Saxby Chambliss is wrong on “don’t ask, don’t tell”

As you may know, there is a debate taking place over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays to serve in the military provided they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. During his State of the Union address to Congress, President Barack Obama called for the repeal of the law (it may be the only thing he said that I agreed with), which is supported by the Joint Chiefs of the armed forces and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who was originally appointed by President George W. Bush).

It’s not a secret that I’m not a fan of Sen. Saxby Chambliss. The man is a fiscal fraud that has never met pork he didn’t like and he voted for every bloated budget during the six years the Republican Party maintained control of Congress. Unfortunately, he has chose to demagogue the issue during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Chambliss says that if “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed that it’ll open the door to “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art” in the military. He added, “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards.”

Really, Senator? Why should we treat these individuals, who just happen to be gay, any different from any other soldier. Why not let them serve openly if they are willing to put their lives on the line for their country? A 2006 poll of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans overwhelmingly shows that they are comfortable serving with fellow soldiers that are openly gay. So why should they have to serve in secrecy?

H/T: Below the Beltway


  1. inlimine says:

    I had hoped his comments would make their way to PP, and I am glad they have. He is so incoherent and out of touch. Does what he said even make sense? Is he talking about tattoos? Don’t ink, don’t tell?

    He is an embarrassment.

    • polisavvy says:

      When is he up for reelection? What a disgraceful stance! If someone is willing to fight and die for this country, then their sexual orientation should not be an issue. I am truly embarrassed for him to represent himself in such a manner while representing us.

      • IndyInjun says:

        We have to wait 5 long years.

        I did everything in my power to see him defeated last year.

        Everything Jason posted is true.

        Saxby is not a REPUBLICAN. He is a fraud.

        • polisavvy says:

          I have been very disappointed with him lately. This just sealed the deal for me. I will not vote for him again. Sad, sad that in this day and age people still want to use labels on everyone. I just don’t get it. We are ALL equal and should be treated accordingly.

        • polisavvy says:

          I’ll probably be called a RINO for that comment; but, I am what I am. Right is right and wrong is wrong — Saxby is most definitely wrong!

  2. IndyInjun says:

    I don’t think gay bashing does much for the GOP after:

    Bush counselor Ted Haggard (president of the National Association of Evangelicals.) was caught having sex with a male prostitute.

    Jeff Gannon, an alleged former gay porn star, was inexpicably given White House press credentials (what was that hullabaloo 3 months ago about those people ‘crashing’ the White House party??? Oh, yeah it is a PROBLEM when the Dems get sloppy with security)

    Mark Foley a GOP Rep. from Florida was found to have a fondness for male pages.

    Larry Craig, a GOP US Senator, was caught soliciting sex in a men’s room.

    Give it up, GOP, your men like men, too.


  3. Blue Beard says:

    What does this draft-dodging coward know about what happens in the military?

    Oh, my knee, my knee.

    • polisavvy says:

      I don’t see how he could be such a hypocrite. I mean how can you serve on committee after committee regarding the military, and be “a strong voice for Georgia’s defense industry and the military community,” but not recognize that all serving in the military should be treated equal. I’m sorry, I just see hypocrisy for one to accept such accolades from the military, and then feel like gays/lesbians should be treated differently from the rest. I’m not sure that I articulated this the best way; however, I hope you get my drift.

  4. Jawgadude says:

    Female soldiers would not want to have to share showers with male counterparts, and neither should straight male soldiers have to constantly look over their shoulders in fear that another male soldier is getting a boner looking at them. Gays, lesbians, and transgendered should be banned from military service. It’s time to end this politically correct dumbing down of America. If homosexuality is a choice, then change. If homosexuals are born that way, then it’s a birth defect.

    • polisavvy says:

      Are you for real? A choice? A birth defect? Has it ever occurred to you that the straight soldiers could possibly get a boner as well? Stranger things have happened. I don’t think the policy change would have it where women and men shared the same facilities. There have been women in the military for years and they usually have their own and the men have their own. This isn’t a matter of PC, it’s a matter of what’s fair and just — to treat those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for people like you to be able to say such things with acceptance and respect.

