At NYT.
I've been on record as favoring repeal for a long time, but that doesn't mean I don't find the military's rationale compelling. See, "Against Gays in the Military."
And I haven't seen this kind of reaction for a while, but see Bryan Fischer's, "Benedict Arnold Republicans destroy military and our national security."
The GOP platform is plain and unambiguous:PREVIOUSLY: "Gen. James Amos Comes Out Against DADT Repeal." And lots of commentary at Memeorandum.“Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.” (emphasis mine)For those who say the Republican Party does not need a litmus test for its candidates, you just lost the argument and frittered away the strength of the U.S. military at the same time.
The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.
They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.
Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.
Cross-posted from American Power.
5 comments:
In the long ago time when I served in the U.S. Army, the local attitude was more like, "Don't ask, don't care."
My father told of homosexuals in the Navy in the very early 1950s. I experienced homosexual advances as an enlisted person in the 70s. The lonesome gay guy (Air Force 1st Lt) hit on a number for Army enlisted guys.
No one of the 3 I knew succumbed to the opportunity and there were no fights or whatever. Rumor was the Lt ended up getting married to a lesbian and all proper appearances were maintained.
This is really not a big deal. Congress has nothing more important to do and the homosexual community continues to campaign that their lifestyle is normal. It's not. It fails the functionality test.
This is important. The prior policy was Ask and Expel, or prosecute. Sodomy remains a criminal act. DADT was a Clinton gift to the Left and homosexuals and they proved unable to keep to that or any rules. More, this is incompatible with discipline in a military setting. No one who has actually seen how 19 year olds live on a ship can seriously say this makes sense. Our service will get fewer quality enlistments. We will be a weaker nation. That is why the Left wants this.
"We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies ..." apparently someone has not chatted with reps of these other armies. Or to put it another way, I thought the 'bailing' was a cooperative affair.
Cheers
I don't understand, DADT was created so gays could serve in the U.S. military so with the repeal of DADT doesn't that mean gays are banned from the U.S. military again ?
Michael Gene
Post a Comment