[Update, 8 pm Eastern: Screen capture, video link to interview added.]
CNN anchor Kyra Phillips sympathized with an outed homosexual army officer on Tuesday’s Newsroom program. Phillips questioned Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach about his recent meeting with President Obama, and asked, “What else did you tell him, because I know this has weighed heavily on your heart for a very long time....What did he tell you that gives you...hope...that he is going to get rid of this?” [video of interview available here]
The anchor’s interview with Fehrenbach occurred a day after he attended a “celebrating LGBT Pride Month” event at the White House. He was the guest of the homosexual activist group the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which presses for the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (as Rachel Maddow announced on her MSNBC show a week earlier), and is promoting a petition on the lieutenant colonel’s behalf. After noting the officer’s career and “nine medals for bravery as a combat pilot,” Phillips began with an enthusiastic question: “So there you were- every chance to say everything you ever wanted...to the president about the situation that you are fighting for, which is your job, and to get rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ How did you make your way to the president for a one-on-one?”
As Fehrenbach answered, Phillips interrupted with a glowing follow-up question about the encounter: “And he knew who you were, right?” When he finished, the anchor made her “weighed heavily on your heart” remark. The officer continued by offering more about his experience with the president, and how “everyone I worked with has shown total support.”
This was not the first time Phillips had interviewed Fehrenbach, as she indicated with her “good to see you again” greeting to the lieutenant colonel. Almost exactly a month earlier on June 1, the CNN anchor had him on as a guest, where she was more explicitly sympathetic to him: “Victor, let’s just point out, looking at your bio- I mean, you were hand-picked to patrol the air space over D.C. after 9/11.... I mean, what’s hard for me to understand is how can anyone say, eh, ignore all that. You’re gay. You can’t be in the military.”
The full transcript of the interview, which aired during the 1 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Newsroom program:
KYRA PHILLIPS: Army Lieutenant Dan Choi could find out his fate today. He’s an Army National Guard officer who publicly announced that he’s gay. Choi is facing discharge under the military's ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. A military board is meeting about his case today in Syracuse.
Watching that case very closely- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. In his 19-year career, he’s received nine medals for bravery as a combat pilot. He was handpicked to patrol the air space over Washington after 9/11. He’s got 400 flight hours and has flown 88 combat missions, but he’s also facing discharge because an acquaintance that revealed to the top brass that Fehrenbach is gay. Last night, he talked to President Obama at the White House. The gathering commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, a raid on a New York gay nightclub that started the modern gay rights movement. Colonel Fehrenbach joins me live from Washington. Victor, good to see you again.
LT. COLONEL VICTOR FEHRENBACH: Thank you, Kyra, good to be here.
PHILLIPS: So there you were- every chance to say everything you ever wanted to the president- to the president about the situation that you are fighting for, which is your job, and to get rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ How did you make your way to the president for a one-on-one?
FEHRENBACH: I was actually just in a lucky spot. Just as he came out of the Red Room, I happened to be right one-on-one with him as he- as he exited, and basically introduced myself- told him I was a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force for 18 years, and that I was being discharged under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ I-PHILLIPS: And he knew who you were, right?
FEHRENBACH: He did. He looked like he knew who I was and what my situation was. So, I told him, you know, the situation for me was urgent, and that I needed his help- and he looked me directly in the eye and said, ‘We are going to get this done.’
PHILLIPS: What- what else did you tell him, because I know this has weighed heavily on your heart for a very long time-
FEHRENBACH: It has.
PHILLIPS: And this has been really frustrating for you-
FEHRENBACH: It has.
PHILLIPS: Because you think that you could be discharged at any moment.
FEHRENBACH: Right.
PHILLIPS: So- so what- what did you tell him, and what did he tell you that gives you, I guess, hope, or at least a positive feeling that he is going to get rid of this?
FEHRENBACH: Like you mentioned, it is urgent for me. I’ve got- I’ve got about five or six months perhaps. I’m on the clock, as they say. The president went on to say, you know, we’ve got a lot of people behind this. You know, he’s obviously showed his- that it’s the top of his agenda, and he said, ‘We’ve got the Congress- they’re behind it, and we’ve got 75 percent of the American people that are behind- behind repealing this law.’ So, he said, ‘You know, what- what it is, really, is a generational gap, basically.’ He said, ‘We’ve got some convincing to do to the- the senior leaders in the older generation.’And that’s actually what I expected all along, that that might have been the problem.
PHILLIPS: As in the senior leaders in the older generation within the military- right now, the active force?
FEHRENBACH: That’s- that’s what I- I think it might be, because, you know, I go to work every day- I’m still doing the job that I did before any of this came to light, and, you know, everyone I worked with has shown total support, and they’ve been professional, and they’ve gone about the mission. I’ve also received about 5,000 messages, a lot of those from guys I’ve flown with in combat and people who have worked with me and for me in the military, and I’ve gotten nothing but support. So I can tell you from firsthand experience that the younger officer corps and the young enlisted corps are 100 percent behind repealing this law. They’re 100 percent behind the president implementing his new policy of nondiscrimination. So I think it may be the senior leaders who might be the ones resisting this. It’s like I said- the American public is behind it; the Congress is behind it; and the younger military force is behind it.
PHILLIPS: Did he give a time line?
FEHRENBACH: No. I suspect that- I hope it will be within 6 to 12 months. So, I think that I may end up being discharged at the end of the day, but if the law’s repealed, then- then that’s- that’s for the greater good. I hope that, if it is repealed, then maybe I can come right back in the military and finish out my- my career.
PHILLIPS: Well, I know either way, you’ve got quite a decorated career, and you will also remain an activist- that’s for sure. Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, appreciate it.
FEHRENBACH: Thank you, Kyra.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Amazing
June 30, 2009 - 18:23 ET by sevenHe’s got 400 flight hours and has flown 88 combat missions, but he’s also facing discharge because an acquaintance that revealed to the top brass that Fehrenbach is gay.
that won't get you off for tax evasion or homicide either. What about other soldiers and their right to a safe working environment? a massive problem with gays is they sexually harass other males.
What about other soldiers
June 30, 2009 - 19:16 ET by JasonCWhat about other soldiers and their right to a safe working
environment? a massive problem with gays is they sexually harass other
males.
Source, please.
You are suggesting that gay
June 30, 2009 - 23:51 ET by bedmondsonYou are suggesting that gay people are more likely to sexually harass than straight males? Is this an assumption that you have or can you cite a reference? I would hold that straight men sexually harass each other very often for their own amusement (I am in a frat).
Amazing
June 30, 2009 - 22:51 ET by ACWDo you speak from experience ?
Do you speak from your butt?
July 1, 2009 - 07:04 ET by bretzysdudeDo you speak from your butt?
Where oh where did O pull
June 30, 2009 - 18:28 ET by bigtimerWhere oh where did O pull that 75% number out of his hat from?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
No from out of that other place
June 30, 2009 - 18:42 ET by sevenIt is an unsupported assertion. It is pulled out from ...
seven...lol...understood.
June 30, 2009 - 18:51 ET by bigtimerseven...lol...understood.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Unfortunate
June 30, 2009 - 23:43 ET by ACWThat is an equally sophomoric and juvenile response. I was of the opinion that intelligent discourse went on here.
And, ACW, you are a troll.
July 1, 2009 - 07:00 ET by bretzysdudeAnd, ACW, you are a troll. Get out of here!
Unfortunate
June 30, 2009 - 23:11 ET by ACWIn my opinion your comment diminishes your argument and you as a credible source.
And your comments here make
July 1, 2009 - 07:01 ET by bretzysdudeAnd your comments here make you less of a human being, in my opinion.
Faux Statistics
June 30, 2009 - 19:09 ET by allanfFaux Statistics are the small arms weapon of the statist. It's a cudgel to be repeated over and over again by sympathizers in the media until the statistic is accepted as true.
Which is it?
June 30, 2009 - 18:33 ET by Dan Diego"who publicly announced that he’s gay" or "an acquaintance that revealed to the top brass that Fehrenbach is gay"?
If my math is right he was sworn in before Clinton forced this on the military. Did he lie then?
I know many active duty personnel and this BS about 100% support from the younger troops is just that, BS.
Rainbow flag
June 30, 2009 - 19:17 ET by sevenlapel pin apologetics
This is very unfortunate
June 30, 2009 - 18:36 ET by BlondeI feel badly for this colonel, but he knew the rules when he signed up. Eighteen years ago, there was an outright prohibition from gays serving...then the Clintons implemented DADT.
People in the military can't just say "well, I don't like the rules about fraternization" or whatnot. Same deal here.
I hope he doesn't hold his breath for Obama to act. Getting rid of DADT will cause The One too much trouble.
I hope he fails, too.
Exactly what kind of gloves
June 30, 2009 - 19:19 ET by JasonCExactly what kind of gloves was she supposed to use? I mean,in what terms do you criticize this guy? "Why don't you just not be gay?"
DADT is a disgrace, as is the notion that straight soldiers' so-called comfort should take precedence over all soldiers' rights.
The Problem
June 30, 2009 - 19:37 ET by Paragrouperwith your comment is soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines do not have rights. They have the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which regulates their conduct to maintain good order and discipline in the military. The UCMJ is authorized by US Law and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
You think its a disgrace--then get the law changed.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
I wish I could. Conduct
July 1, 2009 - 05:37 ET by JasonCI wish I could.
Conduct is one thing. Nobody should be acting on thei sexuality, whatever it is, inappropriately while in uniform. What that sexuality is to begin with is another matter. Perhaps "rights" was the wrong word.
JasonC
June 30, 2009 - 23:39 ET by MrShy"Why don't you just not be gay?"
I like that one! :)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Rights in the Military
July 1, 2009 - 08:49 ET by allanfHow many military people at one time had a commanding officer who was often not right. You still had to follow his orders. That's the nature of the military. It is more about discipline and combat effectiveness than "rights".
Binky Braveheart - military expert.
July 1, 2009 - 05:33 ET by JWFYes. Let's disband with DADT because Binky Braveheart has taken a dislike to it.
Thank you for defining the so-called comfort of the straight soldier Binky. We would have wondered about that for like ever man.
Oh and thank you for your service Binky. Sorry you made all those so-called straight soldiers uncomfortable with your precedence and your watching everyone's willy in the shower and whatnot.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Heh, for those who haven't
July 1, 2009 - 05:59 ET by JasonCHeh, for those who haven't followed Sporty's repartee for the past several days, by 'Binky Braveheart,' he is referring to me.
