Obama PUNTS on Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Says it needs more study - Gays Tossed Under Again

[Ioo]

Bus, meet the gays, gays, this is bus, you will be tossed under it.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Marine+General+Questions+Obama+Plan

SANTA BARBARA, CA, February 3, 2009 – A retired Brigadier General for the U.S. Marine Corps has questioned the Obama administration’s plan to form a Pentagon commission to study “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “There's been enough studying throughout the years,” said General Hugh Aitken. “Creating a new study will not change the facts.”

Aitken participated in a comprehensive 2008 review of the policy which found that there is no evidence showing that openly gay service would harm the military, and a great deal of evidence showing it would not.

According to a February 1st Boston Globe report, the Obama administration has decided not to move forward on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” until the Pentagon can “undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.” This may not happen for several months or longer, says the Globe article.

[bluestateguy]

1. He's trying to handle this issue without a 1993 style fiasco

I don't know if that will be possible.

I still reject the notion that he cannot do this by executive order. I realize what the law says, but the law is quaint. He is the Commander in Chief.

[Ioo]

2. HE HAS CONGRESS AND 2 YEARS BEFORE ELECTION - TODAY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS!

Sorry, FAIL!

[MNDemNY]

4. The failure seems to be on several fronts.

Change??? Loose change, maybe.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

9. No he's trying to appear to be "doing something about it"

without actually doing anything about it.

[Eryemil]

16. Well so far Obama's done exactly as I expected and not as I'd HOPE'd

If only I could bring myself to stop bothering with American politics I might actually be happier.
I live in a country that protects and appreciates ALL of its citizens, for the first time in my life.

I suppose I can happily call myself Canadian and just stop "hoping".

[WeDidIt]

ONLY CONGRESS CAN END DADT!!!!

It's AGAINST THE LAW for homosexuals to serve in the military.

Let me say that again so that I'm clear, it's AGAINST THE LAW for homosexuals to serve in the military!

The Congress sets the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the president.

Under the UCMJ, it is illegal to be homosexual.

The SCOTUS has upheld this law under the auspices of maintaining discipline in the military.

DADT skirted this law by prohibiting commanders from asking about sexuality and prohibiting servicemen fromr evealing homosexuality, but the law still exists which is why if you tell, you are prosecuted and discharged as a criminal.

Only the Congress can end DADT because there is no way as a matter of set policy to allow homosexuals to be open in the military under the law.

[Maven]

31. The president sets the agenda.

Only Congress has spending power, also, but you don't see that stopping Obama from launching his stimulus package.

[WeDidIt]

32. Bingo

Which is why he's getting his ducks in a row for a battle within Congress.

[stillcool]

138. so you would like him to do this..

before he has enough support from the Congress? Do you want it over-turned, or do you want a feel-good?

[QC]

33. Exactly! Until we control the Congress we cannot do anything about this!

Oh, wait....

[WeDidIt]

35. I can lay out the problem in three words

Blue Dog Democrats.

[NorthCarolina]

48. And Three Letters too

DLC

[WeDidIt]

70. BINGO!

You understand Obama's problem now!

[Maven]

36. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

89. Sorry, not constitutional.

The Constitution says that the powers of Congress include the power:

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

The UCMJ denies gays the equal right to serve in the military. The President, contrary to Bush's opinion, is not above the law and cannot simply ignore the UCMJ.

[No Elephants]

102. Yes, but that same Constitution says.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Besides, Obama can get this through Congress, if he really wants to.

[Vattel]

124. Being CIC

doesn't mean that he can ignore federal law governing the military.

I agree that he can propose legislation to Congress and push for Congress to pass it.

[No Elephants]

170. No one has any idea what being CIC means until the CIC

does something, gets taken to court by someone who has standing to sue the CIC and the CIC does NOT get away with it. No one does.

[dbmk]

163. Thank you for this

Was asking about it further down. Seems to me that he cannot simply repeal a law passed by congress on this matter.

[CTyankee]

3. Hmm, it sounds to me as if Obama is actually trying to craft his strategy here.

He might be getting his ducks in a row. More and more of the brass seem to be amenable, but maybe he just isn't there yet.

