Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Go West, Young Han
Weather Extremes Rise as Planet Gets Hotter and Colder






Truthdig Bazaar
Beyond Bogotá

Beyond Bogotá

By Garry Leech
$17.13

Pure Goldwater

Pure Goldwater

By John W. Dean; Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Gen. Pace Not Sorry For Anti-Gay Slur

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 13, 2007
pace
washingtonpost.com

Gen. Peter Pace took his boot out of his mouth long enough to refuse to apologize for, and instead to reiterate, his anti-gay statements in today’s Chicago Tribune.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman allowed that he should have just signaled his support for the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy instead of focusing on his “personal moral views” but didn’t retract his claim that homosexuality is “immoral.”

Perhaps he would do well to consider the sacrifice of Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who, besides being the first critically wounded Marine in Iraq, is fighting for the rights of gay and lesbian service personnel after his injury spurred him to come out of the closet.


New York Times:

General Pace’s original comments, made in an interview on Monday with The Chicago Tribune and confirmed by a tape of the interview posted on the newspaper’s web site—have been denounced as insulting and insensitive by gay rights groups.

General Pace told The Tribune, in reply to a question, that he did not believe the Pentagon should condone immoral behavior by allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” he said. “I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is O.K. to be immoral in any way.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Groovesmoothly, March 18, 2007 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

John Lowell-

I do not hate religion but I’m not fond of those of you that make a mockery of it. I’m sorry if you were raised in a church of hate but I was raised in one of love. I was taught that Jesus loves everyone, including gay people. I even believe Jesus loves people like you and Paul Hackett that preach hate in his name and try to hide your sins like that makes them go away. I was just usng my God given sense of humor to point out the irony of people like yourself. Sorry if your thin skin bruises easily.

Report this

By Matias, March 17, 2007 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#58848 by John Lowell

You are one sick pup dude. Someone, apparently gay, vandalized your church, and now millions of gay people are vandals. Razor sharp logic there Spock. By that logic, based on your example, I’d have to conclude that all Americans are idiots, but I know that’s not so.

Why do I waste my time trying to get through to simple minded people? Rant on, or not, we’re done.

Report this

By robert puglia, March 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

john lowelly i can’t help but notice your eagerness to respond to each meager indication of the orgiastic onanism that is your dubious existence, delving the archives for what precious attentions they afford you. not getting enough love at home? who can wonder?  to the most direct affront of your pathology do you afford your kindest dismissal. your certainly withered ass is indistinguisable from your head perhaps owing the fact that one is lodged in the other. the assuredness of your sanctity derives from your disregard of reality, of morality. godlessness only knows in what name you divine your misperceived right to diminish, demean and no doubt ultimately to kill.  you’re a simp; a smug, provincial, self-righteous, self-deluded, wooden headed, puffed up pharisee: so attuned the the word of your idiot god you don’t notice he doubles for the easter bunny; too stupid to insult to any gratifying end and so my exasperation. i doubt, if set alight, you’d make a worthwhile fire though in deference to the scientific method i urge you volunteer that we might know.

Report this

By Eleanore Kjellberg, March 15, 2007 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Immoral—-our whole culture is immoral—-perhaps, that explains why pre-teens need to incessantly self-medicate themselves: in 2005 15,172,000 children 12 or older used prescription-type pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives.

Moreover, non-medical use of prescription-type drugs in 2004 (6.2%) was second only to rates of use for marijuana (10.6%) and far surpassed rates of use for cocaine (2.4%) and heroin (0.2%).

And we haven’t even begun to talk about, the amount of drugs used by suburban baby boomers—
what insanity prevails in our society that causes self-medication; what is it about our culture that makes everyone feel inadequate—maybe, the real immorality, is Social Darwinism, which is nothing more than a “human contest” designed to manufacture either maniacal egoists or lost souls.

The sexual preferences of two consenting adults is NOT the real immorality, what’s immoral is the derisory mind-set, insulting attitudes and hostile feelings which permeate and causes each person to feel inferior—a social order which thrives on creating victims is a dissolute civilization.

Report this

By John Lowell, March 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matia,

Always a pleasure, Matia. Glad that you found us helpful with the moral theology. Not sure how quick I’d be to embarrass your friends with these truths, however. They just might show up with all of that love and generousity for a Mass at St. Pat’s and either break the statuary or throw consecrated hosts on the floor. Last time it took us forever to clean up.

John Lowell

Report this

By John Lowell, March 15, 2007 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Groovesmoothley,

Aw, come on now, Groovesmoothley, we know you’re not Lavrenti Beria. You can take off that tunick and the cap with the red star now. Save the religion hating for someone that might honestly care about your sense of things and take up a career making annoying, unsolicited telephone calls instead. It’ll be more more natural for you, son.

John Lowell

Report this

By John Lowell, March 15, 2007 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

robert puglia,

You say:

“ps; john lowell, bend over and let me explain something to you”

Every possible blessing, Robert.

John Lowell

Report this

By robert puglia, March 15, 2007 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ps; john lowell, bend over and let me explain something to you

Report this

By robert puglia, March 15, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re #58389: we have always been a society of drones. the fatuous expression of an unsolicited opinion makes us also boors. it’s a matter of context. while i suspect it is pointless to explain the concept of civil decency to anyone who would require an explanation, i deign to attempt the enlightenment of my loutish inferiors as i am forced to share a planet with them. would that the coarse and stupid would keep these traits to themselves to spare the rest of us their deleterious effect on morale.
as for a propensity for fawning over fighting (as commentor #58479 remarks in his curiously detailed observations of those he finds so repellent) a brief perusal of my history would prove him even more ignorant than already he has demonstrated himself to be, presuming that is possible.
and now back to the eames chair that i might exult in the earthly indulgence of my monied, frivolous, art-filled existence. it’s almost time for the paperboy.

Report this

By Groovesmoothly, March 15, 2007 at 7:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Lowell-

You sure do think about men touching other men on the “crotch” an awful lot. Are you a gay masseur from Boulder that was slighted by his preacher? Sorry I meant junkie customer. There I go assuming you’d understand a little beating around the bush. I’m refering to your rehabilitated buddy Paul Hackett of course. Is it OK if you pay? How about if its sporting like wrestling or your the center for the Dallas Cowboys? Can you touch crotch by accident? Perhaps you need to go back to your imaginary world of fundamentalist Godland and leave the constituting of the United States of America to the secular individuals the founding fathers intended.

Report this

By Matias, March 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#58636 by John Lowell on 3/14 at 12:41 pm

John, I’m so glad you cleared that issue up with your scholastic sophistry. I can now tell a couple, that my wife and I know, that they are immoral. Never mind that they are two of our dearest friends, and are two of the sweetest ladies I’ve ever known. They love each other, take care of each other, and are generous and kind with their time and lives with others. Dare I say, they might even be Christian in their kindness and generosity. Obviously, by your estimation, they are deviant and evil.

I might add, that both of these ladies tried, earlier in their lives to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and be the “morally” upstanding people that fellows like you expect them to be. One of them has a son, who is proud of his mother, and loves her very much. The “choice” they made, was to be something that they were not. The need they finally recognized, was each other, and the love they found with each other. However that love expresses itself, it is a good thing, for these ladies are happy together, and hurting no one, and they “did the right thing” earlier in life, and tried to be what society wanted them to be…and were unhappy as a result. And no one should be forced to be unhappy because of arbitrary morality placed upon them by religious bias and societal intolerance.

One of these ladies is an emergency room nurse, who sees and treats the most horrendous injuries on a daily basis. She has a quiet grace about her, that bespeaks a person of great humility, humanity, personal integrity and considerable suffering. She is to put it straight, a great lady, who sees suffering, and does what she can to heal it, does what she can to prevent it, and does all she can when all hope is lost, to comfort those who are dying. Her stories are filled with sadness, tragedy and horrors, and yet she is strong and resolute, and of the highest moral character of anyone I know.

