Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Don't Ask Hillary About Gay Rights -- She Won't Tell

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted March 14, 2007.


Hillary Clinton told the press that the morality of homosexuality is for "others to conclude." How calculating can you get?
Advertisement

When the story about General Peter Pace ripping the "immorality" of homosexuals broke last week, I didn't even bother to read below the headlines at first. Another bigot with stars gets too near a microphone and shoves his foot in the mouth -- ho hum. Where's the news there? The army isn't exactly a breeding ground for progressive social engineers, nor should it be, probably. Would you be interested in Dennis Kucinich's reviews of military hardware? I'm taking my views on the M-224 Whiskey Pete phosphorus mortar directly to the American people! Absurd, right? Well, then, why listen to some iron-headed Pentagon pol on the subject of gender tolerance?

The only thing that was really interesting about the story, from where I sat, was the reaction to it. A wave of politicians on both sides of the aisle came out and stated the obvious -- look, this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is ridiculous, it doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense anymore, let's junk it. Former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson wrote a piece blasting the policy, and the Washington Post, which has a habit of tiptoeing up to the right point of view about a decade late on things like this, wrote a surprisingly fierce editorial in support of the rights of gays to serve. It was beginning to look like Pace's outburst might serve as one of those unifying cultural catalysts, a fuck-up egregious enough to rally the Washington mob into a reluctant consensus.

Then I saw Hillary Clinton's comments.

Hillary was talking to ABC's Jake Tapper about a wide range of issues, mostly about the firings of the Attorneys General, an issue that is somewhat difficult for her to jump on with both high heels because of her husband's mass firing of AGs in 1993. But toward the end of the interview she hit on the Pace story, and the first half of her comments seemed to fall under the category of standard-issue, "I'm for whatever everyone else is for" politico-blather.

"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desperately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."

This whole line of thinking is vaguely annoying, of course -- the idea that suddenly "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is bad policy because we need everyone we can get to fight this asinine war we're fighting. We fucked up so badly, we should even take fags now! Still, within that comment Hillary managed to call gays and lesbians "patriotic," and she also seemed to come down quite unequivocally on the right side of the nature-nurture question about homosexuality, making sure to identify homosexuality as "who you are," not "who you choose to be." With that statement alone, she basically alienates every born-again Christian in the country. Which makes it all the stranger that, when Tapper asked her if homosexuality was "immoral," she answered as follows:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

Let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton wants the most powerful office in the world, but she can't make her own decision about the morality of homosexuality? She's got to "leave that to others?"

When I read this, I thought to myself: man, this woman has been living with Bill Clinton way too long. Fifteen years after the 1992 campaign, she's trying to smoke the gay pipe without inhaling. She's just said that homosexuality isn't a choice, that it's something "you are" at birth. If that's what she believes, how could she possibly believe homosexuality is immoral? And if that is what she believes, how could she possibly not answer that question forthrightly? How could she duck Tapper's question there?

There are times, of course, when a politician may be excused for not answering a sticky political question. As the flap over Barack Obama's views about Palestine proved this week, people are not always rational and/or forgiving in the face of political candor. If an Obama can't make a simple declarative factual statement about the suffering of the Palestinian people without being gored on the AIPAC trident and whaled on in a host of heated talk-show segments, it's hard to blame some politicians for keeping their mouths shut when politically controversial topics arise.

But this question, the homosexuality question, this is different. We all know that we live in an era where politicians navigate whole careers in a sort of moral fog, with their eyes closed, using polls as instruments. We know that in most cases, when a politicians expresses an opinion on a controversial topic, he's most likely parroting our own views back to us, views that he discerned using paid cultural snoops like Zogby. Thus ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a politician's words are indistinguishable, from a marketing standpoint, from candy-bar wrappers. They test colors and fonts with focus groups, pick the one that gets the best numbers, and put it out there to see if it can beat Snickers.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, hillary clinton

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yea
Posted by: gjames on Mar 14, 2007 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor Hillary. She is so intelligent, and I don't want things to go badly for her, but she missed a great opportunity to just say no, I don't think that homosexualit is immoral.

