Posted on 02/14/2010 5:24:07 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Former Vice President Dick Cheney came out in favor of repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," (DADT) today.
Cheney said that the support of military leaders had convinced him that it was time for a change.
"Twenty years ago the military were strong advocates of 'Don't ask, don't tell.' I think things have change significantly since then," Cheney said on ABC's "This Week."
I think that society has moved on. It's partly a generational question," he continued. "When the [Joint] Chiefs come forward and say 'we think we can do it,' is strikes me that it's time to reconsider the policy."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
>>>men getting molested in their foxholes
Darn, that sounds uncomfortable.
But speaking to the overall thread, this place just gets more and more pathetic. NOW it’s Dick Cheney is a RINO, “shut the f@@k up Cheney”, he wants to destroy the army during time of war , blah blah blah. Like when the buzzsaw was turned on Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham because they indicated they disagreed with the tactics of the birthers.
RINO Cheney, RINO Ann, RINO Laura, RINO Rush, RINO Bush, RINO EVERYBODY but you. Utter childishness.
I wonder if Ross the Intern wouldn’t be a more reliable soldier then some of the frothing freepers. As big a queen as he is, I suspect he’d have more integrity then to turn on people 99% on his side. By contrast fragging our own side seems to be the life-mission of many here.
The armchair commando hundred percenters are embarrassments and idiots. Dick Cheney on the other hand, is neither. He’s been fighting our fight most of his adult life and for that taking more abuse then any man should ever have had to endure. Most of the shrillest posters on this thread aren’t fit to shine his shoes, and I think they know it.
and btw, that’s fragging, not fraking. Just for the one-track mind types who don’t read well.
Interesting -- sort of like "prove yourself to us before we accept you", much like what was done with the Tuskegee Airmen and others. Not a half bad idea -- not an easy route, but a real one that would earn respect.
I didn't say that it was "a good idea", just the that it was the underlying message of what was expressed by Cheney and Shaakashvil.
Personally, I think that the whole idea of lowering your standards (whatever those standards might be) just so that you can attract grand masses of recruits to throw at the enemy is questionable to begin with, but that's just me.
Cheney has absolutely zero clout on this issue.
I’d admire a man who was MORE opposed to “gay rights” because he has a gay kid than less. That would take a lot of character. Cheney would rather have his daughter’s affection. Expected.
I appreciate your reasoned response.
Although the sex orientation segregation is currently present, this does not stop females from being harrassed or assaulted. this is a large concern for the military at present.
The notion of a “protected class” is troublesome and I see your point. I still maintain that IF prosecution for behavior unbecomming to the conduct of a military person were across the board ( as in the case of fraternization currently) this could be dealt with.
There will always be ‘favortism’ and unfairness in any organization, jealousies and envy and retribution that is not related to sexuality. But you do make valid points for consideration.
What the critics are not considering is that we have thousands of gays serving now and I would assume most of them would still prefer not to be “outed” so the reaction is mostly a fear of the inappropriate acting out, which could be dealt with.
You make a valid point that if the threat of discharge were removed, the issue of blackmail and loss of competent men/women serving would be removed. Most service persons would still not want to “flaunt’ their sexuality...my perspective is that the country has gays in many corporations, professions etc. and most of our nation is not “San Francisco”.
DADT is currently not really an honest approach and that is troubling. If we are saying “we will accept your service” but keep a secret that in no way has affected your service or your current team, that is pretty hypocritical.
an excellant post.
This issue is also very personally emotional for many people.Therefore it is hard for some to see this in perspective long enough to have a discussion.
I admire Cheney.
As for “men getting molested in their foxholes”...the rate of sexual assault on females by heterosexual males in our services is sadly a significant enough statistic that the military is having to address this issue on a more than ‘just rare’ case.
Assault is assault. THAT needs to be dealt with. We have thousands of gays in the military serving now who are neither ‘molesting in the foxholes” nor for that matter want to “out” themselves, just as most gays do not want to “out themselves” in our society. To remove the threat of “discharge” is a far cry from tolerating sexual acting out of any sort.
“The armchair commando hundred percenters are embarrassments and idiots. Dick Cheney on the other hand, is neither. He’s been fighting our fight most of his adult life and for that taking more abuse then any man should ever have had to endure.”
