Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Kyle Drennen's blog
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
  • Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Condemns Photo of Obama Holding ‘Military Style’ Watergun
  • New Liberal Study 'Lends Credence to Conservative Charges' of Bias; Dramatic Media Tilt Toward 'Gay Marriage'
  • Senate Amnesty Supporters Boast Marco Rubio ‘Neutralized’ Limbaugh, Fox News

CBS: Gay Community 'Celebrated The End of An Era' With DADT Repeal

By Kyle Drennen | December 20, 2010 | 16:23

A  A
Kyle Drennen's picture

At the top of a report on CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Whit Johnson proclaimed: "In San Francisco yesterday, they celebrated the end of an era. After nearly two decades, the policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, is all but history." The one-sided segment focused almost exclusively on supporters of repeal.

Of the ten sound bites featured throughout the story, only one, that of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, was critical of the policy being overturned. Johnson described how "Opponents of repeal...pleaded that such a dramatic change during a time of two wars would put troops in harm's way." However, after the clip of McCain was played, Johnson dismissed critics of repeal: "Democrats got a boost from a recent Pentagon study in which two-thirds of U.S. troops said changing the controversial law would have little impact, a feeling shared by most of America."

On Monday's Early Show, congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes went so far as to assert: "The vote was hailed by military leaders, who will now work to undo the Clinton-era policy." Cordes failed to mention any of the military leaders who wanted the policy to remain in place.

Both Johnson and Cordes touted the repeal as a win for Democrats. Concluding his report on Sunday Morning, Johnson announced: "The vote is seen as a major victory for Democrats reeling from a painful November election." On the Early Show, Cordes similarly cheered: "Democrats achieved their longstanding goal of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' just two weeks before an influx of Republicans in Congress would have made it impossible."

Here is a full transcript of Johnson's December 19 Sunday Morning report:

9:03AM ET TEASE:

CHARLES OSGOOD: The Senate yesterday voted to repeal the 17-year-old 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law, clearing the way for gays to serve openly in the military. Civil rights advocates applauded the action. Opponents fear it could weaken the military. President Obama, who supported it, is expected to sign the measure into law later this week. We'll have more on the end of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in just a few minutes.

9:07AM ET SEGMENT:

CHARLES OSGOOD: As we reported a few minutes ago, the Senate has voted to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' clearing the way for gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Whit Johnson has the story behind the headlines.

EVAN BAYH [SEN. D-IN]: The House Resolution 2965 is adopted.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

WHIT JOHNSON: In San Francisco yesterday, they celebrated the end of an era. After nearly two decades, the policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, is all but history. An overwhelming moment for retired Navy Commander Zoe Dunning, who has worked to repeal the law since its beginning.

ZOE DUNNING: It's very emotional. And I just had an active duty service member, who has done three tours overseas and has served for 11 years, with tears in his eyes, thank me. You can't ask for more than that.

MIKE ALMAY: The principle core value of the Air Force is integrity first.

JOHNSON: Former Major Mike Almay served in the Air Force for 13 years until his superiors read his emails, determined that he was gay and he was discharged. He came to Capitol Hill to watch Congress vote.

ALMAY: Soon we can serve in the military without having to sacrifice our honor, our integrity, without having to lie every day about who we are.

BAYH: The yeas are 65. The nays 31.

JOHNSON: The bill passed with 65 votes. Eight of them Republican. Including Maine Senator Susan Collins.

SUSAN COLLINS [SEN. R-ME]: We should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing to put on the uniform of this country, fight for us in war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and put freedom on the line for us.

JOHNSON: Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman called it one of the best days of his 22 years in the Senate.

JOE LIEBERMAN [SEN. I-CT]: We're going to be true to what America is supposed to be about. We're supposed to be about not who you are but how you do your job. And you know, gay and lesbian Americans in the military will not be seen as gays and lesbians. They'll be seen as what they are: American soldiers.

JOHNSON: Opponents of repeal, led by Arizona Senator John McCain, pleaded that such a dramatic change during a time of two wars would put troops in harm's way.

JOHN MCCAIN [SEN. R-AZ]: I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage.

JOHNSON: In the weeks leading up to the vote, Democrats got a boost from a recent Pentagon study in which two-thirds of U.S. troops said changing the controversial law would have little impact, a feeling shared by most of America. A CBS News poll earlier this month found that 69% of Americans support allowing gay men and women to serve openly. That's up from 42% in 1993. The year 'Don't As, Don't Tell' was implemented under President Clinton.

