Headline, front page, Washington Post: "Military Waivers for Ex-Convicts Increase." Story sez:
the Army accepted more than double the number of applicants with convictions for felony crimes such as burglary, grand larceny and aggravated assault, rising from 249 to 511, while the corresponding number for the Marines increased by two-thirds, from 208 to 350.
At least our country can be grateful the Pentagon isn't desperate enough to consider ending the ban on service by open (i.e., truthful) homosexuals. Whether or not ex-felons can protect Iraqis from insurgents, they'll do their part by protecting the showers from sissies. Whew.
33 Comments for “Thank God They Still Have Standards”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is an excellent example of the propaganda of the Democrat Party and gay left at work.
For instance, since there are five cases of “Rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, incest, or other sex crimes” listed on the Marines’ explanatory sheet of waivers, Waxman and the gay leftist organizations like SLDN are screaming that the Marines admitted five “rapists”.
Of course, the footnotes explain the cases:
(C): A review of these specific waivers shows them to have the following in common: (1) offenders were 17 years of age or younger, (2)offenses are 5 yrs prior to submission.
(C1): Applicant was 16 yrs old and accused of raping 15 yr old classmate. Applicant admitted to consensual groping. Charge reduced to Lewd/Lascivious Molestation/Battery in exchange for guilty plea. Applicant was AFJROTC and 2-sport athlete.
(C2): Applicant was 12 and was accused of sexually assaulting 15 year old friend. Applicant admitted to consensual sex and pled guilty to Indencency with a Child. Offense was 5 years prior to waiver submission.
(C3): Applicant was 13 yrs old and was caught attempting to have consensual sex with 12 yr old friend. Originally charged with rape but evidence would not support the charge. Applicant pled guilty to lesser charge of Open and Gross Lewd Act.
(C4): Applicant was 17 yrs old accused by 14 yr old relative of sexual assault. Applicant convicted of Juvenile Felony for Sexual Assault. Alleged victim submitted statement recanting the allegation. Alleged offense occurred 5 years prior to waiver subm.
(C5): Applicant was 13 yrs old and admitted to touching 13 yrd old classmate on chest and buttocks while both were fully clothed. Applicant convicted of Sexual Abuse. Offense occrred 5 years prior to waiver submission.
(C6) Applicant was 13 years old and admitted to inappropriately touching a 9 year old friend. There was no allegation of intercourse or coercion. Applicant convicted of Juvenile Felony for Sexual Assault. Offense ocurred over 6 years prior to waiver sub
It gets better — just take the “terrorist bomber”.
(B): Applicant constructed explosive device from gunpowder and a soda bottle and blew up a mailbox. Offense was 2 years prior to waiver submission.
Finally, as the article itself points out, something on the order of one possession of marijuana years ago will require a waiver. If Waxman is so scared of that, perhaps he ought to demand that the California Highway Patrol arbitrarily bar all marijuana past users (which they emphatically do not).
In short, red herring — and quite hypocritical, given that SLDN and other groups are allegedly against arbitrary bans in regards to military service, but are demanding that people who have ever committed a felony or misdemeanor be barred forever from serving.
posted by Richard on
The basic argument — I think — is that the federal law puts law abiding gay Americans behind people convicted of violent crimes.
People under the legal age of consent, cannot give consent to sex and thus it is — technically — rape. Although if they are both underage and their are other circumstances it will likely be pleaded down.
posted by Richard on
Also, I hear that it is harder to get kicked out for homosexuality during wartime then peacetime.
I wonder if that applies in this war?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jonathan, no doubt your unique GayLeft perspective tends to overshadow any truthful recitation of the facts regarding recruiting, retention and the military. Thanks for being an echo of the liberal MSM.
I guess it’s still an issue of “If a liberal hates Bush, hates the WOT, hates our military… then ramp up any “bad news” about the military”.
True to form, you do.
Spendidly avoiding the reality on the ground, too!
Bravo for another “win” in the column of military-bashing-liberals-but-we-really-support-the-troops-wink-wink.
In the past, while supporting the troops, the liberals have claimed the military will miss recruiting goals in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007… will claim that the military is allowing felons and misdemeanor offenders to overrun the troops… claim the military are forced to recruit more “uneducated” non-high school students… recruit illegal aliens… kick out the gays… enforce an onerous and morale breaking “stop-loss” policy that holds families hostage to the Bush/Cheney/McCain War Machine. Blah, blah, blah.
