Posted on 12/02/2010 5:31:57 PM PST by CharlesMartelsGhost
The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks' continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America's national security interests, and the Democrats' fanatical determination to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military.
The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.
We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.
I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning. According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.
Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"
According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?
In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.
I'm not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute "telling" under "don't ask, don't tell."
Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army's "don't ask, don't tell" dragnet?
What constitutes being "openly" gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?
Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I've seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he's wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.
With any luck, Bradley's court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a "Wizard of Oz"-themed gazebo. "Are you going to Bradley's court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!"
Maybe there's a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they're right.
The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called "the "Magnificent Five": Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.
The only one who wasn't gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.
The Magnificent Five's American compatriot Michael Straight was -- ironically -- bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there's David Brock.
So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as "the Homintern." (I would have called it the "Gay G.B.")
Bradley's friends told the Times they suspected "his desperation for acceptance -- or delusions of grandeur" may have prompted his document dump.
Let's check our "Gay Profile at a Glance" and ... let's see ... desperate for acceptance ... delusions of grandeur ... yep, they're both on the gay subset list!
Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans -- and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.
Couldn't they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an "awkward place" psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.
Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?
Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.
Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!
For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.
But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let's talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in "an awkward place."
Any discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.
Any discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.
What this really proves is that DADT is a disaster in itself. He was given a security clearance and the people who gave it to him were not allowed to ask. They were required by DADT to not consider if he posed this particular risk. The policy does need to change; but not in the way being contemplated. It needs to go back to “Ask and Kick Out”.
They’ll come up with some contorted-logic rationalization explaining how it’s really a positive thing.
I’ve lived with hardcore libs. They don’t ‘do’ reality, because they think it’s entirely subjective.
I had a particularly contentious argument with a dear friend who’s a lib one night. He spoke in terms of ‘your reality’ and ‘my reality’ as if reality were defined by something other than empirical fact, and therefore subjective. And therefore not really reality at all, but simply perception.
Libs cannot deal with facts when the facts do not support their “view”.
I haven’t followed this story very closely. But I presume his sexual orientation was prominently mentioned in the MSM news stories I didn’t read. /s (Is a sarcasm tag really necessary?)
Is this guy the traitor who should be prosecuted, convicted and executed???
Yes.
A particular "Don't ask don't tell" issue that I have not seen described anywhere is a big concern:
Once gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, how much TIME and MONEY and EFFORT and ATTENTION, that should be devoted to current wars and combat readiness, will instead be devoted to corporal Cornhole's discrimination lawsuit?
Has anyone considered what thousands of iterations of this will do to the military? And what happens when Sgt. Swishy is promoted over Sgt. York in order to avoid the legal battle?
The result of this repeal is simple; if it does not destroy our military it will undermine it substantially.
Do we as a country have a will to do it?
I dunno. If homosexuality wasn’t stigmatized the cambridge five and mannning probably wouldn’t have done what they did. Does that make it any less an act of treason? No. But from a policy standpoint it either makes sense to
A) allow gay servicemembers to serve openly
or
B) have a no-gays policy and really enforce it. The stuff he got off SIPRnet doesn’t look that sensitive from an intelligent standpoint, though it’s embarrassing, and hopefully is a wake-up call before more sensitive cables or docs get swiped from gov’t bldgs.
Is there a count for how many people have died as a result of the afghan leaks?
Fags already serve openly. It’s not that hard to tell who some of the buttgoblins are. The only qeers getting the boot are the ones that cause problems aside from their buggery. “Serving openly” is actually a euphemism for “let’s destroy military culture to a point where it so dysfunctional it can’t possibly protect American interests.”
AH! The blade.
The strategy is to create a permanent protected class. The tactic will be a myriad of law suits.
I went to a pro-Prop 8 Rally last year.
The reason for a gay’s being against Prop 8:
“It hurts my feelings.”
My reason for my support of Prop 8:
“Your opposition to traditional marriage hurts
my feelings.”
Gay man’s response: “Phht! Yeah, whatever.”
So his are the only feelings that count.
Very typical.
http://www.coachisright.com/treason-in-uniform-how-a-gay%e2%80%99s-hissy-fit-is-helping-the-taliban-kill-our-friends-in-afghanistan/ post August 7, 2010.
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.