    • HollyJ says:

      Jawgadude- Under the current policy, when you are in your shower with all the other folks, you have no idea who is gay or lesbian. Just think about that for a sec. No idea who has been checking you out. I love the thought process of people like you. I served in the Navy and never freaked out about who was gay or not. The thought didnt cross my mind. The only thing I cared about is that whoever I was working with didnt slow me down. Why should gays and lesbians be banned from military service? I think that perhaps we should ban racists.

    • Straight male soldiers are really afraid of another male in the shower getting a boner and looking at them? Well, geeze, you just let the cat out of the bag as to how the terrorists can win the war. All they have to do is find a bunch of gay guys to get boners while looking at our soldiers and they’ve won. Thanks a lot dude!

    • Junius says:

      While the tone of his post is a bit crude, Jawgadude makes a valid, if not PC point. If sexuality is no longer to be a valid ground for segregation of homosexuals, why is it valid ground for segregation of heterosexuals? Separation based upon sexuality in both the civilian and military worlds is a given. As is generally accepted, placing 20 yr. girls in foxholes with several 20 yr. old guys does not enhance the effectiveness of any fighting force. Nor does placing the sexes in toilets, showers or barracks together. Ironically, the PC left would have us believe that homosexuality is somehow different, and that homosexuals should be treated differently (!) from heterosexuals in this regard. I personally have no problem with homosexuals serving in most elements of the military. However, as has been recognized from time immemorial with regard to heterosexuals, there are legitimate questions about the wisdom of interjecting sexual tensions where they can be minimized through segregation. This is the case not only in the military, where the rights of the individual pale in comparison to the good of the whole, but in the civilian world as well. Men, wander into the ladies room at your local mall sometime and see how that works out for ‘ya.

      • benevolus says:

        You’re mixing in a couple different things there.
        First, the “foxhole” has nothing to do with this. Most of us work and live around those of the opposite sex all day every day and we are able to control ourselves (except, I guess, if you are a Georgia Republican legislator) enough to do our jobs.
        Secondly, who is this “PC left” that wants to treat gays differently?
        Finally, you may have a point about the bathroom, but even so, we’re not reinventing the wheel here. We’re about 30 years behind much of the rest of the world. How do they handle it? Besides, it’s an all-volunteer service, so those gay dudes know they aren’t going to be shacking up in the ladies barracks when they sign up.

        • Junius says:

          I will concede that I understand that history is moving against me on this one. Gays in the military is only a matter of time and, if the force can absorb it peacibly and without compromising effectiveness, all the better. I fear, however, that the enlisted culture in the army and Marine Corps will make this a painful process and that unit cohesion will suffer.

          “Most of us work and live around those of the opposite sex all day every day and we are able to control ourselves.” I would submit there is a difference between living for extended periods of time in close quarters in primative, hostile conditions and the conditions in which most of us work and live.

          “Secondly, who is this “PC left” that wants to treat gays differently?” With regard to folks wanting to treat gays differently, my point is that consistent treatment would result in segregation of homos from heteros, just as males are segregated from females based on sexuality. By not segregating homosexuals by sexual preference, they are de facto treated dissimlarly from heterosexuals, whose intimate daily functions are segregated based upon sexual attraction.

          “We’re about 30 years behind much of the rest of the world. How do they handle it?” Obviously we handle this issue as the European armies have elected to handle it. Asian forces do not allow homosexuals to serve. Homosexuality was not even “legal” in India until last year and is still prosecuted in China. My point is not that we need to emulate oppressive Asian regimes, only that the international consensus is not as broad as you imply. More significantly, our military is the most effective in the world. With the exception of the British, whose experience I would agree should be considered as we explore this, we should be loathe to emulate the fads of others in the EU. The French or Swedish armies can honestly afford to cut some corners on military effectiveness in the name of perceived fairness. We do not enjoy that same luxury.

          “Besides, it’s an all-volunteer service, so those gay dudes know they aren’t going to be shacking up in the ladies barracks when they sign up.” What about the gay ladies?