Yes, I think DADT should be repealed. I'm sorry, are military non-experts not supposed to have an opinion concerning massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy in our armed forces? Should I just accept that racial discrimination in the armed forces up until WWII was just honky dory because the government and army said it was?
If someone could provide an even remotely compelling reason why openly gay individuals are detrimental to the military, without resorting to non-specific pseudo-statistics about how gay people are mor likely to harass others, I'm all ears.
Why do men and women have separate living quarters Binky?
July 1, 2009 - 06:04 ET by JWFWe are not talking college dorm rooms here Binky. We are talking dozens to hundreds of people bunked together.
Why do they separate men and women Binky? Is that a massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JasonC
July 1, 2009 - 06:43 ET by MrShyAs a straight man, if I'm a soldier and bunked up with a guy that is -- or potentially can be -- attracted to me physically, there is no way I'm not going to be constantly uncomfortable and a bit on edge, with us in close proximity day in and and day out, night and day. And to assume that a majority would, by some miracle, not be uncomfortable is ludicrous.
JWF makes an excellent point. Men and women, who are normally hot for one another, are.... wait for it.... SEPARATED. And FOR GOOD REASON.
Openly gay men in the military present a MAJOR headache to the forces, on a whole bunch of levels.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
if I'm a soldier and bunked
July 1, 2009 - 06:55 ET by JasonCif I'm a soldier and bunked up with a guy
They do each get their own bed in the barracks, right? I mean, generally speaking, soldiers aren't sharing cots and spooning.
that is -- or potentially can be -- attracted to me physically
But with DADT you would have to constantly be wondering about who is 'potentially' attracted to you. And you make it sound as if gay men just can't control their sexuality, as if simply because they're gay they'll have the hots for every guy in the barracks. That might be the case for some, just as it is for some straight dudes, but one might imagine that those with the discipline to be in the military in the first place would have the discipline not to be a sex hound.
there is no way I'm not going to be constantly uncomfortable and a bit
on edge, with us in close proximity day in and and day out, night and
day. And to assume that a majority would, by some miracle, not be uncomfortable is ludicrous.
These are guys who live with the potential for REAL death and danger every single day, but having the knowledge of who does or does not prefer the company of their own sex is what's going to put them over the edge. Let's give them a bit more credit than that.
JWF makes an excellent point.
Even a broken clock...
Men and women, who are normally hot for
one another, are.... wait for it.... SEPARATED. And FOR GOOD REASON.
Ah. Should gay men not use men's bathrooms or locker rooms either? Unless they're in the closet I suppose. And again, you presume that gay men in a unit will automatically be hot for every straight guy in uniform.
Openly gay men in the military present a MAJOR headache to the forces, on a whole bunch of levels.
Is DADT, and the discharge of perfectly competent officers and PFCs really any less of one?
Binky Braveheart does not listen well thus the flawed output.
July 1, 2009 - 07:15 ET by JWFShould gay men not use men's bathrooms or locker rooms either?
Did I or others say one thing about bathrooms Binky? And it is called quarters Binky. We don't have locker rooms.
Again, this ain't a college dorm Binky. And what is with the spooning crack? Now it is a source of humour for Binky? It is not about having separate bunks Binky. It is about privacy Binky. You dress and undress in the same living quarters Binky. And the showering/toilet areas are communal.
And no Binky, I do not want you checking out everyone's willy.
Again Binky, why do they separate men and women?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Spooning
July 1, 2009 - 07:38 ET by ParagrouperJust an interesting side note; when we used to go on patrols in cold environments, we often were required to share sleeping bags. There were two reasons for this:
1. We had so much "lightweight" gear we had to carry with us that we had to cut certain "luxury" items.
2. Warmth (cold sucks)
we jokingly referred to this as "spooning," but then again--we knew are buddies weren't gay. In retrospect, I'm not sure how that would have went over.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
Did I or others say one
July 1, 2009 - 07:55 ET by JasonCDid I or others say one thing about bathrooms Binky? And it is called quarters Binky. We don't have locker rooms.
I wasn't referring to the military here, but to gender/sex division in general, in response to a point you brought up.
The spooning thing wasn't a crack, nor an attempt at humor. And it does seem that someone has responded to it seriously already.
I understand that they are communal. So are most dorms; not that I see that as relevant, but you keep insisting that I'm attempting a comparison.
And no Binky, I do not want you checking out everyone's willy.
Duly noted.
I'm interested in an idea that was posted earlier this morning; do servicemen often know, even if it is not actually disclosed, who in their unit is gay?
Binky nibbles at the crumbs but won't touch the sandwich.
July 1, 2009 - 07:59 ET by JWFWhy do they separate men and women Binky? Is that a massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy?
No, but it's also not
July 1, 2009 - 08:03 ET by JasonCNothing like a big ol' JWF Nonsense hoagie, topped with a nice dollop of oil, vinegar, and non sequitur.
No, but it's also not comparable to not letting women serve at all. The "problem" of openly gay men in the military does not lend itself to the easy solution of segregated quarters. If that were done, people would flip out about them receiving special treatment. However, the solution of just banning them outright is retrogressive.
Binky: Yes, I think DADT
July 1, 2009 - 08:13 ET by JWFBinky: Yes, I think DADT should be repealed. I'm sorry, are military non-experts not supposed to have an opinion concerning massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy in our armed forces?
Who said anything about not letting women serve at all? I asked why men and women are separated Binky. Is that a massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy?
Still not getting an answer.
