Page 1 of 1

Don't ask, Don't tell who foots the bill?

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:23 pm
by raum
OK, so the whole beauty of the Don't ask, don't tell is it was supposed to resolve all those gays who wanted in the military, right? I haven't heard much from the ACLU about gay rights to go to the middle east, lately... but the polls are in.

Bill Clinton instituted "don't ask, don't tell" to appease the gay contigency in the military,.. but it did not do a damn thing. Gays still get kicked out of the military, and get persecuted until they do get kicked out. Most gays I have known have no business with a sharp pencil and a rubber band, much less an anti-tank weapon or automatic rifle,.. and I suspect there were few, if any exceptions. So, the SHEER BRILLIANCE of not asking people if they are gay, WHICH DISQUALIFIES THEM FROM MILITARY DUTY, lets them hope they can keep it a secret, and still serve until they are honorably discharged.

But, alas, things are not so easy. And thus, Don't ask don't tell... and then when you get discovered, you still get dishonored.

How much has this cost us, you might wonder, in funds used to train troops that never made it to honorable discharge because THEY DID NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS to even be in the military. 363+ MILLION DOLLARS. That's right, more money we could have used elsewhere. A sloppy democratic compromise that cost more than 1 third of a billion dollars from losses incurred for training people who did not meet your base requirements.

The fact is clear - either you allow gays in the military, or you don't. If you do not allow gays, you have to ask EVERYONE who tries to volunteer if they are gay. If they are, they are "overqualified."

I must admit, Mrs. Clinton's decisions sound dumber and dumber everyday. And Hillary was the first who openly mentioned this *informally* as her way to deal with the issue her husband was facing when gays wanted in the military. Soon after, he instituted it, and only a sect few of us really got that this was basically like saying "we are no longer screening our applicants for the necessary qualifications." It solved nothing, and was a costly lesson in learning sometimes people have to learn that they may be offended when discriminated against.