John - Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting article. Thanks for your comment.

According to Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Pace's firing was more likely to do with his stand on the soldier's responsibility to refuse to use nuclear bombs. See http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2095.shtml

Lt. Col. Quirk - First, let me say, thank you for your service and thank you for your comments. Secondly, I think that General Pace would have been fired without his homophobic comments. The last thing that the Bush administration wants is to have the Armed Services committee review all of the missteps in Iraq. Pace's re-nomination would have been just that. Questions like - General Pace did you agree with our troop levels going into Iraq? If not did to voice your opinion with Secretary Rumsfeld? Wasn't it your duty to make the Secretary understand that we needed 300,000 - 400,000 troops to quell violence and restore order after the fall of Baghdad? So, then you admit that you didn't do your duty? Bush, Rove and Gates want to have none of that. So, they discarded General Pace like they have done with several other generals - Casey, Shinseki, Abisaid, Sanchez and McKernon (sp?) are just a few that come to mind. Thanks again.

Shameful, but not surprising for our government. Marines have not lost a major battle for over 230 yrs. Gen. Pace was fighting as Marines do, when Clinton, Levin and Gates were "fighting for the American people" in Congress (re-election mostly) Everyone that wears or has worn that proud uniform should be outraged. Recently, Gen. Pace said that he 'personally' felt that homosexuality was wrong. Aren't Marines entitled to freedom of speech? They have fought for it many times. What next from Washington? We've seen it all. Haven't we? G.A.Quirk, USMC(Ret)