Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (It’s Always About the Gays Except When It’s About the Muslims Edition)

Not enough Eeeevil Muslims in the news this week, so Bryan has to use his American Family Association-provided pulpit to bring us the Huge, Hidden, Untold, Kept-Secret Story of the Week: Julian Assange is not the bad guy here – the homosexual soldier is.

Shocking, I know.

The out-of-the-mainstream media has collaboratively kept the focus on the sex criminal, Julian Assange, …

Actually, I think the Swedish government, the UK government, and Interpol have all kept the focus on Mr Assange.  Whether the charges against him (which are hardly the sort of thing that Interpol ever gets involved in, wonder why) are eventually proven, let alone germane to the WikiLeaks revelations, remains to be seen.

That said, Bryan, there is a smackerel of truth about what you say: the MSM loves a sex scandal.  Indeed,  they’ve been more focused on that titillating detail than some of the much more important bits of information revealed by WikiLeaks — or, for that matter, the gone-apeshit reaction about it from some quarters.

… and off the guy who has committed actual treason, …

I will say this for Bryan Fischer — as opposed to such luminaries as Sarah Palin and Joe Lieberman — he recognizes that because Assange is an Australian citizen, he cannot be accused of treason for releasing US secret documents.

… the homosexual soldier Bradley Manning, who sold out his country in what may turn out to be fit of gay pique.

“Sold out” is, at best, misleading, in that Manning is not charged with (or rumored to have been motivated by) any financial gain.

And, of course, “what may turn out” can be used in any fashion, Bryan.  It may turn out that Manning was a Chinese spy.  It may turn out that Manning was an alien from outer space.  It may turn out the Manning is the world’s most inappropriate practical joker. It may turn out that Manning was a plant by the Religious Right to discredit homosexuals.

Hey, this is fun.

Oh, and is “gay pique” somehow different from “straight pique”?  Really?

Manning was, at a minimum, seriously confused about his sexuality, …

Because Bryan can’t imagine a gay person actually being gay, just being confused about being gay.

… and at worst, launched the WikiLeaks campaign to strike back at the military for its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which he vehemently opposed.

I vehemently oppose DADT.  Does that make me … wait, someone’s pounding on the door …

At any rate, it’s hardly established that Manning was driven by animus against DADT. He seems to have been ticked off over a number of things, and, privy to the information he was, cynical about American motivations (or the motivations of various Americans) in affairs such as Iraq.

It may be that he felt oppressed.  That doesn’t exonerate him, but, as we all know, feelings of oppression aren’t unique to gays.

Regardless, he is a one-man argument for keeping open homosexuals from serving in the military in the first place. If the 1993 law – which flatly prohibits homosexuals from a place in the armed services – had been followed, there would be no PFC Bradley Manning and no WikiLeaks.

On the other hand, if the 1993 law had not been in place, there might have been no interest on his part (assuming, which is hardly proven, that such  was his primary motivation) in revealing the information, and thus no WikiLeaks.  (Well, actually, WikiLeaks has been around for years, so maybe no present WikiLeaks contretemps).

Or if the cables in question (or the infamous helicopter gunship incident) had not occurred, there would be nothing to be leaked.

Or if we hadn’t gone into Iraq, Manning wouldn’t have been stationed there with his assignment that gave him access to the information.

Or if a Giant Meteor had crashed into Oklahoma in 1987, he might never have been born.

Manning was quite open about his flirtation with all manner of sexual orientations on social networking sites, evidence the military could not use to discharge him because of inane rules established under DADT.

Um, Bryan, though I’m hardly surprised, clearly you don’t understand how DADT works, in principle or in practice.  If the military had evidence of Manning’s homosexuality — if he’d “told” through his actions in a way that it came to official notice — then the military could, in fact, have discharged him. It’s happened to thousands of gays since DADT came about — whether it be from malicious gossip-mongers ratting on their fellow soldiers, or having the bad luck to be spotted holding hands with someone of the wrong gender.

DADT allows a soldier to serve as long as he keeps his sexual proclivities a secret. Since the law prohibits homosexual service, period, DADT was established as a way for homosexuals to break federal law as long as they didn’t tell anybody they were breaking the law.

Or, on the other hand, for the military to not go on regular witch-hunts for Evil Gays, just de facto ones that resulted whenever someone’s homosexuality came to official notice.