I'm hopeful that Hillary can turn what I expect to be a trainwreck of a presidential campaign into something really positive. For example, give Obama two terms, and elect his veep after that. Build the majority in Congress and the Senate, and make Hillary Clinton the Senate majority leader for the next three decades. It might not be perfect, but it doesn't sound so bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yea Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Yea Posted by: gjames
» RE: Yea Posted by: cottontail
Hillary and the Bomb!
Posted by: The Populist on Mar 14, 2007 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First I would like to say thank you Mr. Taibbi! I live for your column.

As usual you have used the right mix of active language, obscenity and comic hyperbole to make Hillary out for exactly who she is...a tool of the plutocrats! And you point directly the the over stuffed baggage that evil woman carries with her, those Samsonite's bursting with her "husband's" policiy blunders.

Rupert Murdoch writes her checks and she writes off the gay/lesbians.

Thanks again,
mlk

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary and the Bomb! Posted by: The Populist
one little detail
Posted by: blairisius on Mar 14, 2007 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice Takedown....This was the first thing I read regarding Hillary's response. Can we please find some Democrats that aren't trying to court the homophobe vote? If a lot of voters are on the fence about the issue, maybe the solution is to show some actual moral leadership and be willing to lay out a principled stance in favor of gay rights.
One nitpick with the article, though. The part about soldiers being indifferent to race, class and "even gender." I find this a little hard to believe given all the reports, like this
story in Salon
and a bunch on Alternet about women in the US military being sexually harassed or assaulted by fellow soldiers. I'm sure most male soldiers can serve with women and see them as equals, but the fact that the military itself has (according to everything I've read) done such a shameful job of handling sexual assault when it does occur doesn't say much for the way military culture as a whole deals with gender. (and for any commenters who need to point it out, I know the Salon article was updated when one of the soldiers they interviewed backpedaled on his statements. I think the other sources, statistics and first hand accounts still hold up)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Don't Like/Trust Hillary But...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 14, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only issue is not one's personal take on the morality of homosexuals, but their personal rights under the law in a secular democracy. I doubt there will ever be a time when Homosexuality is accepted as normative or whatever by the entire society and people are entitled to their own opinions and the faiths or philosophies that inform them.

What is important is not what Ms Clinton holds to personally, but what her stance is politically. Many people who personally view such conduct as sinful support the rights of others to live as they wish among consenting adults and wish to see their privacy rights protected. The same is true with abortion, as many who would not consider it themselves support abortion rights in the society at large.

If progressives wish to have a big tent and gain the majority they will have to learn to draw the line not on a person's personal beliefs, but on what they support politically for the society at large. If someone is willing to be tolerant of views differing from their personal moral views in the political arena, they should be welcomed and not vilified.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nothing to get excited over...
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Mar 15, 2007 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not your best article Matt...love your work...but I got the same message from watching corporate media...*YAWN*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spot on
Posted by: spencerh on Mar 15, 2007 1:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taibbi, tellin' it like it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that's the best you've got on Hillary?
Posted by: gretavo on Mar 15, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we know exactly why she's doing it, she thinks she's going to triangulate the left and right like her "husband". And this article is very helpful to that end, if indeed Alternet is perceived as a lefty venue anymore. What with people like you Matt, writing vicious diatribes against the 9/11 Truth movement, promising a follow up column where you'll deal with the physical evidence (the damning stuff, in other words) and never delivering.

Do you consider yourself a journalist or a "left-flavored" infotainer? Why are you helping to cover-up 9/11? You do realize it's a crime to knowingly assist a conspiracy to obstruct justice right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt Taibbi--pro-gay rights or homophobe?
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Mar 15, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah Matt Taibbi, champion of tolerance and gay rights. Is this the same Taibbi who wrote for the virulently homophobic and sexist eXile alt-weekly a few years ago? Some quick googling brings up this article, in which Taibbi refers to a "Tough Customers!" magazine cover story showing "two bushy-mustached actors." But Taibbi doesn't think those actors would really be very tough because, "the actual people on the cover are really fag actors who'd run shrieking out of a bar if you so much as looked at them the wrong way" [italics added].

So gross stereotyping and homophobic hate speech is fine in your frat boy lad mag abroad, but for your New York media career attack even pro-gay rights politicians for insufficient zeal in support of the cause. Nice!

On the Internet, your crimes live forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with "calculated?"
Posted by: lamar on Mar 15, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, this Grozny_guy is way off base. Talking about homosexual actors in an unflattering light is not homophobia. And since when is pointing out that actors are wusses compared to the tough guys they play homophobia? I suspect Grozny guy sees homophobia in inanimate objects....

That said, what is so damn awful about Hillary being "calculated"? I've been arguing for years that we need more calculated politicians. Look was irrational self-confidence has given us. George Effing Bush, doesn't calculate a goddam thing through its logical conclusion ever. I don't mind a little forethought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
Posted by: BUSHisLiar on Mar 15, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys


McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn't the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.

While that's true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.

Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.

Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.

"In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. attorneys, who, after all, they had appointed," Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speculated in a 2006 memo outlining Bush's alternative approach. "In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. attorneys."

Nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals.

"Those discretionary decisions made by a president, by an administration, are often done," he told reporters Tuesday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Was Imposed On Bill Clinton
Posted by: thirdmg on Mar 15, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a tendency lately to forget how the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy came about.

Bill Clinton came into office with the promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. The problem seems to have been that he was incredibly naive about Washington politics and about how intense the hatred of gays is in some corners of our society. He apparently thought that changing the policy would be as easy as flicking a switch.

But powerful Washington politicians, such as former-Senator Sam Nunn, a conservative Democrat from Georgia, were lying in wait for him and delivered the first major attack on his presidency over the issue.

Clinton didn't set out to create the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It was imposed on him as a "compromise" by a Washington establishment which wanted to let the new kid on the block know who was actually in charge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gays in the military?
Posted by: kelt65 on Mar 15, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While hillary is as spineless and opportunistic as ever, I frankly would like to military to continue it "no gays" policy; I frankly think the idea of gays in the military is utterly ridiculous - currently NO ONE should be serving in the US Military."Gays in the Military" will happen the next time we have a draft, guarranteed. Most of the stigma is worn down enough to where if ever a draft were enacted, almost everyone who disagreed with the draft would just tell them they're gay. Think of all the things people would do in the 60's to get out of the Vietnam draft - ""I'm gay" was never one of them. Be careful what you wish for. Screw the military. Gays should be more rebellious, not obidient knuckleheads that want to serve in the army. This guy Pace thinks gays are immoral, I guess we just get in the way of him blowing up more brown skinned people. Why would we gays want any part of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gays in the military? Posted by: thirdmg
A Decade? I Don't Think So
Posted by: hbw on Mar 15, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nope, not Matt's best. Still, amusing and mostly correct.

I for one do not buy Matt's argument that the rank & file will learn to accept their GLB(T?) comrades so quickly if they could serve with their sexuality uncloseted. Just check the recent stories about harrassment and even rape of mostly female soldiers in Iraq. Women don't dare go to the latrine alone, especially after dark, for fear of guys within their own units taking advantage.

Look also at some stories about gay & lesbian cops in the U.S., and what they have to endure.