          I fully understand that the tide of history is moving against me on this one. As a practical matter, Gays in the military is only a matter of time and, if the force can absorb it peacefully and without compromising effectiveness, all the better. I fear, however, that the enlisted culture in the army and Marine Corps will make this a painful, sometimes violent process and that unit cohesion will suffer in the short term.

  5. ByteMe says:

    Thank you, Jason, for raising the visibility of Senator Stupid above just what I posted in the open thread comments. I cannot understand why the GOPGA didn’t encourage someone — anyone — to run against him last year.

    • IndyInjun says:

      Blame Sue Everhard, who all but declared Saxby off limits to a primary challenge.

      Some reward she got – Saxby’s handlers wouldn’t even let her on stage for the victory celebration.

    • Well, the Libertarian Party ran someone, but the Republicans of this state were too stuck on the letter beside Saxby’s name to pay attention to anything as trivial as issues.

  6. ZazaPachulia says:

    Saxby is completely out of touch.

    Alcohol and body art? Does he have any idea what soldiers and sailors do on the weekends (get drunk and get tattooed).

    Unlike Saxby, I served in the military (from 2001-2007). We had gays in our unit. Some were flamboyant. No one asked and no one told, but everyone knew and everyone was o.k. with it. When my generation finally ascends to the halls of power in a few decades, America will be laughing/ashamed that this was ever an issue at all.

  7. seenbetrdayz says:

    Soldiers are basically sitting over there with undefined goals, risking their necks for nation-building fantasies and political face-saving, waiting for someone to open fire so that they can return fire . . . and Saxby is worried that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is somehow going to make morale worse?

  8. Three Jack says:

    the military is not a social experiment…it is a fighting force. imposing the radical views of either party on those who serve only diminshes the capabilities of our defensive abilities.

    what is the upside to having homosexuals openly serve in our military?

    • polisavvy says:

      You are aware, though the percentage is low, that there are closet gays and lesbians in the services right now, right? They are there doing their jobs each and every day. What’s your take on the downside?

      • Dave Bearse says:

        I don’t know what you mean by low (in absolute terms or low relative to gays in the US population in general), and can’t support the following statement with documentation, but I’d suggest the percentage is not much less than the population as a whole.

  9. Harry says:

    Once again the majority of commentators of punditry show themselves completely out of touch with the vast majority of voters of all races and strata, while pretending that Chambliss is the the one who is out of touch.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      Since you can’t even count the number of people on the MARTA board, how can we trust that you know who makes up the majority on just about any issue? You also seem to think that the majority of the state wants prohibition.

      Sorry Harry but the country extends beyond the streets of your subdivison.

      • Harry says:

        See, this is the kind of response to another opinion which guarantees that liberals are destined to remain outside of the tent.

        If this comes to pass, it’s good we’re disengaging our military from the middle east among other regions of the world, because we sure won’t be welcome. When Adam and Steve share base housing, Adam and Eve will be leaving in droves. Right now the military may not be totally representative of society, but it will become a lot less so.

          • ByteMe says:

            You’re trying to upset his emotional narrative with facts like the outstanding armies that already have fully integrated gays. How dare you sir! How DARE you! 🙂

    • Dave Bearse says:

      And your point? The vast majority of voters opposed women’s and African-Americans sufferage at one time too.

  10. ACConservative says:

    The same argument was given when people were pushing for women to serve in the military. The same argument was given when there were plans to integrate the Armed Services. Guess what? We have women and men of all races and creeds serving together valiantly to defend this country.

    Saxby seems to be operating under a pretty bigoted assumption that all homosexuals want to do is rape poor little straight men. I don’t know what insecurity within him creates that level of homophobia, but to think that way is just wrong (and reflective of the image many whites had of blacks during the Civil Rights era).

