Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Piro — American Hero In War On Terror

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:38 am - March 2, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror

This story is the reason I wrote the earlier post about the lack of heroes. I can do my part by highlighting the heroes when I find out about them.

Here is one for this week (hat tip: The Corner) — “Saint Piro“. (NOTE: The link is fixed. The story was originally on MSNBC.com, but it is there no longer. I wonder why?)

Buzzing over this northern Iraqi city in her Kiowa scout helicopter, a .50-caliber machine gun and rockets at the ready, Capt. Sarah Piro has proved so skillful in combat missions to support U.S. ground troops that she’s earned the nickname “Saint.”

In recent months of fighting in Tall Afar, Piro, 26, of El Dorado Hills, Calif., has quietly sleuthed out targets, laid down suppressive fire for GIs in battle and chased insurgents through the narrow alleys of this medieval city — maneuvering all the while to avoid being shot out of the sky. In one incident, she limped back to base in a bullet-riddled helicopter, ran to another aircraft and returned to the fight 10 minutes later.

“They call her ‘Saint Piro’ — she’s just that good,” said her co-pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Todd Buckhouse, a 19-year Army veteran who has worked with Piro on two tours with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq.

Read the whole story! And let’s find more American heroes…. military and civilian… who are doing their part to protect us from the global Islamist movement.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

27 Comments

  1. It is too bad that you and I don’t qualify to be “heroes” in Bush’s little war. I feel about as chocked up about Sarah as I do over a bride at a heterosexual wedding. Until we have equality and are granted these same kinds of privileges (to marry, to join the armed services) I can only be cynical about brides and war heroes. As long as this administration is in office you and I are relegated to second class citizenship.

    Comment by Joseph May — March 2, 2006 @ 8:17 am - March 2, 2006

  2. The link is expired. Can you find a permanent version?

    Comment by Hello Moto — March 2, 2006 @ 8:33 am - March 2, 2006

  3. #1 — Selfish little bitch, aren’t you? “I refuse to give anyone the credit or honor they are due until my personal need for self-validation is met.” So you can’t get a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy that validates your personal relationship. So you would have to be discreet about your personal life if you served in the military. B! F! D!

    This “second class citizen” stuff is such complete bullshit. I don’t see any substantive difference in the quality of life available to gay versus non-gay persons in this country.

    You, Joseph May, are a selfish, spoiled, brat.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2006 @ 9:24 am - March 2, 2006

  4. #!1 – It’s a shame you can’t feel good for someone else without your idea of government approval first. What a sad life you must lead being so bitter. People are fighting and dieing for your benefit. Wake up.

    Sarah sounds like an awesome individual! We need to recognize such bravery and focus when ever possible and celebrate it. To honor such heroes costs us nothing and does the world good.

    Comment by Dave — March 2, 2006 @ 9:28 am - March 2, 2006

  5. I think V the K and Dave made the point very nicely.

    I also find it amusing that people like Joseph May are invariably ones who were more than willing to call people who wanted to constitutionally relegate gays to second-class citizenship “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as long as those people were Democrats and pro-abortion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - March 2, 2006

  6. Note on selfish bitches – my First Sergeant long, long ago lectured us once about how selfish it was not to be selfish and stand up for yourself and demand your rights. He said what happens is that the asshole pushing you around moves onto the next vistim, and the next and the next. So selfishly asserting your rights helps everyone else.

    However, it is great news for anyone not considered fit to serve by virtue of a fact of birth to see someone else in a similar category kicking ass like this on the battlefield. I don’t imagine the people on the ground she is covering would agree with all the civilian self-designated experts who love to bloviate on how women are just categorically unsuited to combat, how they have ruined the Army….. dribble, dribble, dribble…..

    Comment by Jim — March 2, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - March 2, 2006

  7. Damn, I was hoping for a civility lecture. You let me down, NDT.

    BTW, Here’s a story from your new hometown:

    Moonbat SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Attends Scientology Event with Scientologist Girlfriend

    This could be problematic in SFO:

    (Scientology Founder L Ron) Hubbard also wanted his followers to know that homosexuals “should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible . . . for here is the level of the contagion of immortality and the destruction of ethics.” He said, “No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst.”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - March 2, 2006

  8. When you need one, I’ll give it to you, V the K. 🙂

    I am torn on the Newsom story.

    On the one hand, I deplore the normal method of San Francisco city politics, which employs triangulation worthy of Bill Clinton himself in determining which minority group should be most pandered to on a specific issue.

    On the other hand, it DOES present a nice opportunity to bitch-slap those people who would give Newsom a free pass for anything short of (and possibly including) mass murder “because he gave us marriage licenses”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - March 2, 2006

  9. VdaK, Dave… Joseph May’s comments remind us that not all opinions should be held equally valid in the market square of ideas but he is, even if a broodingly selfish, spoiled, and incredible ego-centric perspective dominates his opinion, entitled to make a fool of himself. Thank you for pointing out his errors.

    By the way, Jospeh May, there probably ARE gay heroes in this war. We just need to find ’em… they could be working hard at NSA ferreting out international signals from terrorists, at the CIA trying to triangulate the flow of terrorist money in and out of French banks, or at the FBI watching Arab and German nationals in-country laying plans to kill innocent Americans while we sleep in comfort and security.

    And while leading Democrats like Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow confuse important national security issues by trying to hijack homeland security resources for a search of Canadian garbage trucks, there could even be gay heroes in Congress and on staffs who toil in secret to help our country confront the terrorists and those politicians whose actions unwittingly give aid to the terrorists.

    Despite what you think, there probably are gay heroes in the WOT and they aren’t sipping pink Cosmos with Howie Dean.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 2, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - March 2, 2006

  10. VdaK @ #7, ouch on the Ronnie Hubbard quote… how’s that affect Tom Cruise?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 2, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - March 2, 2006

  11. #3 and others – Different view here.

    I do think there are substantive differences in the lives available to gay and straight people in this country. And if the military rejects me or degrades me on principle (whether because of my race, sexuality, religion, whatever), then no, I don’t want to serve in it and am not morally obligated to.

    Having said that, I put a lot of importance on perspective and getting one’s priorities straight. I will take being a second-class citizen in America over being killed in Iran. (Or having to live under stultifying socialism in Venezuela or Canada.) And as you all know, I honor the people who are in the military defending me.

    From that perspective, I agree Joseph in #1 is bitter and spoiled, and must be a very unhappy person.

    I’m just saying, at the same time, I don’t deny our second-class citizenship. It is possible to see injustice for what it is, AND keep it in perspective (or avoid disgraceful bitterness), at the same time. The world is full of injustices and dangers, which must be ranked on a scale (without denying any of them).

    Comment by Calarato — March 2, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - March 2, 2006

  12. I do think there are substantive differences in the lives available to gay and straight people in this country.

    I disagree with that, and I am going to explain my alternative point of view in a cordial and respectful way.

    My remark was addressed to the quality of life available to any individual, regardless of sexual orientation, in the country-at-large (which is a key caveat. If a person feels his lifestyle is too restricted in Alabama, he is always free to move to California.) When I speak of quality of life, I am talking about the ability to satisfy physical, material, and spiritual needs and desires. If one, for example, wants to serve in the military and one is gay, one may still fulfill his desire to serve but one must make a compromise in being discreet about one’s sexual orientation. Apart from that, one can achieve in accordance with one’s abilities the same as anyone else. The requirement to be discreet about one’s private life is not a substantial difference to me.

    Some people object to the notion that they should ever have to compromise any of their heart’s desires. To me, that is unrealistic and neurotic. Everyone, gay straight or whatever, has to make compromises. I would like to live in the Midwest, but I can’t work in my chosen field there at this stage of my professional career. So, I have to compromise. The ability to understand and make compromises is one of the things that separates mature adults from spoiled children.

    I believe that our quality of life… our spiritual, physical, and material fulfillment… comes from what we choose to do with our lives, not whether or not we are validated by the policies of our government. That is a great gift not all the people of the world enjoy.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - March 2, 2006

  13. I don’t disagree with what you say in #12.

    And, at the same time, it remains true that we are legally denied the ability to marry, except in a handful of states. And an unrelated adult couple being able to marry each other (forming a new family entity that is thereby legally AND yes, SOCIALLY recognized) has long been viewed by the law as one of the fundamental opportunities and, yes, “rights” of a civil society. It’s a fact. The injustice of it is another fact. Even the African slaves of the 19th century could often marry.

    You’ve noted a bunch of good facts. I’ve noted one more.

    And we still agree on #1 – Joseph 😉

    Comment by Calarato — March 2, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - March 2, 2006

  14. If one, for example, wants to serve in the military and one is gay, one may still fulfill his desire to serve but one must make a compromise in being discreet about one’s sexual orientation. Apart from that, one can achieve in accordance with one’s abilities the same as anyone else. The requirement to be discreet about one’s private life is not a substantial difference to me.

