I am reminded of the scene in the movie "Stripes" in which Bill Murray's character and two friends go into an Army recruitment office for an interview before joining. The recruiter asks whether any of them are homosexuals. "No sir," says Murray, "but we're willing to try."
One thing you can say about women in positions exposed to combat (including pregnant women) and gays in the military: at least they're loyal. But now the politically correct agenda that has already turned the military into a giant maternity ward and a field for social experimentation has been extended to include people who, like, aren't even on our side.
More about how the politically correct chickens came home to roost at Ft. Hood:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Nidal Hasan was not only unhinged, but also an entirely inappropriate character to counsel U.S. soldiers on war-related stress and injuries. The wingers are exaggerating much of this--the fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best; the fact that he communicated with an Al Qaeda leader is more troubling, but the emails were monitored and judged to be non-threatening.
What is very troubling is that his colleagues at Walter Reed seem to have had grave doubts about the guy (it'll be interesting to see the evaluations he received from superiors)--and yet he was allowed to continue to counsel American troops, troops who were in an extremely delicate psychological state. That seems beyond careless. And the question has to be asked: Was this a matter of political correctness? Was the Army reluctant to discharge a Muslim in a sensitive position because it might be portrayed as an act of bigotry or censorship--that he was fired for his views?
Read the rest here.