The American Spectator : Basic Cable

Text Size

Basic Cable

By George Neumayr on 12.2.10 @ 6:09AM

WikiLeaks and an administration with low ratings.

According to the New York Times, Private Bradley Manning lip-synched to "Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables." That's a fitting image for an America in decline under Barack Obama.

Obama said again this week that the introduction of an openly homosexual culture into the military poses no threat to its discipline, even as his administration reeled from a blatant instance of it. Manning, a homosexual resentful of the military's constraints, is the source for the WikiLeaks scandal. Naturally, the media is downplaying that aspect of the story, lest it complicate the left's relentless propaganda in favor of abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

One might have thought an administration massively compromised by a homosexual soldier would have chosen another week to rev up its gays-in-the-military agenda. But, no, that is a vital priority of this administration during the lame-duck session, according to Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs. Who knows, perhaps the Obama administration will even end up citing Manning's conduct in its convoluted case for abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The New York Times' August profile of Manning rehearsed that argument:

He spent part of his childhood with his father in the arid plains of central Oklahoma, where classmates made fun of him for being a geek. He spent another part with his mother in a small, remote corner of southwest Wales, where classmates made fun of him for being gay.

Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under "don't ask, don't tell" and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.

The line of reasoning that the military "forces gays to live a lie" has been picked up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "We spend a lot of time in the military talking about integrity and honor and values," he said on Tuesday. "One of the things that is most important to me is personal integrity, and a policy or a law that in effect requires people to lie gives me a problem."

This debate is confusing, since the "conservative" position now is to defend Bill Clinton's policy, which principled conservatives at the time opposed as a foolish relaxation of military entrance standards. They predicted that that crack in the door would lead to it being kicked wide open, and in the meantime would result in time-wasting, morale-sapping ambiguities for a military that should be wholly focused on winning wars.

But in Washington the Solomonic solution to any bad policy is to make it even worse. It is never to go back to the original policy that shouldn't have been changed in the first place. Supporting the original policy is deemed too unrealistic and quixotic to be included within the media-determined parameters of the debate. That's why in the tiresome trajectory of this issue Bill Clinton's compromise has now somehow become the "bigoted" view and all the problems associated with the compromise are assigned to the very conservatives who warned of them.

That the Obama administration at a time of terrorism and in the wake of its electoral debacle continues to beat this drum is more evidence of its radicalism, which makes the WikiLeaks scandal a very unkind cut. The Obama administration still doesn't understand why a Bill Ayers-style anarchist, Julian Assange, and a homosexual soldier would have been gunning for it. Why, the attitude of some baffled liberals seems to be, couldn't they have waited for a Republican administration? In a different era, under a different president, Assange would be a hero to them. One could even imagine Obama writing a favorable blurb for a book of his on free speech.

And where were the free-speech liberals this week during the controversy at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.? It turns out that American taxpayers have been financing a very important contribution to the arts called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," which is billed as the first exploration of "same-sex" portraits ever at a national museum. One of the exhibit's works showed a crucified Jesus Christ covered in ants. John Boehner drew attention to this peculiar Christmas season display and it was quickly taken down without much protest from Democrats or members of the administration. They were evidently too busy hiding Manning and seeking Assange to care.

About the Author

George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.2.10 @ 6:59AM

Why is open homosexuality a wonderful thing in the military and a horror show in the Catholic Church?

Doesnt anybody see that we already have an excellent example of what happens when openly gay men are placed in an all-male closed system and allowed free rein? Lord knows that the Press has been having a 25 year Field Day chronicling where that led! Do they not read their own stuff?

Just asking, guys. Just asking.

MoeBlotz| 12.2.10 @ 7:21AM

Because every progressive thinks he knows more than G**.

John II| 12.2.10 @ 5:52PM

That reminds me of a joke normally applied to surgeons. Q: What's the difference between God and progressives? A: God doesn't think He's a progressive.

Alan Brooks| 12.2.10 @ 10:20PM

You struck out on this one.

llemma| 12.3.10 @ 6:29AM

I'm not sure I completely understand the connection you're making.

Outrage with the Catholic church has centered on priests who sexually abused children and teenagers. Some were closeted homosexuals; none were in openly admissible relationships.

The parallels to the current question are difficult to see. We are deciding whether to permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military, not whether to permit them to serve secretly. Soldiers do not have privileged access to vulnerable children. And it is worth noting that the military is neither all male nor closed; to the best of my knowledge, our fighting men and women are permitted to carry on romantic relationships and perhaps even marriages.

What, then, is the connection?

Kenny| 12.2.10 @ 7:09AM

As politicfaly incorrect as it may be to say, Manning seems to confirm the propensity of homosexuals to lie, to be deceitful, and to even commit treason. Pass all the legislation you want, but homosexual behavior is against the laws of God and nature.

