The Washington Post’s homosexual editorial writer, Jonathan Capehart, is out with another hysterical rant on a subject that he feels passionately about—gays in the military. Putting special interest politics ahead of our fighting men and women, who bleed and die on the battlefield, he wants Congress to act quickly in the lame duck session to repeal the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy because he says the failure to feature open homosexuals in the front lines of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq “threatens national security.” This is what he claims  in a recent blog post.
Opinion writers such as Capehart, who also appears regularly on MSNBC, are entitled to their opinions and have considerable latitude saying or writing whatever occurs to them. But there should be some basis for what they say. There is none here. In this case, Capehart has further degenerated into the incoherent and incomprehensible. How can it possibly be argued that the failure to have homosexual soldiers on the front-lines in Muslim countries, which officially frown on such behavior, threatens the national security of the United States? Logic says that it would make our troops into even more of a target than they are now.
Does he mean that open homosexuals in combat would increase the chances of victory? He can’t possibly be serious.
It would be one thing to argue that there is little risk to having them in the ranks. That is the official line put forward in a recent controversial Pentagon report that critics say was biased in favor of changing the policy and allowing open gays in the military. But Capehart goes beyond this to arguing that the risk involves NOT having them in combat. The report never said that and nobody in the Pentagon who commissioned the report has claimed that a change in the policy is risk-free or beneficial. They all agree it is risky to change. But because President Obama wants it to happen, in order to please part of his far-left base, most of them are following orders and going along.
Capehart goes beyond this, arguing as if Washington politicians are somehow denying our troops something necessary for their survival on the battlefield if they maintain the current Pentagon homosexual exclusion. It is desperation politics by someone who knows that the new Congress is extremely unlikely to change the policy.
It bears repeating: there is absolutely no basis for Capehart’s assertion that keeping open homosexuals out of the front lines somehow harms national security. The statement is simply ridiculous on its face, especially because up to 60 percent of our front-line soldiers were cited in that report as being opposed to repeal of the policy. They recognize the threat to military order, readiness, and discipline. Capehart apparently doesn’t care about them.
The other unmentionable problem, which is glossed over in the official report and not even alluded to by Capehart, is that a policy to welcome open homosexuals in the ranks naturally increases the possibility of some troops coming down with HIV/AIDS through tainted blood transfusions. Gay men are currently prohibited from donating blood in the civilian or military sectors. As such, more homosexuals in the military IS a threat to national security. It stands to reason that having more of them in the military, even though they are tested at regular intervals, can only increase the risks and dangers associated with donations of blood on the battlefield. This conclusion is common sense.
Capehart is given the latitude to make ridiculous assertions. Apparently his bosses are afraid to demand that he justify his absurd statements before they go into print. It is another sign of the deterioration of standards at the paper.
The Columbia Journalism Review has called Capehart “one of the mainstream media’s most visible, active voices on gay causes.” He is certainly visible and active, since he also appears regularly on MSNBC, in addition to his work at the Post. But his voice is shrill and irrational. He has become another major embarrassment to the Post but is rather typical of the fare that MSNBC presents on a daily basis.
With his latest outburst, it might be said that Capehart, who is black, is auditioning for his own show on MSNBC, a network that has been under fire for excluding minorities from its top on-air positions. (MSNBC recently added Tamron Hall to the line-up, as pictured  on the website, giving blacks one of 13 slots).
Perhaps Keith Olbermann, who specializes in curious and bizarre statements, could use a black sidekick. It would help put a further dent in the mostly white line-up of hosts on the little-watched cable network.