[LS]

I'm all for the truth. But let's admit that Donnelly has made a career out of arguing that women should not be in the military, and let's admit that she has a serious stake in showing that Lynch and/or others did NOT perform either competently or heroically.

Moreover, let's also recall that the LATEST info---NOT released by the DOD--was totally in the other direction, namely that Lynch was not in danger, that the raid was "staged" and that she certainly was not tortured. That was the testimony of virtually all the doctors and nurses there. Now, they may be lying, but there IS another side to this story.

[Support Free Republic]

Totally off-topic, but did you know that only about 1,000 people contribute to keep Free Republic up and running? That is out of over 100,000 registered users on this site.

---

What would you do Without Free Republic?

2 posted on 3/6/02 7:30 AM Pacific by grammymoon:

"What would you do Without FR?

How would You Feel without FR?

Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?

Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?

How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?

Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.

How would you keep on top of things without FR?

How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?

How would you be part of a Freep?

What would you do without FR????

Freedom isn’t free.

If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together, to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference,PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW ! Donate Here By Secure Server

Jim can’t do this alone.

The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers. Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

**** And say THANKS to Jim Robinson! ****

It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Non-Sequitur]

The ultimate, most important question is, Why?

Because we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, the Balkans, Korea and dozens of other countries and we need the bodies. And this situation will continue unless the U.S. starts reducing its commitments abroad. Seeing as we are now headed for Liberia as well it's clear that that isn't going to happen with the current administration any time soon.

[joesnuffy]

2. Army Sgt. Cassaundra Grant lost her left leg, and eventually her right, when she was pinned under a tank that her transportation unit was moving in Kuwait on March 14.
She was treated at Walter Reed Hospital, and eventually transferred to the Brooke Medical Center in Texas on April 3—the same day that the sensationalized Jessica Lynch story headlined the Washington Post.
An Internet search reveals only one feature article about Sgt. Grant, a courageous and still-cheerful single mother of a two year-old boy, which appeared in her hometown newspaper on May 2. Perhaps this is because her story conflicts with the glamorized women-in-combat agenda

Having been both a grunt and a combat medic in Vietnam (2/39th & 6/31st 9th ID) and both patient & a volunteer in VA hosptials
IMO Women have NO place in combat -period....
Its bad enough that men have to be there

[alloysteel]

The reality of our involvement in Iraq is that a significant number of the casualties among the coalition forces were NOT of injuries received as a result of engagement with the enemy, but due to vehicular crashes, or in connection with operation of heavy machinery. The differentiation is not sufficiently explained, as in when there have been reports of "about one death per day since hostilities were declared over" in Iraq. True, there have been RPG attacks and samll-arms shootings from close up, but most of those who have died were involved in vehicle or industrial type accidents.

[William Terrell]

The ultimate, most important question is, Why?

Why? Because 1) the concept of warrior women is a load-bearing plank in the socialist platform and 2) if women can't fight, there can be a case made for their exclusion in political leadership roles.

[Steel Wolf]

Thousands of young men, who could have taken her place, would probably volunteer to serve in the military if President George W. Bush issued such a call. Instead, the armed forces are spending extra time and money recruiting unusually large numbers of “waiflike” women and single mothers to fight our nation’s wars. The ultimate, most important question is, Why?

The military is forced to accept women in combat and like it, due to the requirements of the civilian leadership. The militay doesn't have the option of saying 'no women in combat' or 'we need more men'. That kind of debate isn't allowed. You'd have to talk to congress and President Bush about a changing their position, but don't hold your breath.

What this means is that the Army and Marines are saddled with women in roles that will put them into direct combat, even if they are non-combatant MOSs. No ammount of spin will change the fact that women are a hinderance in combat. Period. Full stop. They can be as effective as men in support roles that don't require heavy lifting, but otherwise are a complete liablility.

Why does the pretty young former POW get all the attention while the crippled single mother gets none? Because the military has been ordered to ignore the truth in favor of the myth, and any officer who tried to oppose it would be commiting career suicide. Political BS, all the way.

[Guenevere]

Elaine Donnelly is asking some very good questions....
..and she always has!

She stays very focused in her pursuit of non-combat roles for women in the military.

She's been saying this for years.

Clinton is the one who introduced & promoted women's roles in combat.....

..and Elaine has been fighting, for years, to change that direction.

I can't fault her.....I'm just glad she perseveres!!

[keats5]

Call me crazy, but I believe God designed men and women for two different roles, both essential for our survival. While men need to defend their families and the future of their countries, women need to remain close to their children and home during wartime to maintain what family and country they have.

I understand single or childless women risking their lives to support the military. But when mothers risk their lives, they ignore their more importent duty- to preserve the integrety of their families during wartime.

[Lucy Lake]

Pinging...

[razorback-bert]

Lynch was in enemy hands and we mounted a rescue mission, once we knew her location.

What is the problem?

[djreece]

We all would like to know the full story of what happened to the 507th and I hope someday that will come out, so we can learn the lessons to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

BUT Elaine Donnelly and her grandstanding and using "initial reports" and half-truths to promote her agenda are really irritating. There is no evidence, from her past comments, that she is really interested in the full, complete truth. She is interested only in any details and rumors that fit her assumptions and assertions regarding women in combat. Who funds this blowhard?

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt