Military On The Sexual Assault Hot Seat

The leaders of the Armed Forces are in hot water because of an increase in sexual assaults. They promise to combat sexual assault and admit they let the ball drop. In a grilling by members of Congress two Democrat female Senators had a field day and went all in over the issue. Senator Gillibrand implied some commanders were stupid by claiming “…not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape…” While I get the dramatics I think just about all can tell the two apart.

Senator McCaskill made the claim that looking at someone the wrong way can be sexual assault. I guess there could be looks that can be considered assault but can’t seem to think of one. What look conveys imminent harmful contact?

I am not making light of the issue of sexual assault whether it is in or out of the military. However, I do have a few problems with all of this.

The incidence of sexual assault has had an uptick over the past year or two. What is the root cause of this? It seems as if the uptick happened after gays were allowed to openly serve so it would be worth looking to see if the increase is same sex assault. Not that it matters BUT in order to solve a problem the root cause needs to be found and if the uptick is because of the repeal of DADT then it needs to be looked into to see why it happened.

I also have a problem with Congress wanting to take the discipline of sexual offenders out of the hands of commanders. If the issue is reporting and punishment then require commanders to report all claims of sexual impropriety to their higher commander and have that higher commander review the results of investigations. Commanders need to retain the ability to investigate and punish those who have done wrong. If any commander is not doing that job then relieve that commander. Do not use some blanket policy because of an increase particularly if that increase is due to the repeal of DADT. Find a solution for it that does not involve hampering all commanders.

My last issue is with these Democrat females and their indignation. Where were they when Bill Clinton was sexually molesting women? I realize that these two were not in office when that occurred (not in federal office anyway) but their body, the Senate, voted to let Bill off the hook.

How come there was not the same uproar from liberal woman about Bill Clinton’s alleged rapes and his confirmed affair back then? Why are these folks acting as if they have some moral authority when they still worship the ground Clinton walks on?

It seems to me that folks who apply their anger selectively over the same subject lose credibility.

Sexual assault is a crime. My solution is to investigate the accusation, prosecute those with merit; if they are guilty put them in jail and if they are not guilty put them back to work.

That seems like a good solution to me.

As far as Gillibrand and McCaskill, how do you ladies feel about Bill Clinton and what he did? What do you say about the accusations of rape?

Are you as mad at the Senate for the way they let him off as you are at the way the military handles sexual assault cases?

Your answers will tell us a lot about you…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

A Democrat We Can Live With?

David Paterson of New York has selected Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand of New York’s 20th Congressional District to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Clinton resigned her seat on 21 January to assume duties as Secretary of State.

Gillibrand is a Blue Dog Democrat and her positions are generally conservative. Her Wikipedia (FWIW) entry states:

Gillibrand is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. She opposes gun control. She supports extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for middle class families; stem cell research; and the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act. Gillibrand opposes attempts to partially privatize Social Security. She strongly supported passage of the 2008 Farm Bill. Gillibrand broke with former Governor Eliot Spitzer on the issue of illegal immigration, opposing his plan to issue New York State drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. She supports same-sex marriage.

Not all of these are ideal positions but she is a Democrat. Considering the people who Paterson could have appointed, this is not a bad choice. Some of her negatives include opposition to Social Security privatization and support for gay marriage but she is against gun control (and endorsed by the NRA), in favor of tax cuts, and opposes issuing licenses to illegals.

She also opposed the financial bailout.

Paterson selected her in order to attempt to garner votes from upstate New York in his 2010 election bid (he was appointed so it is not a reelection). Regardless, he has done us a favor. Gillibrand might be the antidote for McCain as she might oppose the things he would favor.

Additionally, the seat she holds in the House is in a heavily Republican area of New York. This provides Republicans the chance to pick up a seat in the House.

Liberals are howling mad about her selection so it must be, at least partly, good for Republicans. Interestingly, the liberals claim she is not qualified because she has only been in the House for a short time. These would be the same people who want Caroline Kennedy who has no political experience and who supported Barack Obama who has very little experience.

We will have to wait and see how she works out but something tells me she will not be pushed around by the likes of Harry Reid.

I hope she provides some sense of balance to the Senate. Conservatives can use another voice.

Source:
New York Post

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]