Loretta Sanchez Honors National Guard, while Chuck DeVore dishonors his service in the National Guard

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), the ranking female member on the House Armed Services Committee, Tuesday issued the following statement regarding House passage of House Resolution 1740, recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 374rd anniversary:

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez

“I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring the 374thanniversary of the National Guard. As the oldest component of the Armed Forces, the National Guard has played an instrumental role in the defense of our country.  Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations throughout the world. Without their sense of duty and love of country, we would not enjoy the many freedoms America has to offer. This resolution will help ensure that we remember to honor the National Guard’s many contributions today and every day.”

Tuesday also happened to be the day that the Pentagon released the long anticipated survey regarding the impact of repeal of the current bigoted “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy that is used to exclude individuals from military service based upon their sexual orientation. The irony became even more apparent when I got a tweet from National Guard member, and termed out Assemblyman Chuck DeVore tweeted “DADT: combat troops support status quo.” Our favorite tweeting Assemblyman Chuck in addition to his role as a rabid bigoted homophobe, is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve.

So in a sense Rep. Sanchez, who currently serves as Chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities, honored Chuck DeVore’s service in the National Guard.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

Chuck on the other hand has tarnished his service to our nation by failing to understand the key responsibility of a military officer; the responsibility to follow legal orders from senior officers and the civilian leadership. A survey to determine attitudes of officers and enlisted personnel of our armed forces may help military leadership implement policies determined by civilian leaders, but soldiers are not asked their opinions regarding orders, they follow them. You would think that a manwho managed to achieve the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, insecure as he is of his own sexuality as he obviously is, would at least understand the principle of “chain of command.”

So much for Chuck DeVore’s in depth understanding of military ethos.

  18 comments for “Loretta Sanchez Honors National Guard, while Chuck DeVore dishonors his service in the National Guard

  1. Dan Chmielewski
    December 1, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    So if the opinion of combat soliders, sailors and marines matters, where do we draw the line? How’s that food soldier? Would you like to sleep in more during basic training? What are your thoughts on our military strategy on waterboarding?

    Can Adam Probolsky check in to say how a 25 percent response to a survey is an amazing result where other surveys with close to 10 percent are conisdered great?

  2. December 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Love the ad hominem and the illogical argument, Chris.

    Tell me though, how does it follow that a critique of a flawed DoD survey (flawed as it was self-selecting, therefore, non-scientific) is somehow a violation of the “chain of command” when the Constitution gives the authority to Congress under Article I, Section 8 to: To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces… To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia… and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” This is why Congress has purview over DADT in the first place and why the survey was done to give cover to those in Congress who want to change the policy. I merely pointed out that the combat troops — the ones everyone else in the military is there to support — oppose any change.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore

    • December 1, 2010 at 8:08 pm

      Chuck,thanks for dropping by.

      You challenged the validity of the survey because it was voluntary, which is usualy how objective surveys work, yet you then accept the validity of the survey as it relates to the combat troops. Your argument is the illogical one here, not mine. From a purely statistical perspective, a voluntary survey with a response rate in excess of 25% is statistically significant. In a sense, it is like voting. Roughly have of eligible voters are registered to vote and only 60% of them actually voted in this last election. that equals a response rate in the general election of about 30% of eligible voters. Are you suggesting that the election was not statistically significant?

      I’m glad you pointed out the role of civilian leadership in this process. Policy decisions related to the conduct of the military is determined by civilian leadership, not the troops on the ground. The military code of justice does not just appy to combat troops, it applies to all members of the armed forces. While the policy decisions made by civilian leaders are often informed by the advice of military leadership, they are never dictated by that advice. Combat troops are not consulted about their deployment orders, length of deployment, rules of engagement, and they certainly do not get to vote on such matters.

      When Truman desegregated the armed forces, he did not ask the combat troops what they thought about the decision. An order was given, and followed.

      Chuck, the bottom line here is that the survey shows that a super majority of armed forces personnel feel that a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy would not negatively affect their ability to accomplish their assigned missions. Your only remaining argument left to support your opposition to repeal of this policy is bigotry.

  3. Steve
    December 1, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    “I merely pointed out that the combat troops — the ones everyone else in the military is there to support — oppose any change. ”

    A total straw man.

    The military is composed of much, much more than combat troops. Combat troops are not the only interested party when it comes to whether or not DADT is repealed. To rely on ONLY their opinion would be to use the same flawed approach to analyzing consensus that you accuse the DoD of using.