    While I actually agree with your overall point, I think you really don’t understand DADT very well. Its not really a question of being just being “discrete”.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 2, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - March 2, 2006

  15. Whereas you, Gryph, would of course know everything about it.

    Comment by Calarato — March 2, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - March 2, 2006

  16. Stonewall and Riot — Speaking of gay images, have you seen the gay superhero animated film coming out? The animation is called Stonewall and Riot. Stonewall is the hunk superhero, and Riot is his super hero skater boy sidekick. It’s on Village TV the gay TV Channel at http://www.villagetv.com Let me know what you think of it. Corey

    Comment by Corey Chambers — March 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - March 2, 2006

  17. The link to the original story is now 404

    Comment by The Yenta — March 2, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - March 2, 2006

  18. skater boy sidekick

    You’ve got to be kidding. No, I’m sure you’re not.

    And you think anybody should take you seriously?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 2, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - March 2, 2006

  19. #1
    As long as this administration is in office you and I are relegated to second class citizenship.

    Not too terribly long ago, there was this “great” and glorious Democrat” president in the WH. What class of citizenship did you have then??? What sort of equality and privileges did you get then?????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - March 2, 2006

  20. Exactly right.

    In fact, Clinton passed 2 major laws against gays – DOMA and DADT. Bush has only proposed 1 major law against gays, and (after working at it very half-heartedly, if at all) passed 0.

    Comment by Calarato — March 2, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - March 2, 2006

  21. #18 — skater boy sidekickYou’ve got to be kidding.

    That was pretty much my reaction. A super-powered pederast as a gay icon… just what we need.

    Comment by V the K — March 3, 2006 @ 5:31 am - March 3, 2006

  22. #19 – #20 – P.S.

    Anyone remember the bad old days of SODOMY LAWS, that made homosexuality itself illegal? And the 2003 Lawrence decision, that overturned such laws?

    We know Presidents are not directly involved in SCOTUS decisions. But they play a role in public debate. They can propose amendments (as with FMA). They can call for certain things to happen – or express outrage when certain things don’t happen.

    – Can anyone remember the supposedly “pro-gay” Bill Clinton calling for the nation’s sodomy laws to be overturned? Once, anybody?

    – Can anyone remember the supposedly “anti-gay” Bush 43 uttering a peep of dismay or protest when, on his watch, sodomy laws were overturned by SCOTUS?

    The world is different than it was 15 years ago. While our second-class status is not gone, it is weaker than it was, and gets weaker over time. I helped fight for that. I’ve also caught up with the new world, where Islamo-fascism is the great threat. The gay Left has not caught up; they are stuck in the past.

    Comment by Calarato — March 3, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - March 3, 2006

  23. Indiana, the reddest of states with the possible exception of Utah, repealed the sodomy law years ago.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 3, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - March 3, 2006

  24. And apologies to Sarah Piro, for getting so far off-topic.

    Comment by Calarato — March 3, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - March 3, 2006

  25. I’ve also caught up with the new world, where Islamo-fascism is the great threat. The gay Left has not caught up; they are stuck in the past.

    Plus, they’ve made themselves completely irrelevant. Gay leftists, with the full sponsorship and support of Stonewall Democrats, are out there screeching that internment camps for gays are being operated in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

    Not a single gay Democrat has shown a shred of proof to back up these accusations that they and their local and national organizations are making. Not one. And they want us to believe them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - March 3, 2006

  26. #23 rightwingprof — March 3, 2006 @ 1:09 pm – March 3, 2006

    Indiana, the reddest of states with the possible exception of Utah, repealed the sodomy law years ago.

    I’m not sure that I would read much into what Indiana did. I don’t know Indiana’s particular situation, but a number of states that “repealed” their sodomy statutes in the early to mid 1970s did so as a recodification of their criminal statute–and the statute criminalizing sodomy were just not included. That is certainly what happened in Ohio. In other words, there wasn’t an explicit up or down vote on sodomy statutes, per se.

    Comment by raj — March 3, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - March 3, 2006

  27. #24 Piro rocks. What are the chances, anyhow, of having a name like Piro (I’m pronouncing it Pyro) and getting to rain fire from the sky?

    Saint, indeed!

    In the news article about her it talks about some of the difficulties in integrating and unit cohesion. Part of the problem is the rules separating women and men. (Which is a big part of what people worry about concerning gays serving openly.) Unit cohesion suffers when those rules, as she mentions in the article, mean that female pilots and crew can’t participate in something like poker games because they are held in their living spaces and females can’t be in the men’s rooms and vice-versa.

    There’s good reason for those rules but the application of them seems ham-handed… There ought to be a way to designate *when* quarters count as “private” space and when they count as “public” space. And *very* strong enforcement of fraternization rules. But, particularly in an active situation, the members of a unit need to be living together… passing in the hallways, going about their off duty time together because that’s where the cohesion happens and a whole lot of “work” that gets sorted out off-duty. You can’t really expect the guys to trust you if they don’t know who you are.

    Comment by Synova — March 3, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - March 3, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.