What a Person of Courage Can Do
November 29th, 2007 at 09:08am Mark Noonan
First, a quote:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt, Paris, France, April 23, 1910
Victor Davis Hanson speaks of three mavericks who are standing tall in the face of the critics - three people who are in the arena, daring greatly. They are President Sarkozy of France, General Petraeus in Iraq, and Hirsi Ali, the female activist challenging Islam to the core on its intolerance and oppressiveness. President Sarkozy is staring down the unions which have crippled France’s ability to compete in the world; Petraeus is winning in Iraq in spite of the critics who called him a liar; Ali faces death at the hands of Islamo-fascists for daring to be a woman unfraid.
Never let anyone tell you that you can’t make a difference - with courage and a healthy contempt for timid naysayers, a person can do marvelous deeds…or, at worst, fail after making a noble effort the critics will never understand. To Hanson’s trio I’ll add one more person - President Bush. He, too, has been the man in the arena, daring greatly while much smaller people nip at his heels with their petty complaints, their cruel slanders, their cowardly fears.
The type of people we need in this world are the Reagans, the Thatchers, the John Paul IIs…and the Sarkozys, the Petraeus’, the Alis and the President Bushs. Let us be grateful that in our day and age which combines cowardice and cruelty such as not seen since the degeneration of ancient Rome we are still able to raise up such men and women - the men and women who will light a path to a bright future.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, President Bush, Social Issues, War on Terror
52 Comments
1. dhruv37 » What a Pe&hellip | November 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptVictor Davis Hanson speaks of three mavericks who are standing tall in the face of the critics - three people who are in the arena, daring greatly. They are President Sarkozy of France, General Petraeus in Iraq, and Hirsi Ali, … [...]
2. AVN stars » Blog Ar&hellip | November 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
[...] greatly. They are President Sarkozy of France, General Petraeus in Iraq, and Hirsi Ali, … blogsforvictory.com/2007/11/29/what-a-person-of-courage-can-do/ Blogs For Victory [...]
3. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The Courage of people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and Howard Dean deserve note.
These individuals have put aside their own needs to confront real issues that affect all Americans and the entire world.
I find the excessive adulation of the military in this country a true sign of a declining culture. Those who serve deserve recognition of course, but exalting them to such a disproportionate degree is nothing more than political grandstanding.
Besides, cult worship of the armed forces is one of the central qualities of fascist regimes.
4. hermie | November 29th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
They put aside their own needs?
Hmmm…better check out Goe and Moore’sr raking in millions of dollars and their extravagant lifestyles.
5. FGFM | November 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
And let’s not forget George Soros while we are at it.
6. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Al Gore’s Legacy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html
Of note:
Cougar attacks, Darfur violence, & teenage drinking. All due to global warming.
He certainly is courageous.
7. Michael | November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
LiberalMind,
I find it very offensive as a former military member that you would tell me that Gore and Moore have put aside their own needs to confront real issues that affect all Americans and the entire world, yet leave the real people who have done this out.
Your statements about the military are both uninformed and just downright stupid.
I assume you think the Military people are doing it for money or something the way I read this but I tell you I had soldiers who had pride in what they did and still do. If it is for the money then they are in the wrong business cause I had soldiers that were on welfare because they couldn’t afford to live on what the government paid them. I personally didn’t have a pot to piss in many times cause of being deployed for a year at a time and regulations made it so that I actually lost money when that happened.
So does the Military deserve what they get from the people in the US? If it is recognition then I say yes and we need to do more of it. If it is liberal speak saying they don’t deserve it then no. If it wasn’t for those brave men and women in the US Military you wouldn’t have the right to come here and say they don’t deserve it. Pick up a rifle and go out and try to do what those people do and see how much pride in yourself and your country you have and see how you feel when people talk down to you because you go out and defend the freedom of the world you live in.
Al Gore, Michael Moore and Howard Dean are all idiot’s who have an agenda and I promise you they don’t wonder from day to day how their respective partners are doing and if they will ever see them again. They don’t lay in a two bedroom home with three kids cause the military will only allow you so many rooms per family until they reach a certain age. They don’t wonder if they are going to be able to pay all the bills and still afford to go to the store to buy food. They don’t get up at 4am in the morning to do PT and go to work at 8am only to be told they are working till midnight that night and then have to be back in at 4am for PT again. Tell me again how these guys you so adulate compare to the men and women who do all this and still have the pride to Salute the flag your so ready to give people the right to spit on and burn.
Take your crap and all that goes with it and shove it where you feel like but don’t ever try and compare your hero’s to mine cause in comparison it is like putting a turd (Gore, Moore, et al.) next to a diamond (U.S. Military) and calling them the same.