    God, it’s becoming so easy to point out the hypocrisy of rank partisans.

  4. December 1, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Chuck — the Secretary of Defense, the one who served George W. Bush and Barrack Obama, also wants it repealed. Follow orders soldier.

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2010 – A change in the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military can be implemented without irreparable harm, the co-chair of a Pentagon working group that studied the matter said yesterday.

    “It’s my belief, having now looked this matter extensively over nine months, that the leaders of our services — all services, all components — are so good today, so experienced today, that they can effectively implement this change, maintain unit cohesion, and a strong focus on mission accomplishment,” Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said.

    Ham and Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel and the working group’s other co-chair, discussed their findings in an interview with the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service.

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appointed Ham and Johnson early this year to lead the group to determine the effects on the military if the law is changed to allow gays to serve openly. Ham and Johnson made their findings public today, as well as their report, which assesses the matter and gives recommendations for moving forward.

    A majority — about 55 percent — of respondents to a survey sent to 400,000 servicemembers in the active and reserve components said allowing gays to serve openly would have either no effect or a balance of positive and negative effects on the military, and between 15 and 20 percent said such a change would have only positive effects.

    About 30 percent of respondents said overturning the law would have a mostly negative impact, and those respondents mostly were part of the warfighting specialties, Ham said.

    Under the current legislation before Congress, repeal would become effective only after the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify in writing that new Defense Department regulations and policies are consistent with unit cohesion, retention and recruitment, Johnson said.

    “If they pass the legislation, we immediately go into this time where we create new policies and regulations, then deliver it to Congress,” he said. There is no limit on how much time the administration can take in delivering its plans. If Congress approves them, it would take 60 days to officially remove Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he said.

    • December 1, 2010 at 9:10 pm

      It’s not a valid “order” Dan — until Congress changes the law — a law signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

      My comment about combat troops stands. In point of fact, ALL non-combat military personal exist to support the combat troops. The combat troops are the ones most impacted by this proposed change in policy as they are the ones who sleep in the sand, mud, dirt and blood — not the support troops back in the rear.

      When, and if, Congress lawfully changes the policy, the military will deal with it. If combat readiness, good order and discipline, and recruiting and retention suffer because of any change, I can only hope our policy makers have the sense to revisit the issue.

      BTW, gentlemen, if DADT is repealed, what say you about the “T” as in GLBT serving? What about transvestites in uniform? Just how much you believe in your principles? It’s an honest question for you as I want to see how you reconcile this issue with its logical conclusion.

      All the best,

      Chuck DeVore

      • December 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm

        Lastly, given the high likelihood of service members in combat units coming into contact with the blood of their comrades, what do you think about the fact that the American Red Cross says this about blood donation restrictions: “You should not give blood… if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV. You are at risk for getting infected if you: are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977.”

        • Steve
          December 1, 2010 at 10:19 pm

          HIV+ civilians are prohibited from serving in the military.

          Service members are regularly tested for HIV.

          Service members who test positive while enlisted cannot be deployed…they would never end up “in the trenches”.

          Lastly, you’re crazy.

          • December 1, 2010 at 11:23 pm

            I truly enjoy how most of the liberals I have engaged on this site toss ad hominems around like candy on Halloween. It does nothing for your argument, BTW. So, regarding your comment about testing, why doesn’t the Red Cross simply test rather than issue a blanket prohibition as they do?

            • December 2, 2010 at 12:54 am

              The answer to this one is rather simple Chuck. In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980′s the Food and Drug Administration banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. The 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients.

              There is strong argument that a blanket ban is unwarranted and that the risk of infection from a gay donor is no more or less greater than a heterosexual donor. Last time I checked, HIV does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Rapid HIV testing of all donated blood is a far more effective way to protect against transmission of HIV through donated blood than a questionaire.

      • Steve
        December 1, 2010 at 10:35 pm

        “In point of fact, ALL non-combat military personal (sic) exist to support the combat troops.”

        That’s just patently untrue. Some non-combat personnel support other non-combat personnel, in a very strict sense. Their “job” does not support a combat troop in any tangible way…or even an indirect way.

        But of course you have to stand by your argument…because if you don’t stand by that absurd formulation, then you got nuthin’.

