During the January 3 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA radio program, “Gunny” Bob Newman misrepresented the results of a Zogby poll to call former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili “a lying sack of crap.” Shalikashvili had cited one of the findings of the poll in a January 2 New York Times op-ed (“Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military”) to support his perception that “gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers” in the military. Newman further ignored evidence to the contrary when he claimed that there is no “tactical” or “strategic reason” to allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, and he smeared Democratic lawmakers and Shalikashvili by asserting they had ulterior motives for changing the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy.

Shalikashvili made his comments in the context of reported plans by members of the new Democratic majority in Congress to reintroduce legislation to reverse the “don't ask, don't tell” policy -- which former President Bill Clinton enacted in 1993 with Shalikashvili's support -- that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.

In his Times op-ed, Shalikashvili noted that in “a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters ... said they were comfortable interacting with gay people.” The poll of 545 current and former U.S. military service members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations) was conducted October 24-26, 2006, and released in December. According to the poll's Executive Summary:

Three-quarters of those surveyed stated that they felt comfortable around gays and lesbians and four-in-five (78%) noted that they would join the military regardless of their open inclusion.

These results were taken from Questions 24 and 27.

In disputing Shalikashvili's accurate citation of the poll, Newman referred to different poll questions. In one instance, Newman referred to the result of Question 23, which had been posed to that subset of the 545-member sample “who do not know for certain that someone in their unit is gay/lesbian.”

NEWMAN: Well, I went to the Zogby poll. Shalikashvili is a lying sack of crap. He forgot to mention that in the poll, 58 percent -- that's a clear majority -- said an openly gay or lesbian member in their unit would have a negative impact on morale or cohesion. Shalikashvili forgot to mention that and lied about it.

While it is true that 58 percent of this subset responded that they thought the presence of gays and lesbians would negatively impact unit morale, Newman apparently “forgot to mention” that only 38 percent of this same group responded (to Question 22) that the presence of gays and lesbians would negatively impact their personal morale; a majority responded that it would have either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale.

Newman also apparently “forgot to mention” the results of Question 21, which was posed to “those who know for certain that someone in their unit is gay/lesbian.” Of this group, only 27 percent thought that the presence of gays and lesbians had a negative impact on unit morale, while 64 percent said it had “no impact” and the balance thought it had either a positive impact or weren't sure. And 66 percent of this group responded (to Question 20) that the presence of gays and lesbians had no impact on their personal morale, while 6 percent said it had a positive impact.

Newman also selectively cited the result of Question 13 to assert that Shalikashvili “lied.” According to Newman, “Shalikashvili claimed that a Zogby poll shows our military would not mind serving with openly gay members. Highly misleading.” He continued, “The general tried in his op-ed piece to mislead readers about what the poll really asked and really said. This Zogby poll published last month said 37 percent oppose allowing gays to serve openly. Twenty-six percent said they should be allowed.”

However, Newman failed to mention that a majority of respondents -- 63 percent -- agreed with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military (26 percent), were neutral on the question (32 percent) or weren't sure (5 percent).

Newman also denigrated Democrats' motives for lifting the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the military as a fondness for “social experimentations” and a desire “to anger the military.” After asserting that there is no “tactical” or “strategic reason” to reverse the “don't ask, don't tell” policy, Newman ridiculed the argument that the dismissal of gay Arab linguists from the military is problematic, challenging listeners to “name two” cases.

But numerous reports contradict Newman's assertions. As Shalikashvili noted in the first sentence of his op-ed, two weeks before -- at a December 20 press conference -- President Bush called for an “increase in the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines.” The Washington Post reported on December 20 that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker had warned Congress the previous week that “the active-duty Army 'will break' under the strain of today's war-zone rotations” and that former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell stated on December 17 that “the active Army is about broken.”

Addressing the Congress the day after introducing “The Military Readiness Enhancement Act” (H.R. 1059) on March 2, 2005, Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) stated:

With our troops spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military is having serious problems meeting personnel requirements. The Army missed its February recruiting goals by 27 percent. Yet under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we are discharging thousands of experienced, dedicated servicemembers simply because of their sexual orientation.

Hundreds of people let go under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy have skills that are critical to the war on terror, including translators and linguists. These soldiers have the courage to fight and the skills our military needs. There is no reason we should not allow them to serve their country. It is time for Congress to put national security interests first. It is time to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy so we can keep the United States military the strongest in the world.

On July 27, 2006, the Associated Press reported (“Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist: Decorated soldier 'outed' by anonymous e-mail never admitted to charges”) the case of one Arabic language specialist, Bleu Copas. A decorated former sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who, the AP reported, said he had enlisted “out of a post-Sept. 11 sense of duty to his country,” Copas was dismissed because of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy. In November 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the Army's discharge of six Arabic language specialists studying at the Defense Language Institute, including Specialist Alastair Gamble and Pfc. Patricia Ramirez. Beyond these named three, a February 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that in the period 1994-2003, the military dismissed for “homosexual conduct” 54 service members who had trained as specialists in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute.

The National Commission on Terrorism in its 2000 report noted that "[a]ll U.S. Government agencies face a drastic shortage of linguists." The Chronicle quoted Donald Hamilton, an adviser to the commission, saying, “The shortage of Arabic speakers in the intelligence community is well established” and “The loss of talent is a cost of it (don't ask, don't tell).”

On January 13, 2005, the Associated Press reported, “The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is higher than previously reported, according to records obtained by a research group.” The AP further reported:

Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The military previously confirmed that seven translators who specialized in Arabic had been discharged between 1998 and 2003 because they were gay. The military did not break down the discharges by year, but said some, but not all, of the additional 13 discharges of Arabic speakers occurred in 2004.

Finally, Newman suggested the change in Shalikashvili's position on gays in the military was motivated by political ambition and a desire “to be secretary of defense under Hillary Clinton.”

In fact, Shalikashvili stated in his op-ed that his change of opinion was based on his understanding of how the feelings of military personnel toward gay and lesbian service members had changed during the intervening 14 years, citing the Zogby poll as evidence of this change:

When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don't ask, don't tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

From the January 3 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

NEWMAN: Yeah, General Shallow Shal Shalikashvili -- that was his nickname when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, '93 to '97, under Bubba. He -- he was against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, and he was part of the program that is now called “don't ask, don't tell.” He -- that was like a compromise. Well, he wrote this op-ed piece in The New York Times, and now he says that, although he was right back then to oppose it, he's also right now to -- to oppose -- back then he opposed the, you know, the -- he opposed gays openly -- openly serving. He's now changed his mind. And he says he's right this time too. So he wants it on both ways. 303-713-8585.

And in the op-ed piece he forgot to mention. He says, “Oh, I talked to some gay Marines and gay sailors on submarines, and there is no morale or unit cohesion problem,” and that they say that the units and other folks that he heard about in a Zogby poll wouldn't have a problem with it. Well, I went to the Zogby poll. Shalikashvili is a lying sack of crap. He forgot to mention that in the poll, 58 percent -- that's a clear majority -- said an openly gay or lesbian member in their unit would have a negative impact on morale or cohesion. Shalikashvili forgot to mention that and lied about it. Oh, we contacted General Shalikashvili, asked him to come on The Gunny Bob Show and identified what my background is. He refuses. He refuses. So what he ended up doing was running a drive-by media attack in the Times. And doesn't feel like he wants to or he should answer any questions about the claims he made, which we're now proving are false. 303-713-8585. You're a liar, Shalikashvili. 303-713-8585. I don't blame you for not coming on this show.

[...]

NEWMAN: General Shalikashvili claimed that a Zogby poll shows our military would not mind serving with openly gay members. Highly misleading. The general tried in his op-ed piece to mislead readers about what the poll really asked and really said. This Zogby poll published last month said 37 percent oppose allowing gays to serve openly. Twenty-six percent said they should be allowed. So the general lied to you about that. This is why he was known as Shallow Shal. And he goes on to say in the op-ed that our military specifically needs openly gay and lesbian members to, quote, get this country on the right track, close quote. But he fails to say in the op-ed what that track is. He claims our military, quote, cannot afford to lose, close quote, gay and lesbian members, but again offers no evidence whatsoever to support his claim. And how can this general say he was right to oppose gays serving openly back in the '90s because it was too burdensome on our armed forces, but now it would be fine and not burdensome at all? Because he wants to be secretary of defense under Hillary Clinton. He's a typical liberal general, just like Wesley “the Weasel” Clark and Colin Powell, who lack intestinal fortitude.

[...]

NEWMAN: Yes, there is legislation being worked on right now. The new Congress -- our liberal, leftist Congress -- wants gays to be able to serve openly in the military because they want the military to be -- for two things to happen: They want the military to be another platform for their social experimentations, and they want to -- they want to anger the military. They want to, in their view, put the military -- the macho types in the military -- in their place. That's what they want to do. That's why they're doing this. There's no logical reason to do it. There's no tactical reason. There's no operational reason. There's no strategic reason. People say, “Oh, well what about all of the Arab linguists who are gay who are being discharged?” Yeah, name two.