    The man has never had an ounce of respect for the military. It showed when he decided to dodge the draft with the most catastrophic knee injury to ever strike a third-string water boy. I still can’t get over the disrespect he had for an honorable veteran like Max Cleland.
    I’m not here to bring up the ad, (which Democrats took way out of context and blew way out of proportion) but the generally dismissive attitude Saxby seemed to hold toward military service and the lack of respect he showed an individual that left limbs behind for his country in Vietnam.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      ACC Conservative: You couldn’t have said it better…

      And Polisavvy, where did you get it that “The precentage of gays in the military now is low?” Low compared to what? Pull that one out of thin air? Do you think “Don’t ask Don’t Tell” is conducive to producing accurate statistics about gays currently serving?

      I for one knew a lot of gays in the military. I was on active duty from 2001 through 2007. Some gays were pretty open about it. I’d even guess there’s a higher percentage of lesbians in the military than in the rest of American society. The service is like the LPGA, it tends to appeal to a certain type of woman. And there’s a ton of male gays in the military, too. Ask anyone who has served in recent years. There’s an entire gay underground called ‘The family.’ While the ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ terms are avoided, you here people talking in code all the time… “Oh, I didn’t know corporal so and so was family..”

      In the units I served in, straight fraternization was a much bigger problem than the closeted and not so closeted homosexuals in the unit. The presence of straight women, truthfully, was more disruptive than the presence of gays… especially on deployment.

      The Air Force tends to be the more conservative of the branches, so I can’t speak for the climate there, but in the Navy and Marine Corps, many gays are serving and most of their superiors know (or at least suspect) the truth. I once had a commanding officer who refused to process anyone out for “Telling.” We had a pretty flamboyant junior enlisted kid tell the C.O. he was gay. The C.O. said, “no you’re not, get back to work.” The kid insisted, so the C.O. said show me some proof. Knowing that any proof (like pictures or physical displays of affection) would result in court martial or NJP — not the simple “don’t ask don’t tell” out-processing — the kid went back to work.

      And finally, everybody always assumes the Navy is the gayest branch of the service, but evidence does not bear that out. A military psychologist told me that “The gayest” title consistently belongs to the Marine Corps. It makes sense when you think about it. What better place for a closeted and ashamed 18 year old from middle America with private homosexual desires to “prove his manliness” or “straighten out” than the Marine Corps? Then he gets to Camp Lejune and finds all the others who are there for the same reason… Plus, the marine corps is filled with lesbians.

      Saxby is an embarrassment.
      Admiral Mike Mullen is one of the best flag officers we’ve had in recent memory. Mullen’s character, leadership and overall presence makes it unbelievable that Stan McChrystal still has his job.

      • polisavvy says:

        No, I didn’t pull it out of thin air. A reporter was actually interviewing three soldiers (two men – one white, one black, and a female — their faces where concealed). They indicated that they were gays/lesbian and that there were others in the services. They said that the percentage was low, because of DADT but that there were still some gays/lesbians in the services. I didn’t pull it out of thin air. I only heard and said what I heard. Believe it or not, I don’t spend every waking moment glued to PP and have no clue about what is going on in the rest of the country/world. Rather or not you chose to believe me is totally immaterial.

          • polisavvy says:

            There is no need to be rude, snipe, and nasty. The point is that there are gays and lesbians already in the military who go about doing their job protecting people like you and me so we can be mean and nasty to one another. If you don’t like the source, then don’t; however, don’t discount the source which happened to be three people, who are admittedly gay or lesbians, who are presently serving this country.

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          Polisavvy, we’re on the same side of the argument here. My contention is that gays already make up a population in the military that is closely reflective of the percentage of gays in society as a whole.

  11. Donna Locke says:

    Chambliss is wrong. Very, very wrong. Aside from the basic ethics, this is a stupid policy that has resulted in valuable people, including a number of scarce, much-needed experts fluent in Arabic and willing to serve in our military, being thrown out of our military simply because they are gay. It is this policy that is a threat.

  12. Icarus says:

    “what is the upside to having homosexuals openly serve in our military? ”

    After 9/11, we were severly short of language specialists who spoke Arabic, Farsi, and other middle eastern languages. Yet one of the biggest specialties which saw military people involutarily leaving the service was the language corps.

    Sorry, I think Chambliss got this one wrong. And his statement about alcoholism and body art was just plain weird.