And sir, you would condemn her as an immoral person, because of whom she loves, and how she loves her. I am sorry for you sir, for your view of humanity is black and white and simplistic, and thus, you miss so much of humanity that is expressed in the gray areas beyond your ken, where extremism tends to not lurk. Your claims of absolutist “morality” and “immorality” are biased, unyielding, intolerant and wrong. And it is these very attitudes that fuel the hatred toward decent gay people, who’s lives are simply different than what you say society demands. It is these attitudes that lead so many to commit violent acts of torture and death against people who, by your measure, deserve it, because they are evil and deviant, i.e. immoral simply by virtue of loving the wrong kind of person, in the wrong way. Claims of immorality have been used as bludgeons since the beginning of human history…so many have died so needlessly over the millenia, and it continues to this day.

Too many have died. When will we all learn to put these ancient fears and biases behind us, and find the humanity in each other, rather than always looking for the differences which can be used to separate and destroy people? And Peter Pace or Robert Gates, it doesn’t matter, this is about real people, not politicians who have such miniscule humanity that their names should be forgotten. This is about good, and evil, and the ability to take each person on their own merits, and their own deeds, rather than pigeon holing people into two dimensional stereotypical caricatures that only serve the interests of the disciples of true hatred, intolerance, ignorance and bigotry.

Report this

By cedric williams, March 14, 2007 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The General is right. Keep them out of the forces. Usually homosexuals have more sense than to join up anyway. If they do insist in joining then they should be given kitchen and latrine work, the last they will take to with ease.
They might also be kept in the medical wing as a source of blood for wounded soldiers and perhaps also as kidney donors and in an emergencyfpr heart transplants for higher officers. In China they use political prisoners as heart transplant donors, shooting them just after the organs are “harvested”.
There is no doubt that homosexuals are good for something.

Report this

By John Lowell, March 14, 2007 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matias,

Just responded to Ken Roberts which also should address some of your points.

So there can be no confusion, however, let me say that the immorality is found in the objective homosexual act and in precisely the same fashion as it would be found in an adulterous heterosexual act. At the subjective level the homosexual desire is clearly disordered and can only be considered pathological. Sadly, the homosexual carries this desire as an added burden however the etiology is explained.

Recent attempts by psychology to redefine or explain away the moral implications of most of human sexuality have done little more than to enable its most self-destructive aspects. This effect is equally impactful on the homosexual. At core the matter is one of an abysmally understood anthopology. Ask a jilted, loving wife or husband just how much unfettered sexual expression has contributed to their happiness. One throws away 5000 years of reflection upon the human condition at ones very considerable risk.

Yes, sir, homosexual acts are immoral and no less so whether it was Pace or Gates that made the above remark.

John Lowell

Report this

By John Lowell, March 14, 2007 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken Roberts,

Right from the get-go lets take this opportunity to fix the error I made in naming General Pace, “Gates”. That said, what I have to bring next will likely do very little to assuage any damage my earlier comment may have done to your rather delicate sensibilities.

You say:

“News Flash: there is no ‘pathology’ in human beings seeking love and comfort in other humans no matter the gender. People are born the way they are, they are not diseased, they do not ‘choose’ their inner yearnings.”


A follow-up news flash for you, Ken: There’s pathology “in human beings seeking love and comfort in other humans” when both are men and one of them reaches over to massage the crotch of the other. Even if we are to accept an etiology that sees homosexuality as a condition present from birth - a thesis very much unproven at this point in time - it is nevertheless quite that, a condition, a kind of disorder or malformation. People are born blind and retarded also, but we don’t say they’re without pathology. In any case no one is obligated except a slave to act on an inborn desire. And we’d certainly have to say that short of slavery the homosexual act itself is chosen, and it’s there one finds the immorality.

You really need to take a step beyond college dorm style moral theology, Ken. It leaves you vulnerable.

John Lowell

Report this

By Terry Sloth, March 14, 2007 at 8:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s not very comforting to know, that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff lacks common sense.

