In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Mel186 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Doug Giles is right on and wrote an excellent, funny column. The big question remains -- what is the military's strategic purpose in making such an insane new regulation? Is pleasing lesbians now more important than winning wars with your best effort?
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:56 PM
MEL there was NO rational, military, strategic purpose for this move. It was a political payoff! Panetta is a tool, and Hillary ("Somebody save me from this piano-legged Harpy....Bill Clinton quote) is a fool!

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...