Whats your excuse?

I thought the Republicans ran on "listening to the people".

Clearly, they are not listening to the people on this issue.

North Korea isn't overpopulated really. They are starving their people, but that's what happens under a government that doesn't care for its citizenry.

If we keep going the way we seem to be going, before long that will be us. The wealthy will have food and/or the means to get it, and the poor and middle class will not.

Eric,

So you say 58% say let them in, listen to the people, but 70% support AZ Law on immirgration and almost 70% think the HC bill should be scrapped and done over. You can't pick and choose you know? By the way I really don't care if they serve, as long as they do their job.

Bev,

Beer-man is correct, don't know where you received your information from.

Paul, 70% DO NOT think the HCR should be scrapped (49% are in favor of making no changes, 23% are in favor of making changes ((those 2 add up to close to your 70% number)) and 23% want it scrapped).

Paul-Florida:

When most people say they support the items IN the health bill, and most people want you to start over from scratch (against a republican congress that has accomplished NOTHING), you really HAVE to pick and choose. Voters don't have to deal with policy and getting things done; congress & the president do. SOME people will come around once they realize the benefits of HCR. As for the AZ law; if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. Doesn't matter how many people want it in a poll. It has to agree with the laws on the book. That may affect HCR too; we'll see.

STS-you're correct I should had stated almost 60% (58%) repeal it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

"Overall, 58% favor repeal and 37% are opposed. From the beginning, those who favor repeal feel more strongly about it. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Favor repeal and 29% are Strongly Opposed."

Either way, majority of the people want it repealled.

Paul,

Rasmussen was so wrong in the November election, and generally skewing Republican so bad that you can't take its polls too seriously, but here we go....

If you look at other polls on the subject with more detailed questions, almost half of the people that don't like the HCR bill are liberals who would have preferred a real government takeover (single-payer) or at least a public option. Most in that group sure would like a different bill, but they would definitely not want to go back to the broken status quo.

Paul, I'm all for Republicans listening to the people issue by issue.

The issue here is repeal of DADT.

You don't have a mandate on HCL at all. While I can understand that the majority are not in favor of the mandate. This from - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/no_mandate_for_repeal_of_healt.html

"

When it comes to the part of the law that allows children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance, 68% think it should remain law while 29% say that dimension should be repealed. Three percent are unsure.

Almost six in ten voters -- 59% -- report the part of the health care law that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions should remain law while 36% want it repealed. Five percent are unsure.

And, 57% think the aspect of health care reform which closes the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage by providing assistance to pay for costs should remain in effect while 32% say it should be repealed. 11% are unsure.

Try any other poll, other than the conservative rasmussen, and I will believe your numbers.

Paul - Florida - Even if 70 percent are in favor of something, if that something is unconstitutional then it still cannot become law. If 70 percent of the people want to have segregation of schools by race or religion does that make it good law? Both DADT and the AZ law do not pass constitutional smell test. The intent is good the law is flawed.

I cannot agree with you more. These brave men and women put their lives on the line every day. Why should they be denied the right to be who they are? How dare these politicians put politics above civil rights. As for John McCain, he is both an embarressment and a disgrace to the armed service. He used to be fair but he has sold his soul all in the name of reelection. Shameful. My Christmas wish is that all of these guys will get a conscience and stop trying to legislate their morality for the sake of a few votes.. If they can't do that, then I will pray they get the courage to resign. There is no room for them in our Congress.

As an army wife NO FREAKING KIDDING???? as long as you can cover my husbands butt during combat that is ALL that really matters its about bringing my husband back to his kids and i....stop using the hill for your own agenda....

Eric - the children protection of the HCL is a total FAIL. Most insurance companies dropped child only policies and even UNIONS are dropping the same policies. Even my Health insurer (one of the better bigger ones) dropped Child only policies. This isn't better it's WORSE!

Eric you don't seem to understand the damage that is doing. Child only policies are what parents buy for their kids when they cannot afford their own health insurance policies at the same time. You are so lost in the propaganda you read from left prostating groups and media you don't see the light at the end of the narrow tunnel is a freight train with an oversized load - coming everyone's way.

It is easy to be a smart ass and support stuff like this....but you are not confined to a small area in a barracks with gays and you dont have to sleep next to them and you dont have to shower with them. There are no easy answers for this...Being PC at someone elses expense is easy....but lets drop the attitude since you want to force this onto someone else...it is not something that you have to face every day.

"But some leading GOP members of the Armed Services panel, including ranking member John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have said that the report is fundamentally flawed in its approach."

We should listen to them, if only because they are experts in being flawed. If anyone would know, it's those two guys. Then, we should repeal DADT anyway. The public supports a repeal, and service members support it even more broadly than the public. I think that repeal is the one thing this congress can actually get done, and with at least a modicum of bi-partisan support, at that.

JA, over 70% of service members support a repeal. That survey was released a week or two ago. No one knows better than them, as you seem to concede. We should hence listen to service members and support a repeal.

I'm gay and I fail to understand why others have control of my civil rights who is it who 'lets' me in. I thought that as an american I was entitled to the same constitutional equality as everyone else. I didn't know what my civil rights could be voted on. Why are we the only minority group who gets their rights 'decided' on by votes?

J.A-522495 - It is easy to be a smart ass and support stuff like this....but you are not confined to a small area in a barracks with gays and you dont have to sleep next to them and you dont have to shower with them.

Ugh, tell me about it. One time I had to sit next to a black person on the bus. And one time a fat chick hit on me at the pool. Life is so hard!

James82 you obviously miss the point. What JA is getting at is this is really no different then say having having a communial bathroom that men and women both share at the same time of course. Why don't they take a poll to see how many women in the military would be willing to do that.

A communal bathroom? I hate to break it to you, but gay guys pee in the same bathrooms straight guys do. And gay guys shower in the same gym locker rooms straight guys do. And gay guys sleep in the same college dorms and summer camp bunks that straight guys do. You don't see any of those places having a problem with it.

James....You and a few like you are the reason that I would post what I did. You fail to have any consideration for the other person or to attempt to see their side of things. Sure, there are gay people in the military now, but they know that they must not cross a line. As long as they dont, there should not be a problem. But, what is happening is that a faction wants the gays to be openly gay and that will lead to some problems. Some gay people can be very aggressive. Do we want to incourage that? When there are no rules to control the openly gay or the aggressive gays, there will be trouble. The assumption that it all will go smoothly and that everyone will act in the manner that everyone approves of just isnt likely. I would think the Catholic church is now well aware of the problems that can develope. I am sure that the church did not anticipate that some of their priests would take advantage of others...How easy has it been for the church to solve this problem?....Dont give me crap about you had to sit next to a black person on a bus....that is just the stupid smartass remark that I would expect....Think of someone else other than yourself....

I view this as a difference in age. The old guys, who basicaly never understood anything about gays, which they called a different name, saw these people as a threat to them. The young people in the military today do understand who gays are, and do not view them as a threat. As was mentioned the older officers are the ones who want them out, but the general population of the military see no reason not to let them serve. Time our military leaders caught up with the times. How old is John McCain and all the folks who agree with him?

I only worrie that my soldier who are under enough pressure and stress living in a FOB for months on end dont get into trouble as they badger each other with nick names and have fun at each others exspense.

Asa this will be very public and the first real offical inquiry of hate speach will be all over the news. All because one soldier who said something that offended another and now this soldier will be made an example of.

Not to mention all the training we will have and will have to plan for etc. when we could either be relaxing from a tour or training for the next. I have no problem with a repeal but not during war and deployments. We are in it thick right now and don't need any more things to watch out for and from an NCO POV, I have to always be watching out for what is best for all my troopers Straight or Gay.

Sure, there are gay people in the military now, but they know that they must not cross a line.

That is amazingly offensive. There are so many inappropriate things a person can do at any given time, but yet for some reason gay people are more incapable of controlling themselves than straight people? And what on earth do child molester priests have to do with equal military employment rights?

It's obvious what you mean by taking your feelings into consideration. Your feelings are that gays must be "kept in line" because if you give them equal treatment they'll just go nuts and molest all the soldiers, just like priests molest children. Not firing someone just for being gay is the same as telling them to break all the rules about appropriate conduct that apply regardless of sexuality, right?

There are ugly aggressive women in the world, too, you know... Why not keep them out of the military? What's keeping ugly military girls from hitting on you? And if an ugly girl coming onto you isn't enough to cause a huge issue, why does a man coming onto you cause a huge issue? And by the way, women make up like 51% of the people in the world... gay men make up about 3%. So I'd wager your chances of unwanted interest from an undesirable woman are far greater than from any gay guy.

It's amazing that you can risk your life in the most dangerous, stressful conditions but yet you're somehow terrified of the gay boogieman.

James...yeah, right....All gay people are the cream of the crop and they need no rules or laws. It is obvious that you want to push your rights to the limit and couldnt care less about anyones rights other than your own....Lets just ignore possible problems....what could possibly happen??? One of the worst things that is happening to this country is the emergence of politically correct decisions without some thought about the results...Your attitude pushes for that.....NO laws or limitations for gay people...that would just be evil, right?

has any one found out if it is true that the kid who sent Wikileaks the Classified info did because he was fighting with his boyfriend?

I heard some soldier talking about it and was wondering if it was true.

such narrow minded posters... get a grip gays are NOT interested in YOU!

Oldtimer...what a simple, easy explanation. There should be no laws or rules that govern homosexuals. They are all good people and would never do or expect anything that would be illegal or a detriment to others. Apparently they are not individuals with various problems like the rest of us mortals. Is there any other group that deserves this kind of unconditional trust? Talk about simple minded....you have won the gold star there...

JA you've been arguing exactly the opposite -- that homosexuals deserve MORE rules and regulation than the rest of us BECAUSE they're just as human as everyone else. It's a dishonest position.

John b ...You know as well as I do that the problems with this will be overlooked because it is PC. There will not be one prosecutor that would want to prosecute any case against a homosexual...much less the first case....if he wants any career at all....Is that honest enough for you?

The pole was all messed up. for the jounior enlisted selected they did not check their Army Mail-AKO Because most of them were working and have better things to do than check AKO. After all we don't receive important things via AKO. So out of the 400K surveyed most likely it is 30 who checked their email and took the survey as more than likley everyone else was busy working. I truly hate when not every soldier is accounted for that like asking 1000 Soldier in the military if PT should be done away with and weight lift supplemented

Many of the things that we are now extremely proud of as Americans were pushed on us without full popular support. Do a Google search for images of Norman Rockwell paintings. We're not a democracy for good reasons.

The thing is, the military is not a democracy. By its own nature, it can't be. There is a chain of command and it is taken seriously.

Besides, running a war by committee is a sure way to get our soldiers and sailors killed outright. That's part of why we have the casualties in Afghanistan that we do.

Tammy: Is that also why we had so many killed in WW1 and WW2? You reasoning is flawed.

verno - commitees (politicians if you will) didn't rule in WWl and WWll. Military commanders were expected to seize every opportunity they could to advance. Their goals were simple defeat the bosch in WWl and defeat germany and japan in WWll.

Vietnam started out simple enough, let US advisers train S vietnamese troops. However it soon became a meandering, ill defined and costly conflict when committees of politicians took over.

In warfare as in life, well defined goals and the flexibility in thought to acheive them, do wonders.

american, I think you missed verno's point. I think they were pointing out that there was no rule by committee in WWI and WWII and yet still casualties. Proving that Tammy's reasoning doesn't hold water.

you are so full of emotional crap- Conservatives are almost always against liberals and vice versa. What is hard to understand about that?

Why is Indie full of crap? You're argument seems to be that liberals and conservatives are almost always against each other. Indie said McCain, a conservative, is mostly anti anything Obama, a liberal by McCain's own account. Therefore, Indie's comments and yours state the same thing she just didn't paint with as big a brush as you did. You chose to make sweeping charges. She kept it specific to the topic at hand....John "I got secrets" McCain and Lindsey "Buffing my straight credentials" Graham.

Yes.

Stall and block.

What?

Chicken-butt.

Yes... blow up and steal, blow up and steal

FYI -

The democrats still own the House until January. What's their excuse for no budget? It is the majority party's responsibility. It was due LAST April.

Drive by, the chicken butt thing took me down memory lane. We need more chicken butt takes. I don't care what color you paint your fence. I was down with the chicken butt.

And yet, Obama and the liberals just took an all-time historic slap down.

Thanks for the comedic relief.

Mmmm-hmmmm, and 62% of Americans said their vote was a protest of the bad economy. Only 19% said it was about health care.

Good luck in your efforts to repeal the 20th Century. We'll see how that works out.

John, do you have a link for that? I don't doubt it's true; I would like to have it for my own ammunition against people like bob.

I do, acidrain. Thanks for asking. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/first-exit-polls-economy/

John,

According to RCP's Sean Trende, only 23% blamed Obama for the economy ( 35% blamed Wall Street and 29% blamed Bush)

74% were mad about the federal government. 73% mad at Congress. 56% wanted the federal government to do less. 52% believed Obama's agenda was hurting the country.

But yea, they are no big fans of the Republicans. They just like the Democrats a lot less. (At least this time.)

acidbrain,

Don't ask John for links unless you want worthless links to 16 year old liberal bloggers and other nonesense sources. The common libbie links are thinkformeprogress, mediamattersdoesn'tmatter and always the gold standard of Keith and Rachel on PMSNBC.

Blaming Obama FOR the economy and blaming him for NOT DOING ENOUGH TO FIX IT is a nuance I think you are incapable of understanding, bob. It isn't compatible with your simple conservative worldview. (another way of saying it: your worldview is incompatible with reality)

Your Sean Trende (WTF is that?) stats seem to tell what people are ANGRY about, but not why they voted the way they did. I voted for dems, but I'm still mad at all of the above. That's a meaningless poll.

bob's fond of trying to poison the well, because he doesn't like the facts. Notice he doesn't have a lot of his own, certainly nothing he's willing to link to. He's also overlooked the fact that I haven't linked to Think Progress, Media Matters, OR MSNBC all day. I tend to go deeper, to their source links because the Conservatives would rather throw around logical fallacies than try to argue on the merits.

acid,

Blaming Obama FOR the economy and blaming him for NOT DOING ENOUGH TO FIX IT is a nuance I think you are incapable of understanding, bob.

No, I blame Obama for promoting his big government socialistic agenda at the expense of the economy and jobs.

It isn't compatible with your simple conservative worldview. (another way of saying it: your worldview is incompatible with reality)

Funny - the world's worldview of Obama is turning out to be pretty much the same as mine. They are going more conservative and realize he is an idiot too.

Your Sean Trende (WTF is that?) stats seem to tell what people are ANGRY about, but not why they voted the way they did. I voted for dems, but I'm still mad at all of the above. That's a meaningless poll.

I said RCP's Sean Trende. You don't know what Real Clear Politics is?

Wow. You are clueless.

No, I blame Obama for promoting his big government socialistic agenda at the expense of the economy and jobs

Hahaha, funny. You're not using that word correctly (socialistic). It doesn't mean what you think it means. Stop watching Glenn Beck; he's a moron.

Funny - the world's worldview of Obama is turning out to be pretty much the same as mine. They are going more conservative and realize he is an idiot too.

You'd like to think that. I don't see any proof of it. You're welcome to try to prove me wrong. Most of the world is baffled at the idiocy of the Tea Party.

I said RCP's Sean Trende. You don't know what Real Clear Politics is?

Well, I looked it up. It's a "non-partisan" site founded by some right wingers who think the media is too liberal. Big F*ing deal. Why should I know this? I don't follow conspiracy theorists. Anyone who says the media is too liberal is just trying to push a conservative agenda. End of story.

Wow. You are clueless.

And you're a rude @!$%# who ignores the COH.

Are you trying to imply that is Obama's fault? Because that would be the HEIGHT of ignorance. Bush started the war in Afghanistan, got distracted and lost THOUSANDS of troops in Iraq, and only recently have operations in Afghanistan picked up.

Remember, Rumsfeld said there were not enough targets in Afghanistan to drop bombs on, so they went to Iraq.

It was 6 years in Afghanistan under George Bush, elected in 2000, attacked in 2001, retaliated in 2002.

We should have been out of Afghanistan in 4 years, but George Bush decided it was better to invade Iraq and kill another 4,000+ Americans.

That's because Bush started a war and never finished it. Took his eye off the ball and got a few thousand of us killed somewhere else - not to mention civilians. So that makes this year's fatalities in Afgoneistan all Ombama's fault? Give me a break.

Dear Bob,

When President Obama gave the military an extra 30,000 troops to ramp up the war, it necessarily meant there would be more casualties. The generals even said as much. As much you would like to blame President Obama, unfortunately it is the state of war. Maybe if the war had been managed better from the get go. Oh well . . .

A huge percentage in the number of troops involved. Do the math before you speak.

I'll throw my two cents to the arm chair military experts, when Obama changed the ROE, Rule of Engagement for you military experts, he made it very difficult to fight. This ROE is putting our Soldiers in grave danger. With this BS ROE he put in he tied the Soldiers hands on how to engage the enemy.

Was it a good idea for the 30K surge-yes, but Obama needed to take off the gloves, pull the media out and let the Soldiers fight and finish it. Obama thinks he looks strong with the surge, but looks weak amoung the Troops.

acid, JoiG

Obama said Afghanistan is the war that needed to be fought, that Bush had taken his eye off the ball and that he would win it. He came into office, ordered more troops, changed the ROE, put a new guy in charge and tried to forget about it until the flap about him only talking to the new guy once in his first hundred days and record losses started piling up. He took almost a year to come up with a plan while the losses for the year doubled the previous yearly record under Bush. Then he threw in more troops and made the ridiculous and insane military decision of all time by announcing a pull out, effectively announcing a lose by date. Since then, he has sacrificed another 401 American lives in his doomed effort.

About Rumsfeld, yea, there weren't, but they started coming back when the anti-war liberals started gaining momentum and doubled down with a new liberal President coming into office.

Have a clue now?

eye,

The original push was over before 2002. The loses began in October 2001. Technically 87 months over 8 calender years. Sorry.

In retrospect, we should have been out in 4 months. Four years might have been possible with more public support in Iraq. Doubtful. Iraq was a different deal. Resources weren't compromised in Afghanistan to support Iraq. Nice shot though.

RiverRat,

"Afgoneistan all Ombama's fault? Give me a break."

How about some vowels, consonants and another try at speeling something.

Pippo,

Yea, do the math bud.

Obama is losing American lives at a monthly rate 7 TIMES Bush's losses.

(Check icasualties if you dare.)

Paul Florida,

Good points.

I don't buy the ROE argument. This is a new type of war; where we are fighting against terrorists operating inside a larger state that has little control over it's regions. We need the country to become powerful enough to police itself. You can't do that by bombing them into submission. The terrorists are already hidden all over the country in caves; bombs do nothing except destroy the goodwill of the people who's support we need. The regular Afghanistan citizens.

As for Obama "forgetting" about Afghanistan; that's your opinion. We can't know his level of involvement. He certainly spent too much time on HCR (although I put most of that blame on rethuglicans for denying, delaying, and lying). Obama doesn't fight the war; his generals do. And they can ask if they need something. Your position sounds an awful lot like "blame america first, when a democrat is in charge". You neglect to cover the escalation coming from the enemy. If Bush had finished the war, the terrorists would not have regrouped.

As for the "lose by" date, that's a BS argument. We still have troops in the country, and they are still hunting and capturing terrorists. The whole "but they only have to wait until we leave" argument is bunk. If they wait, then we have time to get the country to protect itself.

acidrain,

Do you even know the current ROE is? What the limitations that are in place? "Obama doesn't fight the war", that statement right there proves you don't know what you're taking about. I bet you your paycheck that Obama calls the shots.

No, I don't know the current ROE, but judging by your outlook on things, I'm sure you're going to say Obama is a communist that just hates the troops and wants to tie their hands behind their backs. You can respond with the actual ROE, if you'd like. It probably won't change my position.

As for the paycheck, pay up. The generals answer to the president, but the generals run the operations. Obama sets the policy. That is the role of the CINC.

If you do know the classified version of the ROE, please do not post it here. That would endanger our troops in Afghanistan.

So it's classified, but they are angry about a classified ROE that they don't even know?

Sounds like conservative directionless anger to me.

Under Bush the ROE, were bad enough - the largest loss in SEAL history and maybethe deadliest single day of the war happened because of politically correct ROE. It was bad, for instance in Iraq, where a guy could shoot at you from a house, put down his gun a walk out the back door and you couldn't shoot him because he didn't have a gun on him. He'd go down the block, go into another house where a cache was a start shooting at you again when you came down the street. It's WORSE under Obama. Insane.

About the citizens, people of Afghanistan? When Obama announced that we do not have the will to fight except until the middle of 2011, everyone from every village elder to every goat herder knew the Taliban had won. When in history was an American President been this stupid and made such an announcement? Asinine.

I'm not blaming America (I'm conservative not a liberal) I'm blaming Obama for a specific action that no one can defend.

OK, Obama didn't forget about Afghanistan. I'm sure he was reminded every morning in the PDAs, we was just clueless and had no idea. He shot his mouth off about Afghanistan and now had to put up. It took him a YEAR to come up with a plan. KIAs doubled as he dithered. The four deadliest months of the war occurred almost consecutively while he dithered.

I know the Taliban are escalating. They smell weakness.

The world knows it is over. Obama knows it's over, now all he does is kick the can down the road till 2014.

It was over when they started it and left to go to Iraq. Afghanistan swallowed up part of the Russian army. What made you think it was going to go better for us?

"About the citizens, people of Afghanistan? When Obama announced that we do not have the will to fight except until the middle of 2011, everyone from every village elder to every goat herder knew the Taliban had won. When in history was an American President been this stupid and made such an announcement? Asinine."

That's your opinion. Were you told this by the citizens? Actually, Bush was that stupid, with Iraq. So pretty recently.

The thing that many (especially those who have never served) do not realize is that war and combat are not 'politically correct' - and they shouldn't be.

War is the last resort when diplomacy fails. The time for political correctness is over.

Battle should be fought to win and with extreme prejudice. Anything else leaves our soldiers and sailors vulnerable to unnecessary danger.

This is why Congress is responsible for declaring war, but the President is responsible for executing the war.

Consider this country's history with war -

Wars that we have gone into to 'win', we have a tendency to win. (WWI, WWII, Gulf War, Spanish-American)

However, 'Police Actions', by definition, are unwinnable. Vietnam was a 'police action', as was Korea. Afghanistan and Iraq, though a declared war, have been fought as 'police actions' which is why we are suffering casualties at the current rate.

We need to pull off the kid gloves and treat a war as a war so that we cn bring our men and women home.

Tammy: re-read message 8.8. You can call is PC all you want, but what I said stands. You can't win a war in Afghanistan against terrorists unless we leave at some point and they stand on their own. They won't stand on their own (or fight against extremism) if they hate the US. You can't fight an all out war against an insurgency. This isn't WWII.

I don't know what you mean by "treat(ing) a war as a war". Are you saying that we should just bomb the @!$%# out of the country? That is going to accomplish nothing. Innocent people will die, and terrorists living in the mountains will just wait it out. Exactly how are they supposed to pull off the gloves?

It's telling that 92% of Afghanistans don't know about 9/11. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20023451-503543.html

They don't even know why we are in their country blowing everything up. We are hunting hiding rats in the countryside; it doesn't matter WHEN we leave, they will still be hiding. The only way we can "win" is if the Afghan people continue to fight extremism after we're gone.

Tammy,

Your comments were priceless in their truth.

War is the ultimate tragedy, but if you have to go to war, it must be fought as you say "to win and with extreme prejudice."

Acid,

They won't stand on their own (or fight against extremism) if they hate the US. You can't fight an all out war against an insurgency. This isn't WWII.

So many fail to realize that the Taliban wantonly disregard/kill more civilians than we injure accidentally. It doesn't matter. They hate the terrorist and Taliban. It doesn't matter.

What matters - The Taliban will be there, we won't be. They win.

Actually it is even more simplistic. The people see Americans with their high tech weapons, communications, armour, air power on and on ...and then they watch as goat herders with AKs shoot at them while the Americans call for permission to return fire. They think it is insane. They know the Taliban will win.

Tammy is right. If you decide to go to war - fight to win, your not making nice. Kill the bad guys, then clean up and rebuild.

You are wrong. It is war - just like WWII, only on a smaller scale.

And until liberals realize what Tammy said, we will probably never win another war.

Such a tragedy.

AcidRain,

For one thing read about the current ROE and what in tells.

"So it's classified, but they are angry about a classified ROE that they don't even know?"

LOL, that statement below is why you don't know Chit!! LOL, CINC, did you have to look that up? What you just said below is that Obama sets the policy, meaning he gives HIS ORDERS to the Commander to carry out, if he fails that mission he answers to the President AKA CINC. Then in the eyes of the President if he doesn't feel like the mission is completed he gets fired and a new General replaces him. Go watch the Military Channel and try to make sense on what you're trying to say. 20 yrs in the Army as a 1st Sergeant I might know a few things about the military.

"As for the paycheck, pay up. The generals answer to the president, but the generals run the operations. Obama sets the policy. That is the role of the CINC."

Fernando,

I've never posted anything I have access too. It's amusing to see the arm chair Warriors that think they know what's going on via MSNBC. What I do know and the last 22 yrs, I'm fully aware of OPSEC and thanks for your concerns.

Bob, you're completely full of @!$%#. You have no idea what you are talking about. Prove that the ROE do not allow them to respond to an attack without permission. It's BS. It is war, but not like WWII. Not even close. WWII was about an INVADING FORCE. Afghanistan is not. Typical conservative to think we just aren't using enough force and if we'd only just untie the gloves everything would be wonderful. Typical conservative to pretend we are being too liberal. You see liberal boogey men everywhere you look. Go take some meds.

Paul, no, I did not have to look up CINC. That comment that I made was to fernando; he said it was classified. You'we proved my point; I expect a paycheck.

Hey Paul,

Thank you for your service, it was more of a blanket statement in case there is a "Joe" on here who forgot about OPSEC.

acid,

The Taliban know our ROE and take full advantage at every opportunity. Many patrols are ambused in areas populated by civilians. The Obama ROE are to protect the civilians, hence the calls. A lot of books have been written about Afghanistan and Iraq. Read one, or unless you are willfully ignorant as opposed to just plain stupid..

Acid,

Just so you understand about the versions of the ROE. There is a blanket ROE for any operation, to include humanitarian relief, wars, police actions, whatever the military does. That ROE can be adjusted to fit the needs of the commander at the lowest level. In other words, a commander can decide to change the ROE if he feels that he could better accomplish his/her mission. The ROE cannot be used to break the law though, so a commander cannot say, "hey guys, go out and kill whoever you want". The commander will also have to ask for permission from higher to change the local ROE. It is a very complicated way of fighting a war, which generally leaves junior soldiers confused about whether or not they are committing a crime by defending themselves and the servicemembers to their left or right.

FM 27-100 can give you a better understanding of how the ROE is established.

So then maybe you shouldn't vote for village idiot presidents that get us into unwinnable wars; because you aren't going to win in Iraq or Afghanistan by Shock & Awe tactics.

No, they need to survey both - and they have.

Sara, I agree with you. This issue is similar to women serving on ships or women in combat. Let those who are most impacted by the decision review and decide.

I'm ex-Navy and I find this debate sad. When I served (mid 80's) there were a several gay men on the ship (probably more, but we only knew for certain of a few)...bottom line is, it didn't matter to me or my shipmates. The military (like all of us) is very resistant to change, and sometimes they need to be pushed. If the people at the top hadn't been pushed by various administrations, we wouldn't have women or black people in the military.

It's time to stop this DADT nonsense and let people be open about who they are. Yes, there will be a small percentage that gets bent out of shape - but if someone lets their personal morality dictate how they carry out their duties - I don't want them on my ship anyway.

Ron,

I thought it's not gay if you're away?? Sorry, had to bust your chops, retired Army.

DADT doesn't go far enough.

If you think about it.

DADT should extend to everyone. I don't want to here anything about anyones sex life. Everyone should just shut up about what happens in thier personnel lives and Whoo Lah, the problem goes away.

Gundeck: Agreed. It shouldn't matter. The problem is that if it DOES become public knowledge, for whatever reason, it is used to kick people out of the military. That's bad for us as a country.

Ron - I completely agree with you. A persons sexual preference has no determination of their ability to carryout their job duties, and ability to fulfill the duties of the job is the important part! I would rather serve with an openly gay person that with someone who can't seperate their personal feelings from their job responsibilites.

59% of service members are in favor of repealling DADT.