And on and on the liberals go. Meanwhile, they force the military to adopt higher, unattainable recruiting goals thru the carrots in DOD approps bill and hope for failure and some headlines… prohibit recruiters from access to college and high school campus and hope for failure and some headlines… engage in a constant banter about “inadequate” armaments, families airlifting in sheets of kevlar to protect troops, etc and hope for some headlines that will help their partisan interests in 2008.
Guess what?
It hasn’t had an impact. Recruiting is kicking even the liberal Congress-bastards’ collective asses goals. Last month, Army met 101% of its goal. Marines met 137% of its goal. AirForce and Navy met 101 and 100% of their respective goals. National Guards met between 103-137% of their respective goals.
The military personnel component is now 1.54 MILLION people. Accepting low risk felons represents less than 8/10ths of a single percent!!! Yeah, but it’s a story that makes the military look bad, makes the Bush/Cheney/McCain WOT appear to be failing.
Thanks for proving again, Jonathan, that liberals will bash the military whenever given the opportunity… because, as you self-serving windbags will attest, to support the troops or the mission is counter-intuitive for a liberal.
I can understand where the animus toward the military comes from…it was liberal hero Thos Jefferson who turned coward and fled from the approaching British patrols during the war. It was liberal JamesMadison who dishonored our Country by fleeing the WH and leaving it to be sacked and burned by the British in 1812. Liberals would rather flee and retreat than fight with honor.
God loves a liberal but don’t count on them when the enemy shows his face. It’s a lesson learned in our Country as old as the land itself.
posted by bls on
Good grief. The liberal-bashing on this website is totally out of control.
Many, many, many political liberals and Democrats have served with honor in the armed forces. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy, Michigan-Matt? How about Jimmy Carter? I seem to remember a little contretemps awhile ago involving former Sen. Max Cleland – a veteran of the Vietnam war and triple amputee as a result of that service – when he ran for re-election in Georgia and was smeared as a “soft on terror liberal” by Republicans who had never served in the military themselves. That has been, in fact, quite typical during the Bush era; Republicans who’ve never served smear Democrats who have as “cowards”; it’s beyond belief.
But of course, what you’re going to end up doing is discrediting “conservatives” and Republicans. And yourself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
JFK and Carter served before the Democrat Party decided to endorse and support antimilitary bigotry and calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.
And given that Max Cleland and his fellow Democrats not only support Code Pink, but also people like San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, it should be no surprise that they’re considered soft on terror.
The problem is, bls, that Democrats like Kerry and Cleland can’t figure out why people give them no credit for military service when they spend all their time supporting people who are, as well as themselves, smearing veterans and members of our armed forces as ignorant and psychopathic baby-killers.
Kennedy and Carter (although Carter is starting) were considerably smarter than that.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
bls, what is it with you guys?
Why can’t you accept a true statement of opinion that the Left in America is decidedly anti-military, has worked tirelessly against the WOT and missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, belittle the military whenever given the opportunity in the quest for short-term partisan advantage? Like with the dishonest story above regarding recruiting felons but failing to give it context?
NDXXX has it right.
Why is the truth so hard to accept and press to your chest? MoveOn is YOUR organization. CodePink is YOUR organization. JohnKerry’s infamous “reporting for duty” crap at the 2004 DNC Convention is the pinnacle of modern Democrats.
Clinton I and Clinton II didn’t support the military. If they did, that rotten and despicable portrayal of the military dropping off the FirstLady and Chelsea in a warzone with sniper bullets whizzing past their heads would have never, ever been told –no less than 4 times before the fish-story finally flopped out of the boat of incredulity.
Why is it that your anti-military attitude can’t be embraced honestly and debated? Won’t the truth set you free?
Oh, I know… because you’d lose natl elections.
posted by Pat on
Why can’t you accept a true statement of opinion that the Left in America is decidedly anti-military, has worked tirelessly against the WOT and missions in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Because, for most of the left, it is not true. It is simply a belief that the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the WOT is shortsighted and making a bad situation worse. Yes, you can find examples of lefties in San Francisco and elsewhere that really hate the military. But again, for most of us, it’s the poor use of the military that we see is the problem.
This can be turned around easily and I can say it’s the supporters of Bush’s policy that are anti-military and appeasers of terrorists, because it is my belief that this policy is a disaster, hurts our military by continuing this policy, has increased terrorism worldwide, and ask why “your anti-military attitude can’t be embraced honestly and debated.” But that would be dishonest as well.
posted by Jason D on
Pat said”But again, for most of us, it’s the poor use of the military that we see is the problem.”
I can not agree more, it’s simply amazing that this discussion immediately got derailed into name-calling on liberals.
The point of the article is that in 2006-2007 roughly 1550 waivers were given to criminals of various shades, from breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to aggravated assault.
The point is that 1550 felons are “Okay” for military service, but a law-abiding homosexual is somehow a threat to unit cohesion. Can we talk about that, rather than who said who’s momma is fat?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, JasonD… nice try at spinning the easily apparent truth into something it is not.
No one, in their right mind, would agree that liberals are opposed to the WOT in Iraq and Afghanistan because it’s a poor use of America’s military might. Except to make deabting points –and cover their inner antagonism toward the military culture.
Liberals oppose the WOT because the military is being used to fight that battle… they oppose the military because, just like Jefferson, Madison, Clinton and Kerry, all good liberals distrust the military and its code of honor, duty, service to country before self, patriotism and sacrafice.
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. It’s why nearly 78% of all overseas military ballots went Bush in 2000 & 79% in 2004 -and that number will be greater in 2008. Liberals distrust the military -its a core value of the liberal mentality and, military personnel know it.
Let’s remember that the title of this piece is “Thank God They Still Have Standards”… a sneering little jab meant to demean the military for accepting recruits with prior criminal convictions. As is pointed out above, it’s an entirely ridiculous complaint when one places in context the number of total recruits brought into service and the fact that recruiting goals continue to be exceeded month after bloody month. Gheez, who’s running with this story in other media outlets? Let’s see, I heard a long piece without any opposing viewpoint on NPR this morning. The WAPost. The NYT. And if that isn’t good enough, KeithO and JonStewart brought it up in their comedy/news routines.
Nawh, liberals wouldn’t do that? Nope.
This piece here is meant to smear the military and cast doubt on their service. Like how about the line “Whether or not ex-felons can protect Iraqis from insurgents, they?ll do their part by protecting the showers from sissies. Whew.”
Right, nothing but pure unadulterated pro-military sentiment there.
Let’s remember it was uberLiberal TeddieK who used the personal armament issue to discredit the military… he cared as much about the troops as he cared when MaryJo was drowning in the back of his car. And it’s been anti-military, anti-WOT Obama who’s been using every little dustup in Iraq to bang the cymbals that it isn’t working and we need to retreat.
Come on. Get real. Yeah, the liberals love the military and just want them to come home because they’re being misused? Of course, then there’s Clinton’s solid effort to undercut military approps for yrs while Prez… nawh, nothing in that, eh?
The military know who is truly supportive of their interests, their mission. And it sure aint the liberals.
posted by jerry on
The assumption that ex-cons will protect the showers from “sissies” only means that they may not simply proposition other troopers, but use their prison skills to forcibly sodomize the unwilling. And then there is the joy of knowing that we are training men known to be violent in the use of high tech weaponry and will be dumping them on the streets at some later date.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
JasonD offers “The point is that 1550 felons are “Okay” for military service, but a law-abiding homosexual is somehow a threat to unit cohesion. Can we talk about that, rather than who said who’s momma is fat?”
Right, a perfect spin of the story into the hands of yet another liberal issue. Of course YOU’D like to talk about that because it feeds the anti-military sentiments twice fold.
The larger and more fundamental issue is why should the military appease liberal sentiment on DADT when liberals don’t care about the military in the 1st place?
I can’t tell you how many “Stop Bush Now. Stop the War” signs are on the liberalist, most socialist neighbors in our area.
