Democrats assail Chambliss on military sex debate

Thursday, June 6, 2013 6:55 AM
Last updated 9:12 PM
  • Follow Government

ATLANTA – Comments Sen. Saxby Chambliss made about the hormone levels of young soldiers and sailors in condemning sexual assault in the military have quickly become part of the ongoing debate between political parties.

Chambliss  AP
AP
Chambliss

The Georgia Republican made the comments in a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing Tuesday as he was lecturing the heads of the military branches about the need to prevent sexual assaults. Chambliss, who is retiring from the Senate next year, was already the cosponsor of two bills, S 871 and S 548, which strengthen the prosecution of military rapes, and he favors removing commanders’ authority to overturn rape convictions by a jury.

“The young folks that are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22 or 23. Gee whiz, that’s -- the level of -- the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur,” said Chambliss. “So we have got to be very careful how we address it on our side (in the Senate), but guys we’re not doing our jobs. You’re not doing yours, and we’re not doing ours with the rates that we are seeing on sexual assaults.”

Democrats soon sent messages on social media blasting him for the comment and for implying that rape was a matter of “boys will be boys.”

The Democratic Party of Georgia sent a message on Twitter saying the comment was reason to end Republicans’ control of that Senate seat.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, called on Chambliss to apologize.

“I think he should think about whether if, God forbid, a sexual assault happens to a daughter of his, would he think it’s OK for a senator to just chalk the assault up to raging hormones,” she told the MSNBC cable network.

Some commentators likened the hormone observation to Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin’s remark during last year’s campaign that “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy unless the victim is aroused. Many observers believe Akin lost his race as a result of what he said, and Democrats have used it as proof of what they call the Republicans’ “war on women” because GOP officials were slow to distance themselves from Akin.

Not to be accused of the same thing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, issued his own statement critical of Chambliss shortly after the Senate hearing.

“It’s simple; criminals are responsible for sexual assaults, not hormones,” said Turner, co-chair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus. “Perpetuating this line of thinking does nothing to help change the culture of our military.”

The perception of the comments’ toxic nature spread so fast that Wednesday a spokeswoman for the Medical College of Georgia at Georgia Health Sciences University, Christine Carter, refused a reporter’s request to speak to a medical expert on hormones.

“It’s just not our policy to comment on stories about public officials if it’s not directly affecting the university,” she said, noting that the university receives appropriations from the state legislature.

Political analyst Bill Crane with CSI Crane in Atlanta said anyone speaking without a script, as Chambliss was, can stumble upon phrasing that looks bad when taken out of context.

“Politicians are like anyone else; they have unguarded moments,” Crane said, adding that there’s no reason to attack a senator who isn’t running for re-election other than to try to score political points.

He advised Chambliss to quickly apologize and say nothing else about it, noting that it would have drawn little attention except on a slow-news day.

CHAMBLISS COMMENTS:

Below is a transcript supplied by Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ office of the full conversation during a hearing on the Uniform Code of Military Justice before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was speaking to the Joint Chief of Staff who were testifying on the issue of sexual assault.

Chambliss: First of all let me say that I think each of you delivered a statement with emotion and passion, and you obviously recognize the seriousness of the issue, and I take you at your word that we are going to get to the bottom of number one, how we attack the issue and secondly as to the best way to resolve it moving forward, particularly in light of the fact that now if we are going to have women in combat I think the potential for the issue to increase is going to become even greater.

Admiral Greenert, I want to go back to an incident that didn’t occur on your watch, but as I recall several years ago when we had the first females go out on an aircraft carrier that when they returned to port, a significant percentage of those females were pregnant. I don’t remember the exact percentage, but as I recall, it was a pretty high percentage.

Was any investigation made by the Navy following that incident to determine whether or not all of those pregnancies occurred as a result of consensual acts or was there any investigation made regarding sexual attacks that were made on that carrier?

Admiral Jonathan Greenert: Senator, I’ll have to take that one for the record and go dig up and get the facts behind that.

Chambliss: Well my reason for asking that is that I hear, and I understand all of you talk about the importance for chain of command and the importance that we follow that, and if we are going to maintain good order and discipline in the military across the board that’s got to be the case.

