A beautiful smack down to the repub candidates!

I like how the mainstream media and especially the Romneys will ignore this and go on with their lunkhead, backwards fucking idiot neocon agendas.

Just read part of the transcript relating to gays in the military. Gen. Kerr basically repeated the same thing talking to CNN the next day [video at my site], and I would suggest that all of those who are anti-gay in the military and have been helped or even saved by any gay medic or doctor stand up and be heard on how much they hate gays. It is my educated guess that many in the medical field are gay, along with thousands of others.

I notice that the only people who care about this are closet cases

I think Jason Jones at Daily Show can summarize just how ridiculous & stupid the right wingnuts & con-servatives fears are:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi.....up-in-bleu

Hey! I’m a Veteran but I’m not gay……………..uh, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Would this be a bad time to bring up that dang spartan movie as a historical reference again……….

It’s well past time to repeal this law. It was stupid when passed, and remains completely counter to who we are as a nation and what our military is fighting for –freedom!

BAC

First, if the “former military leaders” were so convinced that gays and lesbians can serve honorably, then why the hell didn’t they have the spine to say it _before_ they retired? Don’t do us any favours….

Second, because they are “former military leaders”, the morons in the Whore House won’t listen to them; if there are any active generals et al who want to end the policy, why don’t they have the cojones to speak out now, while they’re active? Or are they too worried about their careers? (See: Rick Baccus, demoted for protecting human rights.)

Third, even _if_ the active generals speak out and _if_ the neo-clowns allow gays to openly serve, gays should NOT sign up. The only reason they are willing to remove the anti-gay hate rules now is because they are desperately short of warm bodies for the illegal wars. The military (never mind the neo-clowns) are NOT interested in ending decades of hate and ignorance.

Gays should tell them, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you…if you leave your name and number on the wall next to a glory hole.”

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.
That’s no doubt more than could be said for all those who would object.
The religious right only fight as mercenaries.

Punchy @ 2:

I like how the mainstream media and especially the Romneys will ignore this and go on with their lunkhead, backwards fucking idiot neocon agendas.

Of course. They have to appeal to the base instincts of their base.

Shiva H Vishnu @ 9:

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.
That’s no doubt more than could be said for all those who would object.
The religious right only fight as mercenaries.

An apt comparison.

Well I’m glad to see military leaders getting smart about this instead of holding the line on an apeish tradition of crapping on GLBTs. Additionally, I hope the retired general that spoke at the Repug debate the other night understood what his party has become, and votes for a Dem this time. To sit there and watch that prick Hunter stand there and tell him to his face he was jeopardizing the cohesion of the forces by being gay, regardless of the tireless tenure the general had put in, was really isntructive of a political party that has lost its humanity. As for Romney’s answer that he’ll let the military make the decisions, that’s as non-answer as it gets, and the fact that others brought up other countries’ armies that DO openly include GLBTs and anyone else willing and STILL held the line on no GLBTs in our own, you have to just sit there and mutter WTF?

Conservatism truly has become an ideology incapable of dealing with change, and instead makes due with purely instinctual responses and after-the-fact reactionism. It’s so haughty that it thinks humans don’t evolve or change, that everything is passed down from something for a good reason and to challenge it is to derail civilization as we know it. It’s humanity trying to tame that which it is patently incapable of taming. I don’t know that I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I’m DAMN sure I’m not conservative.

Romney can start by listening to General Shalikashvili who’s stated that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, DON’T PURSUE” (that last part they rather conveniently forget as they hunt down and remove desperately needed gay translators) should be ABOLISHED and full participation of every American citizen encouraged.

And this esprit d’ corps argument that conservatives (9 out of 10 of which haven’t served) make is a bullshit argument too. You know how I know? They made the same argument when racists didn’t want the military to integrate blacks. Racists, homophobes… same shit, different decade.

The notion that somehow serving with an openly gay soldier will fuck up unit cohesion is retarded because RIGHT NOW they are serving with openly gay CIA field agents (there is no such barrier to service regarding sexual orientation at the Company), not to mention half the NATO allies we supposedly call our friends.

