That vote to lift gay ban

| September 21, 2010

Harry Reid’s gambit to foist gays on the military failed miserably today. This is how Associated Press tells the tale;

Yeah, Republicans did it all by themselves. Democrats have a majority in the Senate, but it was Republicans who sunk the bill. Well, unless you scroll waaayyy down the page to the 18th paragraph;

Democrats also failed to keep all of their party members in line. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of Arkansas, voted with Republicans to scuttle the bill. The vote was 56-43, four short of the 60 required to advance under Senate rules.

All that matters is the headline anyway, right? That’s as far as those dillweeds at Democratic Underground read, anyway. You can read about the politics of Reid’s motivations at Blackfive.

I want to get something straight;

Someone wrote earlier today in the comments that this blog supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s false, you must be thinking of another blog.

This blog stands firmly on the fact that we’re in a war and everything else is bullshit. Discussing who can put what in who is for another time when there aren’t any enemies at the door. These votes on abortion, gays in the military and whatever else bullshit is larded up in the defense bill are distractions from business of killing jihadis.

If the Democrats had been committed to the military as they are to every bullshit namby-pamby, deviant group that might vote for them, this war would have been over years ago.

I might have been persuaded to think about gays in the military, but the antics of active duty and reservists of that persuasion have steered me away from anything that might have ever been considered support. LT Choi is no different than Bobby Whittenberg.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Media, Military issues

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CPT Me

All they have left is bullcrap and an election year. The dems will go out on a limb to rush through gays in the military, a social issue that is already currently under internal military review but they just couldn’t wait for the final report. But the dems have no problem punting and delaying on war issues like prosecuting the 9/11, USS Cole, and other terrorist plotters by treating them as war criminals in military courts and not as common criminals.

Southern Class

I was in a restaurant today, and the news was on. Woman at the next table went off on how there is no problem with gays in the military. Overheard that she has a daughter in the Army. I asked her: “Ma’am, using your thinking, then you wouldn’t mind if your daughter showered with men, would you?” Retort: “That’s not the same, men and women are of opposite sexes.” Me: “Like a man might try to make a move on your daughter in the shower? Just like a gay man might try to make a move on a man in the shower?” She: “Harumph!!” and silence.
They just don’t get it. Gayiety may be alright at the Gym, or at work, but this is one hell of a long way from either.

NHSparky

SC–that woman sounds to me like the same person who claims as “fact” the bullshit stat that 1/3 of all women in the military are sexually assaulted at some point in their careers.

Rob D

I’m gonna stay away from the DADT part of this abortion of a bill. I am pissed that the media is focusing on this and not on the HUGE part that was the DREAM act that they tried to slip through.

Adirondack Patriot

So, in conclusion, there is bipartisan support in the Senate for keeping DADT, and those who support overturning DADT include some Senate Democrats and Lady Gaga.

I’m glad we can rear-view this matter and get on to more substantive issues.

NHSparky

Huh-huh-huh…he said “rear”…

Cedo Alteram

Yep Rob D, the Dream act far more dangerous. Its an act of treason plain and simple.

Chuck Z

shouldn’t the title be “cock-blocked”?

Ben

“Someone wrote earlier today in the comments that this blog supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s false, you must be thinking of another blog.”

I believe you’re talking about me.

“Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.”

It was signed by Mark Seavey of TAH.

The whole statement can found here: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/05/dadt-statement-from-milbloggers.html

I understand that you were saying that repeal of the policy should be postoponed until the completion of the study. But you made it clear that if a question of “when” and not “if”. Just postpone it a little longer, then repeal it. Gotcha.

Your statement made waves across the blogosphere. It really did. “See? Even milbloggers support repealing DADT!” I found a link to it on one of my favorite websites, hotair.com, and it said somethign like “Milbloggers supporting ending DADT”, and then under that it said, “Endgame?” The implication was that when even milbloggers have come around to the homosexual side of things, the debate is really over.

I would have signed a statement saying that DADT is a perfectly reasonable policy that has served the military well for the past seventeen years.

Ben

“Discussing who can put what in who is for another time when there aren’t any enemies at the door.”

There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. We can’t revive DADT after the wars over.

Besides, the whole purpose of the policy is to undergirt discipline, morale, unit cohesion, recruitment, and retention. Those things are MORE important during war, not LESS important!

Furthermore, this battle against Islamic jihad is a long, twighlight struggle. It’s worth fighting for, don’t get me wrong. But it may take longer than the cold war. Don’t expect Islamic crazies to give up any time soon. So if we’re simply going to allow homosexuals to serve openly as long as we have enemies at the door, well…that could be a very long time.

Old Trooper

The DADT thing was a compromise between the WH and the Joint Chiefs. It isn’t law, it is policy. It isn’t the best policy, but it seems to have been working. That’s not good enough for some. Nope, they want to be able to scream loud and proud about their sexual preference, instead of concentrating on being a soldier. Does being gay affect the performance of ones duties? Nope, it doesn’t. The question should then be “why push it beyond the scope of your job”? Does being able to say you’re gay somehow turn a person into a super trooper? Does it give them super human strength? Who are you wanting to impress? Trust me, those that are gay and serving are already, for the most part, known by their fellow soldiers. I knew of a few back when we didn’t have DADT, yet, no one said anything, because they did their job and didn’t cause a ruckus. It wasn’t about their sexual preference, it was about serving their country and to be able to do that; they kept their mouth shut and so did we. They lived off Post, so there was never an issue in the communal latrine facilities, but it never stopped us from having coldies together and just being soldiers, either.

Choi and the rest of the attention seekers are doing a disservice to others, who choose to just do their jobs and serve their country, by making asses out of themselves in the most public way they can.

Ben

Who’s Bobby Whittenberg?

Old Tanker

OldTrooper,

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe it is in fact law. Otherwise the POTUS could over ride it without congressional consent (and he would have done it by now) The only reason it is before the Senate is because it IS law.

Ben,
TAH is Jonn’s blog, not TSO’s and his opinion may not necesarily be the opinion “of this blog” but of one blogger…

PintoNag

I doubt I’m throwing anything new into the mix, but one of the main reasons for the push to repeal DADT is to open the way for gay couples to access the same benefits straight couples are afforded (medical and housing being two of the most obvious, of course).

Old Tanker

Pinto…you win the prize!!!!

Daniel

That is what is most frustrating,

The left and gay organizations really don’t give a flying flip about gays serving in the military. They are just pushing this issue as a means to legitimize larger U.S. policies dealing with gay rights.