Ah yes, the no gays in the military policy. First implemented by executive order the week George W. Bush took office. Or is it actually a federal law enacted and enforced for dozens of years now? I can never remember.
A fair point, however churlishly made. But there is a question as to how rigorously the regulation would have been enforced by a less anti-gay administration.
A less anti-gay administration? You mean, like the Clinton administration? I would ask around and see what gay people think about the Clinton Administration and gays in the military.
Backdoor draft. I was going to make the necessary joke but got too caught up in the ridiculousness of the DoD's actions that I just forgot to.
And as for pre-GWB policies toward gays in the military, they're not the subject at hand. GWB keeps telling us that we're a nation at war and that these crazies hate us and want to kill us. What does his administration do about it? Fire people for being gay. The subject at hand is empty militaristic posturing.
Okay, I was surly. What I meant to say was that the pre-GWB administrations' issues with gays in the military weren't as troubling because they weren't compounded with this actual war stuff. Yes, the Clinton DoD had gay issues, and that was deplorable. But they didn't also have the same (obvious) shortage of translators. The Bushies faced a choice and they chose to be anti-gay over being effective. That's worse than simple bigotry, because (as they keep reminding us) we're at war.
This is amazing. Not least because you resisted using "backdoor draft" anywhere in your post.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 2:40 PM
Ah yes, the no gays in the military policy. First implemented by executive order the week George W. Bush took office. Or is it actually a federal law enacted and enforced for dozens of years now? I can never remember.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 2:53 PM
A fair point, however churlishly made. But there is a question as to how rigorously the regulation would have been enforced by a less anti-gay administration.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 4:22 PM
A less anti-gay administration? You mean, like the Clinton administration? I would ask around and see what gay people think about the Clinton Administration and gays in the military.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 4:25 PM
You don't really mean that the Clinton administration was less anti-gay than the current one. In which case, you haven't actually responded.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 4:27 PM
I think I'll stick to being churlish, thanks.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 4:46 PM
Backdoor draft. I was going to make the necessary joke but got too caught up in the ridiculousness of the DoD's actions that I just forgot to.
And as for pre-GWB policies toward gays in the military, they're not the subject at hand. GWB keeps telling us that we're a nation at war and that these crazies hate us and want to kill us. What does his administration do about it? Fire people for being gay. The subject at hand is empty militaristic posturing.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 8:23 PM
Sorry. From now on I'll stick to the party line. I mean subject at hand.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 8:56 PM
Okay, I was surly. What I meant to say was that the pre-GWB administrations' issues with gays in the military weren't as troubling because they weren't compounded with this actual war stuff. Yes, the Clinton DoD had gay issues, and that was deplorable. But they didn't also have the same (obvious) shortage of translators. The Bushies faced a choice and they chose to be anti-gay over being effective. That's worse than simple bigotry, because (as they keep reminding us) we're at war.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 07-13-04 9:31 PM