  13. Jeremy Jones says:

    Political pandering on both sides.

    Someone mentioned straight soliders should not need to worry about gays getting aroused whilst taking a shower, or needing to look over their shoulder.

    Is that really the concern? Do all gay people have no sexual control that every time they see an naked man they lose all self control? Regardless, as such a minority gays would be, do you really think one would need to be concerned about one coming on to you in the shower? My guess, you would be defended en mass in such a case.

    It is, I assume, against military policy for a man to make unwanted advances toward a female solider. Therefore, the same rules would apply.

    This is the problem when we try to be all things to all people. There should be no law prohibiting gays from serving. Are gay men required to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18? Are gay men incapable of the physical requirements of military service?

    This is a NON issue, except politicians on both sides want it to be one. I will give the President credit, unlike the prior Democratic President, he did not make this his first initiative upon coming into office.

    Tell Saxby to shut up and instead work on repealing a trillion or two from the President’s proposed budget.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    Saxby’s choice of issues to focus on is queer.

    Lessee, now……..what role does Chambliss play in the greatest theft in world history, the current financial meltdown?

    – Voted for the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000, which allowed more than a $quadrillion of derivatives to come into existence with no regulation and nearly zero capital to support them. (AIG is part of this problem.) Banks, insurance companies, pension plans, and 401k treated derivatives as real assets (albeit off the balance sheet in many cases), meaning that your retirement funds have been looted.

    – Voted for Gramm Leach Bliley Act which eliminated the firewall between investment banking and commercial banking, protections that served the US well for 6 decades. What this allowed was FDIC-insured deposits to be looted to fund the banks’proprietary trading activities. Where the banks win, THEY win. Where they lose, WE lose. At this moment the banks are using free money to secure control over the necessities of life, using your money against your very survival.

    – Supported suspension of FDIC premiums charged to the banks FOR A DECADE, so noe the FDIC fund is so depleted that it cannot close banks that demand closure and necissitating a $500 million credit line from the Treasury.

    – Supported the elimination of Mark-to-market accounting so that financial institutions, pension plans, 401k plans, and mutual funds can LIE TO YOU about the value of your assets.

    – Voted for TARP, which funded ACORN, banker bonuses, H1B payrolls, a GM factory in Brazil and now is being used by Obama to fund further stimulus.

    – Last week voted to reconfirm Ben Bernanke, an idiot who did not see the financial crisis coming, caused the crisis with near zero interest rates, has been implicated in the ruinous AIG bailout and Merrill Lynch shotgun marriage to Bank of America, has created $24 Trillion in bailouts and guarantees that will destroy the savings, investments, and future earnings power of nearly everyone reading these words. This same fool gave a speech in which he vowed to dump money from helicopters.

    – Conspired with Teddy Kennedy to grant amnesty to illegals.

    Saxby’s biggest contributors were from FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) from 2005-2010.

    While his buds are sodomizing your finances, old Saxby tries to trick you into idiotic social issues like this.

    When you are personally engulfed by this Greatest Depression you can take solace in the fact that Saxby made maybe 10 SEALS in showers feel more secure and gave his Bankster supporters dominion over you and your children.

    Feel better about Saxby, now?

  15. Dave Bearse says:

    Can Senator Sessoms be a part of this thread without it being threadjacking?

    It’s hypocritical for someone that was among the bobbleheads that nodded yes to whatever came out of Rumsfield mouth for a half dozen years, to now state that the Admiral should not have publicized his opinion.

    The GOP: “We’re for something until we’re against it.”

  16. Progressive Dem says:

    John McCain flip-flopped. The old maverick says now’s not the time. And you Negroes need to wait, too.

  17. Tireless says:

    Geez, when did PP become the Georgia Log Cabin blog?

    While I have plenty of issues with Saxby, I am LMFAO at the notion he doesn’t get a ear full of advice from the military communities in this state. He represents that entire state and I think the majority of the state is fine with DADT.

  18. IndyInjun says:

    I think the majority of the state is fine with DADT.