And internally, units in multiple ENLIGHTENED countries throughout the world have no issues with it, including Israel’s army, and they win wars in 6 days.

PS. It should also be noted, that historically gays have not only served in the military, but have been some of the best fighters in them. Alexander the Great comes to mind. As does the REAL 300 - not the fucking fascist Spartans, they had help and some escaped - but the Sacred Band of Thebes, 150 gay men and their lovers formed into a single fighting unit that went undefeated for nearly 40 years, and fought LITERALLY to the last man at 25-to-one odds against in their final, momentous battle. It was THEY who ACTUALLY “drew a line in the sand to protect democracy”, defending Athens.

It never ceases to amaze me and mystify me that right-wingers often resent people like the Amish for refusing to serve in the military (especially since the Amish do not wish to serve, have a legitimate reason not to serve, and won’t fight even in their own defense) and yet do not want gays fighting in the military (even though quite a few would be more than happy to serve and the argument against their service is shaky at best). Then again, these are the same people who believe that it’s perfectly logical to be pro-life and yet in favor of the death penalty…go figure!

Instead of repealing the law, Congress should extend ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ to cover politicians.

It’d be a lot more fun to guess their sexual orientation, than to have fat Congressmen bonking other fat Congressmen, right in the Halls of Congress, especially during school tours.

And what about Mayors of major cities making speeches while dressed as schoolgirls, with their little white panties showing beneath their short plaid skirts? What kind of a message does that send to our kids, ‘Go to a Catholic school, you can get it on, and get off, with anyone?’

Speaking of Giuliani, isn’t it wonderful that the brohaha about all his ’scandals’ will soon be resolved? Most folks who know Giuliani ignore, or disparage, or disdain, or dislike him, so it’s hard for him to find supporters. But now, that stalwart, impeccable character witness, the soon-to-be-incarcerated-on-multiple-offenses-felon, Bernard Kerik, has come to Rudy’s defense.

‘He don’ know nuttin ’bout nuttin’, Kerik asserted.

I guess that resolves the ‘Giuliani’ crisis.

At least until his affair with the Utah senator is revealed.

‘Rudy got nuttin’ against Morons’, Kerik assures us.

This will make the gay basher’s head spin.

Chopvac @ 8:

First, if the “former military leaders” were so convinced that gays and lesbians can serve honorably, then why the hell didn’t they have the spine to say it _before_ they retired? Don’t do us any favours….

Second, because they are “former military leaders”, the morons in the Whore House won’t listen to them; if there are any active generals et al who want to end the policy, why don’t they have the cojones to speak out now, while they’re active? Or are they too worried about their careers? (See: Rick Baccus, demoted for protecting human rights.)

…”

Reason #1
Because the the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law insists that they be dishonorably discharged for saying that.

Reason #2
We are not a military democracy, despite the Republicans who insist that will obey the military leaders. The politicians control the military, and the military better obey.

Reason #3
Life in the military is different from civilian life, and giving up many “freedoms” is part and parcel of the honor to serve. Living in the closet is just one of those freedoms.

I don’t think it says dishonorably discharged, I think it says ‘other than honorable’ which is usually a ‘general discharge’

The only “Discharge” most Republican Politicians have had came out the end of their dicks.

ronhohn @ 18:

I don’t think it says dishonorably discharged, I think it says ‘other than honorable’ which is usually a ‘general discharge’

The issue is about speaking out against the regulation and defying it. Such activity, which Chopvac advocates, can result in dishonorable. You are correct that direct victims of the regulation, if quiet, will receive other than honorable discharge.

First, if the “former military leaders” were so convinced that gays and lesbians can serve honorably, then why the hell didn’t they have the spine to say it _before_ they retired? — Chopvac

*************************************

You do realize, do you not, that this is precisely the same argument that Pat Buchanan is using?!? Let’s face it…under this argument, the generals are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they had come out while they were still serving, it would have inevitably meant sacrificing their careers — but by choosing to come out after the fact, they get accused of cowardice by people like you and Pat Buchanan! Give these people at least some credit for having honorably served their country, can’t you?

fuddled - I must disagree with you. Dishonorable is the worst you can get, and what you claim does not rise to that level.