Have a wonderfully blessed day.
8. Sam | November 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The armed forces in this country are by far the poorest people on the socio-economic ladder. That is a fact.
Furthermore, most peopld do go to the military for the benefits they would get when they complete their service.
Michael,
The fact is that the military in this country is nothing but a bunch of mercenaries that do what they are told be cause they get paid. All volunteer armies don’t require incentives and motive to enlist, they will just do it because they want to. This military for the most part, has members in it for the benefits after they leave the service.
you may be a former member, and you may have endured hardships, truth is, you didnt have to. you could have had a normal middle class life and not endured any of it. In the end, you are not fighting for freedom, democracy, or any lofty goal. You are fighting for the imaginary WMD threat, to get rid of a dictator in a country full of oil, and that is about it.
The US military has NEVER liberated countries or given countries democracy willingly. When it did “liberate” france and other europeans during WWII it was because they were attacked and the life of their allies depended on it.
STOP LYING
9. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Sam,
The only fact in your post is the fact that you are an uneducated, ignorant, left-wing kook. If you want to spew your anti-military garbage, go do so at the dailykos or the DU. There is no place for such nonsensical babble at Matt & Mark’s blog.
10. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I apologize for my lack of civility, but I cannot tolerate unfounded, slanderous attacks on our military.
11. liberalT | November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
We are not against the soldiers we are against the politicians and the system. There is a difference between being “anti-military establishment” and anti-soldiers. If you would stop for a second and stop your knee jerk reactions to any criticism you would realize this
12. plainjane | November 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I could easily bump one of those three and place Rep John Murtha on the list. Many wingnuts use to love him. He was a conservative who made sure the military got proper funding. Now he is Swift-boated by these very same people, for no other reason than he was the first respected voice to uncover Bush’s lies and speak out against the neocons in order to protect our military.
PS What happened to the Freedom Fries. Republicans, they will change their values on a dime.
13. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Mine was a well-reasoned, thoughtful reaction and not at all knee jerk. Typically, I try to choose my words very carefully.
Calling our soldiers mercenaries pretty much constitutes an anti-military statement. However, I can listen to reason. Explain how one can be anti-military establishment, but not anti-soldier. Also, are you against all politicians or just conservative politicians? Finally, what system do you prefer?
Please, enlighten us.
14. Brian Gregory | November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Bush is the prototypical “man in the arena.” By the way, that RNC video is one of my favorite clips of all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N25iaCzZ8tc&feature=related
Goosebumps…
The three “mavericks” are all doing fantastic work for their particular causes. I am especially impressed with Hirsa Ali…God bless her!
15. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
eric,
My youngest Son left the Navy after nine years with over $150K, a brand new Lexus and the GI bill that pays him $1700 per month…to go to school, where he’s working on his Accounting degree.
He also lives in a beautiful home in Austin with his new wife.
The key to his success? The desire to make the US Navy a stepping stone for the future. It’s right there in front of our military…if they want it.
16. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The comments here only reinforce what I have observed elsewhere.
There is an unhealthy fixation on the military bordering on a fanatic worship.
Of course, no one is “against the troops,” which makes the taunt “support the troops” a vacuous phrase.
But to those of us in the reality based community, we take great offense at the military subverted for private gain of corporations.
We reject the falsehood that any criticism of how the armed are used is a smear on the troops themselves, when the system that abuses them is not brought to account.
17. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Michael:
I am sorry the army (or system) abuses you to that extent.
I believe the Democrats put forth a bill requiring more rest time between deployments……..
…..while Bush was asking for the signing bonus back from injured soldiers who could no longer serve.
18. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Of course. I know that it is possible. I came within a hair of going to the Naval Academy, but I realized that it was doing it for the wrong reasons. Clearly, had I gone to the Academy, I would not have ended up among the poorest in this country.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for our soldiers. I come from a family of Marines: my mother’s father fought in the Pacific during WWII and his brother fought in Korea and Vietnam.
Congrats and thanks to your son. I also live in Austin. It is a beautiful city.
19. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
LiberalMind,
What you mistakenly call unhealthy fixation and a fanatic worship is actually an appreciation for those among us who have the fortitude to enter into an occupation that is woefully under appreciated. Also, I want to know where your “reality based community” is so that I can avoid it.
20. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Eric:
Gee, underappreciated?
I totally agree with you there.
Your benefits are slashed, your medical system is inadequate and you are often put into wars for rich men.
It is not “the troops” that are worshiped as such, but the military as an institution and an ideology of warfare that is held too high.
