Military To Fire Gay Idaho Pilot

14 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Kibby on May 20 at 11:34 a.m.

  Booo…..bad call on the Military’s part. I hope something happens the stop them from releving him of duty.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 20 at 11:44 a.m.

  Its a horribly expensive policy and should be scrapped. Why would we be actively encouraging soldiers to lie? Its very telling when you listen to the generals trying to defend it. They can’t come up with logical reasons other than the facially unscientific ‘morale of the troops’ claim. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is proof that the policy needs to go bye bye.

• 

  BethB on May 20 at 11:45 a.m.

  There’s another guy too, being fired, even though he has special linguistics training that only a handful of people have. Here’s the thing. Obama has said he was going to repeal this. It’s been a weird hybrid law from the start. If Obama is going to repeal it, repeal it already. Let’s not lose people like this guy. I saw him interviewed - powerful, articulate, humble. Just the kind of person we want in the military - or anywhere, for that matter. We need to figure out how to keep him. And it’s not the military’s fault. They are just following the rules.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 20 at 11:48 a.m.

  “And it’s not the military’s fault.”—I must strongly disagree with this statement Beth. The military brass has been the major proponent.

• 

  Bent on May 20 at 12:11 p.m.

  If his last name is pronounced “fair-in-back, wouldn’t that be a pretty cool name for a gay guy?

  /just sayin’

• 

  BethB on May 20 at 12:27 p.m.

  (first, chiding Bent)….

  Sis: If there is a law on the books, you enforce it. Top military folks may also be promoting it. But I think the human resources department must enforce the requirement if it’s the requirement. And definitely the rule shouldn’t be selectively enforced, exempting those who are the most desirable to keep but getting rid of foot soldiers as examples. Under the circumstances, this isn’t about the military enforcing the rule. This is about Congress and Obama not changing the rule.

• 

  OrangeTV on May 20 at 1:18 p.m.

  >>If his last name is pronounced “fair-in-back, wouldn’t that be a pretty cool name for a gay guy?

  I don’t get it. Is that supposed to be some kind of sexual innuendo? Nice one, Beavis.

• 

  toadman on May 20 at 1:25 p.m.

  “Do you expect the Obama administration to get involved in this situation?”

  Good grief, yes. This sort of thing needs to stop..it’s stupid.

  Also…Orange… some people can’t get past junior high, I suppose..

  heh. heh.. he said “passed.” heh heh.. uh….uhhhh… heh heh..

• 

  Sisyphus on May 20 at 2:09 p.m.

  Sure Beth, but at what political cost? I agree that it should be changed. And that the military proponents will do their utmost to reignite a culture war over it. It was a parsing of the yes/no nature of admitting that led to the Clinton’s instituting DADT in the first place. That’s why Obama is hesitating.

• 

  BethB on May 20 at 3:52 p.m.

  But Sis, Obama already took a stand on this during the campaign, so he already lost his political capital on the issue (if there was any to lose). And one option that he can do while figuring out what to do with the rule is put a moratorium on any firings (or the execution of any firings). In that way, everyone can buy time and save face. But I’ve heard the administration is saying that it won’t interfere with the firings. And it was Clinton who implemented the rule! So the mess comes from Obama’s own party. (I do think it’s a mess. Either permit gays in the military or don’t. Don’t condone - ask for! - lying.)

  I think everyone knows I support Obama. But on this one - he needs to follow through. Inhale, man, inhale! Or something like that….

  Hey, did I ever tell you that, when I look at your avatar, I see a skier making a downstroke as he races down hill? (not a man pushing a rock up the hill)… It’s one of those “squint and you’ll see it” sort of things.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 20 at 4:17 p.m.

  I’ll take that. I like to ski.

  I disagree that he spent the political capital earned from a decisive election. Not in Congress he hasn’t. He’s concerned about getting the top of his priority list enacted through Congress and if he has to sacrifice his promises on DADT to do so, I’m thinking he is doing so. I just hope he gets his money’s worth. Funny what power a couple senators can have.

  Yeah its a horrible mess. The same arguments previously made keeping blacks and women out of the military are being made against gays. Its wrong on a couple different levels for our country to compromise our own security in a misguided effort to accommodate the homophobic.

• 

  Bent on May 20 at 6:31 p.m.

  Sorry OTV, I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I was just goofing on the guy’s name is all. You’re right, It was beavis-like.

• 

  Laughing on May 20 at 10:49 p.m.

  Yep, it is all about money. Forget about the pilot’s life to his country. Means nothing, at all.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 20 at 11:16 p.m.

  Who cares about the money lost in training this guy? The FAR more important point is that losing guys like this HARMS morale, and is BAD for our military, and their ability to perform their missions.

  It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s deleterious to our country, way of life, and ideals.

  Israel has openly gay soldiers serving, and they are perhaps the finest fighting force in the world. Our closest allie, Great Britain, allows gays to openly serve. It’s NOT an issue for them. Why should it be here? Latent Puritanism, perhaps?

  Conservative Barry Goldwater said something to the effect of “I don’t care if they’re straight, I only care if they shoot straight” in supporting gays serving in the military.

  You want to hurt the US military by kicking out gays? Get out of my country.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic