Forget all of that other stuff you’ve done
All of that war-fighting you’ve done…all of that showing up when your country called and the rest of the men your age cowered in their Basket Weaving 101 class. When you volunteered and your peers scooted off to Canada. When your peers were spitting on you and you didn’t punch their stupid faces in. When you took off your uniform and quietly went on with your life. While you sat in the classroom without throttling that idiot, lying professor. While Hollywood portrayed you as a hair-trigger nut job.
Going off to war while the New York Times did their level best to get you killed and demeaned your service.
Finally, you’ve done something honorable. Thanks for noticing, New York Times. We’re here for all of your social experiments.
I wonder if the New York Times remembers who was the President and which party ran both houses of Congress in 1993. Or are they just hoping that we forgot?
Category: Media
As I said in a post over at B5, the 103d Congress was made up of: Senate, 57 dems, 43 Reps., the House, 258 dems, 176 Reps, and a dem President. And, judging by the actions at the Presser the other day, we still have the same POTUS.
And, please, it’s Underwater Basket Weaving, 101.
UpNorth:
Please don’t post facts; let the extreme liberals re-write history based on their feelings. Now, group hug for everyone. That includes you, Al Qaeda and Taliban.
Shouldn’t the headline be At Long Last, Congressional Honor? If they firmly believe that DADT was terrible and wrong, then how about recognizing the fact that the military never decided on or kept this policy in place.
I disagree with repealing DADT, but I take no responsibility for the policy, as it has always been in the hands of Congress to change it.
NRO points out some facts about that number from the NY Times.
Of these discharges: “80 percent were voluntary, meaning they had been initiated by the soldier.” The recent Pentagon report has it at 85%.
Even more stunning: “approximately one quarter of these discharges have occurred in the first four months of a Service member’s service”. A lot of them were probably just weasels that decided they couldn’t handle it.
Yeah really! Don’t let facts get in the way of good PROPAGANDA. Orwell was an optimist. Can’t wait for more of that GOOD ARMY (sensitivity)TRAINING.
What would these fools know of honor?
“80 percent were voluntary, meaning they had been initiated by the soldier.” The recent Pentagon report has it at 85%.
==========
Interesting. Did not know that. So in the past 17 years since DADT was implemented, 14,000 soldiers have been discharged due to violation of DADT.
Of that 14,000, 3,100-3,800 were involuntary. So about 225 per year.
Out of a force of 2.4 million, people were upset about losing 225 people per year? That’s 0.009% of the force.
Oh, but wait, that’s right, every single one of those 225 per year were our best, most crucial soldiers that were irreplaceable.
All this drama, because we were losing 0.009% of our military force each year to DADT violations. Geez…
Personal anecdote: Three weeks into basic school a class member discovered that the military would not honor his EMT-P certificate even though he had passed the National Registry Exams. Within the week he was on his way home after telling the CO, “I’m gay.” This occurred within the first 4-5 months of his enlistment.
People…This is just one more part of the far left loons dragging the USA further down in the muck. Leave it to a retiring Navy SQUID officer to help bring US down this much further.
Got that, Mullen? SQUID, You are nothing but a punk ass SQUID. Your barge sailed a long time ago, a real long time ago, you f’ng jaqoff SQUID.
Probably couldn’t hit the piss hole without help too. Maybe that’s why Mullen sounded down and to the left.
When the NYT shows how many were tossed for adultery, bodyfat/PRT, and medical issues in that time, then I’ll give a shit how many pickle kissers got INVOLUNTARILY booted. As Michael said, 225 a year?–we lost more DEPpers due to failure to grad in ONE NRD in a year.
I think the point is that such a policy demeaned all the sacrifice John listed. Someone can do all those things and still be treated as less.
While we are revisiting history, we should mention it only became a congressional act after Clinton said he would overturn the DoD policy barring homosexual service through executive order. It became a law in order to stop that from being a possibility. I think people should review the hearings and news reports of the day to see who pushed for this law and what the reasons for supporting it were. The weak democratic leadership played a part, but they weren’t the only ones.
J, please see the numbers in post #1. If the dems were determined to “do what’s right”, who could have stopped them, if Billy Jeff was more concerned about “Pickle Kissers”(thanks, Sparky) in the military and not the WH, who could have stopped him?
If the “worst case” numbers are used:
15,000 (mostly inexperienced) lost to DADT/17 years
60,000 (combat experienced leaders) Marines to consider ETS/6 years (10,000/yr) http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/ps/2010/12/the-long-term-effects-of-politics-dadt-repeal.html
This could be the National Security crisis Obama said it was. Obama/Webb can only expect the economy to recruit for them for so long. The crack pipe smoking days of the 70’s may be replaced with the pole smoking days of the 10’s, but I doubt it.
Sorry, even if every pole smoker brought their current “partner” with them to the recruiting office, it still wouldn’t overcome the loss of experienced Marines alone.