Alan Brooks| 12.2.10 @ 10:22PM

YOU LOSE.
You have to allow openly gay applicants into the Services, the Pentagon knows they need as large a choice as possible to select the best from the pool.

Albert| 12.3.10 @ 12:36AM

That's an interesting statement. Just HOW do you know that this is what "the Pentagon knows?" Justify your claim. Just saying it does not make it so.

Melvin| 12.2.10 @ 8:05AM

Gay, straight, transgender or whatever flavor the of the day. Manning is a disgrace to his uniform, his Country and his family.
The sneaky, deceitful little bastard needs to be either shot or hung for treason.

Reinhard| 12.2.10 @ 9:02AM

That's "hanged"...and they should play Lady Gaga while they do it. But they won't...he'll go to prison and get his wish..an all male population where he get something else for his superiors other than coffee.

Melvin| 12.2.10 @ 9:11AM

Thanks for correcting my grammatical error. I didn't realize the semantics of the meaning being associated with Manning's persuasion.

gingadecorgi| 12.2.10 @ 3:35PM

Dittoes er dittos. You are absolutely right!

Louis Jenkins| 12.2.10 @ 8:35AM

Perhaps I am the only one here to say you receive what you deserve. Osama ben Obama says "don't ask don't tell" is antiqudated. Well, he, and other top dogs, are getting the full treatment now ain't they. Does it matter if a gay or a straight released the Wikileaks? They're out there now folks so hang on for the ride. There are many facts in the Wikileaks that should remain top secret, and there are some that I find amusing. But allowing a person, gay or otherwise, access to them is beyond my comprehension. Our military, like the society it reflects, is screwed up.

NavyBrat| 12.2.10 @ 9:13AM

The military is in the business of killing people. Period. Lives depend on unit cohesion. Without this, the unit is destroyed, either from within, or by the enemy. Therefore, the military should not be some social experimental playground. Not if we want this nation to be safe. What THIS schmuck did might've cost more lives than all those given up by Ames, Hanssen, & done more damage than ALL that done by the Walkers & Pollard.

And of course, this idiot isn't the first "angry" gay man to have caused the loss of US lives. Lest we forget the angry gay man who blew up the No. 2 16in gun turret on the USS Iowa. It happened in April of '89 & killed FORTY SEVEN SAILORS!!! Yeah. What a great place for a social justice experiment.

gingadecorgi| 12.2.10 @ 3:41PM

Navy brat, it was never proven that ANYONE deliberately blew up the turret on the Iowa. It was defective. In an effort to cover up the mistake in maintenance, the USNavy blamed a sailor, saying he had a gay spat and therefore was a person of interest is ludicrous. I know how the gay thing can be used against a straight in the Navy. Someone don't like you, they squeal "he's gay." Followed by the total ruination of a person's military career.

NavyBrat| 12.2.10 @ 3:57PM

The overwhelming evidence that pointed to that guy being was WAS correct. And the families of those who died were FURIOUS when the Navy retracted that & went with the version they did. Most sailors know how that incident went down. There are no secrets on ships, therefore, there are none in the fleet. That guy was gay & he was pissed. I'll believe the scuttlebutt my Dad heard & told me when the incident occurred over the PCed version that the Navy released. Keep in mind this was right around Tailhook, so the Navy, then under the Clinton admin, was on a PC Crusade.

gingadecorgi| 12.2.10 @ 5:00PM

Navy brat, the Iowa was an old battleship with outdated armament. The Navy should have had the battleship in port as a museum. I can hardly accept that a pissed off sailor, who may have been gay, would blow up his ship along with his shipmates. Those who lost loved ones were once fed the story about the gay sailor and accepted it as logical. The Navy finally figured out it was at fault and sorry to say, the families did not want to hear it. The Navy has become very PC and looks for scapegoats when it makes a mistake. A dead sailor, who cannot defend himself is an easy target for blame. I spent 5 years in the Navy. Honorably discharged. Loved and still love the Navy. But it has lots of warts.

NavyBrat| 12.2.10 @ 5:28PM

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Word coming outta the fleet's officer's messes was that the reason was exactly as stated. I believe what my Dad told me. You can believe what you want to.

Thank you for your service, my friend. Seriously.

Christopher Holland| 12.2.10 @ 6:52PM

Navies have been dealing with the risk of high explosives on warships for centuries - the French flagship 'L'Orient' at the Battle of the Nile caught fire and blew up, and that was more than 200 years ago. The Royal Navy had 3 battlecruisers blew up in magazine explosions at the Battle of Jutland in 1916, and there were serious ammunition fires on 2 other ships that could have been catastrophic. And the battlecruiser Hood blew up in 1941 when a shell from the Bismarck detonated in the rear magazine. Also the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbour. All these things were well known when the Iowa was designed, the risk of ammunition explosions was a major consideration in the design. But that doesn't mean that it can't happen, especially if a turret crewman has a death wish. All you need is some loose powder from a silk wrapped ammunition charge and a spark of static electricity and you have a turret or magazine explosion to deal with.

vitadMD| 12.2.10 @ 9:48AM

Why is no one raising the possibility of blackmail? If Wikileaks can get this kind of information, imagine what could be done with info about Obama's secret documents like the birth certificate, passport, and academic records...

Tyrel| 12.2.10 @ 10:03AM

Wikileaks is JUST a website. They aren't some kind of secret news agaency or something. It is a place where somone can post classified information. They don't seek it, they only allow whistle blowers an anonymous way to post info.

Ray| 12.2.10 @ 10:16AM

They don't seek out classified material? BS! They actively seek out classified information and promise anonymity to those who proved it. The posting of classified materials is their sole mission.

Stan Redmond| 12.2.10 @ 10:39AM

Big difference between espionage and whistle blowing. Wikileaks is openly aiding espionage of the United States.

Ray| 12.2.10 @ 10:49AM

That's right, as Wikileaks provides a "drop box" for classified material, which is a means of actively seeking classified materials for public release.

Contrary to their claims, and to the beliefs of some people, Wikileaks IS actively seeking out classified materials. You don't provide a secure means of communications if you're just a innocent recipient of someone else's illegal activities. By providing that means of communications, Wikileaks is actively committing espionage.

Virginia| 12.2.10 @ 9:54AM

Won't repeal of DADT, allowing gays to serve openly, result in more kissing and handholding on the batlefield?

Ray| 12.2.10 @ 10:44AM

That's doubtful. It will allow more solders to be vulnerable to coercion and intimidation by those who seek to harm the military's missions.

You see, there's a reason why certain activities, like sexual behavior, isn't allowed to be "openly" displayed in the military. Like "openly" displaying a drinking problem, displaying your sexual behavior leaves you vulnerable to others who may wish to use that behavior, that information, as a means of coercing you and modifying your actions in the military. By serving "openly" as a gay man, a solder has revealed a vulnerability that can be readily and effectively exploited by the enemy, even outside (especially outside) the battlefield.

JeffW| 12.2.10 @ 2:01PM

Finally someone else is saying the same thing I have. Your sexuality should be a non-issue and regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation it should not be displayed in a professional military setting.

Christopher Holland| 12.2.10 @ 7:00PM

The British thought that too, they were relaxed about gays having access to state secrets. Untill the Russians had a lot of successes blackmailing them and turning them into spies and traitors. Go back and read how many spy scandals involved gays betraying their country and working for the Russians and you might not be so blase about letting them take charge of the country's defences.

Ronald Reagan was quite relaxed about gays, they did not bother him, but he never wanted to change the military to accomodate them either.

jrjr| 12.2.10 @ 4:04PM

There may be no end to the DADT repeal. Does it mean housing allowances because a gay has a boy?girlfriend or husband?wife? A new neutered shower or latrine? Perhaps some of the existing service people will abandon the services, people who have saved our butts.

emily| 12.4.10 @ 3:02PM

No. Repealing DADT does not mean housing allowances for a service member's same-sex girlfriend or boyfriend - first, because there aren't currently housing allowances for opposite-sex girlfriends or boyfriends. In fact, the military couldn't recognize same-sex partnerships as marriage (for instance, if they'd been done overseas or in states with gay marriage) even if they wanted to due to DOMA. So that should assuage your fears.

Tyrel| 12.2.10 @ 10:01AM

I think the "gay" issue is a NON-issue and being used as a smokescreen in this case. The real question is : How far do you follow orders before you realize they are harming and killing innocents? I mean the civilians in Iraq. Let's say for argument's sake any of us was in the position of that soldier and saw the government/military committing atrocities.... How long would you stand by and watch? Would you allow it to happen so you can go home, claim your wartime pay and be a "hero" and a veteran? I hope the answer is NO. I think people gay, straight, and of every race and creed are starting to see the wisdom of the founding fathers which said to...be friends with all nations, but be allied with NONE. If the USA stuck to it's own LAWS in the first place, (The Constitution), we wouldn't even be over there in Iraq occupying their soil. The whole idea and function of the military today is wrong according to the Constitution. It has almost NOTHING to do with political parties, religion, or sexual orientation. THis also brings up a big issue over protection for whistle blowers. How does this even work in out military and intelligence communities? Are they just expected to be robots and do illegal things because "war is hell"? It seems there should be a better excuse.
As an aside, I have seen nothing yet mentioning how this damages our relations with other countries. Some of that info could be pretty embarrassing or damaging. Why are we even generating these kinds of documents? Why do we feel the need to deeply profile the rest of the world? It seems to me if we just followed the founding fathers' advice we'd be a LOT better off.....

Ray| 12.2.10 @ 10:25AM

"The real question is : How far do you follow orders before you realize they are harming and killing innocents"

That's up to each individual solder to decide. You see, a solder is required to obey LAWFUL orders and the military has definitive policies, regulations, which outline what is or is not a lawful order. Solders aren't stupid and we know what constitutes a lawful order.

By releasing classified information, as the solder in question has done, he has disobeyed lawful orders and has placed not only his fellow solders in danger, but innocent civilians as well. You see, there;s a reason why certain information should not be made available to the general public. This reason is that the enemy has access to "public" information and will use that information in order to plan and carry out attacks against both the military and innocent civilians.

"Why do we feel the need to deeply profile the rest of the world?"

Because it's only certain people who are ATTACKING us, and most of those people fall into a definite classification, IE age group, income level, nationality, religious beliefs, ect.

It's the same reason why we profile serial killers, for example. It is used as a tool to enable us concentrate our resources in the most effective manner.

Ray| 12.2.10 @ 11:21AM

"If the USA stuck to it's own LAWS in the first place, (The Constitution), we wouldn't even be over there in Iraq occupying their soil. "

Actually, it's the Constitution that permits, even requires, that we "be over there" places like Iraq, specifically Article 1, Section 8, which states that Congress has the authority: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations."

Since Congress did debate and authorize the use of military force in Iraq, based mostly on Saddam's, and his government's, offenses against the Law of Nations, they have fulfilled their Constitutional requirements.

Mike| 12.2.10 @ 11:30AM

Tyrel

Thanks for your well written post. However I have to reject your premise that there is a systematic committing of atrocities by our military. Let me be clear, atrocities have been committed but it is not the norm in our military. With more than a million personnel serving in Iraq over the last 8 years some one would have produced the evidence. I site Abu Graib as an example. It was military personnel who exposed that even though, in my opinion, it was blown way out of proportion by the press.

Secondly we are not occupying Iraq. We stay in Iraq at the behest of the elected government. You can bet the farm that if they asked us to leave all you would see is the dust cloud from our departure.

Third, our military's job is to defend America. Unfortunately in today’s world we cannot accomplish this mission by sitting on our borders keeping the bad guys out. Therefore we have to venture our and do things like protecting shipping lanes so the bad guys cannot destroy our economy and helping allies so they will be there when we need them to help us.

Finally you asked if military personnel are just expected to be robots and do illegal things. This reveals a gross misunderstanding about what serving in the military is like. Our military is better educated and held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the country. The military’s mission requires even the lowest privates to exercise critical thinking in highly stressful situations and they perform wonderfully nearly all of the time.

Finally (really this time) there are systems in place that allow for whistle blowing and correcting wrongs committed by military personnel and they work well too. I agree with you when you say the military has nothing to do with political parties, religion, or sexual orientation. If so, why are we carrying on about gays in the military? The military is one of the most apolitical organizations around. The civilian politicians commit the military to war. Rarely are people in the military looking to go to war, at least not in the United States military.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

GW| 12.2.10 @ 6:54PM

I love reading opinions from current or former American military personnel. They are well-written, intelligent, and respectful to the debating party.

That said, I would add this. Gays aren't banned from the military, only openly gay homosexuals. "DADT" prohibits the military from asking GIs what their sexuality is, and also prevents gays from broadcasting their sexuality to the institution, an institution where many members would be offended by this announcement. It has worked in a very diverse organization, and will continue to work. Unfortunately, those wanting to repeal DADT do not have the military's best interests at heart. Most are, like the gay community, self-absorbed, shove-it-in-your face types that want not merely tolerance but acceptance of homosexual behavior.

Christopher Holland| 12.2.10 @ 7:09PM

The 'gay' issue does damage relations with other countries, whether you like it or not. One of the main reasons al Quada opposed the US effort in Iraq to make the country a democracy was because they said that democracy would result in elections, elections would elect liberals and liberals would bring in abortion and gay marriage, which Islam utterly opposes. How do liberals ever reconcile their support for gays and abortion with their tolerance of Islam and Islamic terrorism, when Islam violently opposes these things? The position taken by liberals is utterly incoherent.

Do you really think that a homosexual military is going to be welcome in Islamic countries, which is where you have to be to fight terrorism? This really is naiive.

chester arthur| 12.2.10 @ 10:17AM

Most of this probably came from Clinton people in the state department.The little light loafers poof seems more scapegoat than anything else.He was involved,obviously,but the amount of data and whose data it was,and who gets the worst treatment in what was released,indicates a broader group of leakers with an agenda beyond embarrassing previous administrations.I'll bet that it leads to the decision by the current secretary of state to leave her job next year and use the contents of the leaks to attack both the previous and current administration.Setting up her run for the demo-loon nomination for 2012.The press will convieniently ignore the leaks that make her look bad.Assange seems like the gender neutral dweebs that surround her already.I'll bet he would love to assist her ambitions.I'll bet he has.