See previous post. Second
July 1, 2009 - 08:39 ET by JasonCSee previous post. Second paragraph, first word:
"No."
As far as I know, no one said anything about not letting women serve at all. Reread slowly. Mouth the words if it helps. I'm pointing out why the two issues are not comparable in the way you're making them out to be.
you said it binky
July 1, 2009 - 09:36 ET by JWFNo, but it's also not comparable to not letting women serve at all.
Once again you nibble at crumbs. The main point was the first question.
Why do they separate men and women Binky? Is that a massively retrogressive and discriminatory policy?
The second question was dependent on the answer to the first question and could not be answered independently which you did.
Now let's try again without getting all dismissive as you usually do when cornered.
Why do they separate men and women Binky?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I don't think there's any
July 1, 2009 - 09:47 ET by JasonCI don't think there's any one answer to why they separate men and women. I think it has more to do than anything with a certain modesty about being more comfortable undressing and doing other, shall we say 'personal' things, in front of people who have the same bodily features as yourself. A lot of it also has to do with the fact that that's just always the way it's been, in the army and out. But gender and sexuality are not comparable entities in this situation. Just because I accept that men and women have separate public bathrooms doesn't mean I should therefore be compelled to argue that gay men shouldn't use men's bathrooms (or locker rooms, or whatever else).
Now for my point, which you have not so much dismissed as ignored. Gender separation is a solution to the issue of an inter-gender armed forces. But we certainly can't make two MORE separate accommodations, one for gay men and one for gay women. As I said, I can only imagine the hub-bub, from both pro- and anti-gay quarters, if gay soldiers were given their own segregated area. So, our remaining options: ban openly gay soldiers altogether, or just allow everyone to live and let live and do their jobs without judging others by their sexual preference. Obviously if a soldier, regardless or orientation, were to do something inappropriate or endanger the well-being of his fellow soldiers he should be dealt with. But to pre-emptively ban them because one believes they have a greater capacity for harassment and promiscuity (homophobic myth) or because other soldiers just might find the idea unsettling, is pretty extreme.
It is not just about bathrooms.
July 1, 2009 - 10:28 ET by JWFThe military is quartered by the government, separate from civilians. It is mandated.
9 a: an assigned station or post bplural : an assembly of a ship's company for ceremony, drill, or emergency cplural : living accommodations :
The same can be said of homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think it has more to do than anything with a certain modesty about being more comfortable undressing and doing other, shall we say 'personal' things, in front of people who have the same bodily features as yourself. Or maybe sexuality?
Men and women do mix in the ranks once the uniform is on.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JasonC
July 1, 2009 - 17:27 ET by MrShy"And again, you presume that gay men in a unit will automatically be hot for every straight guy in uniform."
Interesting that you chose "presume" over "assume" because, well, I think deep-down -- a place liberals hate going, as everything has to be PC constantly with all of you -- yes, ALL of you ;) -- you probably don't see it as totally out of the question that, yeah, gay men could very well be hot for almost every straight guy... especially in uniform.
The way gay men are with their hormones for other men, IMO (which I can have, right? I'm not "hating", Jason, am I? I reeeeeally don't want to "hate" and upset you and Chicken Cacciatore), is even greater than heterosexuals for women, from my experience around them... and I'm born/bred in NYC. That says a lot, too, as us straight men think about women and "it" every, what, 9 seconds? (they say?)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
MrShy, I've seen your
July 1, 2009 - 06:56 ET by CacciatoMrShy,
I've seen your videos and heard you sing. You seem like you'd be just fine bunking up with gay dudes.
This whole anti-gays in the military argument is ludicrous, especially when it's made by peope who have never and will never serve in the military.
Do you really think the soldiers these days don't know who is gay and who isn't? Come on. They go out together, don't you think they might notice the guys who have no girlfriend, no wife, and never pay attention to girls? It's not rocket science.
Soldiers already know who is gay, so this law is nothing more than a punitive measure that comforts gay-hating armchair jockies.
If you're willing to fight and die for my country & my family, then by all means feel free to do what you want on your free time.
You seem like you'd be
July 1, 2009 - 07:08 ET by Jack BauerOh wow. Talk about stereotyping.
As to this:
Then you must agree that if the majority of those WHO DO SERVE, say they DO NOT want "open" homosexuals, that should be be it?
Right?
Also -- are you DOCTOR?
I just wanted to get that on record for when you pronounce about Obama's nationalized health and industrial health complex. I mean, why should I listen to people who have never been a doctor on this subject
What a great idea!
July 1, 2009 - 07:32 ET by ParagrouperYour comment: "This whole anti-gays in the military argument is ludicrous, especially when it's made by peope who have never and will never serve in the military." I like that idea. Why don't we just ask them.
I spent 21 years in the army. I still work with members of the military almost daily. My guess: the military is just not ready for the change. Military member, especially those that are enganged in combat, have enough crap on their plate as it is. They are a unique part of our society that is governed by a different set of rules, subjected to extreme hardships and faced with difficult and dangerous missions.
But lets ask them.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
Para....rules are rules
July 1, 2009 - 13:53 ET by Blondeas you know....in the military moreso than in society in general. There's a reason for this.
It's unfortunate that these two individuals chose to flaunt the rules as they exist. I'm sure they are both fine individuals.
Lt. Choi chose to go against the rules...and it appears he is going to be discharged, which IMO, is as it should be.
