Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pentagon investigates leak on gays in military

By Craig Whitlock

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered an investigation to identify sources who leaked information to The Washington Post about a forthcoming Pentagon report on the potential impact of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

"The Secretary strongly condemns the unauthorized release of information related to this report," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement released Friday. "Secretary Gates is very concerned and extremely disappointed that unnamed sources within the Department of Defense have selectively revealed aspects of the draft findings...presumably to shape perceptions of the report prior to its release."

The Washington Post reported Thursday that a Pentagon study group has concluded the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts. As the basis for the article, The Post cited two anonymous sources familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

The Defense Department has closely guarded the contents of the report, which has been in the works since March and includes results of a survey sent to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, as well as 150,000 military spouses.

The Pentagon did not dispute details reported by The Post, but Morrell said premature disclosure of the study's conclusions "risk undermining the integrity of this process."

By Craig Whitlock  | November 12, 2010; 6:05 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: EU official rejects Turkey as venue for Iran talks
Next: New research confirms Iran's nuclear program was target of Stuxnet worm

Comments


Ask Ed O'Keefe as he seems to be an expert on who leaked the report to him. O-K-E-E-F-E.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

You Dems out there are obsessed with a gayed out military aren't you? This story, leakage about anal seepage, is typical. The Post can't go a day without some story of a "heroic" gay dude or dudette struggling against evil middle-class Christian American values. Oh...the drama! Oh, the injustice....horrors! Get a big fat crocodile tear about it don't you, liberal gay guy? You may eventually win this particular cultural battle (via the courts probably, and as usual-since you basically never win such issues at the ballot box) but it doesn't change the fact that sodomy is sin. You who practice it and you who promote it mock God and will one day answer for it.

Posted by: Robster1 | November 12, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

He should of had everyone in the Pentagon sign a non-disclosure agreement like he did before the disclosure of his fiscal-2010 budget.

Posted by: moebius22 | November 12, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Geez, I hope Robster1 doesn't have any kids.

Posted by: johnusa1 | November 12, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Geez, johnusa1, actually I don't abort mine like Democrats tend to.

Why the amazement at my post? Does the idea of actually believing and advocating a Biblical teaching that most of America for most of its history accepted without a second thought scare you?

Posted by: Robster1 | November 12, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Why so worried to hear the truth that no one cares that gays serve openly and truthfully in the military. The only ones worried are the ones who doubt their own sexuality. Gay people don't want to sleep with every member of the same sex any more than straight people want to sleep with every member of the opposite sex. So get a life and get over it. We are at war, not that I agree with the war, so let's get over the dumbness and get on with it. And for those so afraid of gays, wait until your son or daughter realize they are gay and come to you and hope that you accept them and love them regardless of who God made them to be.

Posted by: charlesvilagboy | November 12, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

It's Washington. Leaks happen.

Puzzling though why we're spending this much time on what is effectively an administrative/regulatory update while we have soldiers risking their lives in continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyone worked out how to better locate or disable an IED?

That seems like it would be much more important to our soldiers than whether we continue to insist that they lie through omission if they're gay.

Posted by: essl | November 12, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

The problem I have with the leaking of information is that a person should be man or woman enough to own up to the fact that they are the source of the leak. Otherwise, there is a perception of influencing the direction of or determining the import of whatever information that is being leaked. For me, the issue is about motive, motive, motive.

Posted by: seventhrama | November 12, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The problem I have with the leaking of information is that a person should be man or woman enough to own up to the fact that they are the source of the leak. Otherwise, there is a perception of influencing the direction of or determining the import of whatever information that is being leaked. For me, it is about motive, motive, motive.

Posted by: seventhrama | November 12, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

but Morrell said premature disclosure of the study's conclusions "risk undermining the integrity of this process."

- - - - - - -

"The integrity of this process" was undermined irreparably when it was learned that the surveys included massive numbers of questions of the "Do you still beat your wife?" nature, designed to slant answers AWAY from repeal of DADT.

And it's important to note that even though the survey was slanted AWAY from repeal of DADT, NOBODY in a position to know has denied that the results are that most people actually in the Armed Forces don't really have any problems with repeal of DADT.

Posted by: edallan | November 12, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Good point. I guess it's more important that we discriminate against good people than try to protect people from being killed. Better to discriminate and discharge highly trained ($100,000 in training) military personnel because they are gay, then let them fight the war. Better to discriminate and not tell gay military loved ones that they are wounded or dead, then let us serve openly to defend the country we love and cherish. Better to allow criminals to serve than honest and patriotic gay men and women. I think our priorities are just a bit screwed up.

Posted by: charlesvilagboy | November 12, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Gates should ask the Commandant of the Marine Corps - Amos tried to pre-empt the report by speaking out. He needs to be relieved of command.

Posted by: spinebob1 | November 12, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Agree with Spinebob1 -- the head of the Marine Corps should have kept his yap shut, and should be removed.

Posted by: cossack2 | November 12, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The ship of state is the only vessel that leaks from the top.

If opponents of lifting DADT had leaked the report, would their viewpoint have been covered more sympathetically?

Posted by: blasmaic | November 12, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Secretary Gates what are you gonna do about General Amos? Is he going to go the same route as General McCrystal?

Posted by: pnwmainah1 | November 12, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post should tell Gates that they didn't ask the names of their sources and they didn't tell.

Posted by: pnwmainah1 | November 12, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Robster1 you seem to like the idea of a theocracy. I can suggest a few for you if you'd like to live in one. The US is NOT a theocracy and many people are working hard to keep it that way.

In addition, your ignorance and bigotry are pathetic.

Posted by: greeenmtns | November 13, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Robster1 you seem to like the idea of a theocracy. I can suggest a few for you if you'd like to live in one. The US is NOT a theocracy and many people are working hard to keep it that way.

In addition, your ignorance and bigotry are pathetic.

Posted by: greeenmtns | November 13, 2010 12:37 AM
______________________________________

Me, too. Well said greenmtns.

From a 25-year retired Army vet who is very much straight and who thinks that this whole DADT debate is an unneeded distraction. People like Robster1, most of whom last wore a uniform that was labeled Boy Scouts of America, need to grow up and get a real life outside of their "Ozzie & Harriet" fantasies.

Posted by: hisroc | November 13, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Note to "Robster1":

Sodomy, by definition, includes oral sex - even heterosexual oral sex. Therefore, you're either practicing it, and a hypocritical sinner yourself. Or, you're lying about not practicing it. And last time I checked, lying was a sin also. Looks like your screwed either way.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: ckuhfahl | November 13, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey Robster, you Tinkerbell supporter! After all, if you're going to put your belief in an imaginary gay sado-masochist like "GOD," then you must be delusional. Are you licking Sarah Palin where she likes best to be licked, at the moment?

Posted by: bibleburner | November 13, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Probing leaky gays???

Posted by: carlbatey | November 13, 2010 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Robster: When and where did you serve? (Note: Singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' doesn't count.)

I am a moderate, Christian Democrat currently serving in Afghanistan and I support repeal. Since we don't live in an Iranian-style theocracy I think I'm pretty qualified to have an opinion here, no? Before you tell me I can't be a Christian and support repeal remember: "Let him without sin..."

Posted by: mscheller002 | November 13, 2010 4:14 AM | Report abuse

The survey was designed to lead to pro repeal findings in the first place. The questions were inane and did not address any of the real issues that would result from the normalization of homosexual behavior in DOD and then the culture at large. The whole process is a mess and the survey and the working group are dedicated to repeal and that's why they're worried about leaks that show their bias! God bless GEN Amos!

Posted by: RedskinsReverend | November 13, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

We still live in a nation where the military answers to the citizens. We have a right to know what that report said. The military is so high into control that it chafes them when ordinary people actually get to know what they have a right to know. My response: Tough cookies. We still have civilian control of the military.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | November 13, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The full, frontal assault of America's armed forces by the radical, homosexuals and their enablers will go down as a low point in American history.

America's military is the best in the world because it is not like France, Canada, and the rest of the soft societies that have given up on their military might.

Homosexualizing the military is yet another sign that America is slowly giving up it's position as the world's finest.

Who will take our place??

China?

Posted by: battleground51 | November 13, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

We are forgetting the lesson learned by the Catholic church after the church allowed homosexuals to run rampant in the priesthood. Little boys, of the church, were being molested wholesale for many years by those perverted priests.

Now the Catholic church is paying out millions in reparations to boys and men whose lives were ruined by the predator priests. The church was nearly destroyed itself and will never fully recover.

If the military becomes another homosexual enclave, the military will lose it's effectiveness forever.

A nation with a weak military cannot be a world leader and it open to conquest by a more aggressive power.

Can you say CHINA?

Posted by: battleground51 | November 13, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company