The absurdity of this is obvious. You want to counterfeit U.S. currency? Fine, we’re okay with it as long as you don’t tell us you’re doing it.

Actually, Bryan, I agree with you here.  The absurdity is obvious. We’re telling folks who are willing to serve their country, even to go in harm’s way and risk injury or death, that they can only do it if they lie about who they love.

Unfortunately, in 1993, that was the closest civilized society could get to a compromise.  And it was a pretty crappy one.

I mean, I suppose we could have just decided to stone all of them. That would have resolved the problem.  Would that have made you happier, Bryan?

And now we discover today that the gay caballero …

… ZING! …

… has released to Muslim terrorists a veritable high-value target list of worldwide installations that are the most “critical” to the security of the United States.

The list includes factories, fuel companies, undersea cables, communication hubs, pipelines, ports and a host of other “key resources.”

According to MSNBC, these are “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”

Actually, that’s the phrasing used to collect the suggestions by the officials gathering and putting the list together.

Of course, there’s no evidence presented at the moment that Manning knew that particular file was in the stuff he downloaded.

And there’s no evidence that he did it all as some sort of fit of “gay pique” (what was that again, Bryan?).

And, for that matter, I’ve not seen anything to indicate that the list has anything truly confidential on it.  I mean, one item is “The Straits of Hormuz.”  Well, heck, who’d ever think of that as a strategic point?

9-11 wasn’t plotted by people with some sort of master roadmap to America’s Most Important Strategic Assets.  And I doubt the WTC or the Pentagon are on that list.  If I were a terrorist, I could probably figure out most of these with a bit of thought and research.  And I could probably think of several others that would make an even bigger public splash.

If this is not a treasonable offense which merits the death penalty, nothing is. The bottomless depth of Manning’s perfidy is growing darker by the day.

How does a “bottomless depth” “grow darker,” especially in the day?  Do you have an editor, Bryan?

Gen. Washington said of Benedict Arnold’s betrayal that it was “treason of the blackest dye.” Well, Bradley Manning is running a close second, and should meet his end at the end of a rope or its functional equivalent.

Really, Bryan?  Not that I don’t think that Manning should face charges — it seems pretty clear that his alleged activities are violation, as charged, of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134, for “transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system,” and “communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source.”  But it’s no more established that the information that Manning passed on has concretely harmed national security, or caused loss of life, any more than that he did it all out of the elusively-classed “gay pique.”

It’s no wonder that the Old Media rarely if ever even references Manning any more.

Aside from the fact that he’s under arrest and awaiting a hearing.

And I believe it is for one simple reason:

“Simple” pretty much describes it.

Manning singlehandedly torpedoes their argument that homosexuals can be allowed to serve in our military without consequence.

Wow, let’s see. I’m not aware of any huge wave of gays in the military committing treason.  So we essentially have this one case, from which you establish that gays are intrinsically unfit to serve.  Never mind that we know there have been lots of gays who served in the military — there are lots of DADT discharges to prove it.  None of them were accused of treason, so far as I know.  Many of them were decorated heroes.  But this one case somehow proves your point, is that it, Bryan?

But  let’s cast our net further.  In the annals of military traitors … well, hey, let’s use your first place example of Benedict Arnold.  Looking at his biography, I think we can safely assume that the following classes of individuals cannot be “allowed to serve in our military without consequences”:

1. Merchants and successful businessmen
2. People who loan the country money
3. Tax protesters
4. Ambitious people
5. Natives of Connecticut
6. Commandants of West Point
7. Guys with ponytails
8. Guys with wigs
9. Masons
10. Heterosexuals

I see your point, Bryan.  Shifty, suspicious, untrustworthy the lot of ’em.

And that’s the end of Fischer’s essay.  Finis.  Exeunt, pursued by gay bear. No explanation of the reasoning involved is provided.  Manning is gay, therefore (as if Bryan needed any more evidence), gays cannot be allowed to serve in the military.  He basically sets up Manning as the Gay Benedict Arnold, and uses that … somehow … to prove that all gays are Benedict Arnolds in waiting.

It defies logic.  It’s driven by hatred.  It’s just plain old doltish.

Good ol’ Bryan Fischer …