If they don't allow gays in the military, who is going to serve? Who will there be to protect us from terrorists? The Christian Right? Conservative chicken hawks? Let's get serious. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, now rotting Jerry Falwell? None of those hate mongers served. The Christian right does not serve in the military. The prefer to the proverbial finger wag to wielding the sword. Same goes with most Republicans, especially those in charge. George Bush and Dick Cheney were pussies when their opportunity arose to serve. Though, neither has a problem asking others to fight for them. Just not gays. They can't stand the thought of homosexuals fighting their battles for them. Also, you have Rudy G and Mitt the Mormon speaking out against gays in the military. Neither of them served. Again, they were Grade A Wimps. I know who I'd rather have protect me. I would rather have homosexuals fight for me than Bush, Cheney, Romney or Giuliani. These four are untrustworthy and they are too scared themselves to fight.
For more on the subject, I defer to Maureen Dowd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting thing about this issue...the Dems are protesting a Democratic policy (Clinton) and the GOP is supporting it. I think the shift will continue and soon the Armed Services will all have matching uniforms and tidy foxholes.
But humor me for a second on this chicken hawk argument...When Clinton started the bombing campaign in Kosovo (outside of the UN), was he a chicken hawk? He weaseled out of Vietnam service...should he have not had the right to use the US military? Or are airmen's lives not worth as much as ground troops, so bombing is okay as long as troops aren't on the ground? Should the way a President uses the military be directly proportional to his service? If Pres X doesn't serve in the military, he can't order troops into battle? If he served in the Natl Guard, he can do only limited operations?
I think most people think the Afghan incursion was justified, so it's pretty much Iraq that was mismanaged and has peopled ticked. But so far, the Admin has relied on negotiations and intl diplomacy to deal with Iran and North Korea...not force.
Abe Lincoln never served in the military. Did he have a right to start a draft (for which there were riots) and send troops into battle?
Let's take this further...let's say your BO gets elected next year. Will have a right to send troops into battle and under what circumstances? He never served his country in uniform. Nor did Johnny Boy. What should their rights as Commander in Chief be?
It also looks as if many GOP (and Dem) leaders have relatives in the military...http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-22-iraq-congress_x.htm
Finally, can someone out there please explain to me what is happening on Lost? How can it continue for 48 more episodes? And who's funeral did Jack visit in the finale? Ben? Locke? Thoughts?
Speaking about gays in the military, check out this story:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
Can we build a "gay bomb"?
Okay, once again, the use of the "Clinton did it" doesn't fly here. Granted, he didn't serve in the military, and yes, he wussed out of service, but he was effective in a lot of other areas, unlike President Shit for Brains. Also, I never made the argument that just because the President didn't serve, he doesn't have the right to command troops. I was making the case that I would trust them to defend me more than Bush & co. and I find it hypocritical that gays can't serve openly. Don't Ask Don't Tell is BS, too.
As for Afghanistan, we're not making much headway there so don't use that to justify Iraq.
Yes, we're really making some headway with North Korea and Iran. NK is the most oppressive country in the world. They put their people in concentration camps, and the rest of their citizens hate America. Iran wants to obliterate us from the map.
Finally, Lincoln did serve in the military. He fought in the Black Hawk War. He was not an efficient Commander-in-Chief. He kept replacing generals. George McClellan, his former top general, actually challenged him in the general election in 1864. The Union won the war because of the inefficiency of the Confederacy. Also, Meade took advantage of an ill-advised Confederate venture into Gettysburg, PA. Similtaneously, Grant starved out Vicksburg, MS. Thus, turning the tide. Okay, that's subject for another day.
Hey, you used the term chicken hawks...just asking for a definition and if it will apply in a future non-GOP presidency.
So should we use force against North Korea and Iran? If so, who should command them?
(My bad on Lincoln - service, but no combat)
Finally, let's say you have your Cliff Clavin moment on Jeopardy and have six can't miss categories. In addition to Sexy Latino Men, what other five would you choose?
Chicken Hawks are those that willingly advocate war when there is no justification, and willingly send other peoples' kids when they themselves would not serve or send their own. There was no war going on when Obama or Edwards served. Giuliani, Bush and Cheney all conveniently got out of service in Vietnam. Okay, so did Clinton. However, his wars were justified. Bosnia was a NATO action. The US did not act alone.
I believe Lincoln saw combat in the Black Hawk war. Though, it is my understanding he didn't have the stomach for it. However, I believe there was justification for the Civil War.
You've got me stumped on your final question.
Post a Comment