PattyMor| 12.2.10 @ 10:35AM

The gays in the military is just another step in the leftist march through all our institutions. They have already conquered public education, universitities, marriage, movies, video games, and music. The military is one of the last unit of government that functioned.

matthew s harrison| 12.2.10 @ 11:23AM

The fact that anyone at wikileaks is still alive, is proof-positive the obama administration had something to do with it. We know where the guy is. he is in the southeast of England. England are our staunchest allies, and if we wanted to-this guy's melon would already have been popped.
So, I am sure that the barry administration has liaised with assange, and made sure that nothing really compromising to him is in there, but that a lot of stuff to further weaken our defenses and credibility is.
Long and short on the private-he should have a popped melon too-and when he is released to general population at Ft. Leavenworth, it won't take but a few hours on the yard for his impending dirt nap to start.
This is all solely reliant on the russians not getting to the wikileaks guys first. these guys have no idea who they are messing with in Putin-however they may soon find out.....and that may be the only reason we (the US) haven't popped assange's melon yet-because we made a deal with the ruskies to let them do it first.
The military was doomed when they jammed affirmative action down its throat Patty. It has been dead a long time. The politics in the pentagon are a joke-and it is evidenced every day our men/women die in Afghanistan where the ROE are made to kill our boys, and the flag officers in the pentagon go home to their nice bungalos in fairfax county, and send their kids to private schools. A total joke!

hunter| 12.2.10 @ 12:06PM

The cat is out of the bag. Forget about it. Now for justice, give the little traitor his choice, hanging or firing squad. Then use just the opposite, next week. This should be over this year. Then go after wiki dribbler asange, who then will really disappear. For real.

WilliamInWien| 12.2.10 @ 12:30PM

I can see it now: Armed Forces Recruiters-two lines, One for Straights and One for Gays. Of course, both recruiters, one straight and one gay, will be well trained and prepared to answer "sensitivity" questions from prospective recruits. Before signing up, recruits will be offered a "Try it and if you don't like it" clause to opt out if they don't like it. Foreign ports of call for Navy ships will have to change to accommodate the two potential types of customers. But I am certain Mr. Gates has thought all of this through.

Dan| 12.2.10 @ 1:21PM

Private Manning is a hero. God bless him!

NavyBrat| 12.2.10 @ 1:48PM

Mr. Ames, is that you? I didn't know you had computer access at Supermax when you're on 23 hr. a day lockdown.

Cpm| 12.2.10 @ 4:07PM

Pvt. Manning is a traitor. God can't help him.

Greg Comlish| 12.2.10 @ 3:02PM

You guys are more concerned with reinforcing your own bigotry against gays than you are about defending the nation. During the Civil Right's movement, plenty of racists would cling to every crime committed by a black person to oppose equal rights. Today we again witness bigots singling out the acts of one individual to smear an entire demographic.

And just like the Racists who opposed the Civil Rights movement, the bigots of today will lose and lose conclusively. Years from now (and sooner than you think) former bigots will be the ones who will live closeted lives, and gays will prance and flaunt their gayness to public applause. The acceptance of gays will be so broad that bigots will rewrite their own history, rather than face the shame and disapproval of their children and peers. It's only a matter of time.

Purple Lips| 12.2.10 @ 3:34PM

"Years from now (and sooner than you think) former bigots will be the ones who will live closeted lives, and gays will prance and flaunt their gayness to public applause."

That is until the Mullahs take over. The Imans are spreading thier religion faster that you guys are spreading yours. Heck, the Muslims are building a giant mosque smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt (Chatanooga Tennesse); new mosques are going up everywhere from Tulsa to Chicago, to LA, Dallas, and Orlando.

No, my gay friend. When it is all said and done, you guys will remember those nasty Christian bigots with fond memories. Those bigots allowed you to fully express your lifestyle of sodomy. Perhaps they were too intimidated, and your provacative, vulgar behavior went too far. It really doesn't matter. For, to be gay and Islam means certain death (usually by stoning or beheading). And there will be no closet in Islamoland.

Just think about it; the Army is so wrecked with PC group-think that it allowed an openly gay and sullen E3 to access tens of thousands of highly classified documents. Twenty years ago, the young man would have never passed the initial Army physical.

Christopher Holland| 12.2.10 @ 7:14PM

This has nothing to do with civil rights. Who is being made to sit at the back of the bus, or told they can't eat in a restaurant or sit on a park bench or made to wear a star on their clothes? What discrimination are you complaining about?