BILL CLINTON: The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status.

JOHNSON: Until that point, homosexuals were barred from serving in the armed forces. But since then, more than 13,000 service members revealed to be gay have been ousted from the military. President Obama has made repeal a priority.

BARACK OBAMA: This year I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

JOHNSON: Later this week, the President is expected to sign the bill into law. After the President's signature, the Pentagon will begin an implementation plan, followed by a 60-day waiting period, all of which could take up to a year. Still, the vote is seen as a major victory for Democrats reeling from a painful November election. And an even bigger win for those like Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, he's been fighting discharge for two-and-a-half years.

VICTOR FEHRENBACH: On Tuesday, I put my flight suit back on and I go back and work as I have for the past 191/2 years, proudly.

Here is a full transcript of Cordes's December 20 Early Show report:

7:07AM ET

JEFF GLOR: Now to politics, the heated debate over a new arms control treaty with Russia continues today and President Obama says he'll sign the law clearing the way for gays to serve in the military. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the latest from Capitol Hill this morning. Nancy, good morning to you.

NANCY CORDES: Jeff, good morning. Eight Republicans joined nearly every Democrat in the Senate this weekend in voting to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which the President called 'a crucial step for civil rights.'

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Clock's Ticking on Capitol Hill; Packed Agenda Looms For Lame Duck Session]

EVAN BAYH [SEN. D-IN]: 2965 is adopted.

CORDES: Democrats achieved their longstanding goal of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' just two weeks before an influx of Republicans in Congress would have made it impossible.

JOE LIEBERMAN [SEN. I-CT]: Really just two-thirds of the senators voting, voting for repeal, was a thrilling day, honestly one of my best days in my 22 years in the Senate.

CORDES: The vote was hailed by military leaders, who will now work to undo the Clinton-era policy. Many Republicans had argued the process would be a distraction in wartime. As soon as the vote was over, senators turned to another military matter, whether to ratify the START arms treaty with Russia. It would set a limit on both countries' nuclear warhead stockpile at 1,550, down from 2,200. And set up a system to monitor those reductions.

JEFF SESSIONS [SEN. R-AL]: This is a big mistake.

CORDES: Skeptical Republicans argued the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options.

MITCH MCCONNELL [SEN. R-KY]: I've decided I cannot support the treaty. I think the verification provisions are inadequate.

CORDES: Inspections ended a year ago, when a 1991 treaty expired. Failure to ratify this treaty would be a serious blow to President Obama's foreign policy agenda.

JOHN KERRY [SEN. D-MA]: There is nothing in there that restricts our missile defense system. The President made that crystal clear.

CORDES: With the holidays approaching, Democrats are hoping to hold a vote soon so they can turn to one last priority, a $6.2 billion bill to provide medical care for firefighters and other emergency responders to the 9/11 attacks.

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND [SEN. D-NY]: America will be watching very closely to how this Senate votes on something that goes to the fundamental issue of who we are as Americans and whether we stand by our heroes.

CORDES: The two New York senators dropped the cost of that bill by about a billion dollars and changed the way that they paid for it, which they hope will help them to win over some Republicans who are worried about the price tag. Back to you.

GLOR: Nancy Cordes in Washington this morning, Nancy, thank you very much.
 

About the Author

Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.
  • Conservatives & Republicans
  • Homosexuality
  • Liberals & Democrats
  • Congress
  • Military
  • Nancy Cordes
  • Whit Johnson
  • CBS
  • Early Show
  • Sunday Morning
  • Kyle Drennen's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

We prayed.....

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 4:32pm.

...with saddened hearts at the furthering of the homosexual agenda for revival in America as our county took one more step down the road of moral decay.

  • Login to post comments

We pray

Submitted by bsny on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 4:56pm.

that homophobes like you find out , shortly after you have a life saving blood transfusion, that it was a gay person who saved your life - Praise God.

  • Login to post comments

Not in this country, Oscar

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 4:59pm.

At least not "open" gays like yourself.

I'll thank you to keep your infectious diseases out of our general blood supply.

ps: are you still "married to that real man"?

  • Login to post comments

Nobody said anything about

Submitted by scarebear83 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:02pm.