It’s still fundamentally true, on securing partisan advantage in the 08 elections, liberals will use anything negative about the war to their short term advantage. This non-story about a tiny fraction of recruiting is proof positive.
posted by Bobby on
Liberals are ironic, they hate the death penalty, support early parole for criminals, consider Mumia Abdul Jabar a hero (he’s a cop killer), tend to oppose Jessica’s law, but when it comes to former felons serving in the arm forces, they scream bloody murder.
Frankly, I’m glad some felons can serve, what better way to pay their debt to society and build a productive live?
It’s true that as a gay man, it ticks me off that a criminal can serve while I can’t. But when I separate the gay issue, I think it’s great. And lets not kid ourselves, the military isn’t full of saints, I read that 1-3% of people in the military belong to latino gangs, white supremacist gangs, and other gangs, just to get combat experience. Then you got gay bashers in the forces, wife cheaters, crooks, there’s a reason the Military Police exists.
And it doesn’t matter who’s president, because both democrats and republicans like to fight their wars. Obama may not like Iraq, but would he be against sending troops to stop the genocide in Sudan? I’m sure he would love that. I guess it’s ok for our so-called “boys” to die for that.
posted by Pat on
Michigan-Matt, no spinning on my part. But I did have to disentangle myself from your spin.
No one, in their right mind, would agree that liberals are opposed to the WOT in Iraq and Afghanistan because it’s a poor use of America’s military might. Except to make deabting points –and cover their inner antagonism toward the military culture.
No one in their right mind believes that Bush’s policy in Iraq is not atrocious. So one uses silly arguments like Chamberlain as if all historical situations are exactly the same and it applies to the current situation, etc., to cover your inner antogonism toward the military.
See, that’s fair, right?
Or…Why can’t it simply be a policy disagreement?
As for the original topic, I’ll leave it to the author (one person’s opinion as opposed to the whole left or liberal opinion) to defend himself and say whether it was a deliberate attempt to smear. All I can say is no matter what context you put this in, openly gay homosexuals fall behind convicted felons when it comes to being recruited by or enlisting in the military. If you really believe this policy is fine, great. Or if you disagree with this policy, but believe you should keep your opinion to yourself, that’s your right as well. I disagree, and because one has a different opinion of the military in this instance doesn’t make one anti-military.
The military know who is truly supportive of their interests, their mission. And it sure aint the liberals.
And it sure ain’t those who want to continue this debacle in Iraq.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The point is that 1550 felons are “Okay” for military service, but a law-abiding homosexual is somehow a threat to unit cohesion. Can we talk about that, rather than who said who’s momma is fat?
Sure.
The policy of the armed forces is that, except under extreme situations, people who are or may be sexually or romantically attracted to each other, or who may be offended by the sexual attentions of the other, should not share communal living quarters, especially ones in which they are involved in activities that have a high privacy component, i.e. undressing, showering, and so forth. The logic is that these sort of interpersonal relationships generate unnecessary friction, especially in situations where it is impossible to avoid or get away from the other individual, and can have a negative impact on a unit’s ability to function.
This problem doesn’t exist for the run-of-the-mill waivered felon.
Because, for most of the left, it is not true. It is simply a belief that the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the WOT is shortsighted and making a bad situation worse.
In comparison to what, pray tell?
As soon as the leftist Democrats who whine constantly about Bush’s policy lay out exactly what it was they were going to do to destroy the Taliban and their support of bin Laden, stop UN bureaucrats, European governments, and others from taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, and stop Saddam Hussein from committing genocide on an epic scale, then we can have this conversation.
But for now, what it sounds like is a lot of people who were content to let half a million Iraqi children die as long as they didn’t have to deal with it are working their tails off to rationalize that particular policy.
And also, when the Democrat Party denounces the people like Code Pink, who namecall our armed forces as I outlined, as well as the numerous gay and lesbian people and organizations who support them, THEN we can put this onto discussion footing.
posted by Pat on
Liberals are ironic, they hate the death penalty, support early parole for criminals, consider Mumia Abdul Jabar a hero (he’s a cop killer), tend to oppose Jessica’s law, but when it comes to former felons serving in the arm forces, they scream bloody murder.
Of the things listed here, the only thing I agree with is the death penalty. Yeah, I hate it. I’m guessing Michigan-Matt does as well.
It’s true that as a gay man, it ticks me off that a criminal can serve while I can’t. But when I separate the gay issue, I think it’s great. And lets not kid ourselves, the military isn’t full of saints, I read that 1-3% of people in the military belong to latino gangs, white supremacist gangs, and other gangs, just to get combat experience. Then you got gay bashers in the forces, wife cheaters, crooks, there’s a reason the Military Police exists.
I agree with the first part of what you wrote. And I believe that’s the reason why some are screaming bloody murder. As for the second part, it does give me cause for concern if what you say is true.
Obama may not like Iraq, but would he be against sending troops to stop the genocide in Sudan?
I hope not. Because, again, of what’s going on there, sending troops would make it worse and won’t stop the antagonism that’s there. So like Iraq, doing nothing sucks, sending troops there sucks even more. Someone’s got to be able to come up with something better.
As soon as the leftist Democrats who whine constantly about Bush’s policy lay out exactly what it was they were going to do to destroy the Taliban and their support of bin Laden, stop UN bureaucrats, European governments, and others from taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, and stop Saddam Hussein from committing genocide on an epic scale, then we can have this conversation.
NDT, we agree that doing nothing is a bad policy. My belief is that what we are doing now is making things worse. So, in this case, doing nothing IS better than what’s going on now. I would like to see our administration, military leaders, intelligence, etc., use resources to come up with a real plan that will actually make things better. I don’t exactly have that plan, but I entrusted the leaders to come up with one. Unfortunately they failed. And as much as I don’t want a president who wants to continue this failed policy, I have doubts that a Clinton or Obama administration will find the solution either.
But for now, what it sounds like is a lot of people who were content to let half a million Iraqi children die as long as they didn’t have to deal with it are working their tails off to rationalize that particular policy.
If that’s what it sounds like, you’re wrong. Period.
posted by Leo on
I’m with Jason.
Lately almost every thread on this site gets shoe horned into a red state/blue state, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican pissing match. It’s tedious and uninformative.
What does James Madison have to do with DADT? If D.C. were attacked today would George and Dick be standing there in the East room with pistols drawn? How many angels on a pin? If you play music will they dance? Still nursing the wounds of 1812? Good grief man, get a hold of yourself and get back on topic.
Better to serve along side a felon or a Faggot? That’s the issue here. Not whether Henry Waxman holds a grudge or whether the country would have been better served by the British taking James and Dolly Madison as prisoners.
posted by Richard on
It would seem that the IGF has got a lot of chicken hawks.
BTW, “the liberals” have had little or nothing to do with military policy given the current and past makeup of the three branches of the federal government.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat,
Well, I guess you’re not a liberal, you seem more like am moderate or independent.
“I agree with the first part of what you wrote. And I believe that’s the reason why some are screaming bloody murder.”
—I understand that, there was a time in my life I wanted other minorities to have less rights because I have less rights. But now I’m able to separate the issues.
“I hope not. Because, again, of what’s going on there, sending troops would make it worse and won’t stop the antagonism that’s there.”
—True, but it’s what the left wants. I don’t know how their logic works, they like some wars and hate other wars. The Iraq war has had problems, but at least Iraquis and Kurds don’t have to put up with Saddam Husein anymore. Now they have to put up with each other. It’s sort of like Africa under colonialism vs. Africa under african rule. Anyone who has studied Mugabe, Idi Amin, and other african dictators knows that they where just as bad as their colonial masters, if not worse.
“I have doubts that a Clinton or Obama administration will find the solution either.”
—I have faith in Clinton, she knows when to give up. She knows what Americans will buy, she doesn’t go to San Francisco and tells the elite that midwesteners are a bunch of bitter people that cling to their guns and bibles. The right has spend years demonizing Hillary, and some of it I have agreed with, but after seeing the real Obama come out of the closet, and seeing how the liberal media has hated Hillary and favored Obama, I have a lot more respect for her.
I think Obama’s starting to lose steam, people are realizing that Obama can’t beat McCain.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It would seem that the IGF has got a lot of chicken hawks.
Just like Noel Coward was namecalled as a warmonger.
Like I said, Richard:
I love how the same liberals who said nothing when elections were carried out under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and who supported both as “legitimate”, are suddenly whining about “free and fair”.
The only possible explanation is pure spite on their part.