Report this

By john doe, March 14, 2007 at 8:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While i may or may not agree with this generals opinions, he should have the right to express his viewpoint albeit his personal viewpoint. The crowd that believes that everyone who doesnt agree with a point of view they hold dearly ought to receive electric shock therapy or some sort of reeducation ought to keep in mind that those forms of governments eventually turn on everyone of its supporters in the end…..the soviet exeperiment is not so far removed in history to teach us a few lessons….we all hold different points of view on the myriad of social concerns in our society…..all of them ought to be debated and if there is enough support for the society to accept and incorporate that issue into its norm for life then so be it…this is a republican democracy…...

Report this

By James Yell, March 14, 2007 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

General Pace is entitiled to his opinion, but homosexuals have served in the military since its conception. They have died, been injured and been heroic. General Pace is not entitled to use his personal opinion to discriminate or to use his position to work against the legal concerns of a large minority of Americans. He should be given a dishonorable discharge from the countries service. Something too needs to be done about Religion being forced upon people serving in the military.

Report this

By Louise, March 14, 2007 at 5:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy is essential to maintaining the required numbers in the military.

In other words, gays are good enough to fight and die for General Pace and will be allowed to without question, just so long as they keep their mouths shut. Which pretty well defines the true depth of Paces “morality.”

Report this

By Christopher, March 13, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is exactly why I love being a Marine.  I know my leadership is strong-willed when it comes to anything.  I especially love the fact that the more backwards an idea, policy, or order is, the more vehemently it’s supported at the top.

I’m glad he’s not giving an apology, it’d be a lie.  He’s not sorry.  I’m also glad that he said what he did, that he let his personal opinion get in the way.  How many others that high up have publicly admitted fault so readily?

Report this

By ric williams, March 13, 2007 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I personally find homosexual activity disgusting, but it seems that there is a minority of the population inclined by their genes (not jeans) in this category and there cannot be humanely eliminated.
Maybe throughout prehistory and recent history they have been useful for the group survival, perhaps by serving the households, though not having children themselves.
Anyway we can’t get rid of them, but we don’t have to fraternise with them innecessarily.
That seems to be alright with thgem, because they like to socialize among themdelves, though they sometimes are friends to women.As far as trhe military is concerned. They were not devised to fight but to fawn. Keep them out of the services and in the hhairdressing salons and cookery establishments in which fields they seem adept.
The general is entitled to his opinion and many people agree with him.

Report this

By Ken Roberts, March 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Comment #58390 by John Lowell;
Your comment regretfully merits only scorn and disgust. “Gates”? We are discussing Gen. Peter Pace here, not the new Defense Secretary.
News Flash: there is no ‘pathology’ in human beings seeking love and comfort in other humans no matter the gender. People are born the way they are, they are not diseased, they do not ‘choose’ their inner yearnings.

You, however, have chosen ignorance and stupidity.
“Hats off to ‘Gates’”? No, you deserve to be handed yours, ass-hat.

Report this

By Matias, March 13, 2007 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: #58390 by John Lowell

First up, the General’s name is Pace, not Gates. And second of all, this is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and his personal opinions on subjects like this should remain personal, and private. He speaks for too many people and his words effect to many people to allow his own biases to come into play. He should obey orders, and enforce the standards that are in place. Clearly, if he had his way, gay people would be drummed out of the armed forces. Then he’d have a clear conscience about lowering the recruiting standards allowing criminals into the armed forces.

To say immoral is to say wrong, and bad. Being gay is inherently neither of these things, anymore than being heterosexual is. As with ALL human beings, some are bad, some are good, and some are immoral and some are not…but to blanket categorize people in this way is, well, so…Republican! Intolerance, intransigence, bigotry, bias, all watch words of the neo-Republican extremists who’ve taken over the party. And to think I actually registered Republican years ago (ok, it was just to make my poor brother a dollar for registering me, but hey, I was a Republican for awhile there!).

With neo-Repugnicans it’s “these people” doing this, and “these people” doing that, ad nauseum…not a group known for resolutely taking responsibility for their own lives and actions, and staying the hell out of other people’s lives who are doing nothing wrong (aka not hurting people). And thus Iraq for instance (aka hurting people), can’t possibly be a giant thirty ring circus of blood and corruption, cause that would be admitting wrongdoing, and accepting responsibility for something. Not the neo-Republican way. IT’S THEIR FAULT…NOT OURS!!!!

