She ain't just sure...she's HIV Positive.

[Lonestar]

Ripped from Early Bird

Washington Post
July 24, 2008
Pg. 3

Washington Sketch

Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told

By Dana Milbank

Don't ask, don't tell. And, whatever you do, don't ask Elaine Donnelly to tell you what she thinks about gays in the military.

The House Armed Services personnel subcommittee made just such a miscalculation yesterday. Holding the first hearing in 15 years on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, lawmakers invited a quartet of veterans to testify on the subject and also extended an invitation to Donnelly, who has been working for years to protect our fighting forces from the malign influence of women.

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks.

"We're talking about real consequences for real people," Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier.

At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief. Retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who was wounded in Iraq, looked as if he would explode.

Inadvertently, Donnelly achieved the opposite of her intended effect. Though there's no expectation that Congress will repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military, the display had the effect of increasing bipartisan sympathy for the cause.

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement "just bonkers" and "dumb," and he called her claims about an HIV menace "inappropriate." Said Snyder: "By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country."

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a veteran of the war in Iraq, called Donnelly's words "an insult to me and many of the soldiers" by saying they "aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission."

Retorted Donnelly: "What would you say to Cynthia Yost, the woman on a training exercise assaulted by a group of lesbians?"

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at Darrah and glared at Donnelly. "Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman's sexual orientation, when it didn't interfere one bit with her service?"

Donnelly said something about "forced intimacy."

Shays cut her off. "You're saying she has no right to serve her country because she happens to have a different sexual orientation than you."

Donnelly returned to the case of "Cynthia Yost . . . assaulted by a group of lesbians." She neglected to mention that the incident was alleged to have occurred in 1974.

It was tempting to think that Donnelly had been chosen by Democrats to sabotage the case against open military service for homosexuals. But Republicans had consented to the witness panel, which also included retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, a black man who likened the current policy to racial segregation in the military, and retired Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, who argued almost as passionately as Donnelly for the need to keep the military straight.

The subcommittee chairwoman, Susan Davis (D-Calif.), asked for the "utmost respect," and John McHugh (N.Y.), the ranking Republican, urged a "civil discussion." That held up as Coleman spoke of one of the openly gay soldiers who served with him in Korea, Darrah spoke of the "constant fear of being outed and fired," and Alva spoke of his lost leg and how he "nearly died to secure rights for others that I myself was not free to enjoy."

Then came Donnelly, severe in a black jacket with a flag pin on her lapel as she attacked the "San Francisco left who want to impose their agenda on the military." She spoke of the "devastating" effect gay soldiers would have on the military and said "people who do have religious convictions" would be driven out of the military by the "sexualized atmosphere."

"We are not talking about a Hollywood role here," Donnelly lectured the lawmakers.

Donnelly was followed by Jones, a tough-talking businessman who suggested that the military's tradition of "selfless service" would be undermined by gay men and lesbians. "In the military environment, team cohesion, morale and esprit de corps is a matter of life and death," he said. His written statement spelled it "esprit decor"; it also warned of "a band of lesbians that harassed new females," and noted his own military experience when "the only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat -- which means skin to skin."

But it was Donnelly, founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, who amused lawmakers the most. Snyder asked Darrah about Donnelly's reference to "passive-aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," saying, "I'm almost tempted to ask you to demonstrate."

Darrah was stumped. "Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at," Donnelly explained. She further explained the "absolutely devastating" effect of homosexuals "introducing erotic factors" and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."

Murphy puffed his cheeks with air to calm himself. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said she was "shocked." Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said she was "embarrassed." Shays said it was "scurrilous" of Donnelly to talk about the menace of homosexual misconduct, because it would be punished the same way the military punishes heterosexual misconduct.

Shays, his voice rising with Yankee indignation, continued to lecture Donnelly: "I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unpatriotic. I think it's counterproductive. In fact, I think it is absolutely cruel."

Donnelly said something about her respect for the service of gay veterans. "How do you respect their service?" Shays demanded. "You want them out."

Donnelly seemed to have unified the lawmakers -- against her. The next questioner was Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy vice admiral. "I couldn't ask it better than you did," he told Shays.

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks.

...The Hell?

[Ender]

Where the fuck did this bitch come from? Another Phyllis Schaflay style "feminist"?

[Aaron]

Where the fuck did this bitch come from? Another Phyllis Schaflay style "feminist"?

She's apperently president of these folk. Check out her bio:

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that concentrates on military personnel issues. CMR advocates high, single standards in training, assignment policies that are consistent with military realities as well as American cultural values, and sound defense spending priorities that strengthen morale, discipline and readiness. In October 2003 CMR celebrated its 10th Anniversary.

In 1984, then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger appointed Mrs. Donnelly to be a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) for a three-year term. In 1992 she was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a member of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

As a member of the DACOWITS and the presidential commission, Mrs. Donnelly participated in fact-finding visits to numerous military bases all over the country, including the Army’s Fort Bragg, three Marine training bases, the Naval Academy and U.S. Military Academy, several ships, submarines and a SEAL training facility. She has also experienced two “trap” landings on the carriers USS John F. Kennedy and USS Kitty Hawk, Air Force survival training at a prisoner of war camp, and a supersonic flight in the F-15 Eagle.

In 1997 Elaine Donnelly was the first woman to receive the Adm. John Henry Towers award from the New York Naval Aviation Commandery, in recognition of her support for naval aviation. The popular website NewsMax.com named her one as one of “America’s Most Heroic for 2000.” At the 29th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), she was presented with the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award for the year 2002.

Her articles on military personnel issues have been published in many newspapers nationwide, including the Washington Post, USA Today, Washington Times, and the Naval Institute’s Proceedings. Mrs. Donnelly has appeared on many network programs, such as CNN’s Crossfire and Prime News, NBC’s Today and Dateline, ABC’s Nightline, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, several FOX, CNBC, and MSNBC programs, PBS’s Lehrer Newshour and a 2-hour National Review “Firing Line” debate.

Elaine Donnelly has testified before congressional committees, and participated in public programs sponsored by the Naval Institute, the Indianapolis Economic Club, the 1997 First Marine Division Convention, Hillsdale College, the Foreign Policy Institute, and Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Eagle Forum, the Heritage Foundation, Independent Women’s Forum, and a number of events sponsored by veterans’ groups and military academy alumni organizations.

She attended the University of Detroit and Schoolcraft College, resides in Livonia, Michigan with her husband, Terry, and is the mother of two grown daughters.

[Rahvin]

Of course, HIV is only a problem with "the gays." Heterosexual soldiers can't possibly contract or spread it. /sarcasm

What the fuck kind of moron is this lady? I mean, at least with typical fundies, when they say "the Bible says it's an abomination," they're right and you can understand where they're coming from (even though it's still retarded).

This waste of skin can't be bothered to actually look at the perfectly functional militaries already existing that allow homosexuals to serve; instead, she just repeats her ignorant homophobic blather. I particularly love how she completely disregards the real service of the gay soldiers sitting in the same room with her.

The one positive to this is that, apparently, some House members including Republicans actually understood that she was completely full of shit. I didn't expect that; I expected downplaying of her more retarded arguments but a general agreement that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve. This is a pleasant surprise.

[Big Phil]

Where the fuck did this bitch come from? Another Phyllis Schaflay style "feminist"?

She looks like she needs to get fucked until she (finally) has an orgasm. That's likely her problem - a dissatisfying sex life.

[Solauren]

Either that, or she's sexually paranoid.

She's afraid of lesbians taking pictures in the shower, and she's a woman.

She's probably rented one to many bad adult videos or something.

[General Zod]

Of course, HIV is only a problem with "the gays." Heterosexual soldiers can't possibly contract or spread it. /sarcasm

What the fuck kind of moron is this lady? I mean, at least with typical fundies, when they say "the Bible says it's an abomination," they're right and you can understand where they're coming from (even though it's still retarded).

You've never read a Jack Chick tract before have you? This dumb bitch sounds exactly like someone who'd swallow them like a hooker gobbling cock. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that she was a fundie douchebag.

[Edi]

Either that, or she's sexually paranoid.

She's afraid of lesbians taking pictures in the shower, and she's a woman.

She's probably rented one to many bad adult videos or something.

Or she's a closet homosexual herself and is projecting. Wouldn't be the first time...

[Rahvin]

Of course, HIV is only a problem with "the gays." Heterosexual soldiers can't possibly contract or spread it. /sarcasm

What the fuck kind of moron is this lady? I mean, at least with typical fundies, when they say "the Bible says it's an abomination," they're right and you can understand where they're coming from (even though it's still retarded).

You've never read a Jack Chick tract before have you? This dumb bitch sounds exactly like someone who'd swallow them like a hooker gobbling cock. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that she was a fundie douchebag.

Oh, I've read plenty of Chick tracts. And I wouldn't be surprised if she's a fundie, either.