Because of the culture of the U.S. military, a parabolic reflection of our broader culture, I fear that openly queer soldiers will be subjected to the same violence and other nastiness for many decades before they gain sufficient tolerance, let alone acceptance. They will need training that includes working with people of other orientations, and a major spanking awaiting them for harrassment of any kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STOP HILLARY
Posted by: whitey on Mar 15, 2007 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is a right wing equivocating disaster waiting to happen. She will not be president, and frankly I'd vote Republican to stop her. Stop Hillary! Do whatever it takes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: STOP HILLARY Posted by: rainingwolf
An Update To Hillary's Answer
Posted by: thirdmg on Mar 15, 2007 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to an Associated Press article posted a short while ago, Hillary has clarified her position:

"Clinton told ABC News Wednesday that it's for 'others to conclude' whether homosexuality is immoral. On Thursday, she put out a statement saying that she'd heard from gay friends who said her answer sounded evasive. 'I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe,' her statement said."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is clear politicalese:
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Mar 15, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other words, if it would get her enough votes, she'd vote for either gay marriage, or for a law that allows cops to haul any and every queer in the country out into the street for immediate public execution.

SHE DOESN'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't perpetuate the Republican lie about the US Attorney firings
Posted by: sfgumshoe on Mar 15, 2007 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, if there were a Matt Taibbi fan club, I'd probably be the President. Funniest, most on-the-mark political commentary out there, in my opinion. I've read his books, his columns, and regularly forward his stuff to people I know, as must-reading. (Can we ever forget the little Podelkino girl column, right after the invasion of Iraq? Truly one of the greats.)

So, it was pretty jarring to see him echo the Rovian line on the US attorney firings in an aside in this column, i.e., "Clinton did it too!"

Another poster, above, has called Matt to task on this as well. So, Matt, don't disappoint your fans. Write something to correct that whopper, and then you can re-join my list of hundred-percenters, as in those whose writings I find myself 100% in agreement with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe I am giving Hillary too much credit but...
Posted by: Euprattin on Mar 15, 2007 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She might have been insinuating that "homosexuality" in politics is not a question of "morality". By framing the question ethically, the Christian gay-bashers win. Because, it implies that there are some things that are "right" and some things that are "wrong". These sort of moral imperatives are the framework for prejudice, racism, and discrimination.

Hillary should have said, "What are you asking me? Should we support the persecution and discrimination of homosexuals? Never. Are Gays any less American? No. Would I be angry if Chelsea was gay? Of course not.

Instead, she just barfed all over herself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First-name only?
Posted by: clainehart on Mar 15, 2007 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the deal with the first-name only referencing? Is she now like Oprah, or Cher? Shouldn't it be "Clinton," on second reference and thereafter? Would you ever refer to Dennis Kucinich as simply "Dennis" throughout? Way to belittle her. The misogyny in this culture is breathtaking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: First-name only? Posted by: kelt65
» RE: First-name only? Posted by: xconservative
Entertaining and direct. 3.5
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 16, 2007 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way to cut through the crap.

I'd say you should run for president, but I'll leave that to others to conclude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad to hear that sexism is ok, homophobia is not
Posted by: bigfishsmallpond on Mar 17, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Matt Taibbi,
Thank you for explaining why Hillary Clinton is unsupportive of the gay community by using expressions that show your own sexism: an issue that is somewhat difficult for her to jump on with both high heels...
You might have been trying to be cute or clever, but to me, it just smacks of combating one form of oppression at the expense of another.
Would this article have mentioned Al Gore's shoes, John McCain's shoes or Barak Obama's shoes?
Am I the only one who is tired of hearing about Hillary's hair, outfits, HIGH HEELS...she's running for President of the United States, not hairdresser of the year.
If you are against Hillary, state the reasons solely on her policies and character. That is what we should be judging all our candidates on. When you start treating candidates differently based on their gender, you are moving the country back a step.
Thank you,
Heather

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Ignore this person.... Posted by: CatDad
Thank God(dess) for Straight Allies
Posted by: taliafreedman on Mar 20, 2007 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like it's hard to come out, it's hard to come out as a GLBTI ally (the "i" is for Intersex, formally "hermaphrodite") Both take courage and education.