Neo-Repugnicans (ooops, I misstated!) are about telling other people how to live their lives, gay or not, all the while saying their about not getting into people’s personal lives. There’s a word that clearly says it all…hypocrites. And that is what Republicans are now.

Let’s talk about morally reprehensible, let’s talk about war profiteering by the likes of Halliburton, Bechtel, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, Fleur, SAIC, Grumman, Boeing, AT&T…the list is seemingly endless. Making war into a business for profit is what is immoral. There was a time in this country when war industry was not extant, was not a permanent presence in this country and the world. If we were attacked, we’d respond, and gird our loins, if you will. Then when the war was over, we’d turn the swords to plowshares, and get back to the business of living, not dying. And that’s what war is, the death business. And if that’s not immoral, then nothing is.

Report this

By Rob, March 13, 2007 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If he’s not sorry than he’s not sorry. It would be worse to prod him into admitting an apology that he doesn’t really mean(Michael Richards anyone?)

He’s of the classic Old Guard of American military men: Gruff, deeply religious and very conservative

If he wants to piss on the very people that serve under him who are risking death by IED’s, there’s nothing anyone can do about that

Report this

By DonPato, March 13, 2007 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someday people are going to look back at the no gays in the military rules and just shake their heads in disbelief.

Like the majority of the civilized world does now.  Its time that our shoulders know that gays are fighting next to them at this very moment.

Our most precious gay citizens who are fighting in the military deserve to not be forced into a closet imposed on them by an ignorant military rule.

DonPato
GayPuertoVallarta

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 13, 2007 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Could Gen. Pace’s seemingly somewhat off-the-wall comments (besides being what they’ve been described as here by others) be also a “call-to-arms” directed at the hardcore 25 to 30 percent who will have to make-up the military recruiting shortfalls occurring as the drummed-up-anyway enthusiasm among the rest of theamericanpeople, for imperialist mis-adventures, continues to decline?  Chances are the prospects were already slim-to-none among those who take offense at what Pace said….so otherwise inexplicable and unnecessary.

Behind the recent media-generated smokescreen of token political opposition in Congress, supposedly serious erosion of Dick Cheney’s position, more juvenile delinquency at Justice, and Bush’s hobnobbing with reactionary regimes in Latin America, “The Project” is being pursued….well, apace.  Clearly its gang-banging adherents are preparing the crucial “putsch” they expect will lock the whole MAD scheme permanently into place as the “perpetual” paradigm…..endless war as the meatgrinder stocking the crockpot of institutionalized wage/debt slavery.

Gen. (and JCS chairman) Pace might’ve been given the difficult choice of putting his own “boot” in his mouth….or having someone else’s up his ass.  Even if Pace only let his self-righteousness run-away with his tongue, this old Indian’s younger brother (who landed at Saipan and Okinawa and has the scars to prove it) and older sister (who was a career Navy nurse and is a life-long liberated Lesbian) both have expressed disgust at the gratuitous moralizing of a man who seems to have no problem at all with putting his uniform into the service of a murderous privateering criminal conspiracy of literally global dimensions.

Looks like “Semper Fi” has become just another empty boast on Reagan’s “....ash-heap of history.”  Us Indians’ll stick with….

HokaHey!

Report this

By C.P.T.L., March 13, 2007 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Damn what he thinks of homosexuality.  It is offensive to us all that he focus on the subject.  The man is free to have his opinion, no matter how ill-considered, and obligated by his position to keep his opinion to himself.  It is immoral for him to have spoken the way he has.  General Pace is not leading an imaginary Armed Forces, not the Armed Forces he choses to lead, he is leading our, all of our Armed Forces, and amongst us there are gay people.  They are not exceptions, they are our brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers, they are us.

He knows full well that there are gay people serving and he has chosen to denigrate them; an ugly decision that suggests a want of realistic outlook and lack of character.  To say those things is to suggest that gay people might sometime go away, or be stopped or changed.  That kind of ignorance bodes ugly for a leader of people and indicates he is not up to the task.

