Oh my: Standalone DADT repeal bill passes House as Olympia Snowe flips to yes in Senate

posted at 6:10 pm on December 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

They already passed an amendment to repeal DADT back in May, but that was part of a broader defense bill. Today’s vote was on the standalone DADT bill that Lieberman and Collins are hoping to put in front of the Senate next week. The vote in May: 234-194, with just five Republicans voting yes. The vote today: 250-175, with 15 Republicans in the majority. (Among the 10 who flipped to yes this time: Jeff Flake.) It was smart of Pelosi to force a vote in the House, just as it was smart of Reid to table the vote on the DREAM Act so that the House could go first. In each case, the fact that the lower chamber’s already passed a corresponding bill ratchets up the pressure on Senate fencesitters.

In fact, it’s already paying dividends. Olympia Snowe was one of the 40 no votes last week on the defense bill that had a DADT repeal provision in it, but suddenly on the standalone bill she’s had a change of heart:

“After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law,” Snowe said in a statement.

Remember, the sticking point for Scott Brown and Murkowski (but not Collins!) has been the procedural posture of the DADT vote, not the substance. They claim they’re in favor of repeal, but they want the tax deal finalized — which could happen tomorrow — and they wanted more time for debate on the broader defense bill. I’m not sure how those procedural objections will translate to the new standalone DADT bill. It could be that Brown, Murkowski, and Snowe all vote yes, which would actually put Reid at 61 votes for cloture, or they could all vote no for whatever procedural reason, leaving Reid stuck at 58. Or maybe Snowe alone will join Collins in voting yes, putting Reid one thin vote away from the magic number. If that happens, the pressure on Manchin to switch from no to yes will be overwhelming, especially since one of his aides said after last week’s vote that he probably would have voted differently if he had been the 60th vote. Long story short, anything can happen, but they’re tantalizingly close to finally getting this done. Exit question: After threatening to hold the lame duck session over until January 4th if need be to deal with the START treaty and other business, Reid basically has to bring this bill to the floor now, right? Gay activists aren’t going to accept “we ran out of time” as an excuse.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)

In an all volunteer army, you cannot force people to serve with homosexuals if they don’t want to, not for long at least, unless you take away the voluntary part. American combat troops have stated – loud and clear – that serving with open homosexuals is not acceptable.

So we’ll be losing the most important part of our military, combat arms, infantry, special forces – for what, so a tiny minority will feel good about their behavior?

This will certainly lead to a new draft, our military will be crippled by this outflow. So now we have to take away everyones freedom so that a tiny minority will feel good about their behavior.

What nonsense.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 PM

The GOP will regret not stopping the repeal of DADT… the nominee for president will be asked about it constantly on the trail just to check if they would reverse the policy. Stopping repeal would also put the left on despair.

And I really want McCain or someone to attach an amendment to address women in combat. This “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” was created by this congress… they need to address this report. They paid for it.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/12/military-women-combat-120710w/

ninjapirate on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 PM

they need to address this report.

BTW, Admiral Mullins also needs to address this report wanting women in combat positions… he has actually gone to one of these “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” meetings…

ninjapirate on December 15, 2010 at 11:46 PM

@ninjapirate you do know that women are already in combat positions? just because they aren’t labeled as “combat troops” doesn’t mean the military din’t move them into front line positions and relabel it. not to mention that the USSR had women in combat positions and won the war they were engaged in at the time

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 PM

@ninjapirate you do know that women are already in combat positions? just because they aren’t labeled as “combat troops” doesn’t mean the military din’t move them into front line positions and relabel it. not to mention that the USSR had women in combat positions and won the war they were engaged in at the time

Lies, lies, lies

ninjapirate on December 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Lies, lies, lies

ninjapirate on December 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Delusion, delusion, delusion.

Dark-Star on December 16, 2010 at 12:00 AM

No, I don’t know that. I didn’t just look up all the wars that like 20 countries have been in since the early ’90s or so. My point remains, you’re too analytically incompetent to maintain a rational discussion, so go away.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Wow, you can’t even be bothered to do 5 minutes of googling, but hey, its only people’s lives your are throwing away, so what does it matter to you…right? As long as it makes you feel good?

