Posted on 12/17/2010 6:35:52 PM PST by rabscuttle385
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, says she's willing to support the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members.
In a prepared statement, Snowe said that she will vote for a new stand-alone bill co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would eliminate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The policy, enacted in 1993, keeps gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen from serving openly in the military.
(snip)
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who co-sponsored the repeal with Collins, indicated that Snowe's support would give the bill the 60 votes it needs to pass to avoid a Republican filibuster.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunjournal.com ...
I’m sick and tired of the Maine twins. The only thing that stops me from saying throw them out is the possibility of a much worse Democrat replacing them.
As for Lugar, he lives in a Red State. He should definitely be primaried.
As a veteran, I’m willing to bet a week’s pay that neither Snowe nor Lieberman ever spent one day in the military. But, on the other hand, the Dutch Army allows gays to serve openly. Does anyone remember the last time the Dutch have won a war?
With lisa (Play Misty For Me) moo-cowski also down for the cause, I see a prime opportunity for the good citizens of Alaska to start a recall process. Six years is too long to wait to replace this hideous excuse for a human being.
The 18 states allowing for recall are as follows: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.
That’s right, stick a fork in him, Lugar is washed up. I’m sure he’s getting a lot of disgusted Hoosier e-mails like mine.
We could give you George Mitchell again.....or Bill Cohen.....or Ed Muskie.
Unfortunately these two are as good as your likely to get from Maine
Why would they want to re call her? They just elected her for 6 more years.
Hahaha...as if the ban on gays dated to 1993.
When was the first time the Dutch won a war?
This will make homosexuality a protected status in the military. If you even upset a queer, you will be brought up on charges.
I don’t recall them even having a Republican.
They only learned that when you have power, you need to screw the people as much and as quickly as possible. But since the budget has NOT been settled (a continuing resolution is NOT a budget), will the GOP leadership hold the line and block all other legislation?
>Does anyone remember the last time the Dutch have won a war?<
http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378
At a March 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, two former service members who had been discharged for homosexuality focused their testimony on their own personal stories. The third witness, retired Marine General John Sheehan, came across as a credible grown-up with more serious concerns on his mind.
Having served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (1994-1997), Gen. Sheehan was uniquely qualified to provide strong testimony that weakened the claims of civilian gay activists who want America’s military to be more like European forces.
Referring to the military officials from nations that Sheehan led as NATO commander, Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked whether the general had discussed the issue with them. “Did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?” Much to Levin’s surprise, Sheehan answered “Yes” and proceeded to provide details.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, Sheehan said, European nations began focusing on peacekeeping because “they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other European nations came to believe that there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries. “They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that included the unionization of their militaries; it included open homosexuality.”
He continued,
“That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I am referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the [Bosnian] Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.” 1
Chairman Levin asked whether Dutch leaders had told the general that the inclusion of homosexuals had contributed to the military debacle. Unlike some news reports’ descriptions, Gen. Sheehan chose his words carefully, saying that commanders he had spoken to “included that as part of the problem…. [T]he combination was the liberalization of the military, a net effect, basically of social engineering.” 2
Not just the Dutch, but for whatever reason, Russia, UK and Israel permit gays to openly serve.
These “military experts” are flipping to the wrong side. Not surprised. They should realize that the military is serious business and not the make believe world of thoeretical social engineering. This will get some good people killed, queers included . . .
Lie be r man
Leave no evidence.
Regards,
GtG
Blood of Tyrants: “This will make homosexuality a protected status in the military. If you even upset a queer, you will be brought up on charges.”
I believe you’re correct. Of course most of the homosexuals will still keep it private, but I think there’s no doubt some will join and push the issue just to make a point. That means there will come a time when they’ll be able to have special events/treatment, just like minorities. Think gay pride celebrations! Of course, we’ll also have the battle for gay marriage, dependent benefits, etc. Who can deny gays the right to marry when they are willing to die for their country on the battlefield, right?
I spent nearly a decade deploying regularly to the Middle East and living in close quarters (tents, shared rooms) with other men. At that time, men were not even allowed to go into the tent areas reserved for women. I don’t know what policy is now. If sexual attraction is still a factor, how will heterosexuals be separated from homosexuals? If it’s bad to have men and women sleeping in the same tents, then how can it be OK to billet me next to a guy who likes to sodomize other men?
The repeal of DADT opens up a massive can of worms on the military. Most of our senators are completely insulated from the reality of military service. The vast majority have never even served. Yet, a majority apparently stands ready to serve up their world view of sodomy as normal on the military.
They KNOW the new congress would never vote for this crap, so they are rushing it through in spite of us. Republicans like Snowe should (MUST) be banished from the party for colluding with the Democrats against her own party. It’s one thing to have a different opinion on some issues. It’s completely different to go against the will of the people as expressed in the last election. Again, they KNOW the jig is up so they are rushing to get this crap done now in CLEAR AND OPEN DEFIANCE against voters (who have consistently rejected gay marriage everywhere in the US, BTW).
I swear most senators get what they know of the military from watching Starship Troopers. A person’s sex drive is a very powerful thing. It’s what drives us. To think we’re going to someday have an effective military where men, women and everything in between is showering and billeting together is simply not reality. It’s a Hollyweird fantasy.
I have no doubt these foolish senators think they are doing good deeds, but they are only creating disruption and chaos in the ranks. And what for? A small percent of folks who wear their sexual deviance with pride?!? The military is NOT a company. We are here to kill people and destroy things, and anything that stands in the way of that mission is bad. We have aggressive military programs to make sure our troops are in top shape. They discourage smoking and encourage proper eating for example. Don’t smoke, but if you want to engage in high risk anal sex, mixing blood and excrement in a medically dangerous act with your barracks mate, that’s great?!?
My mind simply can’t grasp how people can see this a normal and good in private life, much less the military. This goes beyond live and let live. People actually APPROVE of it. I say a great delusion is on our nation. God help us!
(I think a lot of us are soon going to learn how Lot felt)
Exactly. If a male and female cannot be billeted together because of sexual attraction, what are they going to do with the homos?
And as you said, this is the last middle finger of the Rats as they are thrown out on their asses.
Let them serve openly - Put a big pink “G” on their backs. /s
It really irritates me that so many FReepers still believe in the fiscal conservatism/social liberalism nonsense. You see it on the Bolton for president thread. Bolton is great in some areas, but he’s also for gay marriage and open homosexuality in the military.
Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are inextricably entwined. You cannot have one without the other. This DADT issue points out the weakness in the libertarian point of view. I suppose someone could come up with a way to disprove of sodomy in the ranks as being more costly, but taking the moral aspects out of this issue is like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. We conservatives need BOTH arms: fiscal and moral.
Anyone with lick of sense should be able to see where this is leading the country. I never thought I’d live to see it, but I really, seriously think many of us who hold to natural, God-given morality will learn how Lot felt. American Christians are simply not going to be able to avoid ostracism and abuse much longer.
The time is coming where I’ll be punished at work for even mentioning anything negative about homosexuality. A homosexual will be able to report me for creating a hostile and intimidating work environment. Congress wants to protect the free speech rights of gays, but who cares if I’m unable to express my faith freely without fear of losing my job.
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.