Nobody said anything about blood transfusions, or even being a homophobe. The reason they said this is another step toward moral decay is because homosexuals don't simply want to be accepted, they want the freedom to make their bedroom life public, as seen by those shouting from the rooftops wanting DADT repealed. The policy in place was a good policy, not because it "forced people to lie" because one is not lying if they can't answer a question that's not supposed to be asked, hence why it is called *Don't Ask* Don't Tell. If a gay person saves my life then I will thank them, but you do know that gay men who are active can't give blood right?

"... they slash prices, drown in their sorrows, punch buttons, and kill time. I won't tell you what they do to eggs. They blow up photos, hang plants, crash at a friend's place and then when they're done arguing they bury the hatchet." -Mork
  • Login to post comments

Homophobe?

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:18pm.

Def: one having an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (Mirriam-Webster)

While I will readily admit to being discriminatory against homosexuality, but not the homosexual, it is purely rational. Besides being declared an abomination by God, homosexuality is an aberration. All one needs to do is look at human anatomy. It should be obvious even to you.

I think your sig is really appropriate to your comment - B.S. NY


 

  • Login to post comments

Because straight people NEVER

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:18pm.

Because straight people NEVER engage in anal sex, right?  The anatomical argument only stands when discussing procreation and homosexuality.  

  • Login to post comments

Thank you for providing further proof.

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:27pm.

Your  argument is based on another form of deviance? LOL!

You'd be better off using the "personal attack" method you Prog/Libs are so fond of.

  • Login to post comments

Is this your

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:30pm.

Is this your counter-argument?  I'm not certain...

 

Wait!

 

Nope, that wasn't it after all.  

  • Login to post comments

You didn't present.....

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:39pm.

....a valid argument. Therefore, there was no "counter-argument", nor was one necessary.

  • Login to post comments

All one needs to do is look

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:54pm.

All one needs to do is look at human anatomy. It should be obvious even to you.

I believe this was your point?

  • Login to post comments

We're all familiar with your love of anal sex, Zippers

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:27pm.

Enough already.

  • Login to post comments

SoL

Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:28pm.

Bean Counter, Defender of Poo Love.

- Shy Turntablism

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

Aw jeez, Shy

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:36pm.

GAKKK!

  • Login to post comments

Ahh---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 7:00pm.

Lib-Dims in power at high levels in government, screwing things up;  jihadists knocking at our door, pretending to only represent Sharia Law, in order to get strongly situated so as to really screw America over;  flamers in fatigues now allowed to flaunt themselves and screw

Well, never mind.

 At least there is now another thread for the man of a thousand usernames to screw up his courage, step forward, and demonstrate, as a lib, that he has a screw loose.

At least now I understand the following to actually be true:

"Cheer up.  Things could be worse".

"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse".

MD 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Democrats

Submitted by Gothampc on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 4:39pm.

Liberals that I know are cheering this decision.  They get rabid when I remind them that it was Bill Clinton who signed DADT and DOMA into law.  Apparently Bill Clinton was held at gun point by gay-hating Republicans and forced to sign these laws into legistlaton.

  • Login to post comments

had the same reaction

Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 4:46pm.

It would have been comical if it wasn't so depressing when the "married" girl said "you're just trying to confuse me!!"(from over the weekend at a movie theater, which I mentioned in another thread)  Yep, the truth can be confusing to a liberal!  Happens time and time again!

-Jon

It really is an end to an era, just not the way they think.

  • Login to post comments

It will be a fascinating experiment, to be sure

Submitted by merly1 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:51pm.

Homosexuals, esp homosexual males, have always been major risk takers.  While this can be good for making it big in Hollywood,  it hasnt worked so well for their personal health decisions (the hundreds of thousands of young gay males who died of AIDS) or some organizations that decided to employ them (think--Catholic Church almost bankrupted by ephebophilic homosexual priests).     Personally, I dont think wartime is the best moment to embark on this adventure, but it was done by a lameduck COngress that had won a fair election in 2008.
WE WILL SEE........

  • Login to post comments

Except that,

Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:49pm.

back in '93, the dems had majorities in the Senate and House, much like the ones they've enjoyed for the last two years.  So, DADT was imposed on the military by dems, signed into law by a dem POTUS, and now, 17 years later, they've "rescued" us from them?  Somehow, this doesn't compute as anything more than payback to a very small, but well-heeled minority, to keep their wallets around for 2012.  Don't peddle that altruistic, idealistic BS that they did this for noble intentions, they didn't.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Good.  Now the military that

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:01pm.