It's depressing, but we saw what happened to Bill Clinton. Obama has gotta do better and outsmart the oppo. He should assign a top person to do the leg work and get back to him while he is still in his first 100 days...

[MNDemNY]

5. Yank me, can he do no wrong?????

[xchrom]

7. see?

it's pretty weird around here when it comes to lgbtiq issues.

[CTyankee]

11. I do NOT believe that President Obama is a homophobe.

He's gone on the record about this. Let him develop his strategy. If he crashes into a wall due to an ill thought out strategy, would you be happier? REally?

[MNDemNY]

12. Quack, quack.........

[CTyankee]

37. Oh, c'mon. You can do better than that.

Are you better off now than if John McCain had won? Really?

[bvar22]

56. You're setting the bar pretty low there fella.

Are the Iraqis better off than with Saddam?
Well then, they should just STFU and find some gratitude!

[CTyankee]

62. Wow, comparing Obama to our Iraq "leadership"!

Maybe we'll talk after you've regained a little more perspective.

Va bene (as they say in Rome)...

[bvar22]

78. I didn't compare Obama to Iraq.

I merely used a literary device, Reductio ad absurdum, to highlight the absurdity of your argument....and your argument IS absurd.

[CTyankee]

91. well, look, if reductio makes you feel better, then fine.

A little word to the wise: I am not your enemy. You may think I am but I am not. Your time and energy should be directed where it can do the most good and this is not that place. Va bene.

[Teaser]

99. Apparently, they can't

which is a shame. I'm looking for some fun here.

People, get with the program and START SCREAMING.

This half assed outrage is not entertaining me enough. Hardly worth the price of my internet connection.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

104. That's not the point either.

[Ioo]

49. He is also not friend of the gays... he is a Coward to the Right wing...

he will not just do what is right

[CTyankee]

63. Based on two weeks in office? Hmm...

[stillcool]

139. Would you like the Congress to overturn DADT?

or do you just want Obama to put it out there, with no support, and watch it crash and burn?

[Cha]

150. BULL

SHIT.

[dbackjon]

82. YES, OBAMA is a big fucking Homophobe

Deal with it.

[Sultana]

88. .

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

103. Whether or not Obama personally is a homophobe is not the issue. The issue is

whether the laws are fair and, if not, what Obama is doing to make them fair.

[CTyankee]

171. What makes you think Obama isn't doing something? The fact that he hasn't got it done

in the first 2 weeks in office with an impending world wide depression and handling 2 wars, Iran and Gaza/Israel but has publicly moved forward on DADT? Are you really suggesting that he drop everything else and just concentrate on DADT?

I'm just as much outraged about DADT and gay marriage inequality and DOMA as you are but for the life of me I can't fault Obama on this. He is moving ahead, even if you don't see it as such. He has gone on the record in favor of equal rights and has not taken one step backwards from that stand.

[Renew Deal]

60. MNDemNY, can he do no right?

:shrug:

[MNDemNY]

112. He has done a lot of things right.

What is your point?

[Still Sensible]

6. I think it is a little early to jump to this conclusion. n/t

[Thrill]

8. I wouldn't touch this right now

.

[Jennicut]

14. Neither would I. A stimulus package needs to be passed first.

Then all other things can be dealt with.

[JNelson6563]

10. *sigh*

I hope I am not in the minority here when I say this is not one of the top priority issues facing the president.

Not even one of the top military issues. I'd say #1 is getting out of Iraq.

Julie

[MNDemNY]

13. Yes, human rights should be put on the back burner.

It is not important , at all.

[JNelson6563]

18. Human rights....

That's a broad scope. Illegally detained prisoners, executions, slave labor would certainly top my list of human rights stuff to be dealt with. All crap going on right here in the US BTW. But yeah, I can see how Clinton's screw up of don't ask don't tell would rank up there on the same level.

Reminds me of Blago likening himself to Ghandi etc.

Julie

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

55. Are The Physically Handicapped or Over-Forty "Human" To You?

They can't join the military.

