Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:43 PM ET, 12/ 2/2010

Why won't Republicans listen to Gates about don't ask don't tell?

By Jonathan Capehart

I've already aired my mixed emotions about today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the repeal of don't ask don't tell. But Greg Sargent is out with an excellent post that zeroes in on the persistent call today from military leaders for Congress to overturn the ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the armed forces before the courts do.

There was a time when only the views of the Almighty could trump the considered opinions of military commanders in the minds of Republicans. Not anymore. "[W]hat's striking is that their views on the matter don't seem to be much of a factor in the thinking of many GOP Senators," Sargent writes. "Indeed, none of them at the hearing even contested what these military leaders said about courts and the various timetables at play. Yet these Senators still appear adamantly opposed to repeal."

Speaking of the impact of court intervention, Gates said, "We would have zero time to prepare. No time to train. No time to prepare. That is the worst imaginable outcome as far as I'm concerned, and has very high risk to the force." That some Republicans on the committee couldn't care less what he thinks is outrageous.

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 2, 2010; 3:43 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Electric-car shocker: Lane drives Volt!
Next: Charlie Rangel: censured!

Comments

Jon, it's not just Republican Senators, it's a whole bunch of us regular folks too.

Some of us are just sick and tired of being forced to deal with a specific group's sexual preference!

ALL of us have our own sexual preferences, but gays are the only ones who continue to try to get everyone to approve it when they take it in the a.s.s.

I don't want openly gay folks in the military because the thought of a United States Marine putting in a request for female uniform and cross-dressing in the military makes me wanna puke.

I wouldn't care at all if gays were to keep their sexuality to themselves, but they flaunt their being gay way too much and I'm just not comfortable with that.


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 2, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The Bigot Party never changes.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | December 2, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The whole reason for the study and repeal is because gays in the military DO keep their sexuality to themselves and people like "lindalovjones" start rumors and that results in a discharge, proved or not.

You've never served. You do not know who gay folks are. You have no say in this matter or anything of importance.

Go puke, out of our sight.

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 2, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones? lindaHATEjones is more like it.
I'm not gay, but this is the same BS put forth when it was time to desegregate the military. The stupid thing about this is: GAYS ARE ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY! They are there. Every soldier, sailor, Marine, airman is already serving alongside them. It's not like they're banned. They're just muzzled. And that is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Victoria27 | December 2, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones? lindaHATEjones is more like it.
I'm not gay, but this is the same BS put forth when it was time to desegregate the military. The stupid thing about this is: GAYS ARE ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY! They are there. Every soldier, sailor, Marine, airman is already serving alongside them. It's not like they're banned. They're just muzzled. And that is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Victoria27 | December 2, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

@ lindalovejones

It's kind of laughable that you would spew vile hatred in a pubic forum exposing your raw sewage known as bigotry then proceed to call yourself one of the 'regular folks.'

You're anything BUT regular, dearheart.

Us 'regular folks' believe that people who are qualified and willing to serve their country should be allowed to do so.

Regular, indeed.

Posted by: Bill4321 | December 2, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Most of the real hatred that you see on this issue is from those who can't tolerate somebody like lindalovejones who is not "politically correct" . Whatever you may think of them there are excellent reasons to ban homosexuals from serving in the military.

Posted by: shwarrickesq | December 2, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

So shwarrickesq, I'd really like to know those "excellent reasons" for keeping gays out of the military... besides bigotry & homophobia that is. The majority of the military & the American people want gays to be able to serve openly. YOU & YOUR KIND are in the minority. I'm in my 50's & live in Texas & this kind of nonsense is the same nonsense that the racists used to fight segregation. Backwards & ignorant.

Posted by: soundpam | December 2, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

And btw - lindahater isn't "politically incorrect", she's a BIGOT & a homophobe.

Posted by: soundpam | December 2, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

to all,

fwiw, i served as an Army MP for well over 2 decades, as both an EM & an officer, (including time as a junior EM living in an open bay barracks) so i know (as most here do not, as they are the "stay safe at home" kind of people.) that "open service", i.e., having "homosexual contact" on post by homosexuals is INCOMPATIBLE with military service.- period. end of story.

furthermore, homosexual BEHAVIOR is punishable as a General Courts Martial may direct (sodomy is punishable under the MCM/UCMJ as a felony - the penalty for such felonious conduct, withing the military service, is quite severe.).