        Oh, and as for your point (or lack thereof) about transexuals…they’re not allowed to serve in the military…that won’t change with the repeal of DADT. But by all means, keep bringing the bogeyman, fear-based arguments. They’re quite entertaining.

        • December 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm

          Steve, I won’t retort with personal attack, but rather an observation that, either I wasn’t clear or you didn’t pay attention to the thread. In point of fact, the purpose of the military, boiled down to its essence, it to kill the enemy. Combat personnel do this. Everyone else in uniform is support. Ask a member of the military. My point about the flawed DADT survey is that combat troops showed a large degree of opposition to changing DADT. Support troops didn’t. It’s the combat troops who live in difficult conditions in the field, relative to support personnel. Any honest discussion of this issue must take that into account.

          I look forward to your latest ad hominem — they’re “quite entertaining.”

          BTW, what’s your rank and time in service?

          • Steve
            December 2, 2010 at 8:54 am

            Actually, I was beginning to wonder if you’ve ever really served. For a servicemember, you seem entirely ignorant of the HIV and gender change restrictions on civilians. But of course that never stops a partisan hack from creating faux scary issues out of whole cloth, does it?

      • December 2, 2010 at 1:14 am

        Chuck,

        Dan’s point is that once the law is changed the ‘order” would be given. It would then of course be a legal order. One which I am certain the majority of our service men and women would follow.

        Chuck, since I would guess you have probably opposed every piece of legislation against discrimination on the basis of gender identity, I am not surprised that you don’t know that the “T” in GLBT is for Transgender, not Transvestite. Look it up, there is a difference.

        In fact, I have no problem with Transgender individuals serving in the armed forces. In fact, my former co-chair of the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club was an Army sniper who served in the Vietnam War. From what I have been told she was pretty good at his job. If you ever found yourself in a combat situation with her, she wouldn’t hesitate to save your life, or the life of any other soldier. Gender identity and sexual orientation are no more a measure of a person’s ability to serve their country, than race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

        Speaking of religion, do you feel that your religious faith makes you any more qualified to serve in the military than that of a Muslim, Jew, Athiest, Agnostic, or any other faith?

        • December 2, 2010 at 7:57 am

          Chris, I know what the “T” in GLBT stands for, that’s why I posed two separate questions when I wrote:

          “BTW, gentlemen, if DADT is repealed, what say you about the “T” as in GLBT serving? What about transvestites in uniform?”

          I’m asking about both. It’s a practical issue as I am well aware, from a political standpoint, that advocates for this issue won’t stop at the repeal of DADT.

          I am also well aware of the issue of the law and how the military will respond, if it is changed. Until it is, I will fight it — that’s why your over-the-top attack on me for “dishonoring” my military service was completely uncalled for, regardless of our philosophical differences.

          Regarding your transgenger friend, I am assuming that the operation happened after military service.

          Lastly, regarding religion, the Constitution says there should be no “religious test” — I never bothered to ask about any colleague’s religious beliefs while in uniform.

          All the best,

          Chuck DeVore

          • December 2, 2010 at 10:22 am

            Chris, I know what the “T” in GLBT stands for, that’s why I posed two separate questions when I wrote: “BTW, gentlemen, if DADT is repealed, what say you about the “T” as in GLBT serving? What about transvestites in uniform?”

            LMAO. A little disingenuous flailing here? Hard to believe.

          • Dan Chmielewski
            December 2, 2010 at 10:28 am

            But given the blog post you wrote about Steven Choi’s shots at Todd Gallinger and attempts to link Todd to radical Islam, that was perfectly OK in the 2008 election…

  5. December 1, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Patriots question the legality of Presidents Bush and Obama, (and Congress), using National Guard units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
    http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/05/03/state-activists-want-their-national-guard-back/

    • If Congress would have challenged Bush’s use of the National Guard in foreign wars then Bush would have asked for a National Draft.
    • The Draft would have been very unpopular since more families would have been personally involved. Sadly, there is less of a reason to be anti Iraq and Afghanistan war if some other family, the National Guard family, does the fighting.
    • When faced with an unpopular Draft proposal Congress might have forced Bush to declare “victory” and end the wars.

    Please follow the link and read the article and then ask yourself, ‘If I were a member of the National Guard what would I tell Loretta to do with her resolution”?

    Here is the link to the 6 page
    AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
    FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
    PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
    http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hjres114.pdf

    Anti War? — Get U.S. out of the UN.

Comments are closed.