But there’s also got to be some kind of fear put into these young people that come to every branch of our service the very first day that they raise their hand and swear to defend the constitution, and the fear has got to be that that chain of command that we allude to, really is serious about making sure that these types of sexual assaults do not occur, and by golly if they do, starting with drill sergeant all the way to the top, somebody is going to make sure that you pay the price if this does happen, and if you look at the private sector, if something like that had happened, there would have been an extensive investigation, and it wouldn’t be taken for granted that everything was consensual.

But I dare say that after that happened it made the headlines and the paper. I was on the personnel subcommittee at the time that happened, and frankly, I don’t recall any investigation being made of it.

And looking back on it, it’s easy now to say it should have because of the number of instances that we’ve seen.

The easiest way to eliminate this problem is to make sure it never happens in the first place and that those men and women are trained early on as to types of situations they ought to avoid and the consequences if something like this does happen, so to each of you, let me just ask you, and I’ll start, General Welsh, with you, and come right down the line.

Is there any background check done during the recruitment process to determine whether or not these young men and young women have had any incidences that might lead to this?”

Gen. Mark Welsh: Sir, there are background checks done, but as we previously mentioned, I’m sure there have been cases where people have entered the military and entered the air force who have had a problem with us in the past that is not in any formal database.

Background check in regard to criminal records, those are done, but as General Welch said, to the degree and the success, we have to go back and check.

Gen. Ray Odierno: Same, background checks are done, but the ability to identify sexual offenders is certainly not 100% right now, and we have to do a better job of doing that. We need help with having a better database, but also making sure we are scrutinizing those as we go forward.

Gen. James Amos: Senator, we are plugged in deeply to the FBI database, and we absolutely willingly will not recruit a marine or candidate that has a sexual assault background at all. And when we find out we have a marine that has committed and is convicted of it, they are discharged.

Admiral Robert Papp: Same here senator, we do a background on every person that is recruited, and if we find someone who slipped through the cracks and we found a previous conviction, that is a fraudulent enlistment, and they are discharged.

Chambliss: Well I doubt that there, well there may be some exceptions, as General Dempsey, you responded to Senator McCain on, there may be some exceptions to folks who slip through that crack, but you’re going to have to go further than looking at convictions of individuals, and I don’t know how you’re going to do that, whether you get additional character references or what.

There may be things known within the community about individuals that need to be given to the military to prepare, and it may be on other issues also, but we’ve got to do a better job of screening folks before they come in.

And the other thing we have to remember, is we think about making changes to the (Uniform Code of Military Justice) in this respect, the young folks that are coming in to each of your services are anywhere from 17-22 or 23, gee whiz.

The level, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. So we’ve got to be very careful in how we address it on our side, but guys, we’re not doing our job. You’re not doing yours, and we’re not doing ours with the rates that we are seeing on sexual assaults as I said to start with, you recognize it, we recognize it, and we’ve got to figure this thing out because we simply can’t tolerate it.”

Comments (24) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
nocnoc
43407
Points
nocnoc 06/06/13 - 08:56 am
5
6
Stupid the way

it was conveyed in such PC world where any political opportunity to snipe and twist words is used when plain spoke language is use.

While I fully agree hormones are no excuse for Physical Sexual Assaults. Neither is jumping on our military for political reasons.

But come on people, doesn't any remember their hormone guided younger days? Most of of us know, and I our parents sure did, from ages 12? to 24? hormones are in overdrive and darn little little common sense is applied.

STOP and remember some of the people you dated and ask yourself would you date them again now if you were single?

==========================

But let us look at the estimated real numbers and not the Political Hype.

I used Wiki to verify the following estimates.

2.2 Million Military Personnel 1,429,995 (2011) Reserve personnel 850,880 (2011). The Hearings and the NEWS keeps using "The Military has had 20k sexual assaults per year of average." news bite.

or about 0.9090909090909091% or about 9/10ths of just 1%

What defines a Sexual Assualt under UCMJ?
An unwanted touch, a grope, to Forced Rape.

A estimated comparison (wiki)
23.5 percent of the USA civilian population of 18 to 49 is is available for the Military about 145,212,012.
73,270,043 males,
71,941,969 females,

USA Crime Sexual Assault statistics for that age are about 194,000 per year.

Or about 6.67741935483871

So USA Civilians of the same age group have
about 6 TIMES MORE Sexual Assaults than our Military.

Now ask yourself this question?