I was just noting the difference between typical "the Bible says it's wrong, so it's wrong" reasoning (which, while idiotic, is at least based on something) and this bitch's reasoning, which seems to be "ZOMG TEH GAYS AER ALL DISEASE-RIDDEN NYMPHOS WHO WNAT TO RAPE THE GOOD HETEROS!" combined with "lalala, I'm not listening."

When someone attacks homosexuals with a Biblical argument, I can easily see several angles of attack because I know exactly where their reasoning is coming from. With someone like this woman, it's not a reasoned position at all, but rather is completely based on emotion and idiocy. I can debate the former. The latter I just have to say "you're a hopeless idiot. Please remove yourself from the gene pool in the most amusing method possible."

[Aaron]

Oh, I've read plenty of Chick tracts. And I wouldn't be surprised if she's a fundie, either.

I was just noting the difference between typical "the Bible says it's wrong, so it's wrong" reasoning (which, while idiotic, is at least based on something) and this bitch's reasoning, which seems to be "ZOMG TEH GAYS AER ALL DISEASE-RIDDEN NYMPHOS WHO WNAT TO RAPE THE GOOD HETEROS!" combined with "lalala, I'm not listening."

When someone attacks homosexuals with a Biblical argument, I can easily see several angles of attack because I know exactly where their reasoning is coming from. With someone like this woman, it's not a reasoned position at all, but rather is completely based on emotion and idiocy. I can debate the former. The latter I just have to say "you're a hopeless idiot. Please remove yourself from the gene pool in the most amusing method possible."

Look at her bio I posted, specifically this gem:

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that concentrates on military personnel issues. CMR advocates high, single standards in training, assignment policies that are consistent with military realities as well as American cultural values, and sound defense spending priorities that strengthen morale, discipline and readiness. In October 2003 CMR celebrated its 10th Anniversary.

Cultural values sounds like code-speak for fundie values.

[General Zod]

When someone attacks homosexuals with a Biblical argument, I can easily see several angles of attack because I know exactly where their reasoning is coming from. With someone like this woman, it's not a reasoned position at all, but rather is completely based on emotion and idiocy. I can debate the former. The latter I just have to say "you're a hopeless idiot. Please remove yourself from the gene pool in the most amusing method possible."

The problem is the Bible's arguments against it are no more unique than these idiots. They both rely on fear of something different to get people to hate it with no basis in fact whatsoever for either one.

[Darth Onasi]

I love how she focuses on one single unfortunate event and uses it to proclaim that all gays and lesbians are potential rapists.
By this logic, *all* soldiers are potential rapists, crooks and war criminals. If single incidents are to speak for entire demographics.

What an idiot.

[Knife]

Onward christian soldiers, is basically what I got out of her diatribe.

[Rahvin]

When someone attacks homosexuals with a Biblical argument, I can easily see several angles of attack because I know exactly where their reasoning is coming from. With someone like this woman, it's not a reasoned position at all, but rather is completely based on emotion and idiocy. I can debate the former. The latter I just have to say "you're a hopeless idiot. Please remove yourself from the gene pool in the most amusing method possible."

The problem is the Bible's arguments against it are no more unique than these idiots. They both rely on fear of something different to get people to hate it with no basis in fact whatsoever for either one.

The Biblical argument is an argument from authority. It's a very simple "it says so, so it must be true" argument, and it's extremely simple to attack the Bible's authority on morality in general or even the typical fundie's adherence to the rest of what the Bible says.

The non-Biblical arguments produced in this article, even if by a raging fundie, are not arguments from the authority of the Bible, but are rather completely made-up arguments stemming from ignorance and base emotion. It's more difficult to argue with someone who is being completely irrational even before debate begins.

The fundie's choice to believe the Bible's authority on the subject of homosexuality as a sin is obviously rooted in the same fear of anything "different," I agree. But the argument itself is easier to dismantle when it's coming from a source as easy to attack as the Bible, as opposed to wholly subjective irrational bullshit emotional arguments that don't even have a connection to a fictional reality.

[General Zod]

The Biblical argument is an argument from authority. It's a very simple "it says so, so it must be true" argument, and it's extremely simple to attack the Bible's authority on morality in general or even the typical fundie's adherence to the rest of what the Bible says.

The non-Biblical arguments produced in this article, even if by a raging fundie, are not arguments from the authority of the Bible, but are rather completely made-up arguments stemming from ignorance and base emotion. It's more difficult to argue with someone who is being completely irrational even before debate begins.

If someone refuses to so much as listen to what you have to say then obviously they're not worth wasting time arguing with. On the other hand, so what if it's a "harder" argument to counter? They both rely on fallacious reasoning that's really not all that hard to pick apart for someone who's used to arguing with retards like that. You just can't rely on standard classroom tactics of picking apart an argument on its merits alone and have to use other angles to show how absurd their claims are when dealing with someone who won't listen to logic.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Both her and jones are fucking douchebags, but she takes the cake. So, something that happened back in the mid 70s is indicative of modern lesbians? Gee, I suppose every sub-group that has members who engage in sexual assault should be barred from the military.... Wait, all those lesbians were black, get them negros out of our armed forces!

[Darth Onasi]

Both her and jones are fucking douchebags, but she takes the cake. So, something that happened back in the mid 70s is indicative of modern lesbians? Gee, I suppose every sub-group that has members who engage in sexual assault should be barred from the military.... Wait, all those lesbians were black, get them negros out of our armed forces!

Clearly the military should be composed solely of straight white males. Christian, of course. Who should be compelled to swear an oath to God when joining up.

[The Yosemite Bear]

What was that joke from Ellen?

Something about the incidents of Rape of female soldiers, and Iraqi minors by male soldiers and contractors. ending with We need to keep straights out of the military....

[Rahvin]

Both her and jones are fucking douchebags, but she takes the cake. So, something that happened back in the mid 70s is indicative of modern lesbians? Gee, I suppose every sub-group that has members who engage in sexual assault should be barred from the military.... Wait, all those lesbians were black, get them negros out of our armed forces!

Allegedly happened, as the article points out. We don't even know that it actually happened at all.

[Darth Wong]

Both her and jones are fucking douchebags, but she takes the cake. So, something that happened back in the mid 70s is indicative of modern lesbians? Gee, I suppose every sub-group that has members who engage in sexual assault should be barred from the military.... Wait, all those lesbians were black, get them negros out of our armed forces!

Not to mention the infamous Tailhook scandal. Time to get rid of all the straights in the Air Force.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hell, why stop there. Almost all rapes are committed by straight men. Hell, when a gay person is raped, it is usually a straight person who does it. We should demand congress begin recruiting only gay men, and lesbians who statistically do not commit rape at all.

[The Spartan]

Cultural values sounds like code-speak for fundie values.

That's exactly what it is.

Whenever anyone mentions a variation on the phrase Cultural Values or American Cultural Values you can beat Euros to Zimbabwean Dollars that they're meaning Right Wing Christian bullshit. And profit from said wager.

[Azazal]

for the hell of it I looked her up, what a shrieking shrew of a bitch

From one of her many op-ed pieces I found:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/d ... 070750.asp

Some military decisions must remain confidential, but this is not one of them. The 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., has been quietly training women for the new land-combat forward-support companies, while arrogantly claiming that the notification law does not apply. "Lessons learned" from the division's impending redeployment to Iraq will be declared a "success," but if (when) anything goes wrong, officials will blame the collocation rule that they intend to eliminate. Either scenario will betray the trust of soldiers and undermine the Army's own best interests.....

The nation is proud of our women in uniform, but that is no excuse for forcing unprepared female soldiers, many of whom are mothers, to face the physical demands of violent close combat and a higher risk of capture than exists today. In the Army's own surveys over a decade, 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women said they strongly oppose such policies. Their opinions matter no more than those of male soldiers, who will have to bear new "female force protection" burdens that could complicate dangerous missions.

Combat commanders will have to cope with significant personnel losses, distractions, and social turmoil that will be more intense in the heat of war. Predictable problems include far higher rates of medical leave and evacuations, primarily due to pregnancy, which Army officials refuse to reveal or discuss. Making the mix even more volatile will be sexual attractions, personal misconduct, and accusations of same.

Forget feminist legends about Amazon warriors and push-button wars. The modern land-combat soldier carries weapons and high-tech equipment weighing 50 to 100 pounds, with body armor alone weighing 25 pounds. Such burdens would be disproportionately heavy for average female soldiers, who are certainly brave but shorter and lighter, with smaller hearts and bones, 25 to30 percent less aerobic capacity for endurance, and 40 to 50 percent less upper-body strength.

Politically correct group-thinkers and Clinton-promoted generals in the Pentagon apparently have forgotten certain realities affirmed by overwhelming evidence: In direct ground combat, women do not have an "equal opportunity" to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. No one's injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman.

I like the self contradiction, training women for combat is bad, and sending untrained women into combat is bad as well.
Can we slap a turban on her and call her mulla now, but she would miss the irony.

[Darth Onasi]

I'm sure she thinks the fact that she's a woman will somehow cancel out the fact that she's spewing retarded, sexist diarreah.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I still say we need to bring T.E. Lawrence into the next hearings.