Good.  Now the military that represents the American people can be served by all Americans.  

  • Login to post comments

I can grarantee that if one

Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:34pm.

I can grarantee that if one of them gets fresh with one of the combat troops, you will see a friendly fire incedents increase.

You dont mess with mother nature, and you dont mess with a man with a gun.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

You know the gays are going

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:34pm.

You know the gays are going to have guns too, right?

  • Login to post comments

I can tell you have never

Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:36pm.

I can tell you have never been in the military.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

I have not.  

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:37pm.

I have not.  

  • Login to post comments

Like I said, friendly

Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:40pm.

Like I said, friendly fire.....

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

The original defecator?

Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:16pm.

Besides the current McDonalds uniform you wear, have you ever donned a uniform of our armed forces?

I make my points real simple about this, IF YOU NEVER HAVE, your opinion means NOTHING to me.

I agreed with Clinton on this, it changes the whole set of rules if you know the guy next to you is gay, close quarters and all that stuff and if you ever have done it, you have no clue. 

Has anyone asked Billyboy his thoughts on this?

Ooops, my bad.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin
  • Login to post comments

I wore a lifeguard uniform

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:30pm.

I wore a lifeguard uniform for some time, but that's about as far as I go with authority and dress code.  No, I don't work at McDonalds, but the joke is funny nevertheless.  

Yes, it is.

You know what makes me chuckle during all of this?  Retired military who are pissed off that the younger generation of soldiers might not mind as much as their elders that gay soldiers will one day be serving openly alongside the rest of the US Military where they belong.

  • Login to post comments

Cmon, join in as Zippers "chuckles" at WWII & Korean War vets

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:03am.

You never know when to stop do you, JO?

  • Login to post comments

Yes. Deddy Zippers speaks for so many.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:25am.

  The voice of conservatism and christianity and Republicans and the DOD now knows exactly, EXACTLY what goes through the mind of ALL the retired military men. KNOWS IT LIKE HE KNOWS HIS SWOLLEN RED NADS.

 But yeah, it ain't him. No. We are picking on him for no reason at all. He is Reformed nah. Really. He ain't just making poo up. No. HE KNOWS THE RETIRED MILITARY GUYS, GUYS THAT SERVED 20, 30 YEARS. He knows ALL of them are pissed.

 No. He has spoken to them. Hundreds. Thousands. All of them. And he can now be the voice for them.

 He is not just making up crap to needle and dig. NO. You LIE monkeyman. You lie about the troll Monkeyman. Dang Monkeypeople lying about the troll.

  • Login to post comments

My Dad's retired military,

Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:13am.

My Dad's retired military, served 23 years in the Navy and was in WWII in the pacific and in Korea.  He's not pissed off about this at all.  He's not happy with it, but he's not pissed off.

You are an incredibly shallow, disrespectful POS for having that kind of attitude towards the very people who fought for your freedom to be an asshat in public.  Maybe some day you'll mature enough to realize how much you owe to the people you don't even know who put their lives on the line to keep you free.

I'm not retired, but I spent 8 years in the Navy and went to Vietnam.  My nephew is in Afghanistan right now.  Want to say anything shitty about the two of us?

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Have I said anything

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:52pm.

Have I said anything derogatory about the military?  Individuals?  I have family and friends currently serving, as well as those who served in Vietnam, Korea, and WWII, and I honor them as well as those who have served both past and present.

  • Login to post comments

Shut up Butt Hurt Diaper Troll.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:59pm.

It is an insult to think a coward and a liar like you thinks he can get away with telling everyone what goes through the mind of men that have served this country with honor for 20 and 30 years. YOU SPEAK FOR SISSIES, GIRLYMEN, MILQUETOASTS AND WHINERS. THAT IS IT.

First nwah the Dead Zipper Butt Hurt Diaper troll makes 50 conservatives are statements as he is the self appointed voice of conservatism (see Item 16) then proceeds to make pronouncements of behalf of Conservatitve Christiants or Christian Conservatives or whatever he calls them now that he is reformed nah. He used to just call them conservatards.

Now, looks like he has opened up a new office to speak for Military Retirees.