Why this big political deflecting smoke screen being used at this particular time?

IRS, Benghazi, Fast and the Furious etc. etc...

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 06/06/13 - 10:04 am
0
0
lefties are
Unpublished

off balance, mentally. They mix the sexes in hostile environs and expect a different social ladder. Sexual assault occurs daily in the civilian world. Why would it not occur in the military? The problem I see is a woman in the military regretting her decision to join, having a "fleeting" relationship, claiming assault and being on my payroll for life. Men have been ruled by the "one-eyed monster" during their adolescent and early manhood years. Why would you place the two sexes in a situation like today's Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard? STUPID POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. For those of you that are unaware; men don't give birth and women don't get themselves pregnant.

resident
501
Points
resident 06/06/13 - 10:15 am
5
3
You got that right!!!

Chambliss is correct it is medical fact about Hormones... Here is the real issue, Discipline has basically bee squashed in the Military because of all of this politically correct BS. Not being allowed to reprimand because you might hurt feelings, not being allowed to make them do pushups, not allowed to make them put full gear on and march for a mile or more...Come on let's bring back the discipline in the military as it should be...This will not fix but will point people in the right direction. I would venture to say a very large percentage of these kids entering service now have had either no freedoms or have had little parental family values, teachings and interactions. This discipline is probably the first they have seen in their lives, No paddling, no corporal punishment in schools...This is what they need discipline...teach them they are responsible for their actions and there are consequences for those actions!

kissofdeath
415
Points
kissofdeath 06/06/13 - 10:51 am
5
12
When you not running for re-

When you not running for re- election again, the truth come out and its not good. The Republican party only defend the rich. They dont care for women, poor, middle class, creating jobs or etc.......

happychimer
17992
Points
happychimer 06/06/13 - 12:07 pm
4
1
Defending sexual assaults but

Defending sexual assaults but condemning consensual sex. Something is wrong.

Dixieman
15306
Points
Dixieman 06/06/13 - 02:36 pm
5
3
This is insane

1. The quoted remarks do not excuse anyone or anything. They point to a contributing cause -- NOT an excuse -- for these crimes.
2. Read all the Senator's remarks and you will see he is concerned about these crimes and this problem and is looking for solutions and has sponsored legislation to fix it.
3. Military's mission is to defend our country, not to be a social science lab for grad students. Focus, people.
4. If this were any other crime the liberals who want to screw up our military would be whining about the poor, underprivileged backgrounds of the defendants, how it is all society's fault, etc. They just reserve a few of their favorite issues -- sexual assault, "hate" speech, being a conservative, etc. from the excuse factory and want to give draconian punishments for THEIR causes.
5. I disagree with Senator Chambliss on removing commanders' authority to dismiss charges. I was a company commander in Vietnam in 1968-69 and part of my maintaining unit morale and cohesion so we could accomplish our mission was my command authority over Article 15s, courts martial, other military discipline, etc. Although my unit was all male as was common in those days, the underlying principle remains the same. Don't undermine commanders' authority -- this will come back to haunt us some day and interfere with ACCOMPLISHING THE MISSION which should be the focus here.

Darby
26032
Points
Darby 06/06/13 - 03:20 pm
5
2
Quote directly from Sen.

Chambliss, ".....we’ve got to figure this thing out because we simply can’t tolerate it.”

What the hell is Debbie the ignorant sleaze complaining about???

The gratuitous, throw-away line about hormones?? Those hormones may have some drawbacks, but without them, few would possess the drive to become real warriors.

But maybe that's a deliberate component of the Democrat plan to emasculate our military.

They constantly harp that our armed services should be more like Sweden's. Maybe that's the objective.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 06/06/13 - 06:24 pm
0
0
democrats
Unpublished

assailing consevatives is the same as a pedophile being a Boy Scout Master.

DxD
37
Points
DxD 06/06/13 - 06:37 pm
3
3
One of the first things I

One of the first things I noticed is that many of the accused rapists are well beyond their "raging hormones" days, aged from about 45-50 yrs old. Late bloomers maybe? I don't buy into that "rape? well, boys will be boys." or "that's just what happens when males and females mix" line, that's just old fashioned sexism and insulting gender stereotypes.

nocnoc seems to think this is just to distract from other "controversies" (aka conservative talking points) and supports this by saying "see the rest of the country rapes too" the point he's missed is that in the military, sexual assaults don't even get reported unless a superior officer allows them to, which isn't the case in the civilian world. this must change. nocnoc also asks us to recall our hormone filled days. well I thought about it, and I didn't rape anyone, did you? If I did, I couldn't blame my "natural hormones" for it, could I?

dixieman defends saxby by saying 1. hormones are a "contributing cause" (they aren't, at least not to any relevant degree) 2. saxby cares (maybe he does, but if he holds such wrongheaded beliefs some of his solutions could be wrongheaded as well), 3. Military not a lab for grad students (dont really get this one, unless he's saying women and gays don't belong in there anyway and this weakens the military and we need to "focus (what you call "focus" sounds like plain old sexism aka women in military equals weakness) 4. ascribing strange and unsubstantiated (unless you're biased of course) claims about liberals and how they defend other criminals (no proof offered here, just red meat for the like-minded, like Darby) and 5. disagrees with the one possibly good idea saxby might've had on the issue.

Bottomline: rape is rape. hormones are not an excuse, a contributing cause, or anything worth talking about. that's not PC spin, that's just proper moral reasoning.

Darby
26032
Points
Darby 06/06/13 - 07:09 pm
5
2
"One of the first things I noticed is that many

of the accused rapists are well beyond their "raging hormones" days, aged from about 45-50 yrs old."

.
Not going to allow you to slip that one past... Define "many". Can't???? Didn't think so. Far too subjective, just as one would expect from a Democrat.

Didn't happen that way, did it???

Darby
26032
Points
Darby 06/06/13 - 07:15 pm
5
2
How convenient that the progs rrepeatedly

and deliberately overlook the most important thing Chambliss said.

".....we’ve got to figure this thing out because we simply can't tolerate it.”

And frankly, I disagree with Sen. Chambliss on that too, given that the military rape level is WELL BELOW that found in civilian society. The civilian sector should only hope to attain the much lower levels of sexual harassment and rape found in our military.

This is just a way to go after American heroes who are otherwise unassailable by the spineless liberals. A pathetic attempt to cast a stain on patriots who take the risks that gutless Americans will not.

The so-called Republican "leadership" has been conned again by the Democrats. Tricked into ignoring the many OzBama scandals while attacking a non-issue.

Democrats have evolved only slightly from their glory days when they spit on returning Vietnam vets, calling them "baby killers".

DxD
37
Points
DxD 06/06/13 - 07:48 pm
3
6
re: Not going to allow you to slip that one past

Darby, I'll let go of "many" (ten or more? how's that definition) and settle for "some". Here's a couple charges off top of my head. 40+ yr old Krusinski Air Force Officer (who, in a terrible twist was IN CHARGE of the rape prevention program) or the 40+ peeping tom guy at West Point or the 50+ general from Fort Bragg. So that's 3 and 3 is "some". Was it "hormones" for these older guys too?

I wonder why you bring up this petty semantic issue. Do you have the numbers on the ages of all those charged and can show them to be mostly young? I admit I haven't seen these numbers.

"the progs rrepeatedly and deliberately overlook the most important thing Chambliss said."

(Skipping over how I'm automatically a "prog" and all that) I didn't overlook that point. I addressed it in my 3rd paragraph, point #2. It's not insignificant that he said that, and I salute him for it, he knows rape is bad. Unfortunately he said other stuff that night that isn't erased cuz he knows rape is bad. The other stuff he said is offensive and that "aw gee whiz aw shucks youngsters ands their hormones" line makes him look like he, on some levels, finds this all understandable.

DxD
37
Points
DxD 06/06/13 - 07:56 pm
3
4
Re: This is just a way to go after American heroes who are other

"This is just a way to go after American heroes who are otherwise unassailable by the spineless liberals."

This actually makes me mad (not the childish namecalling, the stupid idea behind it). Because I'm against rape and using "hormones" as an excuse for it, now to this guy I'm against ALL the military heroes. In fact, this is just my way to "go after them". I'm only interested in protecting those within it from rapists, that's all. This reality may be hard to hear, but just because you wear a uniform doesn't make you a saint. Sometimes, not all the time, bad people serve too.

I, unlike this guy, do not think rape is a "non-issue". Obama's "scandals" might be important, but here they're just a red herring. One subject at a time, pal.

The Vietnam vets got a raw deal from liberals in this country I agree. The mission was flawed, just like Iraq, but you blame the politicians who call for that war, not the warriors themselves.

nocnoc
43407
Points
nocnoc 06/06/13 - 09:04 pm
4
1
Two Yankee Generals had the

Two Yankee Generals had the same problem with their Yankee Troops in the War against State Rights and the 10th amendment.

Each had a their own solution.
General Hooker provided/allowed what we now call Hookers today to "relax" his troops .

General Sherman just allowed his troops to rape Southern Women of all class levels and anything on legs including our Southern Mules.

Yankees troops had no morals.

itsanotherday1
43717
Points
itsanotherday1 06/06/13 - 11:43 pm
2
1
"adding that there’s no

"adding that there’s no reason to attack a senator who isn’t running for re-election other than to try to score political points."

Absolutely a tempest in a teapot. To say that putting young men and women together is not a risk is to ignore nature. That isn't to say non-consensual physical contact is OK in any way, it just recognizes natural tendencies of animals that good morals and common sense normally control.

Just like with any other undesired social behavior, make the penalty not worth the risk.

Bizkit
32128
Points
Bizkit 06/07/13 - 01:02 am
3
1
I am not a Chambliss Fan but

I am not a Chambliss Fan but he is correct with the correlation of hormones and rape. This study and others since the 70's indicate higher testosterone levels in rapists. Hee,hee. And they are trying to make him the idiot.

Psychiatry Res. 2004 Jul 15;127(3):185-93.

Sex hormones and biogenic amine turnover of sex offenders in relation to their temperament and character dimensions.

Giotakos O, Markianos M, Vaidakis N, Christodoulou GN.

Bizkit
32128
Points
Bizkit 06/07/13 - 01:05 am
2
1
Strange people are offended

Strange people are offended with a correlation of hormones with rape yet have no problem associating biology (hormones, brain differences, etc.) and homosexuality. The paradoxes never cease.

DxD
37
Points
DxD 06/07/13 - 02:26 am
1
1
Quickly

Your studies were interesting but only established correlation not causation. Also they measured abnormally high levels in offenders, not normal levels "put there by nature".

Rape and homosexuality are not the same. The comparison is offensive.

Even if one grants that high hormones cause rape, if there's any place where discipline should reign, isn't it the military?

myfather15
55725
Points
myfather15 06/07/13 - 06:44 am
2
1
I honestly don't see how so

I honestly don't see how so many people are on different sides of this debate. Each person on here has good points; but don't seem willing to admit the others have good points. Let's address the issue with COMMON SENSE.

1) Rape is absolutely atrocious and should be punished SEVERELY!!
2) Hormones MIGHT have something to do with it, but one should have self-discipline to NOT harm others; because of their hormones. If they can't restrain THEMSELVES; maybe we should do it for them, IN PRISON!!
3) Rape is Awful, no matter where it is occuring; but as with society in general; it's impossible to completely prevent. If we could completely prevent rape, why stop there? Let's PREVENT ALL crimes.
4) The military might have a problem of sexual assaults being reported by commanding officers; this is true. Look at all the Generals lately being accused of immoral behavior? Does this indicate a possiblbe problem? Is it possible they are more concern with THEIR (not just the military) but THEIR personal image of being an effective commander? If they report this sexual assault; does it reflect bad upon their ability to command and prevent these incidents? Could it effect their chances of being promoted? Are politicians not the exact same? More concerned with their image than doing what is right? Are our "Leaders" not declining in moral integrity? If so, do we NOT expect a decline in the subordinates? Again; I'm not excusing assaults, just saying that when leaders don't possess higher morals; do we expect the followers to do so?

Accountability STARTS at the very top. The subordinates behavior, when being done in mass; is always a direct reflection of the LEADER. Ineffective leadership results in behavior problems from the followers. As much as ALL POLITICIANS LIE; is there any doubt why our Generals and commissioned officers leadership abilities are declining? We must change the culture of this Country to a more disciplined culture. We must be TOUGH on criminals!!
.

Young Fred
17614
Points
Young Fred 06/07/13 - 07:14 am
1
1
Do you notice – how each

Do you notice – how each person that is defending this man has to qualify with “I don’t condone…It is just friggin pitiful!

Any person that has a problem with what the man actually said should “spell it out”. I’m waiting…….

Bodhisattva
6307
Points
Bodhisattva 06/07/13 - 07:16 am
2
2
Both sides should assail

Both sides should assail Saxby on this issue. Unless all males are rapists, the hormone argument is bogus.

Young Fred
17614
Points
Young Fred 06/07/13 - 07:24 am
2
1
Bodhisattva - There is no

Bodhisattva -

There is no "both sides" to this issue. There is accuracy and inaccuracy.

Bizkit
32128
Points
Bizkit 06/07/13 - 11:01 am
1
2
The high testosterone is

The high testosterone is associated with violence-because rape is about violence not sex. And I wasn't comparing rape and homosexuality-just comparing peoples logic in related to them. If I have to explain the obvious -it's just inane. So if hormones have nothing to do with rape then biology has nothing to do with homosexuality and your argument it is a "choice". Now that's choice. Strange machinations of logic going on here.

Young Fred
17614
Points
Young Fred 06/07/13 - 11:45 am
0
1
-"because rape is about

-"because rape is about violence not sex"

Well - pop psychology certainly suggest that is the case. I submit that it falls somewhere between the extremes. Of course that's not Politically correct so it's rejected. Politics almost always warps the "soft" sciences.

Darby
26032
Points
Darby 06/08/13 - 12:31 am
1
2
"One subject at a time, pal."

First of all, I'm not your pal. Second, when you condemn the military out of hand even though you know their sexual assault history is far below national levels, it is tantamount to condemning ALL our military.

Again, when you make oblique and gratuitous references such as, "if there's any place where discipline should reign, isn't it the military?", you are again positing a serious problem that simply doesn't exist. It's called misdirection.

The military is well equipped to deal with disciplinary problems and has a record far superior to the civilian sector. Particularly when you factor in that our military leadership walks on eggshells with regard to anything of a sexual nature. They are an easy target for politicians waiting to pounce without warning in order to garner votes for that next election which is alway just around the corner.

When you take shots at our soldiers, ignoring the real issue, you leave no doubt as to your intentions and your agenda.

DxD
37
Points
DxD 06/17/13 - 08:20 pm
0
0
First of all, I'm not your pal.

And first of all, clearly you don't pick up on sarcasm. No where did I "condemn the military", but merely the rapists within it and the commanding officers that do not see fit to bring their crimes to trial. In some cases, as with the specific examples you asked for and I provided, the very person who is in charge of deciding is himself also an accused rapist. That's disturbing to me, but not to you I guess. And again, this is one reason among many that your constant rejoinder of "far below national levels" is nonsense. Of course it is, since the military numbers is a much much smaller number than the rest of the population (adding to that the previously mentioned problem of a middleman between the crime and the court that we simply do not have in the citizens sphere).

And that's the serious problem. There shouldn't be a middleman deciding what's a rape and what isn't. The number of rapes aside, this is enough to demand a change in policy to protect our soldiers. I would suggest you come off your high-horse and actually listen to the testimony of those raped while in service, and then tell them there's no problem it's all good.

And this isn't a shot at everyone in the military, despite your insistence to the contrary. Let me try to explain where I see the problem. Policy and some commanders who obfuscate cases (whilst themselves under investigation) and politicians who attempt to explain it as a "hormones" issue and of course the rapists themselves. Everybody else (the vast majority I'm sure) is A-OK in my book! It's like if I disagree with WalMart policy and the managers who execute that policy it doesn't mean I hate everyone at WalMart lol! I honestly think you use this "you're attacking the troops" line because you just can't think of any other defense. When I said discipline should reign it was in direct response to the hormones issue, in other words, are you really willing to say our soldiers are so undisciplined they can't control their emotions and they'll just rape? I don't think that's true, so who's really insulting the troops here?

I'm not making a blanket accusation against everyone in uniform. Rape in the military (not just the fact of it, but how it's handled and who's handling, and the "let's make gee golly whiz boys will be boys explanations for it" politicians like Chambliss) is an issue that deserves our attention. You're more than welcome to sit the conversation out if you don't think the problem exists.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Faces of Survival: Breast Cancer Awareness Month series

Breast cancer has touched thousands of families across the Augusta area. In honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October, The Au­gus­ta Chronicle will be featuring ...
Search Augusta jobs