    Yup, so much so that Saxby can divert attention using it from the fact that he is a bigger danger to every Georgian than Osama Bin Laden.

    OBL couldn’t possibly do as much damage.

    One gut wrencher Saxby doesn’t like to be reminded of is Standing behind Ted Kennedy’s Amnesty Bill.

    The picture is worth a thousand words.

    Johnny doesn’t like this picture much, either, for some reason.

      • Lone Star Georgian says:

        Let’s not forget that Saxby “My Knee Hurts” Chambliss won his Senate seat by implying exactly the same thing about Max Cleland. It’s a fair charge that he’s a danger to the state’s future, and apparently likening our statesmen to madmen is fair game in Saxby’s book.

      • IndyInjun says:

        How far is your nose up Saxby’s rear?

        There is no way in hell OBL could have wrecked the US financial system like Saxby has.

  19. kim000 says:

    Saxby is RIGHT on don’t ask, don’t tell. It’s a policy that works and there is no need to change it. Gayness is not normal and when you try to change the natural order of things to accomodate it—it does not work. So now straight troops are going to be forced to shower with other troops who have a sexual attraction to them? How creepy is that! So will gay men shower with women? And will gay women shower with men? Or will everyone just have to take a number and shower one-by-one?

    Thank goodness this nonsense probably won’t pass the House. And certainly won’t pass the Senate.

    • ByteMe says:

      Being left-handed is also not “normal”, since only about 7-10% of the population is left-handed… about the same numbers as the gay population. Let’s make sure they’re not in the military either, because they might be sexually attracted to other left-handers in the shower and who knows where that will lead. 🙄

  20. There’s just one simple thing you’re forgetting here. Straight men in the armed forces already shower with gay men. Straight women already shower with lesbian women. The only difference is whether they’re allowed to actually admit to being gay or lesbian. Being gay or lesbian doesn’t mean you’re attracted to every single member of the same sex any more than being male means your attracted to every single female out there or being female means you’re attracted to every single male out there.

    Perhaps you might take a little bit to actually meet and talk to a few members of this country’s great homosexual population. Your ignorant point of view might well change.

    • BillinSuwanee says:

      David you are right about one thing. For centuries hetero and homo sexuals have served alongside one another. But, the units were not separated by sexual preference.

      In society, for the most part, gays and lesbians are separated into their own communities and associate with their own kind. There is a reason for that. People generally live in communities that possess the same values that they themselves share.

      The military is not a place for social experiment. If you mix openly gay and lesbian members there will be a defacto separation of communities.

      I’m don’t know whether you have served in the military, but had you been in a fighter squadron as I was, you would know why openly gay men and women are not recommended.

      • polisavvy says:

        BillinSuwanee, I wish you would elaborate on your last paragraph. I would like to hear your prospective on this sentence. I have moments when I think DADT is good, then I read where someone like yourself, who has served, thinks it is not a good idea. (I would liked to have asked my dad but he’s no longer alive). I don’t mean my request to you in a snide or malicious way whatsoever, I’m just wanting to hear why you, having served, don’t thinks its good for the miliary. Thanks in advance.

        • BillinSuwanee says:

          polisavvy. I know for a fact that I served in fighter squadrons with gay men. But, they did not segment themselves as gay or straight fighter pilots. They were just fighter pilots.

          If you mark them as a gay fighter pilot, the cohesion required to be successful in a fighter squadron would be destroyed. The biggest mistake the military made when introducing female fighter pilots, was just that.

          Fighter pilots are fighter pilots. Female or male or gay or transexual fighter pilots are a different story.

          • polisavvy says:

            So, let me be sure I understand you correctly. You flew with them and it didn’t bother you because they were never segmented? It’s kind of like a soldier is a soldier and should be treated as a soldier regarding of race or sexual orientation and you think that DADT would compromise that idea? If you answer is yes, then your argument makes perfect sense to me. I hope I articulated to you what I was trying to say. If not, and I said something that perhaps you view as flippant, please understand that I am not trying to be that at all.

