Previous post
It is disheartening to watch the Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing for Pete Hegseth. Quite a few, nay most, Senators seem to be intentionally misunderstanding the term “women in combat”. The shrieking and wailing, the condescension and theatrical outrage were for the consumption of the television viewers and legacy media. They beclowned themselves with their outrage and ignorance.
We all knew this was coming. The Democrats and Media tipped us off from jump. What was stunning was the level of pretend and real ignorance around the subject of women in combat. We know the Senators don’t know shit from Shinola regarding the internet, business and families. We can now add our military to the list. It wasn’t but minutes after Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker gaveled the hearing in that Jeanne Shaheen showed her ignorance. “Women in the military” “women in combat” and “women in certain combat roles” are entirely different categories. Here is the write-up from Alternet:
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) began her questioning by reading excerpts from Hegseth’s book “The War on Warriors,” in which he wrote that women were “comparatively less effective than men in combat roles” and that women were “more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war.” Hegseth pushed back and insisted that women “have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield.”
However, the Granite State’s senior U.S. senator wasn’t buying it. She reminded the Fox News personality that there were two members of the committee – Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) — who “served honorably and with distinction.” She then directly asked Hegseth if their service “made our military less effective and less capable” as a result.
Shaheen reminded the committee that after President-elect Donald Trump nominated him to lead the military, Hegseth praised women in combat roles, saying they did a “fantastic job.” She then pivoted to her next question, saying she was “confused” about Hegseth’s honest views about women in the military.
Confused? Only because she doesn’t understand the military, war, combat or the asymmetrical battlefield. Duckworth was a combat helicopter pilot and Ernest was a logistician. Vital and necessary roles. These women military veterans must or should know, right. But, they don’t or pretend they don’t. Here Tom Cotton and Pete Hegseth discuss women in the military versus women in ground combat roles:
Standards to maximize efficacy and LETHALITY. Not gender.
Then, there was poor Kirsten Gillibrand. This was painful to listen to.
BREAKING: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) yells at the top of her lungs, balls her fist at Pete Hegseth over his past comments on women serving in the military.
"We have hundreds – HUNDREDS – of women currently in the infantry. LETHAL members of the military. But you DEGRADE… pic.twitter.com/HJB09e7aF2
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 14, 2025
Senator Cotton was giving Hegseth different levels of combat because they are very different levels of combat, not because they are layups. Gillibrand whining looks bad for all women. One deployment I am familiar with to Kandahar was Heavy Equipment Trucks. Men and women, all races, colors and creeds. Are they in danger? Hell yes. They are not a combat unit or door kickers. Kirsten so clearly doesn’t understand any of that.
Tammy Duckworth and Joni Ernst surely know the difference between logistics or helicopter pilots and ground combat. If they don’t, that is really tragic. From the New York Times:
He faced friendlier questioning from Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, who retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard.
Ms. Ernst used her time to get him to repeat publicly promises she has said he made to her in private: to support the role of men and women in the military provided they can meet certain standards, to appoint a senior officer to strengthen her past work to prevent sexual assault and rape in the military, and to conduct an audit of the Pentagon.
Ms. Ernst’s support is viewed as critical to Mr. Hegseth’s chances of confirmation by the whole Senate. But in this session, her more genial approach contrasted with most of the other female questioners.
”You are not qualified, Mr. Hegseth,” said Ms. Duckworth, an Army veteran who lost her legs in the Iraq war. “You are asking us to lower the standards to make you the secretary of defense simply because you are buddies with a president elect.”
It seems that if Duckworth and Ernst loved the military, they might have explained the difference to their colleagues.
The Times article mentions Mazie Hirono. Gah!
Senator Hirono said she had noticed “a disturbing pattern” of “inflammatory statements” not just about women in combat, but about L.G.B.T.Q. service members, asking: “If confirmed, will you commit to defend, not denigrate our troops?”
She also tried to force him to promise that he would resign if he broke his promise never to drink alcohol if he was confirmed as the defense secretary. Mr. Hegseth said only that he had made the commitment not to drink.
Yes, speaking of drunk at work. Yikes:
NEW: Pete Hegseth shuts down a slurring Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono after she accused him of getting drunk at Fox News.
She's the one who sounds drunk.
Hirono: "I have read multiple reports of your regularly being drunk at work, including by people who worked with you at Fox… pic.twitter.com/up4Acn4XeT
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 14, 2025
“I’m not a General.” Perfect. The look on the face of Angus King represents the entire Democrat Party.
These Senators and their idiocy and ignorance make me sad, but they are not mine, thank God. I have Hagerty and Blackburn and they are not stupid. Confirm Pete Hegseth.
Featured Image: Cspan/Screenshot/cropped/Public Domain
Cameron says: You are asking us to lower the standards to make you the secretary of defense simply because you are buddies with a president elect.”
You and your fellow Senators are asking us to lower the standards of the infantry so you can get a rainbow of diversity in the field even though it won’t be effective.
GWB says: When, ironically, Hegseth would dramatically RAISE the standards of SecDef over the last several.
GWB says: I really don’t care about all of their arguments about equality and such.
Women, as a category, should not be in combat roles because they are women. While they might be very capable in some roles, they should be protected as mothers and wives. That has always been the essence of not allowing women into combat roles – if you send your women to war (except in very desperate circumstances) you have either failed in your duty as a culture or you don’t care about your posterity. It’s a moral argument, and their moral is “equity” while my moral is things like preservation of women and chivalry.
Only after you’ve made that argument should you make the one about their lesser capability in ground combat, IMO. Even though it is an effective argument, it leaves things like “combat helicopter pilot” hanging out there as OK, even though you’re still putting women in harm’s way and subjecting them to potential additional victimization in the hands of the enemy.
surely know the difference between logistics or helicopter pilots and ground combat
Oh, they do, Toni, they do! Combat postings GET YOU PROMOTED. That is almost the only reason any of them want those jobs. We didn’t (before these confused times) promote women to 4-stars and let them run the military because they were only in logistical or non-line roles. Then we tried promoting those women into top line positions just to get women in there. The next step had to be getting them actually into line roles – and they did.
I hope they confirm this man. But, if not, I am willing to be nominated, and my answers will be even more militaristic and combative than Hegseth’s.
3 Comments