Skip to comments.McClellan sidesteps women-in-combat
Posted on 05/19/2004 2:57:19 PM PDT by joesnuffy
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE McClellan sidesteps women-in-combat Spokesman queried about rapes, pregnancies in co-ed military
Posted: May 19, 2004 5:40 p.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Each week, WorldNetDaily White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asks the tough questions no one else will ask. And each week, WorldNetDaily brings you the transcripts of those dialogues with the president and his spokesman.
By Les Kinsolving © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Scott McClellan about sexual assaults in the military and women in combat.
WND: Scott, the top of Page 1 of Sunday's New York Times reports that six of the defendants in the Abu Ghraib abuse cases once all bunked together in a tent in Baghdad. And my question, a two-part, since Pfc. Lynndie England has been impregnated, does the commander in chief believe that women soldiers should be assigned to gender-integrated tents overseas?
McCLELLAN: Les, the president's views have not changed when it comes to our military. I would just say that.
WND: The New York Times also reports that the Miles Foundation is helping 153 military women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers of the Central Command area in and around Iraq. And my question: How can the commander in chief allow women soldiers to be in combat zones where they're surrounded by and far outnumbered by male warriors, and if they're captured, they're gang-raped?
MCCLELLAN: Les, first of all, let me tell you there is no place for sexual assault anywhere, and the military has taken strong action to address those issues you raise. Second of all, the president is proud of all our men and all our women who are serving admirably in the war on terrorism. They are doing an outstanding job, and the president greatly appreciates their service to their country the men and women.
WND: Oh, I think that they are. But you put women over there, surrounded by all these men, and you have 153 cases of sexual assault, and then this one that's been impregnated. Why send women into combat zones
McCLELLAN: Les, you've had your questions. I'm going to go to David, The New York Times reporter.
=== 153 military women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers
I'm not interested in "firepersons" who can't haul me down a flight of stairs and I'm not interested in "soldiers" who can't fend off a rapist.
Oh how the MSM reporters must roll their eyes, ruefully sigh, and fidget restlessly at the temerity of Les for asking these questions that do not fit their templates.
Oh great -- another "women in the military" thread to get everyone stirred up.
I'm one of those guys who has thanks & respect (not criticism) for women who serve in the military -- especially those who serve overseas in combat zones. I've worked with some very fine female soldiers, especially in the last few years, and I'm glad for their contribution. Many of them have done a lot more in the war on terrorism than I have.
bump (and see my post below your's) :-)
=== If the Bush White house and Republican-controlled Congress can't/won't deal with situations such as this then does it really matter who's running things anymore?
That's why I keep posting that link, guy. IT DOES MATTER. We're just looking at the picture upside down, that's all.
But as awful as that is (as well as perfectly predictable, given the way our society is saturated with for-profit "Free Speech" these days), I have to wonder at the smarts of women who join military units given the brutally upfront testaments re: the favorite form of "Stress Relief" soldiers will detail at a "conservative" sites such as this where families of soldiers hang out for news and support.
Camille Paglia puts it well:
Dartmouth in Animal House Porn ShockerAnd unfortunately what's happening today, with this kind of very sanctimonious and sermonizing talk about sex that's coming out of the rape counselors and so on, people do not realize, with all their good intentions, how oppressive this is to sex, what a disaster this is to the mind, what a disaster this is to the spirit, to allow the rape counselors to take over the cultural stage. Now the work that they do is good, and it's wonderful that they're there. But we cannot have this scenario being projected of male rapaciousness and brutality and female victimage.
We have got to make women realize they are responsible, that sexuality is something that belongs to them. They have an enormous power in their sexuality. It's up to them to use it correctly and to be wise about where they go and what they do. And I'm accused of being "anti-woman" because of this attitude? Because I'm bringing common sense back to the rape discourse?
Today these women want the freedom that we won, but they don't want to acknowledge the risk. The minute you meet a man, the minute you go out wiht a man, the minute you go to a bar to have a drink, there is a risk. You have to accept that part of the sizzle of sex come from the danger of sex. You can be overpowered.
I mean, wake up to reality. This is male sex. There's an attraction between the sexes that we're not totally in control of. The idea that we can regulate it by passing campus grivance committee rules is madness. My kind of feminism stresses personal responsibility. I've never been raped but I've been very vigilant -- I'm constantly reading the signals.
Sex, Art and American Culture, Camille Paglia
I don't really know what you're saying. If you're saying that male U. S. soldiers are prone to be rapists, then just make your point plainly.
HEY! Whaddya mean? Hasn't anyone seen GI Jane? ;-)
Oh, get serious.
If anything, I'm saying that a claim of "sexual assault" makes for a nice excuse when one comes home pregnant. Just like crying "rape" is awfully convenient once one has willingly and knowingly compromised themselves.
There are many conclusions which may be drawn from the exponential rise in sexual assault against women contemporaneous with the Sexual Revolution and "leveling" of the sexual playing field with birth control and abortion designed to make women more like men. But I suspect that part of the inflated numbers comes from the fact that women aren't like men and -- to this day -- continue to be caught be surprise when it turns out they're not so "equal" as they thought.
Further, I'm saying that it's ludicrous to think that sex is not traditionally a predominant form of "stress relief" for the military. If prostitution is the oldest profession, camp followers surely have had the easiest of the sex-sells pitches where "location, location, location" is concerned.
I can't for the life of me conceive of how it is a woman would look particularly attractive in uniform. Personally, I don't even like wearing pants; fatigues, vests, combat boots or helmets would be among my very last choices for seductive apparel ... Hollywood's bid to sex up the homosexual-hard body of GI Jane notwithstanding.
But I can assure you that sex would cross my mind on a regular basis were I stuck with a bunch of men in uniform tweaking "gear" all the time, no matter how grimy or gross we all were on a regular basis. It's distracting. And beyond the instinctively physical, there also develops a natural intimacy among team members together 24/7 which is better left to the realm of blood brothers rather than risking anyone's falling in love and losing their focus while lives are stake.
I don't like situations where the only choice is to deny our natural human natures or turn ourselves into something other than human such that women are no longer to be protected or the sexes are no longer to be attracted to each other. There's no other option where women in war is concerned.
There's no realistic or honorable direction into which the subsuming of more base desires may be directed. Likewise, there is no benefit to be gained by mutilating both the feminine and the masculine into Things courtesy of PC training whose own very different Male and Female minimum standards screams the fact that men and women are vastly Different sorts of Persons regardless their equal standing as human beings.
=== HEY! Whaddya mean? Hasn't anyone seen GI Jane? ;-)
That's funny, I was just talking about her.
She screams Transvestite to me. Never ceases to amaze me how utterly homosexual heteros have become. Who knew that Hard Bodies -- like little boys save for the fake fat shoved up their breasts -- would come to define Female Beauty and men who puke at the notion of homosexual sex would fantasize about homosexual sex with female backsides.
Very disturbing how gay everyone's gone.
I'm sorry I misunderstood your earlier comment.
I am -- and am not -- the most transparent poster on the boards.
Always happy to get back up on the soapbox for clarification purposes.
Yeah, as a guy I agree with you about BDU's. They have such an amazing ability to be unflattering on any woman that I'm completely convinced the government designed primarily for that purpose -- they are so effective that it can't be an accident. On the other hand, Army dress blues on the right woman look hot -- or maybe that's just me!
This what the libs wanted. Now, for the unintended conswquences of supid ideas.
Certainly possible ... women don't do a thing for me regardless what they're wearing so I'm not the best judge.
I suspect the operative part's the "right woman" as opposed to the dress blues.