Obama-Fawning Continues At MSM

Barack Obama said something that sniffed a bit like a whopper today -- and not the hamburger kind. Not that anyone in the media bothered to question it.

The story is all over the media, from an interview Obama gave to The Advocate, a gay newspaper. In it, he says he'll do what he can to make military life better for gays, and criticizes "don't ask don't tell" thusly:

"We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."

Really? We've been kicking out Arab speaking gays? I'd like a bit of verification, please.

I'm not sure about "don't tell," but reporters sure have a "don't ask" attitude about Obama. Outlets that have run the story without fact-checking the quote include CNN, the Guardian, Military.com, Town Hall, Fox News, The Boston Globe, and Stars & Stripes -- all of them, and many, many more carrying the same AP story without a question.

As it turns out, a second or two on the good ol' WWW could have given reporters an initial, iffy answer to the question, if they had thought to ask it:

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has only six (6) fluent Arabic speakers out of 33 who speak Arabic. Yet, despite the Bush administration’s lip-service to a need for more Arabic speakers, the U.S. military has fired over two dozen linguists for being gay: 20 were Arabic linguists, 6 were Farsi linquists. (source)

Even if the statement is true -- it's linked to a Carpetbagger Report post that links the source for the quote to The New Republic (hardly a credible source!) via a broken link that lands you on the home page, where a search for "pentagon linguists arabic" lands you nothing.) -- it's disingenuous.

The number of fluent Arabic speakers in the Baghdad embassy is a useless piece of information deliberately used to make the problem appear big because the number is so small. But there are linguists elsewhere besides the embassy, from Forward Operating Bases to Central Command to the NSA.

But at least I asked the question. I thought the days when reporters grabbed the news releases from the candidates and ran them without a question ended with Watergate. But I guess that only goes for Republicans.

Thank You, Ronnie!

Here's a nice short clip of our wayward satellite being blasted to smithereens by an Aegis-fired missile.

This technology is, of course, an offshoot of Reagan's much-maligned "star wars" anti-missile defense system initiative. Some of that criticism sounded pretty good for a while as dismal hit records were amassed during system tests -- but that's the nature of discovery: We need the failures to figure out the right way to do things.

But the critics never shut up, as detailed by Gizmodo (which also has a longer and very interesting video clip):

Some experts criticized the plan as probable failure during the past days, with the argument that the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, part of the Ballistic Missile Defense System being developed by the US Missile Defense Agency, wasn't designed to do this and, therefore, it wasn't going to be able to hit the target and destroy it effectively.

Their reasons were three: first, the kinetic warhead, launched in a long range standard missile, [...] isn't designed to destroy targets by explosion but by the sheer force of multiple impacts. While this is enough to destroy other incoming missiles, the critics said that this wasn't going to be enough to destroy the much larger satellite. Second was the speed of the target, which was traveling at double the speed of the missiles which are the usual target of the Aegis. And third, the tracking system, which wasn't originally designed to operate in high orbits.

Blah, blah, blah ... kaboom! So much for the nay-sayers.

If You're So Angry, Why Should We Call You "Gay?"

Yesterday, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was all worked up because Joint Chiefs of Staff prez. General Peter Pace called homosexuals immoral.

But when it turns out the gays, lesbians and whatever elses the Network represents are actually being treated better by the military, well, it's Big Snit, Act Two:

The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released today, continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay and lesbian personnel because it needs them in a time of war.

According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 who were discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001, but in the past five years that average has fallen below 730.

Well, that should make advocates of gays in the military happy, shouldn't it? Even if it makes the guy in the foxhole a bit nervous.

Think again, Breeder. Here's what the gay advocates at the Network say:

"It is hypocritical that the Pentagon seems to retain gay and lesbian service members when they need them most, and fires them when it believes they are expendable." (WaPo)

So do I have that straight (if that's the right term)? The gays want to be in the military as long as they're not needed, but if they're needed, well, they have a big problem with that?

C'mon, you emotional babies! You're not representing gays well by acting like a bunch of sissies in a mad pout.

Hang In There, General Pace!

It's been leaked by senior aides that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — despite a lot of lip-flapping from homosexuality advocacy groups.

You've certainly heard Pace's comment by now:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Hangin' right out there with the truth, unafraid. Like he was a Marine or something. As expected, the reaction was swift:

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site. (source)

Interesting ... there are currently about 1.4 million people serving in the armed services, so this group appears to be going with gays being less than 5% of the population, not 10%. Cool ... but I digress.

The Massachusetts Dem (natch!) who introduced legislation to replace the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy with full acceptance of gay, lesbian, transgender and who knows what else in the military also was having a hissy little snit over the General:

"General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military. He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination." (source)

Is that so? Meehan didn't bother to quote a source, most likely because he was, as Incredible Wife has noted of my opinions from time to time, talking out his butt. Verification of his butt-talk comes from Jim, the Johnny Appleseed of story-planting in C-SM, who sent these AOL survey results over a bit ago:

How do you feel about Pace's comments?

Agree: 64%
Disagree: 33%
Not sure: 3%

Yeah, yeah, it's not scientific -- but considering that most polls that claim to accurately predict the national opinion do so on the basis of about 1,500 votes, let's not kid overselves. General Pace's comments are mainstream and acceptance of them is about on a par with votes in support of various states' initiatives proclaiming that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

In an interesting sidebar to the noisiness of the gay lobby, it's interesting to note that Pace also said this:

"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."

So, where are the howls of protest from the adultry lobby? Anyone? Anyone?