Greg Comlish| 12.2.10 @ 8:30PM

"What discrimination are you complaining about?"

The discrimination against gays. More specifically, the discrimination that dishonorably discharges American soldiers to speciously accommodate the bigotry and ignorance of one political party.

GENE HAUBER| 12.2.10 @ 3:05PM

AS A BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN I HAVE TO SAY THAT I CANNOT COUNTENANCE THE LIFE STYLE OF THE GAY POPULATION, BUT, IF GAYS REALLY WANT "TO SERVE" AS I BELIEVE ALL SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN DO, THEN LET THEM SERVE AS MEDIC OR CORPSMEN. IF THEY DON'T WANT COMBAT ON THE FRONTLINES THEN LET THEM SERVE IN CLINICS AND HOSPITALS BEHIND THE LINES. AND.......IF THEY WANT COMBAT, I CAN'T THINK OF A MORE HEROIC OR DANGEROUS ROLE, THAN AS A MEDIC OR CORPSMAN IN A COMBAT UNIT. THESE GUYS HAVE IT ALL AND I WOULD WELCOME ANYONE, MAN OR WOMAN, STRAIGHT OR GAY TO STOP MY BLEEDING OR SHOCK IN A HEARTBEAT AND THAT PERSON WOULD BE MY BROTHER FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.....PERIOD, NUFF SAID AND CASE CLOSED

Steve A| 12.2.10 @ 3:51PM

Hey Gene, I think your Caps Lock is on there buddy....Imagine if as a Bible Believing Christian you were forced to read The Good Book IN ALL CAPS JUST HOW IRRITATING THAT WOULD BE???

GW| 12.2.10 @ 6:57PM

As a Bible believing Christian I couldn't agree more. Still laughing Steve. Thanks.

JeffT| 12.2.10 @ 3:51PM

There is so much going on, more than at any time in my 61 years of life, that it is virtually impossible to keep up with all of the assaults. Just when we get whacked with Wiki-leaks, we find the FED has been up to its old tricks of printing money and handing it out to friends and family. GE, in bed with Obama and his green (ugh, I hate the word green!) agenda, gets boatloads of money. Wall Street fat cats, who we were led to believe are the scum of the Earth, get boatloads of cash. Does Goldman Sachs, a conduit to a White House job, really need to get taxpayer money? On and on, day-after-day, an endless barrage of bad news. One wonders how much longer before the people just give up. And that seems to be the grand plan in Washington. Numb us into submission. Then, viola, transform America. Into what? is the question.

Savoir Faire| 12.2.10 @ 3:59PM

I find it hard to believe that Pfc. Manning was closeted. If his grinning mug wasn't enough, the Lady Gaga CD should have been a dead giveaway.

Purple Lips| 12.2.10 @ 4:52PM

It's the New Army. Muslims Jihadists and gays can remain stateside as REMFs. Straight males - off to the battlefield!

martin j smith| 12.2.10 @ 4:13PM

People have all kinds of motives to be traitors, and this guy in question is one of many. The essence for these types of hatred of America--for whatever reason. I think the emphasis should be on not the gay element but on the thinking of Anti-Americanism( it comes in many forms ) I think Obama needs to be exposed for his own Anti_americanism.

Derek Leaberry| 12.2.10 @ 4:58PM

Remember that the left has two goals by inflicting open homosexuality on the military. First, the left has an obsession with egalitarianism. When they can force egalitarianism on an institution or on a person, they will do so. The left would force egalitarianism on sex if they could. Second, homosexualizing the military will act as a cancer on an institution they despise. The left wants the American military to be a weak, effete institution with poor morale, something like the pathetic Dutch military. One can only suppose that Admiral Mullen is a man of the left.

GENE HAUBER | 12.2.10 @ 5:20PM

hey steve a,
take it for what it is you effing amoeba.
I'm hard of hearing from all the jets and helos still running in my ears...........that's why i talk loud, NOT JUST TO IRRITATE VERY OBSERVANT PERSONS AS YOURSELF.
HOW ASTUTE CAN YOU BE??
ANY COMMENT ON THE COMMENT STEVE O??

WHERE IS MY CAPS BUTTON, AGAIN??

ABNCP| 12.2.10 @ 5:35PM

Alternate lifestype types have betrayed their countires trusts with terrible results. Example, recent history shows us the McClean/Burgress security blow up in the U.K. The security vetting process was a joke with them. With Manning certinly someone should have noticed something. These people always show they are having real problems. Booze, drugs, sexual lifestyle etc. When a person is cleared for Top Secret or above information the background check has to show problem areas. However, I guess that in todays P.C. world anything goes.

