Be on the lookout for a ‘platoon of lesbians’

February 8, 2007

I’m delighted to see that Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and I are on the same page about reaching out to the government-trained military linguists, removed from duty because of their sexual orientation. (Carpetbagger regular Michael W already mentioned this in comments, but I wanted to give it a post of its own.)

Condoleezza Rice got a grilling Wednesday [before the House Foreign Affairs Committee] when she bemoaned “the foreign language deficit that we have” and how much the government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers during an appearance on Capitol Hill….

After she complained several times that the department was facing a problem finding translators an exasperated Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) asked why the department had not hired any of the translators fired by the Pentagon because they are gay and lesbian.

Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” more than two dozen Arabic translators have been dropped since the war in Iraq began.

“It seems that the Defense Department has a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ when it comes to homosexuals. You don’t have such a prohibition in your agency, do you?” Ackerman asked Rice. “No, we do not,” Rice replied.

“Well, it seems that the military has gone around and fired a whole bunch of people who speak foreign languages — Farsi and Arabic, etc.,” Ackerman told her. He added, “For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, but they’re very brave with the terrorists,” Ackerman said. “If the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad.”

Rice was reportedly not amused by the comment, and refused to make any commitments, other than to say that she “will look [at] what we are doing right now.” (I think the answer is “not much.”)

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network noted that “our government could go a long way in addressing the shortage of language expertise by doing just as Congressman Ackerman suggests. SLDN would be happy to introduce Secretary Rice to our many clients who speak Arabic but have been dismissed because of the ban.”

See how easy this would be, Secretary Rice?

In related news, on the heels of two new polls showing broad support for allowing gay Americans to serve in the military, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), who helped write the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy 14 years ago, is poised to unveil legislation to undo the policy.

Meehan, who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on oversight and investigation, introduced a similar bill in the last Congress that garnered 122 co-sponsors, including now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Meehan’s bill was bottled up by Republicans and never got out of committee. So far, roughly 70 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, and Meehan is continuing to seek additional backers and wants to get to at least 100 before he drops his new bill. […]

“Our military is stretched to the breaking point,” Meehan wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter he circulated on Monday seeking backers for his bill. “Extended deployments and frequent redeployments are the norm for our Armed Forces right now. Everyone from the new Democratic leadership in Congress to Senator [John] McCain to President Bush has recognized that our military is not large enough to handle all of the demands placed upon it.”

Meehan added: “Yet, because of the discriminatory policy set up in the 1993 more than 11,000 able-bodied, capable and willing soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women have been kicked out of the military for no other reason than their sexual orientation.”

Meehan is now looking for Republican co-sponsors — and a senator who’ll champion a similar measure in the other chamber.

If he would just title the bill Let’s Kill The Gays he could get all the Repubs to co-sponsor

  • I’d like to see a survey of the wingnuts that asked them if they’re more concerned about gay people getting rights than they are about terrorists getting WMDs. I’ll bet a significant fraction of them are.

    And I can’t wait to hear someone ask why the military is stretched so thin when half the country (Republicans) think we’re locked in a death match with the forces of evil? Why are there so many yellow elephants?

  • Set your clocks. I’m guessing it will be about 20 hours till we get a fresh wave of wingnut outrage: Ackerman debases hallowed halls of congress and insinuates Condi is gay !!!

  • ***…they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad.” ***

    I’ll go one better: Lesbian Sharia. The ultimate weapon against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly wanna-be’s the world over. Dobsonites will commit mass suicide. Donohue-ists will fling themselves into the sea. Jonah Goldberg will leave a note acknowledging that he’s intellectually inferior to roadkill—and then hurl himself under the wheels of an oncoming bus….

  • Gays in the State Department? That is so 1950s. I mean, don’t those ambassadors have to shower with each other?

  • Racerx – Your comment spawned a thought. Why are gays more patriotic than yellow elephants? Gays are at least willing to serve their country in the armed forces.

    Thanks Rep. Ackerman! More proof that comedy has a well known liberal bias.

  • Everybody knows all gays are being blackmailed by KGB agents. Even Hoover’s pedicurist knew that.

    I like that, yellow elephants. When Bush gets the tremens he sees yellow elephants. Try not to think of a yellow elephant. The yellow elephant in the room. Republicans are blind men describing a yellow elephant.

  • This is surreal, because the word from people tapped into the GLBT community is that Condi Rice’s sexual orientation is not exactly a secret.

  • “Extended deployments and frequent redeployments are the norm for our Armed Forces right now. Everyone from the new Democratic leadership in Congress to Senator [John] McCain to President Bush has recognized that our military is not large enough to handle all of the demands placed upon it.”

    Uh yeah. The Bush who started this mess. The same Bush who presented gay marriage the number two threat to American civilization. Also the same Bush who will veto this bill if it passes. Oh well.

    I know I’m being picky but it irks me that this is being presented as a “Hey, we need more bullet catchers!” measure. I understand why he’s doing it this way and it will make it very hard for right wankers in office to object on reasonable grounds (not that this stops them). Plus, from my reading of the bill no one who was kicked out will be forced to return. Still, I think anyone who does go back should get a profuse apology and thank you from the DoD.

    Meanwhile, ObL tries to get in touch with this character: http://www.hotheadpaisan.com/ so she can chase soldiers out of Baghdad

    I’d like to see a survey of the wingnuts that asked them if they’re more concerned about gay people getting rights than they are about terrorists getting WMDs.

    [racerx]

    Trying to understand the difference between Gs with Rs and Ts with WMDs would be too much for the average wingnut brain. It would experience a major meltdown and leave the wingie unable to think, speak or vote…So it would be worth a try either way!

  • Hold on a minute; the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is the result of a law passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton.
    .
    Ackerman was right to point out that the State Department missed an opportunity to hire qualified people, but he undermined his argument and his party’s military credentials with his unecessary and misdirected rant against the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
    .
    Maybe the military likes the policy, maybe they don’t. Certainly they had their own unfair policies before Congress stepped in. But once Congress stepped in, the military was basically off the hook and Congress hopped on it. If Ackerman doesn’t like the policy (good for him) he’s in a good position to change it. The military can’t.

  • Could you include an “EMail this to”: etc etc etc in your site. I have friends with whom I would like to share some of your artiucles.
    Thanks
    David Chisholm

  • Uh, David (Post #14), there’s a “mailto” link just below the title of the post. It says “Email this”.

    One thing that always irks me about these stories is that most of the time, people forget the third part of it. “Don’t Pursue.” Of course, the military routinely ignores that part, depending on how bigotted the CO is, but I rarely see opponents of the policy bringing this up. If the military “pursues” then they are in violation of the policy.

    It’s reminiscent of another thing that irks me about the “Boy Scouts Suing ” cases that keep popping up. They always focus on the fact that the BSA can discriminate against gays, but they rarely mention that they can also discriminate against non-theists, agnostics,and anyone else who doesn’t believe in whatever version of god is popular at the moment. Religion (or lack thereof) is covered in civil rights law, thus the BSA is in violation of established constitutional law.

    • Comments are closed.