Dead Zippers (FKA nwahs) : Retired military who are pissed off that the younger generation of soldiers...

Whatever nwahs that is not nwahs  I'm not nwahs. Somebody change my diaper. Sure was odd. nwahs was the voice of conservatives, retards, Fox News haters club (Dead Zippers - member in good standing since 1998) and King of the Butt Hurt Diaper Trolls.

Yeah, you ain't nwahs. Tell us again. Similarities are just a passin' is allz. Stupid MonkeyMen.

  • Login to post comments

I don't even know what your

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:02pm.

I don't even know what your posts mean anymore.

Did you have a new point?  As I skimmed through, I saw none.  

  • Login to post comments

Yes. We know Stupid Butt Hurt Diaper Troll. It's hard.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:25pm.

  It is a hard scrabble life being an antithetical troll that insults the military. Dang monkeypeople type words on a website and it is tough for the little trollies. They only go to school through grade three. Don't you monkeymen know that? Dang monkeypeople and their dang posts that go longer than 2 sentences. Dang you all monkeypeoples!

  Don't worry, the people that are calling for your head understand very very very well what the dang Monkeyman Veet wrote.

  So there really is no point in you even trying to make the tiniest most feeble try at making a cogent point in reply. Even when you try, it is usually a sad sight for other stupid trolls to behold. It is why they all stay away from you as well.

  Dang monkeymen and their dang wit. Why can't trollies be born with that too. trollie tries. trollie tries hard but still can't get that whole wit thing down. Dang you monkeypeoples!

  • Login to post comments

Skimming... Skimming...  

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:28pm.

Skimming...

Skimming...

 

 

Nope, same ol' same ol'...

  • Login to post comments

Right. Only in the gated enclave of Zipper Acres is "chuckling"

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:05pm.

at retired "pissed off" military considered honoring them.

When digging your own grave, use a very small shovel instead of a backhoe... you can stretch it out that way,

  • Login to post comments

I call BS

Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:57pm.

Are you thinking I'm going to believe that this comment about retired military isn't derogatory? 

"You know what makes me chuckle during all of this?  Retired military who are pissed off that the younger generation of soldiers might not mind as much as their elders that gay soldiers will one day be serving openly alongside the rest of the US Military where they belong."

If you are, then either you are stupid or you think I am stupid.  And since I can clearly see that you are trying to BS me, it's you who's stupid enough to think that would work.

If you have so many people around you who have/are risking their lives to keep you free, you should show some respect and stop writing stupid BS like that.

I used to wonder if The Vet wasn't going a little overboard in pursuing you, but now I see he's not doing nearly enough.  I'll have to help him out however I can.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Let's see here: you

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:05pm.

Let's see here: you misunderstood my post, and even after I pointed that out to you, you continue to insist that I meant something other than what I posted.

What's next?  We arm wrestle over my intended meaning?  Here's my meaning:

If you're no longer a part of the military, you're no longer part of the decision.  

Now was that clear enough, or would you like to debate the subliminal?  

  • Login to post comments

I call BS

Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:10pm.

Again.

Keep making up stuff about what you really meant. 

It's not going to work, but you're more than welcome to keep trying.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

I couldn't care less how you

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:12pm.

I couldn't care less how you take my meaning, and I certainly don't intend to debate it further.

  • Login to post comments

Excellent!

Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:17pm.

That's exactly the kind of statement I've come to expect from you.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Dead Zippers AKA nwahs LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:46pm.

The LYING Deddy Zippers: If you're no longer a part of the military, you're no longer part of the decision.

YOU LIE AGAIN. It would take 20 seconds out of your day to find the truth.

Being retired is a misnomer. You are transferred to the inactive reserve and can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

++++ 

Another significant difference between military retirement, and civilian retirement, is that a retired military member can be recalled to active duty. According to Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1352.1:

  • Involuntary Order to Active Duty. The Secretary of a Military Department may order any retired Regular member, retired Reserve member who has completed at least 20 years of active military service, or a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to active duty without the member's consent at any time to perform duties deemed necessary in the interests of national defense in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 683 (reference (b)). This includes the authority to order a retired member who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to active duty to facilitate the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction under Section 302(a) of reference (b). A retired member may not be involuntarily ordered to active duty solely for obtaining court-martial jurisdiction over the member.