I don't believe that...if so they want it repealed and replaced with Ask, Tell, No Thank You.

That's what the whole survey McCain said he's waiting for is about. It will be released Dec 1--leaks says that most of the military don't care. Tis is why McCain is suddenly calling the survey "flawed." Funny, when he doesn't agree with the results, it's "flawed."

Can you imagine what a horrid President he would have made??

Better than the current President...

America would be well on it's way to collapse if McCan't had won. We'd be at war in 2 more countries (Iran and North Korea), possibly 4 more if you include France and Russia (Palin can see it from Alaska, you know). John "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" McCain would have laid off half the federal workforce and we'd be at 20% unemployment. And GM would have gone under.

Remember the guy that said the study is fundamentally flawed said the economy was fundamentally sound, right before he suspended his campaign to rush to Washington to grandstand about the economy being near collapse John McCain is still stupid, he was at the very bottom of his class and he still is. The last idea he had was Sarah Palin as his running mate, ha ha ha maybe you should have waited for a study John. The policy now requires servicemen to lie, lying is wrong, we all know that, how can anybody support an official policy that requires a person to lie. Duty Honor Country or just lie!

Although it's easy to say vote for that change, for most people, DADT isn't a big enough issue to kick out a politician who is against it. We vote for our own interests. Unless we are gay or have gay people in our family, most don't care.

Oh, that's right...it's so hard for gay men to find boy friends they have to risk their lives by joining the army to find someone.

They have polled them, and 59% say that DADT should be repealled.

What? That made no sense at all......

Makes perfect sense actually--gay men and women have been willing to die for this country so they should be allowed to serve without having to lie about themselves everyday.

Bart, so how are they lying about themselves if it's DADT? How would I know if they're gay? So, Jean's post doesn't make sense.

I never went up to any of my Soldiers and asked if they were gay. Did I know of any Soldiers that were gay-yes I did.

The thing is sexuality of any sort has no place in the military. DADT just means that they can't flaunt it. If ANYONE flaunts any type of sexuality - either way - it is punishable under the UCMJ. I don't, and the military doesn't, care if it's between strangers, friends, or spouses. Public Displays of Affection (PDA) are against regulations!

Does it exist? Emphatically yes! Should sexual orientation be flaunted in front of others? NO! It is a form of PDA and has no place in the military, thus DADT - and it goes for 'straights' as well as homosexuals.

Tammy, it has nothing to do with 'flaunting it'. It has to do with witch hunts, personal vendetta's, and service men and women being fingered as gay, regardless of 'when' they do these things. If a service member is on leave, and is seen kissing a woman, no one would raise an eyebrow. If a gay member was seen kissing a member of the same sex on leave, he would be discharged. if someone gets ticked at someone else, and claims they are gay, it starts a series of ugly investigations and potentially trials, regardless of the truth. It damages morale. No one is saying that these folks will be able to 'flaunt' their sexuality. All service members are required to act in accordance with military policy regardless of their sexual preference. No exceptions. What they are saying is that they shouldn't be discharged for simply being gay, saying "I love you" to a missed love one via Email, or kissing their mate after a few years overseas when returning home on leave. It costs the tax payer thousands of dollars in training and lost time/wages when they discharge someone under DADT. It is unconstitutional and a violation of the basic right to free speech.

The military is not above the law.

witch hunt?, DJ did you ever serve? By the way I've seen people use there sexualty to get out of deployments that's a fact.

Tammy, you're 100% right. You still in?

Paul & Tammy: What Tammy said proves her WRONG. f it's already against policy to "flaunt" it, then why is DADT needed?

Any other groups of people who should be publicly identified, just so we know who they are? I'll bet you're a fan of "American Exceptionalism" too, aren't you?

"Caught by surprise"? WTH are you talking about? Would you prefer we made them wear yellow arm bands? How about we make them all live in one neighborhood? Then we could build them their own camp, and give them free train rides to it.

How about we make them all live in one neighborhood?

That's a little extreme. However, they should stay in separate living quarters and have their own showers just like straight men and straight women.

What, so they can make sure they don't drop the soap?

And frankly, from what I hear about sexual assault of women in the armed forces by male members, I doubt that separate showers or quarters would really make a difference. But certainly no one has ever suggested that straight men not be allowed to serve, because of the threat that a few bad apples pose to female service members. So the threat of some pansy prancing around the communal shower room and grabbing men's junk is really besides the point, since we regularly staff the military with different groups that are a threat to one another anyway.

The point here NOT being that gays will be sexually assaulting anyone (though, as with all groups, there's bound to be a few people that do something they shouldn't). Rather, the arguments in favor of DADT seem to be ones that are conveniently forgotten in regards to other elements of the military status quo.