John II| 12.2.10 @ 6:16PM

When you think about it, it's amazing how flexible the military brass are, collectively speaking. I saw something of this phenomenon up close, when I was in the Army during the Vietnam era and the brass would shift promptly with the frequent shift of the political winds.

During the Clinton era, the time-servers and careerists got the upper hand in the management of the armed forces. During much of the Bush II era, the sure-enough warriors stepped to the fore. But Bush started getting wobbly, or maybe just tired, and he put Gates in charge of Defense. Professor Obama kept Gates, partly for obvious political reasons but certainly because the Professor sensed sufficient accommodation in Gates so as not to expect any trouble.

We now have, as well, Admiral Mike Mullen as the Professor's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the very avatar of the career military political accommodationist. Anyone care to guess how much longer General Petraeus is going to last?

daniam| 12.2.10 @ 6:54PM

Now I can see how so many will take the mark of the beast. Floating down the lazy river, whenever, however, wherever, with whoever. Whatever!
The gates of hell will most likely will be hitting you in the ass.

serfer62| 12.2.10 @ 6:56PM

TOTALLY OVERLOOKED IS PC!!!
The Political Generals, most of them, will use afirmative Action to promote gays to compensate for their persuction as the PC thing to do...

kevin| 12.2.10 @ 8:12PM

In wikileaks not guilty of receiving stolen property?
And what has gone wrong with the US that Assange is still walking around?

loulou| 12.2.10 @ 10:39PM

Is he gay or is he a "Chaz?"

IzeHavitt| 12.3.10 @ 12:05AM

Memo to Conservatives: In light of this event, it is necessary to always remember the first lesson in "The Art Of War". That is, that leadership must never lose it's nerve. May one add, neither leadership or the rank and file conservatives should ever lose their nerve. We elected a new Congress. We should make sure that they eliminate all homosexuals from the military. Never mind the pc bleatings to the contrary. We cannot afford to allow the military to be corrupted. Way too much is at stake.

GavInTucson| 12.4.10 @ 4:36AM

IzeHavitt, you're speaking to someone (Me) that's served more than 21 years so far in the USAF. During that time, I've served in three wars (Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq) with countless deployments in-between (mostly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

In all of my travels, I most certainly came across people that I suspected were homosexuals. You know what? I didn't give a shit. Do you know why? It's because they loved their country just as much as I did, and were willing to give their life to protect it.

All that matters to me is that we've got each others' backs. I couldn't give one-tenth-of-a-shit what they do behind closed doors. I don't care about their political preferences, what their favorite color is, or what they had for breakfast that morning.

The only thing I needed to know is that we're all looking out for each other at the end of the day. That's all that really mattered, unless you're idiotic enough to care "who" was keeping your guts from being splattered against a wall.

Give me a call if you ever come across these "corrupted" individuals, and then explain to me why you feel their blood isn't worthy of spilling in the name of your freedom.

Truth be told, if it was your own ass on the line, you wouldn't care if the person saving your bacon was a half man, half woman, horned circus-freak. You'd simply be grateful that someone came back for you.

Chal| 12.3.10 @ 1:27AM

Wouldn't the military be improved by being free of homophobic bigots? Who wants that trash defending our freedoms?

Kenny| 12.3.10 @ 7:12AM

No, Chasl. In fact, the U.S. military would be better off without homosexuals.

GavInTucson| 12.8.10 @ 3:34AM

Actually, Kenny, I think the military would be better off without a bunch of worthless individuals that join for the sole purpose of garnering a paycheck. In my experience, 99% of those worthless individuals were heterosexuals.

Do the math. I'd trade a worthless heterosexual sloth for a patriotic homosexual any day, and twice on Sunday.

At the end of the day, I don't let bigotry get in the way of my ability to determine who's getting the job done, and who isn't.

General Dwight Eisenhower| 12.3.10 @ 12:59PM

The last thing the American military needs are immoral, unreliable homosexuals in the ranks.

GavInTucson| 12.8.10 @ 3:23AM

Thanks for the insight, Ike. I didn't realize that homosexuals had a monopoly on "immoral and unreliable" behavior. In my current (paltry) 21 years of service, I've had a role in removing several individuals from military service, none of which I ever suspected of homosexuality.

However, I currently serve with two that I suspect are. I haven't communicated my suspicions up my chain because they haven't violated the current policy (DADT), and have (so far) done their jobs with distinction.

What more can we ask of anyone? I'm not aware of any axiom that dictates your sexual partner determines your worth in society.

Matthew Bright| 12.3.10 @ 1:16PM

It's not so much that you people combine being poisonous and ugly with being silly, but it's that you ruined every single financial instrument in the country to boot.

What does it take to make you people shut up? When does it occur to you that you're all totally full of it and always have been?

GavInTucson| 12.4.10 @ 3:32AM

It's rare that I find an article from AmSpec to be imbecilic, but I've found one right here.

You're using the Wikileaks scandal as an argument against gays serving in the military? I find that very interesting. SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Reserved NETwork) has existed for slightly longer than the DADT policy has been in place (back before Clinton).

In all of that time, I'm fairly certain that a large number of homosexuals (perhaps thousands) have not only served in the military (secretly), but have had access to SIPRNET as a consequence of their job (intel, for example).

There seems to have been a lot of time for closeted-homosexuals to lash out at the DADT policy by divulging classified information to the public (17 years). Until now, this hasn't happened. So, we're now going to use the fact that this soldier was gay as an excuse as to why gays shouldn't serve? Rubbish.

It's one thing to make the argument that introducing openly homosexual individuals into a unit could (potentially) cause a breakdown in cohesion, but it's an absolute farce to suggest that if a member of a certain group (homosexual, heterosexual, white, black, Christian, or Muslim) commits a crime, they must all be doing it (or conspiring to do it), and, therefore, cannot serve.

By following the author's idiotic argument, nobody can serve in the military (or in government) After all, the Rosenburgs (a male/female heterosexual couple) divulged nuclear secrets to the Soviets, resulting in their trial/conviction.

Did we ban all heterosexual males and females from the military? Of course we didn't, because that would be insane.

The problem with some of you so-called conservatives (NeoCons) is that even though you trumpet individualism, individuality, and personal responsibility, you seem quick to lump everybody into groups (just as liberals) and engage in group-think.

Thanks God I'm a Conservative/Libertarian. I don't engage in group-think. To me, everyone is an individual, and should be judged as such, not just lumped into some group based on what's politically expedient at the moment.

ExPat| 12.5.10 @ 8:43PM

I suspect Pvt. Manning will have sufficient time in FT Leavenworth to proclaim his sexual identity without fearing retribution.

Bob Menzies| 12.6.10 @ 12:58AM

Sounds like we have a lot of homophobes here. You know what they say about homophobes?

Homophobes are ignorant types who themselves have secret desires they can't come to terms with. They accuse others of depravity all the while longing to be just like those they denegrate.

Homophobes are no different to those whacky religious professionals who claim pure family values all the while having affairs etc. themselves.

Methinks we have quite a few homos who have yet to come to terms with who they really are, as such try to hide same by talking tough - the behaviour of kiddies.

Any real man would never fear a homosexual, unless....

Alexander the Great was a courageous and successful warrior and leader, he was also gay (bi) like many who fought by his side.

Hand up all the homophobes - purple lips, now that's gay.

Bruce Ball| 12.6.10 @ 6:57AM

It could lead to those people in powerful positions who had not worried about getting caught breaking the law, to think twice before committing criminal acts in the future.
http://www.wellnessstarts.com/.....views.html

Richard Baker| 12.6.10 @ 11:34AM

(1)Homosexuality=perversion. (2)Assange and the Boy Soldier=their deaths in future. (3)If you jokers want to bugger each other in private, be my guest. Our culture, military or otherwise, has enough pollution as it is.

Richard Baker| 12.6.10 @ 11:56AM

Bob:
I don't have to handle dog poop to know that it's nasty. Same with homosexuality. Fear? Pathetic for those who think the human digestive tract is a sex organ. Poor babies.

GavInTucson| 12.8.10 @ 4:19AM

Richard... I'm sorry... Dick?... May I call you Dick?

If you've ever received fellatio from a member of the opposite sex, you're guilty of the same perversion that you protest (oral tract as a sexual organ). By golly, you can't lie to God.

If you haven't, OMG, you're letting the best parts of your life pass you by. Trust me on this one. If not me, trust your partner (who I can assure you has enjoyed the "oral" tract at least once).

Bob Menzies| 12.6.10 @ 4:55PM

http://sexuality.about.com/od/....._stats.htm

It would appear not only gay men indulge in and enjoy using the human digestive tract as a sex organ.

I wonder how their wives/partners feel about that?

And how many women have had to suffer their husband's (secret but unrealised) homosexual fantasies just to keep him happy?

Hetero's (and there are many) who want anal sex with their wives/partners may ask themselves the question: why?

GOPtaylo| 12.6.10 @ 5:19PM

I was a combatant in WWII, the last great war that the U.S. won!!! Homosexuals were not tolerated. When exposed, they were summarily tossed in the brig, subsequently court marshaled and given dishonorable discharges. That may sound severe, but services back then were not controlled by P.C. (Political Cowards). I don't believe Gates never served in the military and I'm glad I never served with Mullin's. These two got there marching orders from Obama who certainly had no heroic military career. This whole homosexual military thing is just another tool of the Lenin-Marxist Democrats to further destroy America's character and strength, and promote their One World agenda.