fyi, the courts may not "impose open service by homosexuals" upon the military service, if the Congress will "man up" & forbid the courts to even hear such cases.
(truth be told, i do not expect the US Congress to do "the right thing", as they would be mercilessly pummeled constantly by the "homosexual advocates", leftist lunatics, ACLU shysters & the "gay-loving press", as the majority of congress-critters are "stay safe at home" people & self-important gutless wimps, besides.)

asking young enlisted personnel (of either gender) to sleep/shower/dress/use the toilet/bathe in the presence of persons, who are openly homosexual, is no different than requiring women to perform those same functions in the presence of hetrosexual men.
(IF you had a 17-20YO daughter in the armed forces, would you want her to be required to lose her privacy, by living in an open bay with a group of typical 17-20YO males? - if you do/would not approve of those "living arrangements", congratulate yourself on having "commonsense" & "a functioning brain".)

frankly, i wish that everyone who has not served in the forces would just "butt out" & keep your mouth tightly closed on such military subjects, as you "know not & know not that you know not" about what you prattle on about.

NOTE to all you "gay-tolerent people", who may be reading these lines: if you want to damage the unit cohesiveness/morale of the armed forces (perhaps beyond repair, for decades) & cause a mass exodus from the military service of the USA (in the middle of 2 wars, btw!) just require GIs to accept "open service by homosexuals" & you will achieve your goals.

sincerely yours, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 2, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

There have be gay people in the military since it's inception. Since the beginning of mankind. Why is this such an issue still? We have more important fish to fry. More people should be concentrating on the poisoning of our food and water!!

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.


http://spotlight.vitals.com/2010/07/dr-joseph-mercola-stresses-artificial-sweetener-killing-americans/ = Gov. & FDA know this sweet poison!!

http://www.sweetpoison.com/ = Sweet Poison!!!

http://www.alaskawellness.com/archives/aspartamedangers.htm = Dr. H. J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P /// A disease and World Epidemic!

Posted by: Patriot4America | December 2, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

to: Mr Capehart,

most members of the GOP congressional delegation won't listen to Gates on "DADT" because (unlike leftist, "know nothing" extremists - like you & the other "stay safe at home" journalists of the COMpost, for example) they understand that "open service"/homosexual behavior by homosexuals is both immoral & incompatible with military life. that's why.

frankly, the vast majority of "gay-tolerant people", in the civilian population & specifically on this subject, do not know enough about "barracks life" to have a legitimate, knowledgeable, opinion.

sincerely yours, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 2, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow, judging by the all the knives that got stuck in my back, gay is apparently the new normal, and being normal is now considered wrong and upsetting.

I could care less. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Best.

Posted by: lindalovejones | December 2, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Patriot4America,

if you learned some elementary rules of grammar, sentence structure, syntax, wrote in complete sentences & learned how to spell, more people would listen to your meaningless, unknowing, ignorant blather.
(was third grade your best 5 years of "fedrul gubmint apruvd publik screwl edumakashun"?)

yours, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 2, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

80% of the military was against segregating the armed forces. Didn't make racism right. The study shows that most of the military DOESN'T care & that the American people want open service. Yet, we're hearing the same arguments regarding gays in the military as were used to fight segregation. They can't acknowledge that they're in the minority. The bigots & homophobes are letting their ignorance & fear lead them, just like the racists in the past. Well guys, I'll let you in on something, being around gays (even showering with them) doesn't turn a person gay any more than touching an African American will turn you black (yes, that is part of the ignorant crap that was being said in the 60's). I know this will disappoint you guys but gay people live their lives & don't want to force heterosexuals to be gay. They're just like everyone else. BTW - I'm a heterosexual. I have a ton of gay friends, have showered with them & even spent nights at their homes. You homophobes have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sheesh.

Posted by: soundpam | December 2, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

TO: retiredMP46 who wrote:
“To: Mr Capehart,
most members of the GOP congressional delegation won't listen to Gates on "DADT" because (unlike leftist, "know nothing" extremists - like you & the other "stay safe at home" journalists of the COMpost, for example) they understand that "open service"/homosexual behavior by homosexuals is both immoral & incompatible with military life. that's why.
frankly, the vast majority of "gay-tolerant people", in the civilian population & specifically on this subject, do not know enough about "barracks life" to have a legitimate, knowledgeable, opinion.
sincerely yours, Retired MP46

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dear Mr. MP: I’m a leftist and I feel nearly as strongly as you do on this issue.

By the way, Jon Capehart is gay, but he’s not in the military.