I hope he fails, too.
Cacciato
July 1, 2009 - 16:41 ET by MrShy"You seem like you'd be just fine bunking up with gay dudes."
Funny, but no, I wouldn't. I like women sexually/romantically, not men. So, in fact, I would not be comfortable bunking up with women OR gays, as it complicates things significantly. But thanks for ASSuming I would. You know what they say about ASSumptions, right?
And to echo Jack's sentiments, above, only libs get so desperate with their illogical way of looking at things that they resort to basing their hollow arguments on some personal matter/assumption/stereotype.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Chicken Cacciatore
July 1, 2009 - 17:04 ET by MrShyWhy, these days, increasingly, do heterosexuals like myself and many others, feel like when stereotyping-addicted liberal "progressives" come after us with tags like "gay-hating armchair jockies", that the only way we can shake being called names and being marginalized/demonized for having our own beliefs and ideas on a certain subject, will be if we transform into out-and-out, oh say, "gay-loving, open-to-being-gay-ourselves, can't-get-enough-gayness armchair gay boys"?
Sorry for the run-on sentence, btw. :)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
This guy has over 400
June 30, 2009 - 19:43 ET by R D HelmThis guy has over 400 flight hours? He has flown 88 combat missions? His commander thought enough of him to pick him to fly air cover over D.C. after 9/11?
Now, after spending millions of taxpayer dollars training this man, just because he's gay, the Air Force wants to now throw him out after 18 years of service to our country?
I'm sorry, but something is very, VERY wrong with this.
I think he should be allowed to stay.
-Dave
"Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof" -Herman Cain
My problem with the LtCol
June 30, 2009 - 20:03 ET by ParagrouperIs not the fact that he is gay, but that he publicly flaunts the law, regulations and orders he's given to promote his personal agenda--and therby violated his oath as a comissioned officer. No matter what your opinion of gays and their rights, the military cannot allow servicemembers to choose which laws, regulations and orders they want to follow. This is the core meaining of the phrase; to maintain good order and discipline within the military. Military life can be very stressful and, quite often, dangerous. Those in the military are bound by law and by their oath. To allow them to act otherwise imperils both their safety and the mission.
If congress amends Title 10, Chaper 47 USC (UCMJ) then gays can serve openly. Otherwise, they better adhere to DADT.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
...that's exactly it - and
June 30, 2009 - 20:56 ET by TruthMonger...that's exactly it - and the left tried this slight of BS with the lewinsky scandal too - bubba was impeached for PERJURY BEFORE A GRAND JURY - not his sordid escapade in the oval office...
...all of the military heros COMPLETELY IGNORED over the last 8 years - and this is the guy the msm celebrates...
if this is the way jackass backward "progressives" think I'll stick to the high road and cling to my guns and religion thank you
Palin/Prejean 2012
Flaunting the Law
June 30, 2009 - 23:26 ET by ACWWhen those who oppose abortion flaunt those laws to support their beliefs is that also a problem ?
TROLL!
July 1, 2009 - 07:01 ET by bretzysdudeTROLL!
Considering that your only
July 1, 2009 - 07:04 ET by JasonCConsidering that your only comments thus far have been barely-multi-syllabic accusations of trollery and the suggestion that questioning the credibility of a non-statistic makes one less than human, I've got to question your understanding of what "troll" means.
Paragrouper,
July 1, 2009 - 10:02 ET by R D HelmNormally, I would agree, but he joined the military 18 years ago.
At that time, most people querried would have given the exact same answer that he did.
Unless there is some blemish on his record that indicates he is somehow a "danger" to his comrades, his merely being gay is not a sufficient reason for drumming him out of the Air Force.
-Dave
"Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof" -Herman Cain
I thought the same way Dave
July 1, 2009 - 17:03 ET by general companyBut the order was DA-DT, and he did. Why did he do it, why would he do it? See it became more importain then his service, so could he really be of anymore use?
He seems like he is very good at what he does, but I have to wonder about the motives here.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gc,
July 1, 2009 - 23:55 ET by R D HelmYes, but he himself didn't tell. Someone esle did.
The man has risked his life numerous times for his country for 18 years, and appears to have an eviable, if not stellar, service record.
I believe he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to honorably finish out his career.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
400 Missions
June 30, 2009 - 22:58 ET by ACWIt is my opinion that although it will take time the prohibition against gays serving openingly in the US military will end.It is largely a generational issue.
Fehrenback: "So I can tell
June 30, 2009 - 19:47 ET by TEFehrenback: "So I can tell you from firsthand experience that the younger officer corps and the young enlisted corps are 100 percent behind repealing this law. They’re 100 percent behind the president implementing his new policy of nondiscrimination."
Fehrenback began his military career by lying to the United States military when he swore to the military that he was not a homosexual. Now, Fehrenback continues to tell monstrous, completely fabricated lies that "the younger officer corps and the young enlisted corps are 100 percent behind repealing this law". Of course, leftist political activist Kyra Phillips not only failed to challenge Fehrenback's lie, but Phillips promoted Fehrenback's lie and his lawless "activism".
iSN'T HOMOSEXUALITY NOTHING BUT LIES?
June 30, 2009 - 20:28 ET by sevenBorn that way is a lie
Can't change is a lie
100% behind repeal of the law is a lie
Actually there are more people with gay in their history and left the movement than there are actual gays in the gay movement.
Again
June 30, 2009 - 23:01 ET by ACWis this from personal experience or knowledge ?
YOU apparently have a lot of
July 1, 2009 - 07:02 ET by bretzysdudeYOU apparently have a lot of knowledge and sources yourself, ACW. Why don't you share it with us, so I can laugh at it?
Once again...you sources
July 1, 2009 - 06:01 ET by JasonCOnce again...you sources please.
Were you born straight or did you choose?
Could you 'choose' to start being attracted to men? (or women, if that's what you are, I don't know)
If you can honestly say yes to either of these, then your comments might be worth taking seriously.
Go to the hospital birth rooms
July 1, 2009 - 10:54 ET by sevenTell us which boys are gay.
Born that way? You mean they cry until they get 2 pacifiers?
In identical twins, if one is gay, half the time they are both gay. same environment In identical twins, they are always the same color.
Go to the hospital birth
July 1, 2009 - 12:17 ET by JasonCGo to the hospital birth rooms. Tell us which boys are gay.
Infants, whether they are going to grow up to be straight or gay, do not have the capacity to understand sexuality, much less have a preference. Besides which, your premise implies that you could look at two men, one straight one gay, and pick out the one that, um, chose to be gay. You might be able to do so based on clothing, hairstyle and other accoutrements that one or the other has chosen in order to fit a certain image; but as far as biological and physical appearance, no way.
I did not mean to imply, despite the wording of my challenge to you to tell me if your heterosexuality was a choice and if you could then choose to be attracted to men - still waiting on that, by the way - that I think people are born gay. I do not. I think there is the possibility of a genetic disposition which is then either reinforced or not by experience and stimuli, up until puberty. But that is quite different from choice; I could no more choose my sexuality than I can choose to have a phobia of heights.
Born that way? You mean they cry until they get 2 pacifiers?
I...don't even know what that's supposed to mean. But again, infants have no conception of sexuality one way or another.
In identical twins, if one is gay, half the time they are both gay.
same environment In identical twins, they are always the same color.
See above. And what does color have to do with it?
Once again we run into this
June 30, 2009 - 20:29 ET by SnappyOnce again we run into this little problem of "Laws" and the enforcement of or lack of respect for the ones that are on the books. Whether it is military law, or civilian law this country seems to have a big problem with them. From immigration enforcement to a DADT policy in the military. I happened to see an earlier interview with Fehrenbach, he seemed like a nice enough guy and readilly admitted at that time that all he would have to have done when confronted with the allegations of being gay was deny them. He didnt do that and he knew and accepted that he was going to be discharged for it. It is obviously their right to fight this...for FUTURE military personel, get the policy changed if they can..... but under current policy? ...they knew the rules going in and they shouldnt cry about the consequences now.
Snappy
June 30, 2009 - 20:35 ET by ParagrouperExactly
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
snappy - and with the history of taking the side of those who
June 30, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Cape Conservativebreak the LAW, whether it is for non-payment of taxes or the ADMITTED illegal Black Panther activity in Philadelphia, or any other LAW, the Obama administration seems to have no problem whatsoever with LAWBREAKERS! Hire them...represent them...cram them down the throats of LAW-ABIDING Americans just because you can...after all, what is it he said? "We Won"
Our honorable servicemen and women do NOT need this added stress as they go about their sworn duty to protect our country! And since this officer knew that he was directly disobeying an order, he gets NO sympathy from me...sorry Kyra...guess one has to be a liberal to 'feel' sorry for lawbreakers!
I wish Senator Kennedy would resign and spend his last days in Hyannisport (which he IS doing anyway) as a civilian rather than trying to change America as much as he possibly can before he leaves this world. As if he didn't have enough on his plate, now he is determined to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy! This man has singlehandedly caused more damage to our country than any ten other senators combined.
On a totally different note, with the Minnesota illegal voting tallies accepted, we certainly have no standing to discuss the outcome of the Iranian election. Our own state courts can't even come up with acceptable standards to be used right here in the USA!!
God please help Americans keep the faith as we see our country being destroyed day after day - from WITHIN! Nikita Kruschev was right...this republic for which so many shed their blood will soon be gone without a bullet being fired!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
I call BS, seven
July 1, 2009 - 04:16 ET by MeowMeowI've voted Republican my whole life. And will continue to. I think Obama is the worst thing that's ever happened to this country.
However.
Who would *want* to be gay? Who would choose that? Are there bisexual people who could go either way, and choose? Sure. But I remember seeing a little boy -- 3 years old maybe? -- who was totally flamboyant. Hell, we all knew then. And sure enough, at the age of 20, he's as gay as the day is long. He could choose to be with a woman, I suppose, and end up making the woman miserable as well as himself.
I agree that this case is similar to Clinton's: it was about perjury, not getting a hummer in the Oval Office. If you take an oath, uphold it.
But I can tell you this: if a gay or lesbian wants to fight for this country, and be stationed in the Middle East away from their families for years and live in the hot, arid desert, and face death every second of every day, in order to preserve my way of life?
God bless 'em. They're great Americans.
That was a wonderful and
July 1, 2009 - 06:03 ET by JasonCThat was a wonderful and refreshing post.
Who would *want* to be gay?
July 1, 2009 - 10:16 ET by Dan The Man 2Who would *want* to be gay? Who would choose that?
And we could ask who chooses to do anything that is detrimental to their well being? It is a non sequitor, people choose to smoke do hard drugs and generally place themselves in harms way all the time. So why do they do those things?
We are not born anything except human. We are not born serial killers or murderers or homosexual. Mostly our enviroment and life experiences mold us into what we are and we can change ourselves into pretty much anything we want.
To do so just takes the willingness to do so. Unfortunately people are programmed to believe what they are doing is the best and only way for them. People actually become accustomed to very bizzare and perverted lifestyles and believe it is normal and everyone else is perverted. Basically it is just human nature.
Well actuall we might ask why Satan, knowing God personal and up close chose to defy God. I assume you are God fearing by your last statement. So did God make Satan to rebel against Him or did Satan's free will betray God? In the same way humans have free will, the freedom to choose right wor wrong.
That said I think the old Lt Col has done wrong, but he has served us for many years and they should let him get his years in for pension. Perhaps demote him to 2nd Lt for his pay and muster him out. The reason is he did lie to get in but he was outed by some other person not himself.
A bit of exageration
July 1, 2009 - 07:41 ET by owr084"Watching that case very closely- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor
Fehrenbach. In his 19-year career, he’s received nine medals for
bravery as a combat pilot. He was handpicked to patrol the air space
over Washington after 9/11."
He is not a pilot. He is a Weapons Systems Officer. He sits in the back seat of an F-15E and does not fly the aircraft. Civilians also tend to confuse just what Ribbons and Medals are awarded for and what they mean. So, to say he received 9 medals for bravery is meaningless.
As for patrolling the air space over Washington after 9/11, I don't recall any F-15Es pulling CAP duty. And there was no reason to pull in F-15Es (the nearest base with them is in the Carolinas) when there were F-16s with the DCANG at Andrews and F-15Cs at Langley VA and Otis ANGB.
owr084, Thank you your post,
July 1, 2009 - 13:03 ET by upcountrywaterJust the facts
Reagan VS Liberalism
All GAY Cruise?
July 1, 2009 - 16:22 ET by CacciatoHaha.
Anybody else notice the Advertisement on this thread for Atlantis, the All-Gay Cruise?
Whoa, is Newsbusters really that hard up for advertising revenue?
Anybody else find it hilarious the NB runs an ad for an all gay cruise on a thread bashing DADT?
Hahahaha. Man you couldn't make that stuff up.
"Nights You'll Never
July 1, 2009 - 16:28 ET by Cacciato"Nights You'll Never Forget"
Haha. That is an amazing tag line for the All Gay Cruise.
I'll bet those nights are unforgettable!!!!
That is absolutely
July 1, 2009 - 16:33 ET by JasonCThat is absolutely surreal. Though not much more so than the vacant-eyed girl wearing an "I Survived Roe v. Wade" t-shirt.
I missed the second part of
July 1, 2009 - 16:36 ET by CacciatoI missed the second part of the tag line...days you'll always remember!
Is that Ironic or just hilarious?
You have to love this. Especially with all the gay hate posts on this thread. Can't believe the hard line NBs missed those shirtless, speedo-clad dudes staring into each others' eyes in the midst of a loving embrace.
Ha.
Chicken Cacciatore
July 1, 2009 - 17:03 ET by MrShy"Especially with all the gay hate posts on this thread."
Here's a simple task for you: Find three -- just three (3) -- examples of posts anywhere on this site that you deem "gay hate posts". Also, they must be from three different members, not all from one member. (All blog sites have a variety of apples, so, don't waste our time if you're obsessing over one, if their IS one, even.)
I look forward to your copy-paste of three example posts, thanks.
And when you do, which I'm confident you won't let me down and you'll find these examples (at least to you they'll be), we'll then have to have the exhausting discussion on the definition of "hate". Which, to you people, is anything where someone doesn't love/embrace something. *Sigh* (in advance :p)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy guy that will be a piece
July 1, 2009 - 18:36 ET by CacciatoShy guy that will be a piece 'o cake? It's actually such an easy request that part of thinks you are pulling my leg.
You really want me to find 3 examples of gay hate on this site? Only 3?
I am on my blackberry now but as soon as I am on a computer I will gladly accept your challenge. Frankly I can't even belief you would issue such an easy challenge. Bold move for a guy that's been here as long as you have...
On a side note, you totally ignored the main point of my post. Did you find the all gay cruise ad to be as hilarious I did? Priceless, truly priceless!
Oh wow, on the whole
July 1, 2009 - 18:39 ET by JasonCOh wow, on the whole site? At first I misread the challenge and thought you wanted it to be from this message board. And admittedly, people have been pretty respectful here, with one exception whom I will not name by name.
But from the whole site? Game on. I'll post my results tomorrow...
Eh, screw waiting til
July 1, 2009 - 19:04 ET by JasonCEh, screw waiting til tomorrow, here are 4 particularly extreme examples.
I am not posting these vile comments under my own name. I have linked them with basic how-far-to-scroll-down instructions. Enjoy.
http://newsbusters.o...
by 'Cecil' 5/12/09 (scroll approx. 2/3 of the way down)
http://newsbusters.o...
by 'BobAnthony' 1/7/09 (scroll almost all the way down)
http://newsbusters.o...
by 'Massage_Master 4/19/09 (scroll 3/4 of the way down)
And of course, this list couldn't be complete without TruthMongers reckless comparison of homosexuality with pedophilia, beastiality, &c. Here's one of many, many instances:
http://newsbusters.o...
I am fairly confident that these would meet anyone's definition of "hate"...
Thanks for the hustle
July 2, 2009 - 07:11 ET by CacciatoThanks for the hustle Jason!
I recently moved so I don't have internet at my house yet, so while not at work, I am running 100% blackberry style. Makes it a bit hard to cut and paste.
I have actually been keeping a draft email in my gmail account with some of the hateful Newsbusters posts I run across for moments / challenges like these.
Your examples are truly terrifying and I'm still shocked they let those appear here. If a lib wrote that, they'd be banned so quick their head would spin.
It will be interesting to see Shy rationalize these, because we both know that's exactly what he will try to do.
PS notice that nobody wanted to comment on the all gay cruise? I literally laughed about that all night...I even took a screen shot for posterity.
Chicken Cacciatore
July 2, 2009 - 08:25 ET by MrShyOkay, Cacciatore, firstly, you've been exposed for this statement:
"Especially with all the gay hate posts on this thread."
Wrong. You went and made crap up. And it's not even me that's exposing you, it's your comrad-in-liberal-arms, JasonC:
"At first I misread the challenge and thought you wanted it to be from this message board. And admittedly, people have been pretty respectful here..."
As for my challenge, I already knew you were fantasizing about all the "gay hate posts" on this thread, so I indeed wanted to see if you, JasonC, or anyone could find just three legitimate "gay hate posts" on this entire site. Yes, I'm so sure you talk nonsense and stereotype us and work hard to push this myth that we're all hateful, that I was confident to have you look everywhere on NB, AND, yes, I would be impressed with just three goodies.
Sadly, for you and all libs, JasonC could only find ONE legit hate post, and even that was by way of a search that dates back to December, 2008.
Post #1, by cecil - Indeed, a gay hate post. This member, btw, I almost never see on here. Also of note: all three members he picked out are hit-and-runners whose screen names I hardly recognize.
Post #2, by Message_Master - Nice try, but in his 4-paragraph post, he opens with what is seemingly him having some fun and calling them names other than gay, because he doesn't agree with the original meaning of the word "happy" being applied to them. It's rather harmless, and then goes on to eloquently make his case about morals, marriage, etc.. Hardly a "gay hate post".
Post #3, by BobAnthony - JasonC clearly didn't read it. He's not hating on gays, he's hating on that a-hole Perez Hilton, and granted, calling HIM names, but I'm all for that. Perez is a nasty jerk who set out to ruin a good woman. So, uh-uh, sorry, not a "gay hate post".
So there you have it. I asked him to run and fetch me three... just THREE. He came back with ONE.
Oh, and then he links to some thread from a year ago ( ??? ) which I scanned, and it's mostly a lot of very thoughtful dialogue on the subject, especially between KC Mulville & TruthMonger.
I know, I know. You libs sooooo want to paint us as hateful, only because we think and feel and believe independently, and it drives you all crazy.
As for that gay banner ad here on NB. Well, again, further illustrates that only in your dreams are we full of hate.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
I said myself that I didn't
July 2, 2009 - 08:59 ET by JasonCI said myself that I didn't think this particularly thread had a whole lot of gay-hate going on. And I don't recall ever ascribing homophobia to the Newsbusters community in general. When I see it, I call it out.
I also don't recall the poster's frequency of participation being a factor in the initial challenge. You asked for 3 instances. I delivered 4. You don't get to change the rules now.
I think you're reading a different MessageMaster post than I indicated. I was referring to the one in which AIDS is blamed on homosexuality as a whole (rather than individuals, homosexual or otherwise, who make irresponsible, non-safe-sex choices). This is rather like blaming all shooting murders on gun owners and the NRA as a whole: lazy.
I disagree on the Perez Hilton issue. The comment was directed at Hilton's sexuality as much as it was at his remarks. It also instructed him to catch a disease associated with with homosexuality (see above paragraph) and die.
TruthMonger routinely equates the morality of homosexuality with that of people who rape children. I don't care what sort of obtuse biblical justification he cites for this; it is illogical, easily debunked and yes, hateful.
I'll concede that hatefulness is subjective. But when I spent last fall being called hateful just because I wasn't head over heels for Sarah Palin and JtP and their Regular America rhetoric and dared to critique it, I think that sets a pretty low standard of what constitutes hate.
JasonC
July 2, 2009 - 09:34 ET by MrShy"I'll concede that hatefulness is subjective."
Thank you.
And how DARE you not like Palin! :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
How is this for some hate Chicken Cacciatore?
July 2, 2009 - 08:17 ET by JWFYour'e nothin but a
grit eatin',
scum suckin',
boot lickin',
drop kickin',
gut grindin',
nail bitin',
glue sniffin',
scab pickin',
butt scratchin',
egg hatchin',
sleezy,
smelly,
pepper bellied,
dirty, lousy, rotten, stinkin', freak.
Nothing but a pencil neck geek.
Save it off. Print it out. Shove it up your very loose poop-hole.
If one of them was wearing
July 1, 2009 - 16:35 ET by JasonCIf one of them was wearing a camouflage-print speedo, I'd have to assume it was some sort of conspiracy or meta-dadaist installation piece on the part of the advertising department.
I believe it is. I
July 1, 2009 - 16:37 ET by CacciatoI believe it is. I believe it is. Wonder if he survived DADT?
Too good to be a coincidence? Or is it?