“There are two types of punitive discharges: Dishonorable Discharge (DD) — which can only be adjudged by a general court-martial and is a separation under dishonorable conditions; and Bad-Conduct Discharge (BCD) — which can be adjudged by either a general court-martial or a special court-martial and is a separation under conditions other than honorable.

Dear Mitt,
Quit panderin’ to the Bob Joneses. Join us in the reality-based community. You’re spending your kids inheritance on your campaign when the rapture bunnies won’t vote for you anyway

I was in the Navy from 72-78. On the carrier I was on, there were quite a few openly gay (and flamboyantly so) shipmates. Didn’t bother me then, wouldn’t bother me now. I’m pretty sure that I have taken showers at the same time as a gay person and yet somehow I muddled through 6 years without being raped or developing a taste for lavender shirts.

That said, I HAVE to question the “65,000″ figure. I have no evidence to refute it, but that sounds a little high. Regardless, a salute to ANYONE who cares enough about the country to join or re-enlist under the current administration. Remember, you’re fighting for the constitution, not the President.

Based on my experience in the Canadian Forces (just prior to the decision that removed the ban on openly gay members) the arguments, such as they are, come down to two.

The first, historically accurate, was that a closeted gay soldier was subject to possible blackmail. True, but as I mentioned to one security officer doing a routine background check on one of my peers which had questions which made it obvious he was fishing to see if the guy was gay, this is only true because the military made it so. Vicious circle: they thought being gay was a problem, therefore it was one. If the brass didn’t care, blackmail would be ineffective.

The second, and the highly irrational one, was the unit cohesion argument. You know where that comes from? The belief among some heterosexual soldiers that they are just so damn irresistible and manly that no one would be able to avoid the aura of pure sexiness they exude, so if the women couldn’t, surely Teh Gay couldn’t either. They’d be crawling all over them in the showers and leching after them all the time. In other words, they were afraid that a gay soldier would treat them like they treated women.

Having a slightly more realistic appraisal of my own situation (I did not have women throwing themselves at me at every opportunity) was one of the reasons I had no trouble with the idea of serving beside gay soldiers.

Will someone please explain to Romney that the civilian govermant runs the military not the other way around. Bush is the first President to depend on the military and use it to stay in office. No different than any 3rd world dictator. The Republicans running for President are no different than Bush.

In the article, it says Clinton “had to compromise” on the policy. Bullshit. He could simply have issued an Executive Order like Truman did when he integrated the services.

Typical Clinton - triangulating on everything, he couldn’t stand up for his beliefs. And now some Dems want a return to that crap with Hillary. Wake up, folks! Hillary is just the same bullshit in a different body.

If the republicans want to dismantle “don’t ask, don’t tell”, then you need to be suspicious.

1) The US Army cannot, repeate “CANNOT” institute a draft as long as they have a ban on gays. The reason is quite simple. Draftees will simply go into the induction center wearing a pink dress and lipstick and be summarily dismissed from being drafted.
2) Newly minted GIs will do anything to get out of their obligation, including acting effeminate.

After “don’t ask, don’t tell” is removed, the draft is only a months away.

Go ahead and let the Republicans play bigot. It only hurts the military.

I think Romney meant he’d listen to HETEROSEXUALS who run the military. A simple error of omission, right?

The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is basically saying: “Our armed forces are homophobic and intolerant and can’t deal with homosexual people like adults.”

It’s too bad this didn’t come out right before the CNN/YouTube GOP debate. Hopefully someone will bring it up at the next debate and in interviews with the candidates who said they’d take their cue from the military brass. For some reason I doubt that will happen, though.

Embrace common sense? What a radical idea… Sounds like something those ‘insurgents’ over at moveon.org might come up with…. Wonder what Campbell Brown has to say… As a vet I say cudos to those generals who had the courage to come out in favor of ‘we citizens’, all of us, having the ‘right’ to think whatever we wish…… That’s the kind of America I was giving up four years of my life to defend way back when… Not some faux-fascist hoseshit some would like to see this nation become……JD

At the GOP debate on Wednesday night, several candidates said then when it comes to gays in the military, they’d rely on military leaders for advice. “I’m going to listen to the people who run the military,” Mitt Romney said.