In all honesty, however, the chances that a military retiree would be recalled to active duty after age 60, or who have been retired for more than five years, are slim. DOD categorizes retirees into three categories, with category I as the most likely to be recalled to active duty, and category III as the least likely. Individuals over the age of 60 are in category III, which is the same category as individuals with disabilities. Recall of category III retires is extremely unlikely. According to DOD, the categories are:

  • Category I. Nondisability military retirees under age 60 who have been retired less than 5 years. E1.1.3.2.
  • Category II. Nondisability military retirees under age 60 who have retired 5 years or more.
  • Category III. Military retirees, including those retired for disability, other than categories I or II retirees (includes warrant officers and health care professionals who retire from active duty after age 60).

Source

+++++ 

Screw you and your damnable LIES Dead Zippers.

Screw you and your damnable insults to the retired military community.

NOW TELL YOU HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH AGAIN.

  • Login to post comments

You know......

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:35pm.

sometimes it's better if "all groups" are not represented openly. You know, like pedophiles, bigamists, kidnappers, communists. Yes, they are in the military as are convicted felons. But, I imagine soon the Left will be clammoring - no, make that "squealing" - for them to be recognized as "downtrodden and victimized minorities" worthy of "special legislation" and then, reparations too, I imagine.

  • Login to post comments

Pedophilia - illegal Bigamy

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:36pm.

Pedophilia - illegal

Bigamy - illegal

Kidnapping - illegal

Homosexuality - legal

Any chance you're going to revise yet another miserably weak argument?

  • Login to post comments

Communists......

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:55pm.

....you left out "communists".  :-)

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, the inclusion of

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:00pm.

Yeah, the inclusion of communism in my argument of legalisms would have screwed up everything!

Good eye. ; )

  • Login to post comments

Wrong again

Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:35pm.

Pedophilia is not illegal. It's also legal to be fat, handicapped, and old....and the military discriminates against all three.

Thank you for playing.


  • Login to post comments

Figures you'd leave out Sodomy

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:52pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

~Ted

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:56pm.

It is neither the job nor the purpose of the military to represent a cross-section of all Americans.

It's their job to make that guy across enemy lines die for his country.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

No it is all up to Dead Zippers as to who is allowed.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:02pm.

#68 I have a right to serve too!

Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:34am.

  I am a one eyed, high school dropped out, felony convicted, diabetes havin', one legged, overweight, cheesy poof noshin, non-citizen card havin', 45 year old deaf midget. And my brother is 7'5" tall and transgendered. He wants to serve too!

Some 75% of the nation is ineligible to serve  for one reason or another. Let's give them the right to serve too since we are on the topic.

  • Login to post comments

Nor is it their purpose to

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:40pm.

Nor is it their purpose to discriminate based on sexual preference, a trait which as far as I know, has nothing to do with military operation.  I know plenty of gay men who would serve as honorable and achieved soldiers, as do many NBers.  They probably just don't know.

  • Login to post comments

~Ted

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:53pm.

Even the husband/wife relationship is highly regulated in the military, imagine what a cluster f gay relationships would be.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

The rules are adaptable, just

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:03pm.

The rules are adaptable, just as they were after US v Virginia.

  • Login to post comments

...sez the voice of the DOD

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:25pm.

  Shut your coward troll mouth. You know nothing about the military. Read the link the woman took time out of her day to read and link.

Do:

Walk on your husband’s left side so he can salute others.

Refer to your spouse by his first name or nickname, or as “my husband.”  Do not refer to your husband as “Capt. Smith” or “the Captain.”

Stand at a public function or ceremony when the senior officer enters and is announced.   This applies to everyone in attendance.

Offer your husband an umbrella in the rain, but only if it’s black. He’s not allowed to carry any other color.

Push the baby carriage or stroller so your spouse doesn’t have to.  It’s considered “unmilitary” to do so while in uniform.

Help your spouse carry any packages or bundles to make it easier for him to salute.  (Are you wondering if a man made up these rules so that wives would have to do all the heavy lifting?) 

Stop making EVERY SINGLE PAGE HERE about you and your stupidity. The entire point of having homosexuals be able to serve is to seemlessly meld into the current military structure. Not come in and change a 1000 years of military tradition TO PLEASE IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

  • Login to post comments

The question is not---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:14pm.

what sexual preference has to do with military operation, but rather what sexual preference may do to military operation.

And the operative word is not, and should not be, "may", because the United States military is not the place to conduct feel good liberal social engineering.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Ted

Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:15pm.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to movies, or television, or whatever it is that you do so well and leave the military to people who know and understand it.

  • Login to post comments

Dear Ted,

Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:07am.

since 1993 they could.  Before DADT, they couldn't.   Learn.To.Read.And.Comprehend......

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Actually, it can't

Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:29pm.

"can be served by all Americans"

But why let reality interfere with a liberal lie?


  • Login to post comments

deleted

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 5:54pm.

deleted


 

  • Login to post comments

I can see it now, the patrol

Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:11pm.

I can see it now, the patrol returns to the outpost, it is nearing dark. The LT heads for his hooch to settle in for the evening and wait for the attack that will come later at night. The Plt, Sgt. knocks and enters his room,

"LT....seems that Jones is missing. Roberts said he was on rear security on the way back here."

LT looks up and sayes..."Kinda poetic, aint it? Jones on rear security."

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Gays 'misunderestiminate' things again

Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:22pm.

Yes - 'celebrated'.  Because gay people all over the country have, ya know, just been aching to sign onto the military.  You see, they get tired of hanging around in coffee shops, gay bars and hair salons.

They can't wait to put on fatigues, march around in sweaty uniforms and shoot at terrorists.  They're much happier being yelled at by drill sargeants, crawling through mud and enduring hostile climates than they are sipping cappuchinos and nibbling dainties while discussing the latest issues of Vanity Fair and Cosmo.

I think liberals, and the gay people they tricked, have been deluding themselves that military life is some kind of wonderful prize that they've been denied for years because of DADT.

Unless the whole thing is a scheme to weaken the military by causing divisions within the ranks over this.  Well, thing is, sex is a dismissable offense in the military even when it's hetero.  So the gays aren't going to be any happier there than they were in their hair salons. 

It's just like the whole religious issue.  Gays think if they get gay marriage, then churches will change their doctrine and they can go right to having happy gay sex in any denomination.   What they don't realize is that extra-marital sex is considered a sin in any church worth it's salt.  In many cases, you can be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for it (if you're caught).  Fornication is still fornication, no matter what gays do to destroy the definition of marriage in society at large.

And getting in to the military means that gays are going to get sent out in the field and shot at.  And a straight soldier is still probably going to punch a gay solider in the face if he tries to sneak into their bunk at night for some cuddle time, or push their way into the shower stall with a straight soldier.   It won't do any good for the gay solider to do their usual thing and say 'Oh come on baby, you know you're gay like me'.  They'll still be court-martialed because sex contact between soldiers (gay or straight) is a punishable offense.

You gay soldiers aren't gonna like hearing this - but  you're going to have to fight harder to control your little 'urges' in the army than you ever did outside it or risk getting thrown out dishonorably anyway.

If a Liberal/Democrat politician/media figure wants to put their arms around you, or pat you on the back, all they're doing is looking for a good place to stick a knife.
  • Login to post comments

Let the sexual harassment

Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 6:28pm.

Let the sexual harassment charges fly!

  • Login to post comments

Relax, people

Submitted by Solo on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 7:01pm.

Look here...all the sniping and snotty "back and forth" at each other is seriously non-productive. I would respectfully request that we either come to the table with something that will enlighten the readers or let's find something else to do.

At any rate, I spent 23 years in the Army and retired in 2005. From basic training all the way until my last day in uniform, there were gay people every place I served. Did I get hit on? Sure. However, once I made it perfectly clear to the individuals in each scenario (and there weren't that many of them) that for me, homosexuality was not the business, they got the message and that was it. As a rule, gay people are not lurking around every corner, waiting to jump the bones of unsuspecting straights or other gays. So all this "wooo, the boogie man/woman is gonna get you" crap is just stupid. Many of the gay people I have met and gotten to know over the years come across as regular, everyday people.

On the other hand, I do resent the current Politburo we have posing as Congress tinkering with, socially engineering and screwing up the greatest fighting force in the world, the United States Military. What one chooses to do in one's bedroom should remain PRIVATE. That is TMI...I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's job performance while serving. What these political hacks fail to realize, especially those who have never served, is that the military is a society within a society. The rules that govern uniformed personnel and the environment they live in is completely different. Once someone raises their right hand and takes that oath, their entire existence until they ETS or retire, IS NOT their own anymore. They become property of the U.S. Government. If they don't get that, when they arrive for basic training, that drill sergeant will help them understand it REAL QUICK.

