In the scandal involving the theft and release of classified military information that could cost the lives of U.S. military personnel, the British Telegraph newspaper is reporting that the American soldier at the center of the scandal was “openly homosexual” and apparently held a grudge against the U.S. because of the military’s anti-gay policy.
In another bizarre twist, reliable reports suggest that Private First Class Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified information to the WikiLeaks.org website, was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities.
The Telegraph features photographs of Manning, who could face more than 50 years in prison for treasonous conduct, holding up a sign with rainbow colors demanding “equality on the battlefield” and participating in a gay pride parade.
It is apparent that Manning, based on published reports, was a public homosexual activist for at least over a year. During this time he apparently came up with the idea of downloading and releasing the classified information to WikiLeaks as a way to get back at the United States military over its policy regarding homosexuality.
Telegraph writers Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner write that Manning had “appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up” and became increasingly bitter with his treatment by the Army.
It may be the case that Manning was anxious about the failure of Congress to pass the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” anti-gay military policy.
President Obama had promised during the 2008 campaign to repeal the policy and in office has championed the “rights” of homosexual and “transgendered” people to high-level federal positions.
The riveting Telegraph account of Manning’s growing rage and anger raises serious questions of how the soldier was able to flaunt his homosexuality despite the fact that the Pentagon still officially has a policy in place of excluding open homosexuals from military service.
In a clear indication that the law was being ignored by the Obama Administration, the evidence demonstrates that Manning was continuing to serve after openly flaunting his homosexuality, including on Facebook.
Who in the Obama Administration—and the Department of Defense—was aware of his conduct and looked the other way? Was Manning given a pass because his “lifestyle” was considered to be in favor and acceptable under the Obama Administration?
Now, because of the obvious mishandling of this homosexual ticking time bomb, it appears that the United States, its soldiers, and relations with countries in the region will pay the price. Lives—and a war on terrorism in Afghanistan—could be lost.
The revelations of Manning’s openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way. The result could be not only the loss of the lives of U.S. soldiers, as a result of the enemy understanding U.S. intelligence sources and methods, but damaged relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan and a possible U.S. military defeat in the region as a whole.
The obvious intention is to inflict a humiliating defeat on the U.S. military in Afghanistan, forcing a withdrawal of U.S. forces before the country is stabilized and free of terrorist activity.
The result could be the major reemergence of Al Qaeda and its Taliban backers in a position to strike the United States in a 9/11-type terror attack.
It will be interesting to see how the pro-homosexual U.S. media deal with the shocking revelations about Manning—and whether they investigate whether he was part of a secret homosexual network in the military that is currently working with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, once part of a group called the “International Subversives.” Assange, a native of Australia with an anti-American and anti-military bent, has a criminal record for illegal computer hacking.
Assange released the documents in coordination with their publication and analysis by the British Guardian, the German Der Spiegel, and The New York Times.
Although in the military service, Manning had his own anti-military bent, based on his opposition to the defense policy of keeping open and active homosexuals out, and advertised his homosexuality on his Facebook page.
Gawker.com reports that “A screen capture of Manning’s Facebook profile shows the pages he liked were almost exclusively LGBT-related, including LGBT America, Gay Marriage, Equality Maryland, Dan Savage, Human Rights Campaign, etc.”
LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered.
The Facebook image also shows that he enjoyed the MSNBC program hosted by Rachel Maddow, the lesbian activist, and that he listed Media Matters and the National Center for Transgender Equality as being among his “likes and interests.” Media Matters is run by gay activist David Brock.
Manning’s favorite personalities included Barack and Michelle Obama and Barney Frank, the openly gay member of Congress from Massachusetts. He even listed Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who supports Obama’s repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy, as being among his favorite personalities.
Gawker cites evidence that Manning contacted well-known trans videoblogger ZJ via AOL Instant Messenger as far back as February 21, 2009, and said that he enjoyed the videos on the site. “He just said he enjoyed my videos,” ZJ said. “He told me that me and him were on the same page.”
ZJ is “Zinnia Jones” and the site is linked to a Facebook entry for “Queer and Queer-Supportive Atheists,” described as “A group for atheists and agnostics who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, or otherwise queer, as well as straight allies. We support LGBT rights and oppose the influence of religion in the government and the law.”
The dramatic revelations about Manning’s circle of friends and associates suggest that, rather than repeal the homosexual exclusion policy, as Obama is demanding, the prohibition on homosexuals should have been more strictly enforced and that it should be strengthened today. What’s more, it is clear that Manning should have been expelled from the Armed Forces long before he allegedly did his damage to U.S. national security.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, has said that “Releasing classified documents could put in jeopardy American lives,” but has supported repeal of the prohibition on open homosexuals serving in the military. Such a change would bring more people with sexual identity problems like Bradley Manning into the Armed Forces.
The repeal, however, has not passed both Houses of Congress and remains a contentious issue on Capitol Hill.
This is important because the Manning scandal provides ammunition to those who want to maintain the exclusion of homosexuals from the military. It proves in dramatic terms that homosexuals with gender identity disorders are potentially unstable and that their strange sexual preferences can subvert the military mission and cost lives.
However, a libertarian writer named Justin Raimondo on the website of antiwar.com is calling Manning an “American patriot” and “true soldier” for releasing thousands of classified documents. Raimondo, who is himself gay, suggests that supporters of Manning go to a “Help Bradley Manning” site.
But the revelations about Manning keep coming.
Another British publication, the Daily Mail, reports that a friend said Manning, who was born in the United States but raised in Britain, had been gay since the age of 13. The friend wondered why the U.S. Army “didn’t ask more questions when they recruited him.”
Is this more evidence that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has been ignored and not enforced?
While the WikiLeaks scandal is the subject of numerous and continuing press reports, the Telegraph account of his “openly homosexual” conduct is the first to provide absolute proof that he was a gay activist who wanted to strike back against the U.S. military.
However, several weeks ago, on July 6, the Associated Press ran a story that hinted at the controversy. It reported that Manning’s Facebook page had included numerous gay references and quoted a friend of Manning as saying that in recent months he “seemed to have grown more aware of social issues, including the gay-rights movement.” Manning reportedly described himself as “nonreligious” and had custom-made military dog tags reading “humanist.”
Before this, on June 8, Shane Harris of the Washingtonian had quoted a friend as saying that Manning was going to be discharged from the Army because of “an adjustment disorder.” The publication said that questions were raised by some observers “about whether Manning could have been dismissed under the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, which forbids homosexuals from serving openly.”
This adds to the evidence that Manning’s actions were motivated by hatred of the U.S. military over its anti-gay policy.
Adding further intrigue, the website known as “Boing Boing” suggests that Manning was a transsexual undergoing a transition from male to female and notes that his friend, Adrian Lamo, was an active member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. It cites evidence that Lamo had been appointed as a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force in San Francisco.
Commenting on transcripts of chats between Manning and Lamo, the website known as “QueerTV” said that Manning “might be one of us” and that the conversations “reveal the soldier might identify as transgender.”
Manning’s affinity on his Facebook page for “Repeal the Ban” is also significant. It is a project of a group called Servicemembers United, which describes itself as “the nation’s largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, their allies and supporters.” The group receives financial support from the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros.
As the military and the FBI attempt to get to the bottom of what Manning allegedly did and for what reason, the need for an investigation of homosexual misconduct in the Armed Forces—before any change in policy is adopted by Congress—has been presented in dramatic fashion.