outside of it, with a raunchy sense of humor. I mean they try, but it just feels uncomfortable. It’s like watching Dennis Miller. Painful…
I better git, my son wants some time online. It’s been great talking to you, TRoS. Goodnight!! :)
June 27th, 2007 at 1:09 amSo you are willing to shrink an already stretched military? Well, alrite, I’ll leave you to that opinion. Comment by m12 — June 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Ah, poor little st*pid b!tch! That’s exactly what the current policy does. It shrinks the military, to preserve the bigotry of closeted pedophiles and self loathing gays like you. Poor st*pid little hypocrite, it’s a tragedy to watch you embarrass yourself daily. You’re a typing train wreck, poor little sicko..
June 27th, 2007 at 1:50 amWere the truth to come out, it would show that some of our finest and bravest heroes in uniform over the years have been gays and lesbians. Every single armed force since the beginning of history has had its share of them. The American military needs to figure it out and get it right. If the person who just saved your life is gay, and you know it, are you still going to be a bigot? Are you still going to give them a Section 8?
June 27th, 2007 at 7:39 amInteresting that not one single American Military person has complained about the gay service members that they’ve been “forced” to work and barracks with from other countries.
England has allowed openly gay service members, and not one single American has complained or had a problem with that.
Spain has allowed openly gay service members, and not one single American has complained or had a problem with that.
The so-called “complaints” have only come from officers that don’t have to share barracks space with anyone else. The compalints have all come from the members of the right that have refused to serve their country.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:17 amThe notion seems to encourage the goverment to condone the “double standard” again. Our justice system has shown us how “double standard” is a total failure policy.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:43 amIt almost sounds like the users are luring their bait with the prospect of being sex slaves for the higher ups. All to familiar.
It’s hard to believe the British are so far ahead of us on this.
Free the gays. Plain and simple.
The headline to this story, “Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military,” is misleading and wrong.
While this is the first generally positive statement out of the DOD regarding service of gay people, there is no “revision” of DOD policy stated, particularly about “Gays [Serving] In The Military.” The DOD statement specifically addresses opportunities for continued government service AFTER being discharged from the military under the DADT regulations.
Most discharges under the DADT regulations/policy are “Honerable” or “General Under Honerable Conditions” discharges. Ex-Service Members discharged under these certificates are now, and have always been eligible to work in civil service positions in the DOD or any other federal agency. Of course a private contractor may hire whoever they wish unless there is some provision in the government contract that onle “honerably” discharged veterans may be hired.
The statement itself is a good sign, though. It is positive and offer some enouragement for gays to serve. This must be a reflection of Secretary Gates’ personal attitude and DOD leadership. I think Gates would favor or support doing away with DADT…… but can’t say so publically right now. He certainly has experience working with a lot of talented gay people from his years as CIA Director!
June 27th, 2007 at 9:32 amI agree…Barry Goldwater once said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”
June 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am<