By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego plans to introduce legislation to block the Pentagon from providing full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt. Gallego, who served in the military, believes Babbitt’s actions on January 6th disqualify her from receiving such honors, as she attempted to breach the Capitol and was shot and killed. He argues that awarding these honors to Babbitt would bring discredit to the Air Force. This move follows the Pentagon’s initial denial of the honors, a decision spurred by Babbitt’s involvement in the Capitol riot, despite pressure from groups like Judicial Watch who cited her military service and sought to align the honor with clemency granted to January 6 defendants.
Read the original article here
Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego is making a move that’s stirring up strong opinions: he’s aiming to block Ashli Babbitt from receiving military funeral honors. The core of his argument, and the sentiment echoed by many, boils down to this: Babbitt’s actions on January 6th, 2021, disqualify her from such recognition. The resolution Gallego put forward specifically cites that Babbitt’s conduct doesn’t align with the criteria for military funeral honors. It’s about upholding the integrity of those honors and avoiding any actions that could potentially bring the military into disrepute.
The intensity of the response, as you can see from the passionate voices, is considerable. Babbitt is viewed by many as a traitor, someone who actively participated in an attempt to undermine the government. The emotions are raw, particularly among veterans, with the idea of honoring someone who allegedly attacked Congress, especially given the circumstances of her death, sparking outrage. The phrase “Ashli Babbitt fucked around and found out” keeps popping up, illustrating the belief that her actions had clear and irreversible consequences. The comments reflect a feeling that giving her military honors would be a betrayal of the values the military stands for.
Gallego, himself a veteran, has emphasized that his efforts come from a place of patriotism and respect for those who have served. He’s spoken publicly about the gravity of burying fellow service members with full military honors, lending further weight to his position. The very idea of honoring someone who, in his view, actively sought to disrupt the democratic process is simply unacceptable. He’s made it very clear that he won’t allow this without a fight. This is further amplified by comments that suggest if a similar situation had played out with someone holding opposing political views, the reaction would be similar, underscoring the core principle involved – upholding democratic values and principles.
The debate, as it unfolds, extends beyond the specifics of Ashli Babbitt’s case. It brings to the fore questions about who deserves these honors and what those honors symbolize. Some of the sentiments suggest that awarding such honors is a slap in the face to the people who have served honorably. The core idea here is that honoring a traitor, someone who betrayed their country, is an insult to the very principles the military defends. The discussions also reveal a strong sense of disgust towards the circumstances of Babbitt’s death. Some of the more vehement responses don’t hold back in their criticism.
The arguments don’t just focus on Babbitt, but on the larger implications. Some responses express concern about the perceived glorification of criminals. There are also some extremely pointed and critical comments about her family. These illustrate the deep emotions that are tied up in the issue, and the conviction that she deserves no recognition, and that her fate should be seen as an example of the consequences of treason. It’s clear that, for many, the granting of military honors to Babbitt would be a step too far.
The conversation further expands by drawing parallels. Comparing Babbitt to figures who were considered enemies of the country, such as Confederate leaders, demonstrates the strength of the feeling that such recognition would undermine the core values the military is meant to uphold. The overall sentiment conveyed is one of profound disagreement and objection.
This situation is a vivid illustration of how deeply the events of January 6th continue to resonate. The desire to block any honor being conferred on Ashli Babbitt comes from a place of strong conviction. It is based on the belief that her actions were not just wrong, but a direct assault on the very principles that the military is meant to defend. The debate is raw, emotional, and a very real reflection of the political landscape.