Matt nailed it, Richard; for you to admit any progress in Iraq or Afghanistan whatsoever is to invalidate your do-nothing, anti-Bush agenda.
You were more than happy to let millions of people die at both the Taliban’s and Saddam’s hands, rather than lose face with your “moderate statesmen” who were being paid off by Saddam.
You do not recall stating that we should leave Saddam or the Taliban in power. Yet, through every one of your actions and arguments, you and your fellow liberal gays did everything possible to stop them from being removed — and even after that, you have continued to wage spiteful, hypocritical war rather than admit that it was WRONG to leave millions of people to suffer and die under both brutal regimes for your own personal convenience and the wealth of European and UN diplomats.
Five hundred thousand children alone died as a direct result of sanctions against Iraq at a cost of untold billions of dollars…..and you have the gall to whine that the sacrifice of one soldier for every hundred of those children is “too much”.
Had Great Britain and France acted immediately as Coward suggested, rather than dithering and doing nothing, hundreds of millions of lives could have been saved. But that lesson is totally lost on liberals, whose immediate solidarity with anyone opposed to their own country blinds and guides their entire thinking process.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t exactly have that plan, but I entrusted the leaders to come up with one. Unfortunately they failed.
So you have absolutely no idea what they should do, but you insist that they failed.
That’s like saying to a student, “I don’t know what the answers are on this test, but I know you failed it.”
What we do know is that the the do-nothing strategy was failing. Saddam and the Taliban continued to commit genocide and human rights violations on an epic scale. It gave bin Laden safe harbor and shelter to plan and orchestrate massive attacks against us. It directly led to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children from starvation alone, and it supported the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands more. It led to billions of dollars flowing into Saddam’s coffers while the rest of his country collapsed, facilitated by greasing the palms of countless European and UN businesses, governments, and diplomats, and gave him enormous amounts of free rein in the absence of inspections to do/buy/build whatever he wished.
But it saved money and it meant that we weren’t sending armed and prepared people into fighting; we were just allowing them and unarmed and unprepared civilians to be killed in places like Khobar Towers, the East African embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, the World Trade Center, and so forth, and we were spending the trillions of dollars THEN.
posted by Jason D on
Well, I tried to get us back on to the topic of how unfair DADT is in comparison to letting someone convicted of, say, grand theft auto or armed robbery.(ND30, thanks for your thoughtfull response, I appreciate it)
Either I’m not a liberal, or most of you haven’t met one. I’ve never been accused of so many ridiculous things (some of which I never even heard of!) before in my life.
I thought this was the INDEPENDENT Gay Forum. With all the liberal bashing it looks and feels more like TownHall.com without the friendly atmosphere.
Are you all trying to get your own pundit gig somewhere? A column maybe? Because you seem more interested in delivering sermons than having a discussion.
Now I remember why I dont’ post here anymore, there’s no discussion here, just people attacking liberals in every sentence. What good is posting, if the posters can’t even agree to stay on topic?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Let’s see, JasonD, you want to stick to the literal issue raised by a biased, clearly anti-military blogger and when his lack of credibility on the issue is brought into context, you argue that’s not an issue, we have to stay on YOUR issue and not to stay on issue is to somehow ruffle the senistive feathers of the liberals here? LOL!
Nawh, the piece itself raises the issue of how anti-military liberals are and have always been… it is part of your core values. Along with dismissing values like patriotism (see Obama’s flag pin controversy), honorable service to country (see JohnKerry), employing American power abroad to make the world a better place and pressing for meaningful progress in reshaping the MiddleEast rather than the liberals’ repeated response of “we just need to talk with Hamas and Iran”.
You won’t have a discussion because, for far too long, liberals here hijacked the threads to vent and bash Bush… that was real “independent” of all those gays. And when contrarian opinions were raised by guys like NDXXX and others, liberals here would try to revoke their GayCard.
The issue raised by Jonathan’s post is insignificant to the larger issue of why do GayLeft liberals continue to think they can get away with bashing our troops, undercutting resolve, & belittling military service with articles like this?