You see the people (Republicans, mostly) that demand we exonerate the military and decry any criticism of its leaders are the same folks who never fought in a war and could care less about the actual troops.
These same people that mock us “liberals” send young men into battle with poor plans and poor armor and then they come home to Walter Reed.
Uh, the reality based community has a large presence on the “Internets” and many of its members made “the tubes” possible.
If you want to avoid this community, perhaps you can start by shutting off your computer.
21. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
liberalmind states:
“These same people that mock us “liberals” send young men into battle with poor plans and poor armor and then they come home to Walter Reed.”
Although we all know this war was mismanaged after the fall of Baghdad, the invaision was a work of art.
LM, you may want to change your rhetoric a bit to reflect reality.
22. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Thanks Eric,
My wife and I had Thanksgiving in Austin and got the nickel tour. What an eclectic cornucopia of architecture, people and UT fans…LOL!
You live in a truly wonderful area.
23. liberalT | November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
generally I am against politicians as matter of practicality…
How can you be anti-military establishment and not anti-soldier? First of all I don’t understand why the two have anything to do with each other. Almost all (99%+) of our soldiers are honest, hard working men and women who are giving everything they can above and beyond the call of duty for their country. Its true - they are paid - there is nothing wrong with that -they have to support themselves and their families.
However - in my world view having a large standing army is a very strange thing. In fact - Eisenhower (a Republican btw) railed against having an “industrial military complex”. That is having a large military and and industry to support it. Go read his final set of talks on the matter they are quite enlightening.
What I am against is using the military as a tool to achieve strategic interests of the US. To me - the point of a military is self defense and self defense only. The Bush doctrine and Paul Wolfowitz feel differently - they believe and explicitly state that we should use our military power to secure resources , achieve strategic interests (as a hammer to control or force other countries hands), etc..
I believe this to be immoral. I am also against the Iraq war and the people who sent our troops to Iraq. But I am not against the troops fighting it. They are doing there best for their country.
Navy - the invasion wasn’t a work of art. Iraq was simply so over matched there was nothing for it to do but to fall to pieces. It too was horribly planned by the politicians -not the soldiers. The soldiers who complained that there weren’t enough troops etc
24. eric | November 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I am out for now. My wife just got home.
Navy,
I moved here from San Diego three years ago. I never thought we would find a place to live as nice as San Diego.
25. FmrMarine | November 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
planejane
kerry, is a LIAR, TRAITOR, and a FAKE “hero”.
He DIDNT get “swiftboated”, he was exposed as the FRAUD he is.
murtha is another fraud, and fake hero who admitted he didnt earn the Purple heart.
These two despicable turds should be in prison not the senate. This shows how far this country has fallen into the marxist hell.
26. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
LiberalT says “We are not against the soldiers we are against the politicians and the system. There is a difference between being “anti-military establishment” and anti-soldiers. If you would stop for a second and stop your knee jerk reactions to any criticism you would realize this”
Oh? So read Sams post again.
Then explain:
Cambridge Ma. refussal to let Boy Scouts collect toiletries for soldiers
California’s refusal to give National Guard education benefits with the actual explanation “the national government voted for the war, let it pay for education.”
Multiple anti-military movies seemingly aimed at attacking them and possibly inflaming wackos abroad into killing them?
Not funding them without building in provisions spelling out defeat?
refusing to allow recruiters into schools in liberal cities and at liberal universities?
Attacking those recruiters when they are allowed in?
Attacking CIA recruiters on liberal campuses?
More?
27. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
eric,
My Son was stationed on Coronado Island until last June…how coincindental. There must be something in that Austin water…lol!
28. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
liberalt
The invaison was a work of art with far fewer casualties than anyone expeted…even with the smaller force.
And even if you hate our Military and GWB, you really need to be honest with this one. Otherwise you could never be taken seriously.
Not even your donk pols will argue this point.
29. sam | November 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
(Ed. Note: Slanderous statement against members of the United States Armed Forces deleted)
30. Thrower | November 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Not exactly a work of art Navydad. As I recall there were issues surrounding securing munititions dumps, protecting oilfields and theft of ancient museum artifacts in the days following the invasion. My guess is that military historians will be critical of our force size and point to that as the source of both short term and long term problems in Iraq.
31. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
sam, point to some evidence for your insane rant.
thank the military for - liberty, no slaves, an end to the Jewish holocaust, the ability to be capitalist, the ability to have freedom of religion (or freedom from it if you prefer), California (yes - the Marine Corps, look it up).
No other job (except Police and Firefighter, but not to the same extent) exposes people to the possible or probable horrible burning deaths and terrible wounds that they face. And for what? The money? The training? Possibly. Maybe it has more to do with their understanding of honor and duty. Apparently it’s not for the gratitude of assholes like you.