      • I don’t need to have been in the military to have listened to a variety of people that have been in the military say just the opposite of what you are. They say that it doesn’t matter what the person’s sexual preference is, that it has no bearing whatsoever on the performance of their duties. I understand that not 100% of the military agrees with that position, just as I also understand that 100% of the military also doesn’t agree with you.

        I think if the people that are in our military are really that homophobic, perhaps they’re not cut out to really be a soldier. Seriously. If being in the same shower as someone who is allowed to verbally state that they are gay without fear of being discharged is really that much of a stress factor to someone, I seriously can’t imagine they would hold up well at all on the battlefield, in the trenches or any other of a number of tougher situations. Unless showering is a much tougher situation to them, in which case I guess our enemies will probably change their torture techniques from water boarding to gay showers.

        • BillinSuwanee says:

          polisavvy and David,

          When I say that I flew with gays, I should have said I most likely did fly with gays. One can never be sure.

          You can’t put 48 people in a squadron dedicated to sacrificing their lives to save a squadron mate and segment them via sex or sexual orientation.

          The females in the fighter squadrons go out of their way to be just another fighter pilot, because they recognized the issues upfront – in the early 90’s – being different is a problem.

          The shower example is ludicrous. No one takes a shower together in a fighter squadron. You go home and take your own shower.

          When you go to the gym and shower in public there are no doubt gays showering alongside you. Without verification you are more comfortable. If they walk in and announce; “hey I’m gay and am gonna take a shower near you” … that makes peoples skin crawl.

          • polisavvy says:

            Thanks for your candid reply. I commend and thank you for your service to this country. It is most definitely a sacrifice and one that is greatly appreciated by this poster.

        • BillinSuwanee says:

          btw … I think Saxby Shameless is wrong.

          Gays and Lesbians in the military is non of his damn business. It is a decision to be made by the military. Politicians needs to stay out of it. The Obozo was also wrong to bring it up, just like Clinton was wrong.

          • BillinSuwanee says:

            polisavvy. That was the perfect thank you. The decision to join an all volunteer force is very personal. No one can understand the motivation and I’m not sure if I still understand the reason I joined. Although I had family at Fort Mongahelia, Yorktown, Seige of Richmond, Battle of Coral Sea, Normandy, and Pusan.

            It seemed like the right thing to do for nine years.

            The best thing is to just say hello … how are you … thanks … I hope your day goes well.

            I’m off this thread.

          • polisavvy says:

            Bill, my dad was a retired DI from Parris Island. Twenty years in the Corps and 10 years in fleet reserve. I know it’s a sacrifice and a very personal decision. Like you, according to my mom’s research, we have had family in the military since the Revolutionary War as well. I take pride in the fact that my family has always considered it an honor and a duty to serve this country. My note of thank you was totally sincere. It takes a special breed of person to be willing to make that type of sacrifice and commitment. I appreciate each and every one who is of that special breed.

  21. IndyInjun says:

    The uproar about Saxby and DADT is exemplar of why the USA will collapse probably in the next 2 years.

    While people get their hackles up over some silly social conservative issue, Saxby’s biggest contributor – finance – conducts the biggest theft in world history, stealing from every one of us, threatening all with financial destitution, and ruining futures of your kids, yet this horrendous record is ignored.

    Saxby has a near perfect record of violating every tenet of REPUBLICANISM, but the “Republican” Party sucks up to him.

    Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

    How will y’all ever face your kids and grandkids after supporting this guy?

  22. Jeremy Jones says:

    One more point.

    There is a reason we put people in charge. It is called delegation. If the leaders of the military are saying it is time to review/repeal the policy, who is a Senator from Georgia to debate him? It is not like he is the commander in chief?

    I am asked often what would I do about Iraq when I get elected. I quickly point out I am not running for Commander in Chief. I certainly have my opinions on the issue, but, in the end, I will follow the advise of the generals and advisers in charge of the operation, so long as the objectives are in line with the Constitution.

  23. AthensRepublican says:

    This topic was mentioned on Friday’s edition of The Lawmakers on Georgia Public Television. Jason’s post was mentioned and quoted on the program. Congratulations Jason!

Comments are closed.