Analyst's note: Knowing that these comments will not end up being repeated in total by the liberal media, and by way of addition to a previous posting, I share the following insight of U.S. Marines regarding this bill. To make a long story short, those doing the fighting do NOT want homosexuals in their ranks, nor should such be required.
So "progressives" in congress don't tell us how you "support the troops" after this bill was passed to further a social experiment and to keep a political promise for money and votes -- all this during a time of war as we are asked to sacrifice the youth of our nation in our defense. Let me assure you that there is absolutely nothing gay (happy) about this report and the cost to this country will be immeasurable and on-going.
1 - "The comments below are made by Marines who know of what they speak. I would trust my life with each... I know them all. My two senators here in Virginia voted to repeal DADT, and one is a decorated combat Marine! None-the-less, the two of them are not worth a bucket of spit.
2 - Please tell everybody you know. I have many times been drenched in the blood of fellow Marines wounded & killed in firefights -- the very idea of having to worry about HIV infected homosexual troops in ones unit, not to mention the debilitating effect of a Marine not knowing who he can trust when the shooting starts staggers the imagination.
3 - This legislation is insane and will tear the very fabric of our Armed Forces (particularly the Marines and the Army whose mission is to close with and destroy the enemy). Non combatant pukes in the congress (lower case intended) have no idea what they are about on this issue. Maybe the navy (SEALS excepted) and the Air Force can absorb homosexuals who "do their (technical) jobs" without any particular physical risk, but not ground combat units."
For additional comments by Marines click here. Semper Fidelis. Now on with the subject article.
"On Saturday the United States Senate voted for legislation that will impose heavy, unnecessary burdens on the backs of military men and women. They are the ones who will pay a very high price for Congress’ reckless decision to help President Barack Obama deliver on political campaign promises to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists.
Sixty-five senators voted for the no-amendments-allowed “privileged” bill in a lame-duck session. History will note that the outgoing 111th Congress acted with needless haste allowing no time for substantive hearings to examine findings and controversial recommendations in the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group Report.
Liberals in Congress knew that the report could not withstand informed scrutiny, so Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) persuaded others to join her in breaking their word on legislative priorities—a betrayal that belied her own previous statements calling for full and open debate. Full hearings and informed oversight probably would have halted this controversial bill.
[....] Without providing quantitative data on the results of focus groups nationwide and overseas, the Working Group conceded, “Our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal.’” (p. 49) Not only were these opinions disrespected, Adm. Mike Mullen has already stated more than once that anyone who disagrees with the LGBT law no longer will be welcome to serve.
In addition to involuntary personnel losses due to Adm. Mullen’s “zero tolerance” of dissent, cross-tabbed data displayed on the 2010 DADT Survey website indicate that among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4% would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6% would think about leaving–a total potential loss of more than a third (36%) of those valuable troops. (DADT Survey Appendix J, p. 53)
Marine combat arms would be weakened even more, with 32% of Marines saying they would leave sooner than planned, and 16.2% considering an early end to their careers, totaling almost half. (DADT Survey Appendix L, p. 47) The gradual loss of so many combat troops and what the report described as “only 12%” of families likely to decline re-enlistment could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force. (CRWG Report, p. 4)
Such findings should make it impossible for President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen to “certify” that no harm will be done by implementation of their own plans for repeal. The president’s political promise to LGBT Left groups has been assigned highest priority, at the expense of Army and Marine combat troops whose voices were heard but ignored.
[....[ Some media commentators are asking—belatedly─what repeal of the 1993 law would mean. All should consider the self-inflicted problems presaged in the CRWG Report, and proposed “mitigation” strategies advocated in the Support Plan for Implementation.
[....] A thorough reading of the entire report and its recommendations reveals not a single point or argument showing consequences that would benefit the All-Volunteer Force. Instead, the document recommends “mitigation” of expected problems, and downplays risks by making the absurd claim that all will go smoothly if the Working Group’s recommendations are followed, no matter how unrealistic or potentially harmful they are.
The elitism and arrogance behind these flawed recommendations will cause years of harmful consequences, which our troops did nothing to deserve. History will hold accountable every legislator who voted to make it happen."
Please read the orginal article for additional specific details and known problem areas.