That said, educating our straight allies is a process that, as hard as it is, members of the gay community have to undertake. People first have to recognize that we have been taught homophobic language as a way to perpetuate the oppression. Matt and other genuine allies need to learn to edit that language and find other ways to be funny. How often do you hear "that's so gay..." or the use of the word "Queer" with it's original meaning. It's no longer acceptable language.

I'm not angry at Matt for making homophobic comments in the distant past, I'm hopeful that he will educate himself to stop. I'm grateful and proud that he is a so-called "frat boy" (which, by the way, he is not) who is willing to talk openly about a subject that even Hillary can't handle without having to release a new statement.

Matt's obviously not a homophobe. He's a valuable ally. A straight masculine man discussing homosexuality openly is should be treasured as much as liberal protestants. He, like all of us was taught that femininity is something to be ridiculed in men. It made for a good line in an article and as he is obviously a true "ally" I trust that he will find more creative ways to make people laugh and not rely on stereotypes that hurt a fundamentally important cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taibbi Should Run For Congress!!!!
Posted by: faultroy on Mar 21, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't waste my four thousand words on Taibbi's comments on Hillary Clinton, but I can tell you this genius's position on the military won't fly.
As a former Marine, I would not serve with openly gay men.
Personally, if I had a choice for a friend, I would rather associate with gay men than straight ones. I like gay attention to social norms, their inquisitive nature and of the ones that I have known, their eruditness. They're personable, funny, socially aware and make good friends--and most important they care about a lot more issues than mere sports.
But serving next to them in a combat zone? No way. If some guy is closet gay and I don't know fine. And unless he is a flaming fag and if he is a good Marine, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
A combat unit is exactly like a family. This means that you live and die by the quality and the confidence that you put into your team. The team is everything, the individual is nothing.
Gay men statistically represent approximately 2. 5 per cent of the population. What will we see next in a combat zone--two men fucking each other? What about holding hands? And this goes the same for women.
Alternet has run two wacky stories about women in the military. In one of them a soldier was fucking her platoon sargeant, the other-- she was in the Army-- 7 1/2 months pregnant. What the hell are we going to do with these dumb bitches fucking combat men? What about these men's wives and families at home? How will the military discipline some cunt with a baby in her belly?
What will this do to comaraderie if you have multiple men in a platoon all trying to get in the little whore's pants? The list goes on and on. I've had personal experience with these Marine women, and while We've always got along well; with all the ones I knew, hunting cock seemed a full time occupation for them--including mine. I didn't mind this so much while stateside, but this would be totally unaccpeptable in combat environment.
There is no question that General Pace is a dipshit. He should have stuck with the Pentagon rationale--it is a bad mix for a combat environment.
You can only force social mores so far, the rest has to come from the people that have to implement the policies.
I would have refused to go into a combat situation wth openly gay men or even women.
I have no problem with the courts, the president and even the legislature mandating these policies--as long as they all go into combat first while I tend the home fires and wait for their return. If I'm going to get my ass shot at, I'll be the one deciding who I will or won't be fighting along side of.
I would love to see an all women's army. Because I am so patriotic, I would be the first to join...even though I am a man, I would do it for love of country, and because I really believe in the concept of an all female Army...and the fact that I really, really enjoy fucking women has nothing to do with my desire to serve in a all women's army.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The White Bourgoise?
Posted by: mythman on Mar 23, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we seeking a "Lady Marmalade" for the White House?

I don't think so, and I'm hopeful that Hilary doesn't think so either!

Does military service now include 'credit for infinite condoms' in it's stipend?

SEX IS ILLEGAL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misogyny my ass
Posted by: Beastly on Mar 30, 2007 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so sick of hearing this criticism. For the last time (I wish), people call her "Hillary" because if they say "Clinton," readers will probably think of Bill. Not everything is about gender issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]