He hasn’t been fighting my fight. In fact, I remember when he was Gerald Ford’s Chief of Staff and actively opposing Ronald Reagan in 1976. He got himself elected to Congress in 1978 from Wyoming and voted a conservative line in tune with his constituency. But he was never asked by Reagan to join his administration. I often wondered why, given the fact that he had high level Executive Branch experience, he was never asked to serve in the Reagan administration. I now see at least two reasons: 1) he seems to let his personal life interfere with vital policy matters; and 2)He was gungho for the First Gulf War, which they never finished.
Reagan’s big stick foreign policy rarely required the use of force, but was wildly successful, rolling back Communist successes in Central America and Africa and culminating in the downfall of the Soviet Union, all without firing a shot. Cheney’s stewardship of his adventures adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not so much. Perhaps Cheney was a little too trigger happy for Reagan’s taste.
When he finally did make it back to the Executive Branch,under Bush 41, as the second choice for Secretary of Defense (after John Tower withdrew), he was part of an Administration that purged Reaganite conservatives for all levels and took the GOP to a disastrous defeat in 1992.
Cheney was marginally more conservative than Bush, but he has not been fighting my fight as a Reaganite, and to suggest he has shows that you don’t really know recent history. This latest apostasy is just further evidence.
I do not think it is possible that you could be more WRONG.
I am guessing from your profile that you have never been in the military and you have either never known anyone in the military or if you have this issue hasn't been discussed.
If anything we should repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell and ban all homosexuals from the military, it is a dangerous situation with ZERO advantages.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
FYI - I am a former Army brat, former Army wife, have worked for Army contractors of one sort or another most of my life and strongly support our military.
My comments were entirely directed to FreeperFlirt. I pinged the entire HA list to the comments.
Sorry for the confusion.
He has come to terms with homosexuality, because of his daughter. Unfortunately, he’s one of those parents who abandons principle instead of saying, “I love my daughter, but this is wrong, and it doesn’t become okay just because someone I love is doing it.”
Just think of the AIDS overload the VA will have.
He should never let his personal situation interfere with public policy, especially as it pertains to the military upon which we all rely for our safety.
Rules?
Ever see videos of a California prison mess hall on the History Chanel?
Whites in one area, blacks in another area, Mexicans in another area, gays in another area.
There are no official "rules". Just the rules of SELF-SEGREGATION and the instinct not to get the living sh*t beat out of you.
This is not a question of, "Should gays be legally allowed in the military." Gays have legally been allowed in the military since the Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy took effect 17 years ago in 1993.
As I said before it all boils down the whether or not you want to know if the naked guy standing right next to you in the shower is gay or not so, just like in a California prison mess hall, you can practice self-segregation.
So because his daughter is a lap-licker homosexuality is ok? I guess principles are relative.
Cheney is wrong as are people who think allowing gays to be open in the military doesn’t matter. It does.
1. One it will lead to the military being transformed into a bullhorn for gay activism. Homosexuals will put further pressure to create programs to indoctrinate tolerance in the new recruits and will implement policies that discriminate against military men and women who do not ascribe to the positions of gay activism and dare speak out.
2. Already in Britain the military is bullied into marching in gay pride parades alongside drag queens and half naked men and women strutting their stuff in the public space. There is no doubt similar pressure will be levied against our military.
3. Sexual abuse is already a big problem in the military. Homosexuals are particularly egregious in targeting young men for abuse. Study after study shows that most gays report being abused themselves. Open homosexuality will just make it easier to blur the line between a rape of a drunken soldier and what homosexuals consider just having some fun.
4. Homosexuality is incompatible with the military because it is a medically expensive lifestyle and homosexuals generally have more problems with everything from alcohol abuse, drug abuse,suicide, contracting sexual diseases, etc, etc. It was a bad idea to start allowing gays in the military to begin with and it is not a good idea now just because the problems are not reported. There has been an increased number of male on male and female on female rapes since the outset the implementation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but no one reports it.
We need to draw the line here or everyone who does not agree or support homosexuality will be intimidated into submission. It will change the military for the worse as it has in other countries and it will be used to further transform society to the leftist and anti-liberty ends of the homosexual activists who seek acceptance through the welding of government as a club.
We need a military group and a coordinated campaign to stop this. Does anyone know of the existence of such a group?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.