General Pace names no particular threat, shortcoming, failure or exceptions involving gay people in the military, no specifics on how we are not “well-served.”  Indeed, gay people are doing their best to remain unexceptional (I refer to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) so where exactly is his objection but in his head?  They serve with distinction in harm’s way like all others and deserve our respect and the respect of their leader.

Report this

By Mark, March 13, 2007 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You Guys will find the truth in your next life

Report this

By Big Al, March 13, 2007 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Given his loathsome bigotry, I can see why General Pace fears being in the company of armed gay people.

Report this

By Greg Bacon, March 13, 2007 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gee, General Pace, then what about the immorality of a war that was started by the president and his lackies based on lies, half-truths, distortions and even more lies?

A war that has killed nearly 700,000 civilians and and close to 3,500 military personel.  A war that is going to cost the US over 2 trillion dollars or more. 
Plus, the money needed for proper care for our wounded veterans.
Which so far, we haven’t been doing properly.

General Pace, would you consider that immoral?

Report this

By Jason, March 13, 2007 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The real “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of interest is the unspoken one held between the media and the interview subject.  The media “don’t ask” what the philosophical justification for a position is, and the interview subjects “don’t tell” us what it is.  Moral views may be personal, but they can be justified within a framework.  If the framework of Pace’s comments is religious (as I expect it is) then it has no place in the formation of the policies of a secular state.

Report this

By Groovesmoothly, March 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From a real champion of morality.
Due to the moral code that I was taught in Sunday school and the Boy Scouts I try not judge the conduct of others because it’s hard enough minding my own. I consider it a waste of time to take issue with whom anyone has consentual sex with let alone falls in love with because love is the root of moral behavior.
I do however consider anyone that, intentionally or not, ever kills or rapes, has others kill or rape, or celebrates killing or raping another human being to be lacking the most rudimentary level of morality possible.
I wonder if the general has ever seen American Beauty. That homophobia can really drive a soldier crazy.
My gay-bor (gay neighbor) just suggested that maybe the General just doesn’t want anyone to “ask” him. He also said that his mouth is really pretty and ooooh-la-la that fabulously crisp uniform is so old school Banana Republic hot!

Report this

By John Lowell, March 13, 2007 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To call what Gates had to say a “slur” is itself a slur against his person and against that of the literally billions of persons in this age and in ages past that see and have seen active homosexuality for the pathology that it is. Sorry, folks, normal people can still identify an illness when they see it, the constant drum beat of propaganda at this site and others constituting the homosexualist blogosphere notwithstanding. In the present environment they ought to give Gates the Medal Of Honor for daring to speak the truth. Hats off to him.

John Lowell

Report this

By kathy Page, March 13, 2007 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How did it become wrong for someone to say, “Such and such is my personal belief.”  Are we now a society of drones?  Diversity lauded and appproved for only the non-traditional?  And since we allow nothing to be private in our public figures only those who have no character would be approved for public service.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, March 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

General?
Please keep your apology, I’m not asking for one.

Report this

By Ask The NSA, March 13, 2007 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your ideas on “morality”, General. Your job is to lead troops, not pass judgment on them. Do it or get the hell out of the way.

Is it an “immoral act” to lie and fabricate intelligence in order to drag our nation into an endless war, which has killed over 3,000 of your troops and decimated our military capability?

You’re just one more piece of the problem, pal.

Report this

By Steve Hammons, March 13, 2007 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gen. Pace weighed in on one of many complex issues facing the U.S. military.

In this time of the Army and Marine Corps spread thin, the topic of recruiting and qualifications for the military is an important one.

More flexible recruiting standards have been implemented, and “waivers” for certain potential military recruits are being granted more easily.

Some people say this is “lowering the standards” of the U.S. military. That is one view and an understandable one.

For more on this complicated situation, the article below may be of interest:

“Another view of military waivers: Flexible recruiting avoids draft”

By Steve Hammons
Columnist, PopulistAmerica.com  
Populist Party of America
February 17, 2007

http://www.populistamerica.com/another_view_of_military_waivers

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook