Pentagon Study: Gays Can Serve With No Harm… (Except the Occasional Rogue Gay Soldier Who Leaks 250,000 Documents to Wikileaks)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 5:43 AM
Note: This post neither endorses nor opposes gays serving in the US military. It is intended to offer you more information on the topic because once again the corrupt media has decided to campaign for and not report on the subject.
Shocker-
Once again a timely report was released today just as Congress is scheduled to debate the topic today in Congressional hearings. The state run media wants you to know that gays can serve in the military openly without hurting the military’s ability to fight.
The AP reported:
The Pentagon study that argues that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military’s ability to fight is expected to re-ignite debate this month on Capitol Hill over repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn’t been released.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who have both said they support repealing the law, were scheduled to discuss the findings with Congress Tuesday morning and with reporters Tuesday afternoon.
Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have mostly opposed repealing the law because they say efforts to do so are politically driven and dangerous at a time of two wars.
Of course, what the corrupt media will not tell you is that occasionally a rogue gay soldier may wig out and leak over 250,000 documents to Wikileaks after a relationship falls apart. The media does not believe that this is something you should know. The information does not help them with their cause. Granted, straight soldiers could do this too- They just haven’t yet.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama Has Done Nothing For Black Community (Video)
Published May 16, 2012 at 7:37 pm - 46 Comments
tarpon commented:
So with 42 GOP Senators, why not just send the lame duck home?
Oki2 commented:
But then again… a rogue heterosexual soldier may wig out and leak over 250,000 documents to Wikileaks after the relationship falls apart. No?
J commented:
We’ve had the social experiment in the whitehouse for 20 months, isn’t that enough time to decide that giving people passes in order to advance them into powerful positions is not a good idea? Obama is definitely an affirmative action failure that was groomed and placed in our whitehouse. Now, in another life and death situation, we are going to experiment with our military during a time of war? Commonsense where are you?
Formerly known as Skeptic commented:
Un-spinning the actual data in this story, that means that 30% of respondents believe that lifting the ban WILL have negative results and some unknown number (included in the 70% figure in the story) believe it will have “mixed” results which I would read as some localized bad results (likely in the places where we can least afford it – combat units). I suspect the “mixed results” category was included in the harmless equation in the article because it is the largest response category and sways the apparent result.
bg commented:
++
re: The media does not believe that this is something you should know.
well, that and the fact that Major Hasan was on a jihad, and of course any
background on Obama, starting with his BC up to & including his Inaugural
swearing in.. but hey, what do we know that they don’t know better?? /s/
==
moriyah commented:
Didn’t Hitler have a troop of armed faggots who were armed and dangerous? Maybe this is where the wikileaks thing is going. Assange’s lawyer works for open society – that’s George Soros. Ask yourself —- how did this young gay kid become an “military “analyst?” Maybe he was placed there. Maybe their cooking up a coupe with a group of gay turncoats under Soros wing.
Yew, I admit it’s farfetched…but it’s an interesting world we live in …….
greg commented:
Will sombody explain what “gays serving openly means” Does that mean couples can serve in the same work group which is a diaster for Hetros when it comes to work group cohesiveness. Does it mean screwing in public. Sex is kinda personnel and private, does “openly” mean kinda like the gay pride parades.
I can’t envision any upside to promoting open sex activity for either homos or hetros in the workforce
srhoades commented:
And the occasional gay sailor who decides to blow up the gun turret on the USS Iowa because he was rebuffed in his sexual advances toward another sailor.
bg commented:
++
moriyah #6
albeit i understand the point you were trying to make..
imo that’s a pretty wild assertion to make without presenting
an iota of proof to back it up, never mind it being farfetched..
[no, i don't think your homophobic.. just a bit
overanxious for an answer like the rest of US]
==
Bonny Kate commented:
Thank you for saying that, Jim.
joscefi commented:
“…what the corrupt media will not tell you is that occasionally a rogue gay soldier may wig out and leak over 250,000 documents to Wikileaks after a relationship falls apart. …. Granted, straight soldiers could do this too- They just haven’t yet….”
I’m not in favour of social experiments being conducted in real time, with real consequences, but does the motivation for treason really change treason in any way?
Is there a significant difference between what the “rogue gay soldier” did, and the betrayal of the U.S. by John Walker Jr. and his spy ring?
TAMinTX commented:
As a self-acclaimed RAGING conservative who went to a Military College with “un-open” gays and served in the Military with “un-open” gays (Gulf War era), the majority of posts I see on this subject are nothing but paranoid. The fact that sexual orientation predisposes someone as being weak, unpatriotic, or DEADLY, is–well–stupid and blindly ignorant. Good Order and Conduct is a component of one’s actions, not psyche.
No Man commented:
No man thinks that political correctness is far better than common sense and a sexual deviant should absolutely have a position of responsibility in which he can betray his country because of personal grieva the rest of us.
No man thinks Manning should have had access to secret documents.
bg commented:
++
flashback to a couple of previous posts..
==
Alec Rawls commented:
The Pentagon study is a fraud. Their poll only only asked “if having an openly gay person in a unit would have an effect in an intense combat situation.” Note the qualifications: “an openly gay person.” It didn’t ask whether the development of an openly gay subculture would be a problem, and it only asked whether resulting conflicts would keep gays and straights from being able to fight together “in an intense combat situation.”
Obviously these guys have to live together ALL the time, not just during intense combat situations, and the development of an openly gay subculture could well sour the experience for a lot of the straights. If they take away the DADT line, they aren’t talking about replacing it with any other line. Out gay behavior, every kind of flaming you see in San Francisco and in every other gay enclave in the country, will be explicitly allowed, because acting gay is exactly what will no longer be disallowed. The military will become drama-queen central for limpwristing, hip-pointing, gay-as-I-wanna-be display, including mock and serious come-ons directed at the real men. Give it ten years and recruiting of straights will collapse, and when the collapse starts, it will accelerate. Same thing happened to the American Catholic church when the gays got in. Goodby Good Men.
Trish commented:
Can someone please tell me how many gay people even care to join the military? I want to know, is this a career path for most gay people? And those who are currently serving, are they devoted to their country or is this a way to meet people? Most likely yht emajority of those past and present gay folks who joined a branch of our military, was for patriotic reasons, not so that they could be outed in any form. I believe that their sexuality was not of any issue when they made their decisions.
So, why does it matter now? I see no reason for the gay community which comprises approximately 2 % of the nation, to change how things are done for no other reason than to be intrusive and just plain obnoxious. Unless of course it’s for reasons that will never be healthy for our military.
Andreas K. commented:
Because a hetero would never do that?
Uhm… Hetero or gay, he would have done it either way. There are enough heteros who do stupid sh*t when their relationships end.
Scott commented:
First, Military leadership is not done by polling. Military leadership is executed by handpicked commanders who have been there and done that for decades in war and peace. Our military are the nation’s force in readiness, not a social experiment…Our commanders are spending huge amounts of time now unravelling boy, girl issues…Non-deployables, pregancies, STDs, rape, harrassment, EEO complaints are daily discussions for Commanders. None of which add to combate effectiveness. Gays serving openly will add another element, boy-boy and girl-girl issues…If it does not add to combat effectiveness, its dead weight. The packs of our combatants are heavy enough already!
oldguy commented:
What happens if the Draft is reinstituted? Isn’t it time to do away with this pretend military?
Neo commented:
This all revolves around the definition of “openly serve”
There will be no “flaming”
MGB commented:
The point isn’t that he was gay; the point is that he was a person known to be, shall we say, a tad unstable. Add to that that he hung with a group of liberal HACKERS in Cambridge, Mass. At what point was he approved for a high security clearance, seeing as how he was 22-years-old and a private? A teacher once described him as having a personality like “a bull in a china shop.” He lost jobs quickly because of his personality. School friends said teachers were hard pressed to deal with him. He was notably anti-Christian, refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the word “God”. However, he was known to be gay. SO, what role did his sexual orientation play in the APPROVAL of his security clearance, lest he accuse someone of discrimination? See, it’s like with Hasan. Political correctness leads to disaster when somebody can hold the discrimination card against the hiring/promoting entity. It’s time that we went back to simple common sense. Don’t they use psychological tests when they decide who’s stable enough and LOYAL enough for high security clearance? One would hope so. One would hope they don’t hire for such a position a KNOWN hacker.
Andreas K. commented:
Manning is a jackass. Has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. He’s just that, a moron. How he got the clearances, the access and who approved of it, that’s the interesting question.
CT commented:
There is NO upside to allowing (promoting) open homosexuals in the armed forces. Any Repubs stupid enough to believe we need a Rachel Mancow Division in our military ranks is probably already sleeping with Perez Hilton or dreams of it.
Jasper88 commented:
The upside might be, during a time of war, not having to discharge men and women who had years of honorable service to their country, who put their lives on the line protecting you and me, for the sole reason that they are gay.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Andreas K., he probably got the clearance for the same reason that the Ft. Hood shooter was allowed to remain in the military, despite all his ranting about jihad—because it was decided that diversity, and tolerance, trumped safety, and common sense.
If Don’t ask, don’t tell, is repealed, are gays going to become a protected subset within the military, allowed to get away with things straight soldiers aren’t, and put into positions they’re not qualified for?