Answer: because for far too long, they had control over the forum, the MSM, and the academic elites and think tanks. Ain’t happening anymore.
posted by Leo on
Somebody get the Thorazine.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Yeah, Leo that’s cool. (I’ll bet, though, people who have family members who’ve suffered with mental illness won’t think your remark is cute)
I’ll bring a couple of vials of sodium pentathol and we’ll do the GayLefties here first.
posted by Pat on
So you have absolutely no idea what they should do, but you insist that they failed.
Yes, that’s correct.
That’s like saying to a student, “I don’t know what the answers are on this test, but I know you failed it.”
Kind of. It’s more like this though. Let’s say you have a child in college taking organic chemistry. And let’s say you never had organic chemistry, so you have no or little idea what the answers are. Your child comes home with an F. You can certainly say your child failed that test without knowing the answers. What’s worse though if during retests, the child just keeps on submitting the same answers.
posted by My eyes are open on
So we went into Iraq for express purpose of helping it’s citizens? It’s all been for the sake of the Iraqi children?
Nothing at all to do with allegations of WMDs and trumped up Al-Qaeda connections? Just the children. I guess I was so under the thrall of that nice man that ruled Iraq I completely missed the part about saving Iraqi children. I?m such a ditz?so easily taken in by a man with thick luxurious facial hair. In fact so concerned was the administration for the well being of the Iraqi children we lavished enormous energy developing a comprehensive post-Saddam nation building plan all for the benefit of those Iraqi children. Remember that? How could I forget.
Glad you cleared this up for me. How did I miss this children thing? I feel much better about the whole thing now.
posted by RIchard on
The amount of sheer hatered and contempt MM has for America, freedom, democracy and our brave men and women in uniform is simply shocking.
Noel Coward was not a chicken hawk, because he — as recent reports have shown — actually did something more then most of the current armchair supporters of the “Lets fight Islamofascists by helping Islamofascists” foreign policy.
Never mind the fact, that the Second World War is very, very different from the current War on Terrorism.
If for no other reason, then the fact that the people running the were not quite as incompetent as the people running the WonT.
MM claims that the Iraqi and Afghanistan elections were free and fair, but he probably has not or cannot read the applicable election rules and regulations involved.
He is also under the mistaken impression that having an election makes a nation a liberal democracy. Where does he get such false notions?
I have never claimed that the one-party Ba’athist Iraqi elections were free and I dont think that the Taliban even bothered with mock elections. I will leave such lies, falsehoods and incompetence to you.
The chicken hawks look at the War on Terrorism through partisan lense. They care far more about helping their party then helping America, much less the world.
Most of Americans were content to allow the Taliban to rule and the Iraqi Ba’athist to rule. It is pretty rare that human right violations in the Middle East or Asia generate much outcry from the USA.
What is your great suggestion? Hand Aghanistan over to a series of corrupt, warlords. Dont send in enough troops to do the job. Dont care about development.
What is your great suggestion? Hand Iraq over to Islamofascists and let them fight it out to see if Iraq becomes like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Do you want to take a guess at how many millions of Iraqis have died from the sheer incompetence running the war and its aftermath? Or how many lack basic services?
Of coarse, like many chicken hawks (who have probably never served their country) you could care less about the reality as long as it can be spun to help your party.
You and you fellow incompetent chicken hawks foolishly believe in the existence of only two options; doing nothing or doing really stupid things.
I have never done anything to keep Saddam or the Taliban in power. I do not really care what other, so called, ‘liberals’ may or may not say or do.
The incompetence about the Middle East and our foreign policy is often equally shared among Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have never claimed that the one-party Ba’athist Iraqi elections were free and I dont think that the Taliban even bothered with mock elections.
Oh, are you now admitting they weren’t?
That’s odd; I thought you protested and threw screaming fits when countries didn’t hold elections that were “free and fair”.
Given that you never complained about elections in Iraq or Afghanistan under Saddam or the Taliban, what should be obvious is that you don’t care about “free and fair” elections, only about bashing Republicans and conservatives.
Do you want to take a guess at how many millions of Iraqis have died from the sheer incompetence running the war and its aftermath? Or how many lack basic services?
Given that you said nothing about the millions of Iraqis who died or lacked basic services BEFORE the war, mainly due to Saddam Hussein’s insistence on spending Iraq’s money enriching himself rather than on Iraq’s people, it should be obvious that you don’t care about Iraqis dying or lacking basic services, only about bashing Republicans and conservatives.
