Let's consider the more likely of these two scenarios: that George Jr. is a sly politician and, like his dad, a card-carrying member of the "good-ole-boys club." In which case, his overall attitude is echoed by fellow good-ole-boy, and opponent for the Republican nomination, Arizona Senator, John McCain, who replied to the question with an almost flippant: "I can't presume to fix something that works, and the 'don't ask' policy is working."

"Working for whom?" is the obvious retort. It didn't seem to be working for Private First Class Barry Winchell who was beaten to death with a baseball bat while he slept in his cot at Fort Campbell, July 5, 1999. Defense lawyers for the assailant, Private Calvin Glover, relied heavily on the argument that Glover had been driven to kill by his intense hatred of gays. Despite years of harassment claims at the Kentucky base and repeated warnings, commanding officials at Fort Campbell did nothing to help save PFC Winchell. After the incident, they promptly swept it under the blood-stained rug by saying the death had come about as the result of a "physical altercation in the barracks," despite the fact that Private Winchell had been attacked in his sleep.

According to the Service Members Legal Defense Fund there was a 120-percent increase in reported anti-gay harassment cases in the military in 1998 (400, up from 182 in 1997).

Based on these figures, it appears that the only persons for whom the don't-ask/don't-tell policy is working are the homophobic officers and servicemen that perpetuate a climate of sexually oriented persecution in the military, and the politicians who are all too willing to dispense with the formalities of freedom to further their own political goals.

Last time I checked, the military's role, ostensibly at least, is to protect the freedom and safety of all Americans. For anyone who has bothered to look more deeply into matters, however, it is clear that the Pentagon and its multi-tentacled bureaucracy is actually the last sacred clubhouse for the good-ole-boys – a highly fortified bastion of old-world ethics and white-male hegemony – and that the don't-ask/don't-tell policy is, in reality, a de facto support of the increasingly anti-gay environment of the armed forces.

Pentagon officials kicked and screamed with the same unsubstantiated rhetoric (diminished trust among fighting units, tensions that would create an unsafe environment, etc.) when the issue of integrating blacks into the military became necessary during WWII. And again over the increased involvement of women in the military. When President Clinton attempted to make good on his campaign promise to allow gays to serve in the military, officials paraded these same shop-worn arguments across the press stage and threw a hissy fit from the top down. Decorated generals threatened resignation, and the Republican congress promptly capitulated – striking the tenuous compromise of don't ask/don't tell, and effectively shoving the first of many Clinton platform planks into the shredder.

One casual glance in the rearview mirror of life allows all but the most blind to see that these positions were based on an unfair bias of straight heterosexual white men over all others ... especially when it comes to the messy business of killing things. In fact, women and men from all nationalities have proven to be surprisingly efficient killers.

I wonder, George. Do you think the Roman army would have been able to conquer the entire known world had they kept gays out of the military? No way. They probably would have had nothing more than a few weird straight guys with sharp sticks cruising around in chariots.

The absurdity of antigay sentiment in the military is underscored by the fact that the term "homosexual" was, according to French philosopher, Michel Foucault, concocted in the late 18th century by French psychiatrists seeking to validate their existence by cataloging the various types of sexual behavior they deemed "deviant," which was meant to imply a need for psychiatric help. Prior to this, sex was just sex. It may come as a shock to those officers and politicians who so vehemently claim to be "hetero" that even at the beginning of the 20th century the term heterosexual was still used to describe a "deviant or unnatural attraction to the opposite gender." This, at least, would seem to accurately describe our current Commander in Chief.

It is all too obvious that the "threat" of gays in the military is more of a threat to the fragile and sexually dubious "John Wayne charging Iwo Jima" image of masculinity than to our national security.

Of course, there is the outside possibility – and I'm admittedly stretching things a bit here – that George was really offering a discrete solicitation to his future white-house aides, roughly translated as: "If you don't ask, I won't tell."

Should this be the situation, there are probably more than a few Mark, Bob, or Joe Lewinskys out there who would love to claim first dibs on "engaging" the president in the Oval Orifice. In which case, get out there and cast your votes boys ... apparently there's still hope.