Last point. This repeal didn't necessarily mean anything. Both straight and gay military personnel are yet governed by the UCMJ. Any "out of pocket" behavior by either group can still have career ending consequences. All they'll do now is add some tweaks to the current regulations as to what is proper conduct in and OUT OF uniform. Even though DADT is "dead" it doesn't mean that these personnel can just do what the hell they want. Don't get it twisted.

I wouldn't break out the paper streamers, confetti, party hats, or cake and ice cream too fast.

  • Login to post comments

What about tutu's and boa's?

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 7:20pm.

Can they get out the tutu's and boa's?  ;-)

  • Login to post comments

Well, I didn't serve 23, but I did serve 6

Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:46pm.

in the Corps and while I agree with you on some points, I strongly disagree on others.

First, repeal isn't about those currently serving. Homosexuals who serve successfully have made their commitment to their service. Homosexuals who have -to this point- refused to serve but would after repeal are asking for the service to commit to them.

So as a Marine Corps veteran, I take offense for my brothers who are forced by political decree to accept anyone who hasn't yet earned the EGA by proving their mettle during 13 weeks on the Island. Gay, straight, or otherwise -the Corps doesn't commit to you, you commit to the Corps. Because, you see, the United States Marine Corps doesn't want you (figuratively), it wants to mold you and make you into a Marine. That's why you're not called "Marine" until you've earned that EGA.

So, in my view it has always been about trust, not sexuality. The guy who looks at that Corps but won't enlist unless he can serve openly gay, is asking for acceptance before earning the title. And that mindset does not work in a rifle platoon, on a howitzer gunline, 5 feet underwater in an amtrack, or packing boxes in the warehouse -not in the Marine Corps.

  • Login to post comments

With respect, bkeyser

Submitted by Solo on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:41am.

First, let me appreciate you and thank you for your service to the country. Though I was in a different uniform, I consider ALL military men and women, past, present and future, as family. We are connected by the ideals of duty, honor, integrity and sacrifice.

Regarding your comments, I don't think we are in disagreement. You're right, whatever branch these individuals serve in, it's true, they MUST commit to IT and NOT the other way around. They MUST understand that sexuality and all other concerns fade to the background when they take the oath and don that particular branch's uniform. I was taught and it STILL echoes in my head to this day, "the mission comes first". If these newly "emancipated" persons or anyone else doesn't understand that, then they do not belong in uniform in the first place.

It doesn't matter how much tinkering and "social engineering" the current Politburo does, the "openess" which they seek to create is not really possible, given the fact that the military is a society within a society, as I mentioned previously. There are a couple "elephants in the room" that I don't see very much discussion about, one is how will this affect things like PDAs (many military members, especially older personnel and retirees on and around the many posts worldwide will take them to task for that stuff) and another is what will be done about these individuals wanting benefits for their partners. Uh oh, did I just open a can of worms? Hmm.

  • Login to post comments

With all due respect, Solo:

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:19am.

 

The back and forth snotiness here consists entirely of the solitary hijacker troll vs. everyone else. As is usual.

The same hijacker troll who spends all day here trying to solicit a reaction by making the most inflammatory comments he can think of on the spur of the moment no matter what the topic.

That being said, congrats and thank you for those 23 years of service.

  • Login to post comments

Did anyone poll Iraqis, Afghans OR radical Islamicists?

Submitted by ekslib on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:59am.

I thought that progressives wanted the US “occupiers” to be sensitive to Muslim feelings.

We know that Islamicists get very angry about things that seem inconsequential to us.

How will Muslims feel about being “occupied” by an openly gay US military?

How will Muslims feel about US troops giving toys and candy to their boys?

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
  • Polls show Americans more libertarian on pot, gay marriage, guns (Barone)
  • Single men are opting out of society thanks to suffocating liberalism (Right Wing News)
  • What if Superman had to join a union? (Steven Crowder)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
  • Rand Paul: ‘I Want to Go From 5% of the African-American Vote to At Least 20-25%’
  • Chris Cuomo Claims He’s ‘Completely Divorced From Ideology’ While Talking Up ‘Advocacy Journalism’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use