It seems to me that those concerned about unwanted advances or worse should look at the issues currently experienced by women in the military. Either we've got to go back to not allowing both genders in (something few would probably argue nowadays), or military culture has to change and demand higher standards of everyone. Cracking down on flaws in the system that contribute to high rates of male-on-female sexual assault, and by extension establishing clear standards of what's expected between heterosexuals and homosexuals, will do a lot more good than cherry-picking the hypothetical plight of heterosexuals if DADT is repealed and pretending what already goes on isn't happening and will only become a problem if you let some people tell the truth about themselves. The US military is not Eden waiting to be spoiled by the presence of gays serving openly.

"the gay personnel will receive bad treatment from the percentage of people who find them repulsive."

Same was true of black people. That was also wrong.

Good luck finding that job, seeker. I find many things people do in private repulsive, including using the toilet and not washing their hands. Anyway, I appreciate you declaring your bigotry openly. Most of "you people" are too cowardly to wear it on your sleeve.

I have nothing against mentally ill people. They should all the rights of people who are not afflicted.

"I have nothing against mentally ill people. They should all the rights of people who are not afflicted."

Really. I mean, look at the 2000 and 2004 elections and how many of 'em voted. There were SO many, in fact, they managed to elect one of their own to the presidency.

drive-by-observer

I totally agree. Everyone should have the same rights including Bush voters, Obama voters and homosexuals. No one should be denied equal rights, even if you are mentally ill. Make no mistake, no matter what the left has convinced the APA to decide, homosexuals are mentally ill. I feel bad for their affliction.

So your opinion versus theirs, and versus that of most other prominent medical institutions nowadays? Tough call.

@ JOBSEEKER

We knew who the 2 gays on the boat or 1500 were. And we stayed clear of them and when we went on long deployments, the captain made them stay in home port....there is a reason for that. They were not too openly fem most of the time but everyone knew. One guy was caught by the police in town ( we were stationed on the island of Guam) prostituting on the street in drag. Cum on !!! WE dont want and we dont need.... the answer is just plain ol N-O.

They break up moral. There is a WHOLE section of every military called MORAL AND WELFARE. Every branch has it even if its under another name. Ever heard of the U.S.O. ? There is a REASON the military goes through GREAT lengths to make sure and keep up the moral and welfare of the military. ITS TOUGH ENOUGH AS IT IS, then throw drag queens in the whole pile...NO WAY, it would never work.

Only 2 gays out of 1500 and one gets caught prostituting as a woman on the street...thats 50/50 chance that the homos will cause MAJOR problems....I did not even mention the other stuff they pulled while on board. Even when we were on short deployments and they went....they were always pushin and flirtin and causin trouble....NO THANKS.

They never "admitted" they were gay so they couldnt be kicked out. We put up with them and all but....that was only 2 out of 1500. Imagine if there were more....NO WAY, NEVER HAPPEN. Thats why so many high ranking officers said they would get out if the politicians MADE them accept gays in their military...NEVER WORK!

We knew who the 2 gays on the boat or 1500 were.

Only 2 gays out of 1500 and one gets caught prostituting as a woman on the street...thats 50/50 chance that the homos will cause MAJOR problems.

So I suppose you monitored all 1,500 men 24 hours a day before, during, and after their service and were completely sure that only 2 of them had ever had sex with a man or were attracted to men.

What a joke. There is a reason you only knew of 2 gays on your boat, and it's not because there were only 2 gays on the boat. There aren't a lot of feminine men chomping at the bit to join the military, you know.

And by the way, it's spelled "morale".

DADT is a civilan law. UCMJ has nothing to do with this particular debate.

If your argument rang true, it would me that the US Military would be a white men only club.

Please try again.

I made much the same comment at 18.4.

Anyone who has actually served in the military knows that sexuality has no place in the military, whether between heterosexuals, bisexuals, or homosexuals. What people do when they are off duty and not in uniform the military doesn't really say much about, as long as it does not reflect on the military - and that goes for any sexual leanings. But in uniform? It's a whole different ball game. I know of people who were prosecuted under the UCMJ for lolding hands - while in uniform - and they were married.

Why should the homosexual population be treated any differently?

Tammy, you show a serious lack of understanding of what DADT is, and what repealing it will provide. These people are being ejected on nothing more than testimony. They aren't being caught screwing in public, on the lunch tables, or anything of the sort. All to often, all it takes is an accusation, and something as simple as scanning the service members mail for an "XO" to a non-family member of the same sex. This isn't going to allow orgies in the showers, holding hands in the rec hall, or anything of the sort. It will not treat gay members any differently in than hetero members. They will all have to comply with the same standard. That's the whole point.

You must be very unAmerican. You must hate America if you don't have friends who want to extend civil rights to all Americans.

Maybe you need to broaden your horizons and meet some new people?

I wasn't talking to you; moron. You've probably never met a gay person in your life.

Most likely at a gay pride parade. Typical liberal taticts..or should I say communist taticts.

@ Brad: What the hell is a "tatict"

I can take a guess, does it start with a crooked letter? Or did Nina Simone write a song about where you live? Just kidding.