18-1 on December 16, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Will you – in the certain event that at least 5%, perhaps closer to 20%, of current service members resigning or not reenlisting, as well as a serious drop in new enlistments – support a new draft?

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Hell, draft? I think Mr RightofLeft should enlist to prove to us how wrong we are…no?

18-1 on December 16, 2010 at 12:05 AM

You’re not seriously blaming that on gays in the military. I use the term blame loosely, because Israel has an impossible task against Hezbollah no matter what the composition of their army. The perceived outcome of that skirmish was more determined by the dominance of anti-Israel sentiment on the world stage than any lack of Israeli military ability. Fact is, Israel continues, against all odds, to exist. That’s a testament to their uninterrupted military excellence.

There’s a larger issue than just the size and readiness of our military. Even if that were the only issue, the experiences of our many allies that allow gays to serve openly would indicate repealing DADT won’t affect readiness. Our military, being the largest and strongest in the world, is called on to oppose the worst elements of tyranny remaining. There may come a time when we cannot credibly defend liberty, and hope to enlist the necessary aid from the free world, at the same time our policies are more aligned with the forces we oppose. A generational shift has remade the way the free world views homosexuality. The United States, if it will remain the leader of that world, must recognize that shift.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM

God, this is just the most sanctimonious idiotic blather…

OK, this is like whistling an aria to the deaf, but let’s try it again for the folks at home…

Do you think Russia will allow “sensitivity training” to overrule unit cohesion and morale. NO…

The willfully stupid jackasses who advocate this completely “blank out” on what the context of the military is in the U.S. Pious mouth vomiters expressing a hope that “troublemakers” will be “dealt with” are so fantastically alienated from reality as to be either unprepared to handle crossing the street by themselves or deliberately playing dumb about the incrementalism and filthy PCism that is infecting the services. By advocating this, you’ve totally forfeited any possible right or grounds of complaint about the Nidal Hassans of the world.

Those of you who advocate this KNOW that the Bradley Manning types this repeal is designed to cater to will NOT be disciplined, NOT suffer any problems for acting out, and even if they become as egregious as Holly Graf, they will not receive punishment commensurate with their actions:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602,00.html

http://www.militarycorruption.com/hollygraf15.htm

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 12:07 AM

@ebrown2 and the fort hood shooting was done by a gay?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Delusion, delusion, delusion.

Dark-Star on December 16, 2010 at 12:00 AM

I am right you moron… women are not “on the front lines”, that is just a myth. And the USSR during WWII is such a BS example.

ninjapirate on December 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Hell, draft? I think Mr RightofLeft should enlist to prove to us how wrong we are…no?

18-1 on December 16, 2010 at 12:05 AM

I think that not even one gay will join for every thousand who will leave. All the gay advocates, especially Allahpundit for whom this is a personal jihad, would likely cross the street rather than even pass in front of a recruiting office.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 12:12 AM

And the USSR during WWII is such a BS example.

ninjapirate on December 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Is this what they mean when they say reality has a liberal bias?

Whatever. Weigh anchor and drift off, doofus. Those “BS examples” would’ve tied your d!ck in a pretzel.

Dark-Star on December 16, 2010 at 12:14 AM

@rebar um you do know that we are recruiting felons right now? i don’t think the military will blink an eye, not withstanding the british military has found the gay community is a great recruiting pool

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM

@rebar um you do know that we are recruiting felons right now?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Lies, lies, lies!

/wingnut denialist

…but oh how I wish it were so. Felons in the armed forces is one of the very few things that can keep me awake at night.

Dark-Star on December 16, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Any violation considered a felony requires waiver approval from HQ Navy Recruiting Command to enlist. I should note here that felony waivers, even juvenile felony waivers, are rarely approved. This is especially true if the offense included any type of violence.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navyjoin/a/navcrimed.htm
Big Deal.

Nor does it change the FACT that combat troops will not stay in the military with openly homosexual troops.

Repeal DADT = draft. Period.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM

@rebar every country that allowed gays had the same argument and it didn’t happen. are we that different?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM

@ebrown2 and the fort hood shooting was done by a gay?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:09 AM

The Fort Hood shooting was done by an individual who was not properly disciplined and removed from the service for PC reasons, which falls under the same principle that we are discussing here.

Thanks for proving my point about your being willfully obtuse and devoid of either having principles or being able to reason from them.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Yes – because we don’t have a draft.

Other countries force you to serve with gays, here there is a choice – for now. Let them make their forces volunteer only, and you’ll see them change their policies very quickly.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Repeal DADT = draft. Period.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM

My question – will Americans blithely accept being hauled off to some godforsaken desert to prop up an oil-based theocracy?

Dark-Star on December 16, 2010 at 12:36 AM

@ebrown2 if people are to be judged by their subsets than all muslims are bad soldiers, all heterosexuals are spies, all straight men abuse soldiers, and all straights are rapists. since this is patently untrue you have to judge people on their individual actions not on how they are labeled

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:37 AM

@rebar australia and britian are volunteer armies not draft armies are they illusions?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:38 AM

@Dark-Star lets hope not

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM

@rebar is the draft wrong?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM

@rebar every country that allowed gays had the same argument and it didn’t happen. are we that different?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM

As you have been told repeatedly, in many different ways, YES.

For just one counter-example that helps to put things in context:

Israel’s defense forces are reservist-based, with only a small cadre of professional soldiers compared to our military. Cohorts are trained and then sent back into civilian life because the Israelis can’t afford a large permanent standing army. Also, even the most whinging Israeli gay leftist knows what will happen to him/her if captured by Arabs. They have a wonderful built-in incentive to -not- throw Bradley Manning-style hissy fits.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 12:47 AM

@rebar is the draft wrong?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Our current voluntary military is well capable of getting the job done. Voluntary is better than mandatory, you must agree.

To force mandatory military service on the country, for the sole reason to push the homosexual agenda – yes that is wrong. In fact it’s insane.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 12:48 AM

@ebrown2 if people are to be judged by their subsets than all muslims are bad soldiers, all heterosexuals are spies, all straight men abuse soldiers, and all straights are rapists. since this is patently untrue you have to judge people on their individual actions not on how they are labeled

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:37 AM

That’s why DADT exists, it allows for genuinely patriotic gays to serve in the military while (when properly enforced) giving the military tools to weed out the Bradley Mannings of the world. Loser-pays litigation laws, oh, LIKE THE ONES THAT EXIST IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA, prevent the kind of frivolous ACT-UP style lawsuits that our lovely America-hating lefty activist friends here like to spew.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 12:52 AM

#rebar is the draft wrong? #repeat

@ebrown2 illustrate the British or Australian case where straights rebelled against gays serving?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM

@ebrown2 why must gays serve under different rules than straights? who does that profit or serve?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM

Asked and answered.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 1:04 AM

… because – at the core level – leftists care more about political correctness than success of the military mission.

That this will almost undoubtedly result in casualties in action (oh, don’t worry – we’ll have that conversation at some unfortunate point in the future, guaranteed) doesn’t matter.

Midas on December 16, 2010 at 1:08 AM

why must gays serve under different rules than straights? who does that profit or serve?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Um, because… they’re different? Because they introduce a dynamic into individual and unit behavior and cohesiveness that is less than ideal; and in the military, “less than ideal” means mission, people (military and civilians) and hardware are at unnecessarily higher levels of risk.

I can (and don’t believe me, ask the military leaders that are objecting) rattle of reason after reason why it’s a bad idea and they are 100% mission-success-related. What are the reasons to ban DADT? Those reasons certainly don’t have anything to do with improving the military’s opportunities to succeed at their mission – and if they’re not, then we damn well shouldn’t be doing it.

Midas on December 16, 2010 at 1:14 AM

@ebrown2 why must gays serve under different rules than straights? who does that profit or serve?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM

It profits and serves the U.S. military by promoting good order and discipline in the ranks, insuring (once again, -when enforced-) that those whose only purpose in enlisting is to act as Trojan Horses for a disruptive agenda can be expelled without disrupting the functioning of the organization. Once again, the case of Nidal Hassan shows what happens when “positive discrimination” in favor of a minority overrides making an individual determination of fitness.

As for Britain and Australia, they have very small volunteer forces whose primary value on the world stage are their special forces, and spec ops folks have pretty sound ways of weeding out wet naps like Manning from their ranks.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:14 AM

@rebar um so your answer is that universal service is wrong?

#midas I’m not a leftist so I’m assuming that all my responses are correct?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:14 AM

@ninjapirate you do know that women are already in combat positions? just because they aren’t labeled as “combat troops” doesn’t mean the military din’t move them into front line positions and relabel it. not to mention that the USSR had women in combat positions and won the war they were engaged in at the time

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Have you ever done infantry work? Ever hump a pack, body armor, weapon, ammo including rounds for the mortar, along with all your own personal crap? Ever sweat so much that your black combat boots turn white from crystallized salt? Seen a bunch of strapping young 18 year old Marines walking around like Yoda bent over like old men for a day after shucking their packs? I doubt it. People who think females can hack it in the infantry, who think a woman can pack her fair share of gear, to include all the shared ammo load etc, have never humped a pack in their lives and have no damn clue what they’re talking about. Just like you people who think gays belong in the military. You’ve never been there, you’ve never done that, but you like to tell those who have how bloody qualified you are to tell us how to kill people and break things.

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 1:14 AM

“insuring (once again, -when enforced-) that those whose only purpose in enlisting is to act as Trojan Horses for a disruptive agenda can be expelled without disrupting the functioning of the organization.*”

*or harming those gays who are genuinely patriotic and understand the dynamics of a successful military system.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:16 AM

@ebrown2 um gays serve honorably in special ops in british and Australian military’s so um what are you saying?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM

#quikstrike98 so civilian control of the military doesn’t exist?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:19 AM

“um so your answer is that universal service is wrong?”

Yes, it’s destructive to the existence of a efficient modern professional military, which is why we (and the French, and the English, etc., etc.,) don’t have universal service anymore.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:23 AM

#quikstrike98 so civilian control of the military doesn’t exist?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Wise civilians heed the advice of the people who’ve been at the pointy end, and going smarmily pontificate to the executioners how morally superior they are by not discriminating. Guess what, the profession of arms discriminates by its very nature. You want women in the combat arms? Why don’t you join the infantry and you get the joy of having to pick up a woman’s rifle and pack when she can’t pull her weight. And by all means, join up and have a homosexual pick leeches out of your nether regions and scope you out while you share the communal shower. Enjoy walking into the head in the middle of the night to see two guys enjoying conjugal relations up against the urinal. Oh yes, it’s happened. But at least in the past perverts could be booted out when they were caught doing that crap.

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM

The draft introduces a lot of people into the military who don’t want to be there.

Our military works so great because a vast majority of people are there by choice and want to make it work. A draft removes that.

Rightwingguy on December 16, 2010 at 1:26 AM

@rebar um so your answer is that universal service is wrong?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Conscription is neither good or bad, it is simply a tool to maintain an effective military.

In a nominally “free” country, avoiding conscription if possible is a good thing, especially as an elite all voluntary force can win wars with minimum casualties. However in a war when mass conscription is called for, then that’s what’s needed.

However, purposefully triggering a massive outflow of trained personnel, then conscripting raw recruits to replace them, can only be seen as counterproductive and flat out dumb, and would inevitably result in much higher casualties and possibly even lost wars.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 1:27 AM

@ebrown2 um gays serve honorably in special ops in british and Australian military’s so um what are you saying?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Gee, I guess you consider Bradley Manning’s service “honorable” them…

The gays who serve in the British and Australian special forces, insofar as they act honorably, aren’t the problem.

Those who, like Manning, want to cause problems over an agenda, -are- a problem, and are no doubt informally dealt with by them.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:28 AM

“honorable” then…

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:31 AM

IDF. My only contribution.

jimmy the notable on December 16, 2010 at 1:54 AM

I have two comments about the repeal of DADT. As I have never served in a combat unit I will defer to the troops on the issue of readiness.

Now, first, what about the idea/tradition that “lame duck” sessions not vote on controversial issues!? I guess DADT isn’t controversial, or 2000 page omnibus bill, or a one trillion dollar tax deal, or amnesty for illegal immigrants…….the progressives are up to their old tricks of overloading the system so we the people can’t respond. I think it is time to abolish the lame duck session. No other western government allows the losers of elections to remain in power.

Second, since homosexuality is an issue of, well, sexuality and women have been given separate facilities aboard ships and elsewhere because they are of a different sex. Are there going to be separate facilities for homosexual men and homosexual women? It only seems fair that the homosexual community be given separate facilities just like the women serving in the military.

JeffVader on December 16, 2010 at 2:44 AM

If she had flipped she would have become a Conservative.

Army Brat on December 16, 2010 at 3:06 AM

Who cares, this poor sick Republic is on its way down the sewer at warp speed and nothing can slow or stop its descent. These insane political fools have taken a once great nation and completely trashed it.

rplat on December 16, 2010 at 5:47 AM

Who cares, this poor sick Republic is on its way down the sewer at warp speed and nothing can slow or stop its descent. These insane political fools have taken a once great nation and completely trashed it.

rplat on December 16, 2010 at 5:47 AM

I fear we have passed from mercy into judgment as well.

There is nothing more sobering than that.

Inanemergencydial on December 16, 2010 at 5:53 AM

So the answer to the question of what wars have these gay friendly militaries won, as we both know, is none.

Well, I do know they lost that one in Sodom and Gomorrah. It was two guys against a big mob of homosexuals. The mob lost.

JellyToast on December 16, 2010 at 6:40 AM

IDF. My only contribution.

jimmy the notable on December 16, 2010 at 1:54 AM

As above, the IDF has success in a comparatively limited range of activity. It truly is a conventional defense-oriented reservist force, which is why the Paleos were far more successful with the Intifadias than the Arabs were at conventional war with Israel. It is also the exception because of its unique existential hazard, which doesn’t cause the problems with compulsory service that other nations have.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Even so, the Lebanese occupation served as a distressingly close analogue to our experience in Vietnam for Israel, for many of the same reasons.

ebrown2 on December 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Snowe Removal 2012. Support it.

ErinF on December 16, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Zekecorlain on December 15, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Woman are not – ARE NOT – assigned to or placed into combat duty or combat roles in the United States Armed Forces. No, they are not.

Females who might – might - be in locations that receive occasional shelling or are subject to terror attack do not constitute a ‘line unit’. American woman are not sent into combat. Generally speaking, they are not purposefully sent forward to actively engage enemy forces.

Your comment further shows your continued (and almost certainly, purposeful) ignorance of military policy and practice.

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 8:52 AM

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 8:52 AM

He does not care, sir. By the way, thank you for your service. Zeke has been schoooled from the beginning of this thread until now. The safety and morale of our Best and Brightest does not matter to him….only the advancement of his cultural agenda.

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 9:05 AM

#rebar is the draft wrong? #repeat

@ebrown2 illustrate the British or Australian case where straights rebelled against gays serving?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM

You are not on Twitter.

Missy on December 16, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Lets do a little math… Gays represent about 1 percent of the US population, and about 1 percent of the population are in the military. I don’t know what percentage of gays enlist in the military but if it is in the same percentage as a the general population we are talking about 1 percent of 1 percent or 0.1 percent problem. And then thre is the percent of gays who are ok with the not tell part, which is likely most of them, so now we are down to 0.05 percent or less of a problem. Wow – Congress better do something quick before this gets out of hand.

Dasher on December 16, 2010 at 9:09 AM

@quikstrike98 so women can’t hack the force and only gays who pretend to be straight can hack the military? It sounds a lot more like you just are looking for reasons not to treat your fellow soldiers fairly. Buck up get over it. You don’t want weak women and your being awfully picky over which man can serve next to you, I don’t recall that being your choice. You treat your fellow sodlier as your brother, it doesn’t matter who they are. If you brother in real life was gay would you treat him different?

@Rebar this entire sidebar is still just a chimera, since no military has ever had mass losses after adding gays. However it stands to reason the bigger deal you make out of it, the more likely you are to drive people out of the military over the policy change.

@catmman that’s funny cause I was just listening to a story on NPR about a young woman who was killed in front line action (she was an MP) either you are willfully ignorant or you can’t even remember PFC Jessica Lynch or Shoshana Johnson.

@JellyToast quoting make believe stories from a 4500 year old collection of stories is not actually in any way useful. That is unless you can now turn people into pillars of salt. Plus the crime they committed according to the bible was not
anal sodomy but not being hospitable to strangers. But I’m sure you knew that already. Also we are not allies with Sodom or Gomorrah and their air force is pitiful.

As for Bradley Manning no I do not think his service was honorable but I do think that Sgt Eric Alva and countless others gay service members have served and done great things for our military.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 9:05 AM

It was my pleasure.

Oh, I know. He’s all over all of these DADT threads throwing out the same disproven talking points.

Facts don’t matter to an agenda driven demagogue.

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 9:24 AM

@catmman that’s funny cause I was just listening to a story on NPR about a young woman who was killed in front line action (she was an MP) either you are willfully ignorant or you can’t even remember PFC Jessica Lynch or Shoshana Johnson.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Why is it you continue to ignore the parts of comments which show you to be wrong? There is a simple and easy way to refute your assertion that females are assigned to combat duty.

If your assertion were correct, then why are there no female special ops troops? No female Green Berets? No female SEALS? No female CCT? No female Pararescue? Hmmmm? Because they are front line (or behind the line), specifically combat oriented units.

Your example is also faulty. Lynch and the other chick were doing convoy duty and the convoy got lost and attacked. It wasn’t a front line unit.

This is almost too easy…

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM

but I do think that Sgt Eric Alva and countless others gay service members have served and done great things for our military.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM

And yet he was able to do those things and perform the way he did under DADT.

Hmmm….

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM

@quikstrike98 so women can’t hack the force and only gays who pretend to be straight can hack the military? It sounds a lot more like you just are looking for reasons not to treat your fellow soldiers fairly. Buck up get over it. You don’t want weak women and your being awfully picky over which man can serve next to you, I don’t recall that being your choice. You treat your fellow sodlier as your brother, it doesn’t matter who they are. If you brother in real life was gay would you treat him different?

Again, who the f*** are YOU to lecture ME on how to be a Marine? When did you wear a uniform? What service? What MOS? Just where do you get off lecturing someone who has sweated and bled for this country, telling ME what soldiering is a about?

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Genesis 19: 4-8 – 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Jude 1:7 –

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (Greek: different, other) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 9:46 AM

He does not care, sir. By the way, thank you for your service. Zeke has been schoooled from the beginning of this thread until now. The safety and morale of our Best and Brightest does not matter to him….only the advancement of his cultural agenda.

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Oh, please, now. Explain how 80% of the people in the military are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Zeke has obviously never been on a formation run with women in the formation, and forced to circle back around for the women, over, and over, and over, and over, and over…turning a half hour run into an hour run. Zekey has obviously never seen how thoroughly beat to Hell womens’ bodies get after a run on the O Course. Zeke has obviously never gone on a hump in full pack and body armor, and watched the truck with the womens’ packs drive by him, while the women hump with nothing but their H harnesses and butt packs. Zeke has obviously never had to pick up a comrade’s rifle and pack and carry it in addition to his own sh!t when his comrade fell out. And Zeke doesn’t care that putting women into combat arms units (women breaking track on a M1 tank? ROFLMAO!!!) will result in men having to do twice the work to compensate for the womens’ physical inability to accomplish tasks routinely expected of males.

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM

His is the “Ultimate Superior Moral Authority” of the narcissistic, yet self-loathing Leftist Nanny Stater who can only TELL other people what they SHOULD do to suit his needs and the needs of his minority of entitlement-minded moochers.

Only their needs, wants and desires matter based on their idea of ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’.

He gives away the game by stating gays should be allowed to serve and “live openly” while supporting straights being kicked out or leaving the service for being against the repeal of DADT.

He has plenty of friends and family who have served, though he himself didn’t deign to serve since the military “isn’t a real job” and he had better things to do and didn’t want to deal with the hassle of all the paperwork or something.

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Oh, please, now. Explain how 80% of the people in the military are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM

It would be pointless. If you have no pride in, or appreciation of the fighting men and women who are putting their lives on the line for you, I sure can’t give it to you.

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM

I see you know about as much about this issue as you do evolution…ROFL.

you must be masochistic.

right4life on December 16, 2010 at 10:54 AM

With Olympia Snowe on board it should win by a nose.

Mason on December 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Yeah, the entire American Military will collapse when all those gays and lesbians who are serving honorably can say/admit that they are homosexual. I am sure that RuPaul will be in the first in line to join up and serve.

SC.Charlie on December 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Oh, please, now. Explain how 80% of the people in the military are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM

It would be pointless. If you have no pride in, or appreciation of the fighting men and women who are putting their lives on the line for you, I sure can’t give it to you.

kingsjester on December 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM

That’s different than saying that they are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 12:08 PM

@rebar every country that allowed gays had the same argument and it didn’t happen. are we that different?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Yes, we’re better. They’re not.

dominigan on December 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Oh, please, now. Explain how 80% of the people in the military are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM

That’s very disappointing, Jimbo. You have a tendency to be a condescending pr*ck, you know that?

DrSteve on December 16, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Explain how 80% of the people in the military are our “Brightest”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM

I know its anecdotal, but based on the total screwups in this administration with ivy league educations, I’d say that most of our military could run physical and mental circles around them. After all, most of them couldn’t pass this test…

When your financials get tight, do you…
a) Spend more money, hoping the money fairy makes more?
b) Slow down spending and prioritize your budget, cutting where necessary?

dominigan on December 16, 2010 at 12:42 PM

@ebrown2 if people are to be judged by their subsets than all muslims are bad soldiers, all heterosexuals are spies, all straight men abuse soldiers, and all straights are rapists. since this is patently untrue you have to judge people on their individual actions not on how they are labeled

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Good Lord, you really are dense. You really can’t see the forest for all the trees.

The problem is when a combat troop individual, who is supposed to support their combat team, puts his personal ideals above his fellow unit members, that person is not fit to serve. Muslims and gays can both be suspect in this. I salute the “stealth” members of both who serve. But those that loudly proclaim their personal ideals above humble service to his nation and their unit, is not fit to serve.

dominigan on December 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Zeke has obviously never been on a formation run with women in the formation, and forced to circle back around for the women, over, and over, and over, and over, and over…turning a half hour run into an hour run. Zekey has obviously never seen how thoroughly beat to Hell womens’ bodies get after a run on the O Course. Zeke has obviously never gone on a hump in full pack and body armor, and watched the truck with the womens’ packs drive by him, while the women hump with nothing but their H harnesses and butt packs. Zeke has obviously never had to pick up a comrade’s rifle and pack and carry it in addition to his own sh!t when his comrade fell out. And Zeke doesn’t care that putting women into combat arms units (women breaking track on a M1 tank? ROFLMAO!!!) will result in men having to do twice the work to compensate for the womens’ physical inability to accomplish tasks routinely expected of males.

quikstrike98 on December 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM

This needs repeated. This is how you drop from #1 downward in your military capability and preparedness. I have no problem with women in the military IF THEY MATCH THE SAME LEVELS OF FITNESS REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT TASKS.

In other words, if they are aiming for frontline combat, they should be able to strap on an 80lb backpack and run for an hour in 100 degree heat. If they can’t, they shouldn’t serve where those requirements exist. A team is only as strong as their weakest link. Requiring more weak links is not how you make a unit stronger.

Logic to liberals is like water to the Wicked Witch of the West! Throw some their way and watch them melt like the gooey “principles” they endorse.

dominigan on December 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I salute the “stealth” members of both who serve. But those that loudly proclaim their personal ideals above humble service to his nation and their unit, is not fit to serve. – dominigan on December 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM

But, you don’t want to know who they are, that would upset the holy bejesus out of you. Meanwhile, they serve with the hardship of fearing being confronted or caught.

SC.Charlie on December 16, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I’ll be interested to see how recruiting goes after this.

flataffect on December 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Snowe and the rest of these latte liberal Republicans have no idea what harm they are causing the country . . . their only goal is to satisfy their perverted sense of political correctness and social justice.

rplat on December 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM

Thank you Senator Snowe. Tell the next Marine who gets aids from helping a wounded buddy on the battlefield without rubber gloves that you are sorry you didn’t think about that part of being in the military.

kens on December 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM

this maybe a dumb ??, but why don’t we just let the military vote on this? Since it is them doing the fighting.. I personally don’t see the harm in letting gay people service openly, but if someone is laying down their life, it really should be up to them, NOT these pinheads in DC…

mmcnamer1 on December 17, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4