Sooooo, Cambridge was right to stop the Boy Scouts from collecting soap, eh?
32. liberalT | November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Kahn - I don’t have to defend every anti-war action. The fast majority of anti-war people are against the war and not the soldiers.
but please do not try to compare WWII and the holocaust to the war in Iraq they NOTHING alike
33. Mark Noonan | November 30th, 2007 at 12:51 am
LiberalT,
Only because you wish it so - your irrational hatred of President Bush coupled with your sad ignorance of history prevents you from viewing the situtation with a bit of detachment.
34. liberalT | November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
so Mark - you are saying that the reasons for going to war in WWII and the reasons for going to war in Iraq are comparable? Or that they are somehow comparable otherwise?
I don’t have “irrational hatred” for Bush. I don’t hate him - I strongly disagree with many of his attitudes, beliefs, and actions. You really have to stop this “anyone who disagrees with me is just blinded by Bush hatred ” nonsense. Its just making you more of a laughing stock than ever…
35. Kahn | November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
LiberalT, are you Sam? I was responding to Sam’s apparent hatred of the military. You ARE reading those posts aren’t you?
But, IS the government of Cambridge denying the Boy Scouts the ability to collect soap and shampoo for the troops an anti-war action and not an anti-troop action? Really?
Ditto for the California Guard question. You see a distinction between anti-war and anti-troop. But the actions are clearly anti-troop. Yes? You don’t see it? Am I explaining it wrong? Or, well ARE you Sam?
36. liberalT | November 30th, 2007 at 1:08 am
I’m not Sam. I am not familiar with these instances to comment really. Sure - some antiwar people could be anti soldier - but again the VAST VAST majority are not. I do not have to defend the actions of everybody that happens to share one opinion with me.
37. Kahn | November 30th, 2007 at 1:38 am
You……. are ignorant of the things I speak of? Well, you must have very good news sources.
(liberal) City government stops Scouts from supporting troops
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1045046
(liberal) California legislators refuse National Guard education benefits. In fact, they killed just about every suggested improved benefit…
http://www.califveterans.com/National%20Guard.htm
Though admittedly. finding published reports of the problem is difficult
http://gaypatriot.net/2007/10/26/liberals-support-the-troops-patriotism-week
Gotta love the name of the site above - ha!
38. What? | November 30th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Shoehorning Iraq into the circumstnace the world found itself in the 1930s is just as tenuous as shoehorning Iraq into the Vietnam script.
C’mon people, face facts. As long as the United States exists ardent war supporter will compare any war to WWII and ardent war opponents will compare any war to Vietnam.
Iraq is a different beast. Terrorism is a different beast. To compare them to only two past wars that were fought in differnet parts of the world against different cultures is folly.
Interestingly, no one I have seen here has carefully examined the Iraq war in comparison with other wars in the region either recent or in the more distant past.
39. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 5:41 am
These individuals have put aside their own needs to confront real issues that affect all Americans and the entire world.
Put aside their own needs? Gore and Moore have sworn off double cheeseburgers? Howeird Dean is off the Prozac again? Eeeeeaaaaaahhh!!!
40. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Sam,
The only fact in your post is the fact that you are an uneducated, ignorant, left-wing kook.
Well stated, eric–Sam is a lemming kook.
Sam, why don’t you join up, refuse the bennies, and give to your country as these brave souls have, you cowardly wanker. Or, better yet, go jump in front of a bus. Neo-Stalinist tool…
41. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Interestingly, no one I have seen here has carefully examined the Iraq war in comparison with other wars in the region either recent or in the more distant past.
Interestingly, no Donkaroach currently running for the White House recognizes the threat we face from Islamofascists.
Now he is Swift-boated by these very same people,…
Sooo, now our resident cow has replaced “neocons” with “swift-boated.” One wonders what bumper-sticker ol’ Elsie will learn next. MOO!!!
42. eric | November 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
No one here has carefully examined the Iraq war in comparison with other wars in the region because it will simply fall on deaf ears. I don’t think that any of the anti-war people that post hear will even listen to reason - let alone read an extensive post comparing the Iraq war to another war in the region.
However, for those that like to do independent research, the closest comparison that I can find is the war that the French fought in Algeria in which they had to struggle against an insurgency mounted by Muslim extremists. Research a gentleman by the name of David Galula and his book entitled,Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice.
43. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Thrower,
It’s foolish to argue with a lib over any war! Especially when “the lib” is anti-American, anti-US Military and anti-GWB.
However, you’re wrong, and Iraqi Freedom, phase one was the smoothest invaision of all time. Really, look at the facts…not the liberal talking points.
44. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“The fast majority of anti-war people are against the war and not the soldiers.”
Oh, really? How about Jack Murtha, Kerry et al. of your representatives that have condemned our soldiers?
If these pols are “representative” of the people’s will, then I’d have to say you’re either living on a different planet, or extremely ignorant.
Remember this quote: “Our soldiers are killing innocent civilians in cold blood?”
45. Sam | November 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
who even said I am an American……Thank GOD i am not an american!
46. Kahn | November 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Oh, then ignore that noise on you roof Sam. Go back to sleep…..
47. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Is that Sambo the suicide bomber…back again??
Good grief son, we thought you’d be surrounded by virgins, suckin down a mai tai by now.
I guess you must have failed your electrical engineering classes down at GT. Or was that your fast tracked law degree?
Either way, you weren’t missed.
48. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 1:54 am
liberals supporting the troops…
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/24/video-portland-protesters-serenade-troop-effigy-with-death-chants/
49. What? | December 1st, 2007 at 3:07 am
Eric,
Thank you for the reserach info.
I know no one on this site would research a war we were not involved in. Some may not even choose to reserach the ones we lost.
I view myself as the Ron Paul of this site. In these recent debates Paul is a constant reminder of the absurdity of the current war. He speaks and the candidates and the audience dismiss him but a portion of hardcore conservative America is listening and beginning to nod their heads.
Like Paul I write in and point out the absurdity of the views expressed here and offer suggestions on how to minimize or stop the absurdity. Unlike Paul, I do this with no hope of altering the views of the site’s regulars. These people have drank the koolaid and have egos that won’t allow them to be wrong. (Some people on this site actually believe their political opinions are blessed by Jesus. How can you shake that type of resolve?) For me its about entertainment. What will they say next? It is also a window why tha candidates do what they do.
An example:
Republican candidates don’t actually think gays will destroy the military. Most don’t care if gays get married. They are playing to the base, namely these guys. The candidates dress up the thinking behind their bases opposition so as not to offend the majority of Americans. It is interesting (and often upsetting) to see the base’s thinking laid raw.
50. Mark Noonan | December 1st, 2007 at 3:23 am
LiberalMind,
What you are failing to understand is what real service is. To be a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine is a sublime act of service - there are a thousand other things a young man or woman could do…and over the past five years, knowing that battle is a near certainty, to still volunteer to serve is just that much more worthy of praise…and, so, we praise them.
Real service is a rarity these days…and we honor those who are willing to actually get out there and do something for others.
51. Mark Noonan | December 1st, 2007 at 3:28 am
What,
And you know that how? Did you query the thousands of people who make up the senior ranks of the GOP and get them to admit that their whole opposition to gay marriage and abortion is just a scam to get idiot Christians to vote for them?
After you’ve answered those questions, I like you to also answer this:
Do you think about what you believe before you proclaim it, or is there an entire disconnect between brain and mouth (or keyboard)?
52. What? | December 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Oh Mark,
Do you even watch the debates? Look at the main candidates in your party. Romney said in 1994 he hoped gays would be in the military. Guilani was pro-gay marriage as mayor of New York. Bush was caught on tape about how he disliked the anti-gay sentiment of his base. McCain was openly hostile to the Falwells and Robertson only eight years ago but has tried to snuggle up to them recently. A member of Bush’s faith based initiative wrote a book on how members of the Administration laughed about their Christian voting base. Then there is Larry Craig and Tom Foley. Certainly some Republicans believe the anti-gay rhetoric but your field of candidates does not contain these men. Even Huckabee seems sort of half hearted on the issue.
So Mark, wake up. These men know what you want to hear so they say it to you so you will vote for them. What do you think politics is?
Also Mark, simply reading through the comments on this site demonstrates the mild oppostion to the “homosexual agenda” expressed by the elected Republicans is fuled by a strong dislike and fear of homosexuals by the base. I point you to the comments made by AAR, JS and Jeremiah. In that sense, the Republican party does not represent precisely the sentiments of a portion of its voting block because it knows that’s a losing formula. Republicans give lip service to the anti-gay agenda without demonstrating a belief in the irrational fear behind it. (AAR thinks gays are going to knock down his door and force him to become a homosexual.)
Finally, you are wrong to equate Christianity to opposition to homosexuals. Your site does Christianity a disservice by boiling down Chrisitian beliefs to opposition to homosexuality and abortion. Christianity is a bit more complicated than this. Also, not allowing gays in the military has nothing to do with Christianity as you seem to suggest.
P.S. I wish for the day when I have access to a truth serum and high ranking members of GOP. That would make for great TV.