Mullen plans to institute a Reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Admiral Mike Mullen told the Senate Arms Committee today that when DADT is repealed, all of you POS servicemembers who’ve served faithfully over the years, adhering to every DoD and Executive policy to the letter of those policies, well, you can just get the fuck out of his military (Fox News link);
Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, “what you do, not who you are.” He said if Congress changes the don’t ask, don’t tell policy then the U.S. military will comply.
And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.
While some troops may ask for a separate berth or different showers, “some may even quit the service,” Mullen said. “We’ll deal with that.”
Shouldn’t that be “Who you do, not who you are”? Because apparently assholes like Dan Choi who’ve made a pest of themselves by NOT following an established policy…hell, demonstrated an inability to comply with ANY policy…get a pass.
Now you fucking breeders know where you stand with the CJCS.
I never thought I’d see the day that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would make such an blatant threat to his troops in front of the Senate Arms Committee.
I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not invited to this toad’s birthday party this weekend.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
OK, 29% or thereabouts answered the survey. So, that’s not “the majority of the service” is it?
Now, please explain “the purpose of my mischaracterization” as I think I missed it when I apparently committed this faux pas, or thought crime. So glad that you can read my mind for me, and let me know what I was thinking.
So, the military has an article in the UCMJ about participating in demonstrations in uniform, and those I listed seem to have disregarded that prohibition, for political ends. That’s all I said.
“OK, 29% or thereabouts answered the survey. So, that’s not “the majority of the service” is it?”
You do know how statistical probability works, yes?
As for your mischaracterization, it’s pretty well spelled out above. You attributed a position to Joe that he doesn’t hold and hasn’t tried to defend. More than one actually. If it wasn’t a mischaracterization then it follows it must have been a mis-interpretation of Joe’s writing on your part, yes? My apologies if that is the case.
I’ll give you a chance to go back and re-read what Joe said, and then re-read your responses before responding further.