I am not going to slam him in a disrespectful manner. That would be a violation of the UCMJ. I have nothing but the deepest respect for General Pace as a leader and as an officer. Full-stop, no questions asked, no caveats.
He made some comments. To the press, who loves this sort of stuff.
The 'Money Quote' being, as everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for two days, is now aware:
"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
Of course, the Professionally Indignant Queers [tm] launched off into cheetah flips with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
General Pace's aides have stated he has no plans to apologize, but he did issue a clarification, the full text of which seems to be difficult to find. To wit, he mentioned that this was his personal view as to why the current policy is a good thing.
So the Indignant Queers are up in arms, and the politicians have to scramble. The Democratic line seems to be that which is being talked up by Moonbat-in-Chief, Nancy Pelosi. To wit, that the MILITARY should change the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue policy.
Nancy is apparently unaware that the policy is not the Military's policy, but United States Code.
How freakin' stupid can you be? Dear Nancy must have forgotten her own vote back in 1993. I understand, she's been busy getting botox injections. She managed to hit two of my own pet peeves in one statement.
1) DO NOT suggest anything that would tend to support the weakening of civil control over the military.
2) DO NOT pander to a vocal minority of your electorate by attacking a policy that you voted for, without having any intention to introduce legislation to alter that policy. You're Speaker of the House. You have the ability to introduce legislation. Use it, or get your artificially constructed face out of the spotlight.
As for the General, I'm of two minds on this subject. Obviously, I don't believe that members of the Armed Forces should be restricted from expressing their opinions, even controversial opinions. On the other hand, while everyone who reads this blog knows that I am in the Army and the rank I hold, I very carefully disassociate my personal political, religious, and moral views from my official position. If I were in uniform, talking to verdammt media weenies, I would NOT rpt NOT venture to offer opinion on anything, other than in my professional capacity. It's called 'staying in your lane'. My lane, as a buck sergeant, is pretty narrow. The Chairman of the JCS's lane is pretty broad. Further, a professional does not speak.
As for the policy itself, I've got better things to do than concern myself with sexual orientation or proclivities of any of my Soldiers unless and until it becomes an impediment to military discipline. That's the whole Don't Ask and Don't Pursue issue. I've been Told a time or two in the past, but I didn't see the issue as affecting discipline as the Soldier in question was doing his job and doing it well, and his orientation was not negatively affecting morale or cohesion.
And that's all I have to say about that.