Whats funny is Nit-Mitt said this to a retired person who was one (general) ran the military and was gay.

But Duncan Asshat says that teh gays will conflict with the values of common, everyday, normal moral X-ian soldiers. Jesus Jacaranda Jiminy Cricket, what a moral dilemma!! Has anybody seen my moral fiber pills lately?

“. . .candidates said then when it comes. . .”

Aaargh! Write in English. I don’t care what you write; I care how you write it.

Too, too funny. In case anybody has remembered (and I’m sure the “liberal” dolts have conveeeeniently forgotten), “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a policy of the Democratic Party, passed as part of the 1994 Defense Appropriations bill, while Democrats enjoyed their last majority in Congress, and signed by the Democrat President Bill Clinton. Now, the Democrats have enjoyed another congressional majority for the last 11 months, and have still not put in any repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Gee, looks like the true homophobes are Democrats and nobody else.

It is my educated guess that many in the medical field are gay, along with thousands of others.

Huh?????????

ralph @ 4:

I notice that the only people who care about this are closet cases

to make this kind of insipid remark you would have to personally know all these
people you elude to, but then we know you are an idiot making an uninformed generalization.

If it wasn’t for gays and women in combat roles there would have been a draft by now. Let anyone who wants to serve!

Bluestocking @ 21:

First, if the “former military leaders” were so convinced that gays and lesbians can serve honorably, then why the hell didn’t they have the spine to say it _before_ they retired? — Chopvac

*************************************

You do realize, do you not, that this is precisely the same argument that Pat Buchanan is using?!? Let’s face it…under this argument, the generals are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they had come out while they were still serving, it would have inevitably meant sacrificing their careers — but by choosing to come out after the fact, they get accused of cowardice by people like you and Pat Buchanan! Give these people at least some credit for having honorably served their country, can’t you?

If Rick Baccus and Ehren Watada (who has a lot more to lose) had no problem doing the right thing, why do the rest of them?

And if said generals are close to retirement and have no career to lose, why don’t they say something before they’re inactive. What’s going to happen? Is George Putz going to strip their ranking back to private?

Refusing to comment until retirement is as disgusting as Ronald Reagan trying to claim he was “supporting” Ryan White and AIDS sufferers after he left office despite his actions to the contrary.

J.H. @ 28:

If the republicans want to dismantle “don’t ask, don’t tell”, then you need to be suspicious.

1) The US Army cannot, repeate “CANNOT” institute a draft as long as they have a ban on gays. The reason is quite simple. Draftees will simply go into the induction center wearing a pink dress and lipstick and be summarily dismissed from being drafted.

Bingo. This isn’t 1977 when coming out publicly could ruin your civilian career.

Unless there’s some ridiculous law that prevents those who _can’t_ serve from getting benefits (ie. the Salacious Service rules), being out doesn’t hurt people anymore (as long as the ReThugnicans don’t get their way….)

we know that the gop will proclaim that these are retired military therefore their input is moot.

They already heard Peter Pace say, “It is immoral.” and that’s all they want to hear.

Gays shouldn’t serve in the military. They will ruin “unit cohesion”.

Only “good” heterosexual men should serve. Y’know, the “good” heterosexual types that raped female cadets at the Naval and Air Force Academies. AND, the older “good” heterosexual types who subverted the women’s complaints so these “allegations” wouldn’t ruin the male cadets future militiary career!

Unit cohesion, my ass.

Yeah, I’m homosexual. Get over it! I did.

When is someone going to play the terror card on the Republicans, and highlight the fact that they prioritize their homophobia over the fight against terrorism? Aside from generally not repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the military is struggling to find recruits, the firing of all the — all too scarce — Arabic translators simply because of their sexual orientation should be enough to demonstrate that Republican’s can’t be trusted to make objective decisions in regards to the safety of the country.