And as for “most of Americans were content to allow the Taliban to rule and the Iraqi Ba’athist to rule”, that’s not surprising, given that their major media news sources were shilling and spinning for Saddam, not to mention the corrupt UN bureaucrats and European “centrist statesmen”, as you call them, who were raking in billions in bribes.
posted by queerunity on
I wonder if McCain could have a statement about this.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com/
posted by NaturallyGay on
I’m late to the party (not sorry I missed it), but I’ll comment anyway.
Of course, the footnotes explain the cases:
NDT, you are correct that the PDF does explain that some of the cases were a little overblown, but it does not explain them all. There were other disturbing cases, such as child molestation, that were not explained. Could they all be overblown? Could those cases be a result of overzealous prosecutions of minors having sexual encounters with other minors? Of course, but it is still a legitimate question to ask why these felons were admitted and what affect their admittance has on the military.
IMHO, the core issue as it relates to DADT remains the same. The military set certain standards towards felons, overweight individuals, and individuals over a certain age. These policies were all implemented to keep a certain level of battle-readiness within the ranks. Homosexuals serving openly was also supposed to have a detrimental effect on battle-readiness. In order to meet its recruitment goals, the military lowered its standards in those three areas, but somehow homosexuality is still considered worse than any of those things even though an increasing number of homosexuals are serving openly in the military with no adverse affect and other countries allow homosexuals to serve openly without any problems.
The policy of the armed forces is that, except under extreme situations, people who are or may be sexually or romantically attracted to each other, or who may be offended by the sexual attentions of the other, should not share communal living quarters, especially ones in which they are involved in activities that have a high privacy component, i.e. undressing, showering, and so forth. The logic is that these sort of interpersonal relationships generate unnecessary friction, especially in situations where it is impossible to avoid or get away from the other individual, and can have a negative impact on a unit’s ability to function.
The problem that I find with your argument is that the DADT policy doesn’t prevent homosexuals from being in those situations. It only prevents people from knowing who the homosexuals are. Those attractions still exist, but the people within the military are mature enough and professional enough to keep those attractions in check. For the rare cases when they don’t, there are codes of conduct in place to dole out appropriate punishment.
Also, I hear that it is harder to get kicked out for homosexuality during wartime then peacetime.
I wonder if that applies in this war?
Presumably, you’ve heard of Darren Manzella?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There were other disturbing cases, such as child molestation, that were not explained.
Actually, no; there was no waiver granted, if you look, for “carnal knowledge of a child”.
Meanwhile, as I outlined above, virtually all of them were minors having sex with other minors — which, amusingly, liberal gays scream should NOT be a crime and with which there’s nothing wrong with doing it, but which should completely disqualify you from military service.
It’s almost as amusing as watching the leftist Democrat Waxman sponsor legislation to make marijuana use legal while screaming that arrest for possession of it makes you unsuited and too dangerous for military service.
Those attractions still exist, but the people within the military are mature enough and professional enough to keep those attractions in check.
And DADT codifies into law that they have to keep those attractions in check.
Basically, what you’re saying is that you want to remove the law that punishes NOT keeping those attractions in check and allowing them to run rampant.
Furthermore, female soldiers are not required to be housed with males, or vice versa, because housing people who may be sexually attracted to each other in close conditions with very little privacy creates the perfect conditions for deliberate or inadvertent sexual harassment. Hence, that necessarily precludes housing gay or lesbian individuals with straight people.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW, the military also exceeded its recruiting goals for April 2008… the Marines made 142% of their monthly goal.
The Army hit 101% of their monthly goal.
The Navy and Air Force also reached 101% of their monthly goals.
Overall, against Congressional goals mandated by Democrats, the Marine Corps is nearly a full year AHEAD of its 5 yr goal to increase the Corps to 202k men.
And what about those pesky waivers the Left has been brandishing about in order to sully the military (instead of just spitting on them in the airports when they come back stateside like in VietNam), well waivers are down according to the Pentagon.
Last month, waiver requests went from an annualized .08% of all recruits to .06% for the month of April.
Seems the liberals’ war on the military has lost another sticking point. I guess they can go back to the mantra: “We want to see caskets. All in a row. No flags, tho”.