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 2, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"gay is apparently the new normal"

Worse news for people like you: tolerance is apparently the new normal.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 2, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

soundpam; all,

as "a person, other than white", i am DISGUSTED & greatly OFFENDED that anyone (at least those with an IQ which is above average room temperature) would attempt to compare "race", skin-tone, religious preference and/or ethnicity with homosexual BEHAVIOR.

also, nobody has a "civil right" to serve in the volunteer armed forces, any more than they have a "right" to teach high school math in Arlington, work at Walmart, work at Microsoft and/or at any other employer.
(there MIGHT be "some reasonable argument", on this subject, if there was "universal national service" today but the draft is gone forever.)

my compatriot-in-arms is 100% correct: homosexual behavior has NO place in the US armed forces & should continue to be punished as a felony by General Courts Martial.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 2, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

There is NO evidence gays in the military will have any impact on military cohesion or national security... except... when they do : (

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let's talk about Wikileaks spy Bradley Manning.

He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in "an awkward place."

Who knew ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | December 2, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

retiredMP46:

For every Walton Walker retread like you there are a dozen of us quite normal vets who know that it is you who didn't belong in the Military, not gays.

Served eleven years, Army and navy. Could care less if there were gays in my unit.

Did know that we still had your racist buddies causing more trouble in the Army than their retention was ever worth.

There is only one criterion by which to judge a soldier: does he do his job to the best of his ability.

Although it helps if, when he is next to you on the berm waiting for Charlie to follow his mortar barrage with a bayonet assault, he can hit his share of incoming VC and keep them from getting to you both, while you concentrate on remembering how you did it so easily on the rifle range, just in case they are actually coming.
E. H. Moreo SP505H20/36C40

Posted by: ceflynline | December 2, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Must make my apologies to Walton Walker. I am getting old and my memory is a bit skimpy some times. Meant Edwin Anderson Walker.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 2, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Putting the bigotry and insults aside, a common theme I’ve read here is that those not in the military (or who have served) should “butt out” as one commentator put it. Well, I’m am in the military. In fact, I’m deployed to Afghanistan at this very moment. Thus, I wanted to share my point of view.

Gays and lesbians are people, just the same as heterosexuals. Many choose to serve their country through military service, despite having to hide their sexual orientation. And in the course of that service, where close and intimidate bonds are forged between members of a unit, some decide to quietly confess to those closest to them. It has been my experience, through observation of “the human condition” that after such details become known, the camaraderie, trust, and friendship between the homosexual who shared such fact and the heterosexual was not broken. Often times it was, in fact, strengthened. On a personal, one-to-one level this truly is “not an issue”! I have even seen this happen between a gay fellow and the most religiously zealous, conservative, back woods redneck that one could possibly encounter. My point here is this: when heterosexual men and women serve alongside a homosexual, then later discover that fact, it is almost always a non-issue. The mutual respect developed for one another and shared ideals of military service trump any difference in whom one loves at the end of the day. The theme is, whether one accepts or despises homosexual orientation, people are people, and they can (and already do) work together.

I find it interesting to note, that many against open military service by gays and lesbians, don’t seem to consider that the law applies to everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike. But, if you happen to be homosexual, and that fact is discovered, you can be fired from your job. I can certainly respect the fact that straight people may not (and many don’t) want “a homosexual lifestyle thrown in their face”. I doubt that most gays now serving would change their behavior in the event DADT is repealed. I think the point is that gays should not have to serve with an ever looming fear of being fired based solely on their sexual orientation.

Some have indicated that “they would leave the service” if DADT is repealed. No, they won’t. Enlisted personnel are under contracts that range from three to six years in length and officers often have service obligations of their own as well. As uncomfortable as it might be to some, they won’t simply be able to immediately leave the service. By the time their contract does expire, most people’s opposition will likely have subsided somewhat. I won’t pretend to claim that the fiercest homophobic service members in our ranks will ever change their ways, but the vast majority of people, after they have an opportunity to serve with someone they know to be gay will come to the realization that it’s no different that serving with gays who just conceal the fact that they’re gay.

Posted by: cablubaugh | December 2, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

So Capehart gets off his knees long enough to admit that even he believes lifting the ban on open homosexuality in the ranks would be disruptive.

Posted by: pcannady | December 2, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with putting openly Gays into the Military. They would not dare openly declare themselves gay and go into a combat line unit. They would be at risk and they know it. Sorry, that's the danged truth.

What this is about, is the normalization of aberrant behavior. Gay marriage, gay suits about having wives' pictures on desks, gay swishing, gay suits about promotions...the lot. This is the thin edge of a wedge to bring abnormality into our lives. AND OUR TROOPS WILL SUFFER.

This study is a fraud. And Gates, the favorite of George HW Bush, the cameleon, whose mangerial motto always was "suck up/kick down" is not to be trusted in any survey commanded by his leader..the Chairman Obama. The survey was a fraud; combat troops will not put up with this. Kill it now.

Oh Capehart, prove me wrong, You go enlist as a private in the infantry and declare yourself openly gay and go out to Afghanistan. Capehart, you're so brave beating the drums for this....DO IT you coward!!

Posted by: wjc1va | December 2, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Gates serves at the pleasure of Obama, as does Mullen. That they tout the bosses party line speaks to a lack of independence, which is no big shock. The survey results are NOT a ringing endorsement of repealing DADT. In fact, the opposite is true.

Maybe if they were to resign and still support the Obama position they could be believed. This is not like organizing a dysfunctional neighborhood in Chicago, Jonny!

Posted by: buggerianpaisley | December 3, 2010 4:52 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Gates serves at the pleasure of Obama, as does Mullen. That they tout the bosses party line speaks to a lack of independence, which is no big shock. The survey results are NOT a ringing endorsement of repealing DADT. In fact, the opposite is true.

Maybe if they were to resign and still support the Obama position they could be believed. This is not like organizing a dysfunctional neighborhood in Chicago, Jonny!

Posted by: buggerianpaisley | December 3, 2010 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Dear Retired MP46,

You may have served for twenty years and retired from the service; however, the military has changed a lot since you were AD. The only "open bay" living is during BASIC training, and even then the showers are somewhat private. I would say they are much more private than the average gym, and MUCH more private than any High School gym. I'm still in the military, I've served with a few lesbians, had what I thought was a gay Commander. Bottom line, as long as they can do their job, who cares. My friend that is the consensus of most military personnel, as the survey has shown (one I didn't get selected to partake in). And from personnel experience, the biggest homophobes, tended to be closet cases anyway. Thank you for your service

Posted by: kerama98 | December 3, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

MP46 made the best succinct commentary that sums it up. Most of the suits who are in favor of this reversal have never served much less lived in a barracks or field environment.
Best

Posted by: gupton1 | December 3, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT A HOMOSEXUAL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"- CAN NOT SHOW WHERE OR HOW THAT PERSON GOT HIS/HER "ORIENTATION"! THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS, AND MANY OF THESE "ORIENTATIONS"(DESIRES) ARE AGAINST OUR LAWS!
SOME HAVE THE DESIRE TO ROB BANKS,MOLEST CHILDREN,HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,OR MARRY A FAMILY MEMBER, AND WE DISCRIMINATE AND SAY, "NO,OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T ALLOW THAT!"
BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS (A 2 OR 3% OF OUR POPULATION) HAVE PUSHED AND CLAMORED FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR DISGUSTING, DISEASE SPREADING SEXUAL ACTS-TO THE POINT THAT OUR MAJOR LEADERS, COURTS, AND NOW OUR ELITE MILITARY ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THESE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS!
BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON THE ATTEMPTS TO CURE, OR AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE AIDS HOLOCAUST.
TELL THE TRUTH- SODOMY IS WHAT IT IS- AN UN-NATURAL SEXUAL ACT AND A SIN!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 3, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Soundpam,

MP46 gives a great explanation of the excellent reasons for prohibiting military service by homosexuals. Introducing sexual attraction into a military environment causes problems. While there have been some problems with the introduction of large numbers of women into the military, these are mitigated to a certain extent by the fact that women have separate quarters. There would, however, be no such safety valve with open homosexuals serving with normal members of their same gender.
In addition, whether you want to admit it or not, male homosexuals have higher rates of HIV and other STDs. This would be a very serious problem in combat where other troops would be exposed to any blood borne pathogens.
Finally equating the ban on homosexuals with racial segregation is an invalid analogy. Sexual orientation involves behavior and as noted above, behavior that interferes with good order and discipline in a military setting. Race on the other hand does not involve behavior but rather benign variations in superficial physical characteristics (i.e. pigmentation and hair texture).

Posted by: shwarrickesq | December 3, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

kerama98; all,

may i presume that you are an enlisted female SM?
if you are, could you directly answer the question that was asked of "military parents of female SM" (in a post above)? ===> would YOU feel "uncomfortable with" sharing sleeping/dressing/showering/toilet facilities with a group of hetrosexual men of your own age/rank? - if NOT, WHY NOT?
(it is PRECISELY the same problem as asking same gender SM to share those facilities with "open" homosexuals.)

fwiw, your comments reference "open bay" are FALSE.
in addition to Basic Training/Boot Camp, numerous OCONUS service locations still have "open bay barracks" for pay-grades E-1 through E-4.

personal to "kerama98": there is NO such phobia as "homophobia" except in the fevered imagination of a few unknowing fools. - that is an outright (KNOWINGLY DISHONEST) "invention", which has been "popularized by" the most extreme leftist/"gay-embracing"/anti-religious NITWITS of the "popular press".
(face it, "kerama": you have been "played by" those who wouldn't spit on you, if you caught fire.= they HATE the military & those who serve in uniform.- further, the INTENT of the extremist/hate-FILLED left is to damage & perhaps ultimately destroy the US armed forces as the world's one remaining "Superpower".)

thank you for your service.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 3, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

SOME OF THE BETTER EXCHANGES I HAVE SEEN ON THE ISSUE (DISCOUNTING THE RANTS) --
MAYBE WE'RE GETTING MORE THOUGHTFUL AS THE , ER, CLIMAX APPROACHES --
COUPLE OF POINTS - -
- ANYONE WHO EVER WAS IN THE SERVICE KNOWS YOU DO NOT GET KICKED OUT JUST FOR BEING GAY - OR BEING ACCUSED - OR SAYING YOU ARE (SOMETIMES A PLOY BY MALINGERERS) - THERE MUST BE A PROVEN ACT

- REMARKS THAT MANY GAYS DO SERVE EFFECTIVELY SIMPLY VALIDATE D-A-D-T

- "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT"

Posted by: CHUCKORSO | December 3, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I think these are the facts, from the top down;

Obama, being the one that brings up this issue, is the B in LGBT. Google Larry Sinclair and believe what you will. As a Democrat, beholden to many varied sorts that make up that party, he is beset with honoring campaign promises from a constituancy very different from most and way in the minority. He also is among those that have never served and could care less about the service members.

Gates & Mullen, in the lurch between Duty to Service and Politics (with it's CYA and PC features)are faced with this fact; It's them against the Obamas and their ilk, who seem to keep worming their way into positions of influence.

It's the Legislative branch, I firmly believe, that the Secretary of Defense fears most. Those include a group of people that haven't any clue of Service life, the demands made daily on those serving, and their families who would have to cave to this Legislative whim that could provoke an overnight change in the armed forces that didn't allow for preparation for this monstrous change in living conditions for over a million persons.

There's a lot to be said for the term that lawyers use frequently. "Standing", as in have you ever walked a mile in their shoes, do you have a clue. If you haven't served, you should recuse yourself. You don't know from whence you speak.

I'm running out of space, so I'll close by asking those who chirp "Homophobe" to desist.
Homo (man) and phobe (fear) doesn't work. It would have to be Homosexual, coupled with something like Disgust or Revulsion. Something like that.

Sincerely,

A Marine who served 4 years and was honorably discharged and definitely wouldn't wish this crap on anyone faced with the day-to-day of service life.

Posted by: lavellemh | December 3, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"- "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT" Posted by: CHUCKORSO "

Its broke. We have too many trained and experienced linguists get bounced because they got outed, and at least a few of the outed weren't gay.

As for "Open Bay" living, I have lived in as open bay accomodations as you can get. In Viet Nam at Bien Hoa we had to shower on one end of our open showers while the mama-sans did our laundry in the other end. You learnded to ignore their giggles and whispering.

Military service is the right of all citizens. It ought to be a basic two year obligation for anyone who wants full franchise.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 3, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

- AGAIN - GOOD EXCHANGES HERE - HOPE FOLKS CHECK BACK -

-- AS IS POINTED OUT IN MOST OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, MILITARY SERVICE IS INDEED NOT A RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS - NO NEED TO REPEAT THE LITTANY OF THOSE WHO CANNOT SERVE

-- THAT SAID (AND, THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A LOT OF GAY LINGUISTS) NOTHING PREVENTS PATRIOTIC FOLKS FROM BEING OUT THERE AS CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS - IN ANY NUMBER OF VITAL / IMPORTANT JOBS

-- THE MAMA-SANS WERE QUITE COMPARABLE TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL - IN FRONT OF WHOM (OF ALL GENDERS) WE SPENT TIME BUCK NAKED --ALTHOUGH I DOUBT YOU WOULD USUALLY SEE A FEMALE PATIENT WITH A MALE CORPSMAN

-- I DO RECALL BEING SOMEWHAT OFF-PUT WHEN A MALE CORPSMAN WAS OBVIOUSLY GETTING "HOT" WHILE SHAVING MY TORSO IN PREP FOR SURGERY !

Posted by: CHUCKORSO | December 4, 2010 3:03 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