Posted on 03/25/2003 5:39:00 PM PST by Dajjal
Fleischer: Rape of POWs 'not worth mentioning'
Spokesman fails to address issue of U.S. women held by enemy
Editor's note: Each week, WorldNetDaily White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asks the tough questions no one else will ask. And each week, WorldNetDaily brings you the transcripts of those dialogues with the president and his spokesman. If you'd like to suggest a question for the White House, submit it to WorldNetDaily's exclusive interactive forum MR. PRESIDENT!
By Les Kinsolving
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer about the Iraqis' holding of a female United States soldier as a prisoner of war and how it relates to the issue of women in combat.
WND: Ari, one of the U.S. POWs in Iraq is Shoshana Johnson of Texas, while The New York Times this morning reports that Pfc. Jessica Lynch of West Virginia is missing or captured. And during Desert Storm, Maj. Rhonda Cornum was captured and gang-raped, while the other U.S. female prisoner of war would neither confirm or deny that she, too, was gang-raped. And my question, does the president think that the Iraqi army has somehow changed to avoid the raping of female prisoners?
FLEISCHER: Lester –
WND: Or does he believe that it would be wise –
FLEISCHER: Lester –
WND: – to keep the women out of combat areas?
FLEISCHER: The history of our military is that men and women have served this nation honorably and with distinction. The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here. It's a given that men and women serve our country with dignity, that Saddam Hussein's regime had better not harm our prisoners. The president has made that clear. … Lester, no follow-up.
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Johnson was the first U.S. female held as a POW since the Clinton administration's military leaders repealed a rule barring servicewomen from positions with a high risk of encountering enemy fire or capture.
"It's bad when a man is captured. But if a woman is captured, she doesn't have the same chance [to defend herself] that a man does," Elaine Donnelly, president of the Military Readiness Center, told the paper.
Said retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, "You must consider that women in every society are preyed upon if they are overtaken. ... Now that women are closer to the front lines, they are more subject to becoming captives and being manipulated."
Submit a question to the MR. PRESIDENT! forum.
Les Kinsolving is WorldNetDaily’s White House correspondent and a talk-show host for WCBM in Baltimore.
I'm saying that a positive statement should have been given specifically about that issue in point. Politicians routinely give out press statements about issues that everyone would consider not necessary to actually say.
I'm further saying that I think the reason such a statment wasn't given indicates this administration intends to continue with the policy of putting women in combat. And that is where my problem is and most certainly "worth mentioning". 
You are correct; with those pinheads is precisely where the blame lies. But let us not ignore the fact that the standards have been lowered to accomodate women.
If they can pass the tests they have ALREADY PROVEN they can fight.
They have proven nothing. Only fighting proves that one can fight. The Corps doesn't even match women against men with pugil sticks; real combat, with its absence of all male restraint, would prove even more of a massacre.
Why should I ask my father about the PRT when my mother had to pass the exact same thing? How many verses of the hymn did you get out in the teargas room, my mom got out two, the PRT required one, she passed the test.
The Marine Corps did not administer the PRT to females, and if you understood what comprised the test, the reason would be obvious. As for the gas chamber qualification, it is a familiarization test to ensure that everyone knows how to quickly and properly fit and seal his gas mask; the nonlethal CS is used to motivate everyone to pay attention. While Xena was singing the Hymn, a stronger male enemy would be snapping her neck.
As I've said, repeatedly, only to be ignored, I don't want any kind of double standard. Same tests for everybody, and they better be damn tough tests, especially for the Marines.
If the standards were the same -- yet still "damn tough" as you propose, no women would pass, and the issue of women in combat would be a moot point.
WRONG AGAIN. I'm a man. But I'm familiar enough with the region that I know sexual assault isn't reserved for women. And I'm familiar enough with psychology to know that it's equally scarring to both genders.
Then you are a man in a fantasy world. Torture of a male does not have the same impact upon his shipmates as even the threat of torturing a woman. As another poster correctly stated, an assault on a male is an assault on one man, while an assault on a female is an assault on the entire unit. You are fighting the nature of both women and men, and the resulting impact on a unit's cohesiveness and ability to win in battle.
Women don't play in the NFL because it too is living in the past. They're coming. It's not gonna be long. And you'll have to decide which century you live in.
Oh, sure. As long as the NFL is about violence and winning, it will be played by men -- and we're not talking about kickers. To the ultimate extent, war is about winning and nothing else.
As for the strongest women being no better than the weakest men, what a large stinking pile of moronic dog crap. Go say that in the nearest gym. On average women aren't as strong as men, any statement across the board is doomed to idiotic failure. You're wrong, and thank God the American people are learning you're wrong. This isn't about "placing" anybody. This is about allowing those who can achieve to achieve. No double stndards, no lowering of the standards, just aknowledging the simple truth.
Fantasy. It is one thing to be just plain wrong, even to fly in the face of the obvious. I just hope that your misguided theories never have to be proven wrong on the battlefield. It would be an ugly sight, and a needless tragedy.
Wow... for once, you are 100% correct about something.
You mean the "normalized" standard tests.
Spent some years (working ;) ) at a psych hospital where there was no shortage of danger and what amounted to hand-to-hand combat (coordinated take-downs of violent people). Just because the hospital didn't call it fighting didn't mean it wasn't. Get a call from a unit that all available males are needed. Everyone hauls ass over there; if they've managed to get the guy (usually) into a soft room, he's in there screaming like a banshee, sometimes naked, out of his mind with rage, trying his damndest to tear down the building. Everyone calmly divvies up assignments as to who grabs what, who's got a towl on his forehead so he can't get his teeth into anyone, etc...
Even as the assignments go out, your pupils are dilating, your pulse is accelerating, mouth gets coppery, feel like your made of coiled spring. This uncontrollable transformation is as old a man himself. It's about getting ready to do battle with something or someone. A well-trained and veteran group of guys could execute the take-down flawlessly (no harm to the patient), but almost never without one of them getting banged up, bruised, cut, whatever.
If the situation was escalating too rapidly for enough guys to gather, or there were just too few guys scheduled that night, then there'd be female workers joining in, maybe even some nurses. The difference in the two types of crews (all male versus mixed) was immediately recognizable and undeniable. An all-male crew will function with a focus and controlled ferocity that is utterly impossible with women on board. Women mean guys are worried the women will get hurt, even if the woman in question is the biggest, toughtest dyke nurse on the grounds. This is a distraction. Women mean one or all of the guys is uncontrollably sexually "aware" of the woman. This is a distraction. And that big, tough dyke (who has by now earned my eternal, unabashed RESPECT for doing what she does day after day) is never a match for a man as relates to ability to bring strength and (again) ferocity to the situation. It's not even close.
I'm not military and never will be at this age, but my opinion based on life experience is it's absolute madness to put women in situations where they will (with rare exception) dilute the destructive capabilities of fighting forces. I fully recognize that many women can perform the duties required of a combat soldier; the issue isn't "Can they do it?" The issue is: is their presence, as it relates to the majority male fighting force, a dilution of the destructive capabilities of the force. Surely it is.
Beg your pardon, but you're spouting this BS to an infantry officer who has led units through combat training evolutions many times, and through combat once -- so I might have a clue about the purpose of that training. Let's not confuse a training aid with with the real thing.
We don't wear protective gear to survive enemy use of nonlethal gas, so the purchase of the gas chamber is not to prove that you can "handle" the CS gas. The purpose of the nuisance gas is to add emphasis and realism to the training, and to instill trust in the proper use of the protective gear. Rest assured that when that gear has to be used in combat, it will be because the enemy employs a deadly substance which no unmasked person can "handle."
...now you're changing the subject. It was about the women facing the horrors of combat now you're talking about the shipmates. Stick to the subject.
It was you who asked about the effect of women upon unit cohesion. Human nature and unit cohesion are inextricably related, and it is apparent that you understand neither.
They're discussing letting women in the NFL RIGHT NOW. They're having to because so many college teams are letting them be kickers. It's coming. I know you wont be man enough to apologize when the NFL proves you horribly worng though.
Yeah. Right.
So you actually think the weakest man can squat 155 kilos... So much for the strongest woman being equivalent to the weakest man.
Policy isn't made on account of freakish examples of either sex. You still have the mistaken impression that fitness for combat can be determined in a series of tests, and that a handful of geeked-up amazons are therefore qualified as warriors. If you ever witnessed two men fight to the death (or if you were ever one of them), the level of sheer brutality would erase all of your grand illusions.
My heart goes out to the CMC, who has to deal with this shit. I would have loved to see the political brass try it with Chesty Puller.
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.