[jberryhill]

54. Military Service Is Not a Human Right

I believe DADT should be ended ASAP.

The following people cannot join the military:

Over 40 (or whatever the age is these days)
Blind
Paraplegic (any number of physical handicaps)
Substandard intelligence
Etc.

We are talking here about non-disabled humans of the right age - not humans generally.

[No Elephants]

106. Equal treatment under the law is a legal right and a moral one.

[Vattel]

133. exactly

[stillcool]

140. Who said it is not important?

You think if Congress voted on it today it would pass? Or are we back to that King thing again? How would your representatives and Senators vote?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

19. Who told anyone to STFU?

Set the cross down, the strain is causing delusions.

Julie

[Maven]

27. The meaning of your post was clear. "This isn't a priority!"

We all know what that means.

[JNelson6563]

66. No, tell us what it means.

I don't consider legalizing marijuana a top priority or abolishing religion in government a top priority either though both issues are very important to me. Does that then mean I want people to STFU on those topics too?

Sorry friend but you are reading what you want into my post. How very sad that some work quite hard to alienate allies in a cause.

Julie

[Maven]

79. OK, well you let us know when you think we should have equal rights

We'll be waiting. If you're telling us to wait, and wait, and wait, you're not an "ally." Sorry.

Oh, I forgot--you don't even think gay rights are human rights, as you said upthread. Did you really just compare institutionalized discrimination to legalizing pot? So sad when people aren't self-aware, as you clearly aren't.

[No Elephants]

107. Justice delayed can very definitely be justice denied. It's past time for members of the GLBT

community to be treated equally.

[JNelson6563]

123. More sighing.

I think all people are entitled to human rights. Never said I didn't.

I get such a kick out of this. I don't think Obama's top priority is overturning DADT so therefore I am the enemy. Nevermind that I have always supported equal rights for the LGBT community, worked hard to get LGBT friend elected to office, nearly got into a barfight last election season with some dumbass who was really vicious about "those faggots" and on and on it goes.

No, I think Obama should be addressing the economic crisis first (and he is) so therefore I am an enemy of the LGBT community. Ok, got it.

BTW, did you know I happen to be one of the increasing number of homeless? Notice that much of the country is having one of the most brutal winters in a very long time? Thankfully I have a warm place to stay so I am living on the charity of a friend but yeah, never mind those poor souls who are not as lucky as me. They are freezing and no doubt hungry and sick but fuck 'em. We need to address DADT stat! Otherwise Obama sucks as does every single person who doesn't consider overturning DADT to be this country's number one priority!

But I'm the selfish heartless one here. Yes indeedy.

Julie

[Maven]

125. Oh, and obviously that's the fault of the GLBT community.

:eyes:

Can you do more than one thing at once? Think Obama can? I do. Obviously Obama was multifaceted enough to send out this signal that he didn't plan on doing jack shit about GLBT service members who lose their livelihoods thanks to pure bigotry.

This "priorities" bullshit is just another way to excuse putting off (read: DENYING) equal rights for a persecuted minority.

"I think all people are entitled to human rights."

Right, you just don't think that antigay discrimination constitutes an affront to human rights.

[JNelson6563]

132. you're not even lucid

I won'tt waste anymore of my on-line time on this irrational discussion.

Julie

[Maven]

156. And you're not being honest.

The feeling is mutual. Goodbye.

[Marrah_G]

172. I'm betting you are not a member of the GBLT community and your rights are not on the line here.

Just a guess..........

Either you are a first class fucking asshole....or you have NO CLUE how offensive and insulting your posts are on this thread.

[Ian David]

21. Defensive much? n/t

[MNDemNY]

24. That one is a peach.

:crazy:

[Maven]

26. Why thank you.

[Ian David]

41. By "Peach" I think he meant a moist husk meant to be devoured as food for a plant. n/t

[Maven]

52. Did you just google that definition?

Here's a pat on the head.

[Ioo]

45. Well as a person who served and is gay - Thank you for the blow off

Nice to know my service means that much to you

[Solomon]

65. This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Sheeesh.

[Ian David]

17. Repealing DADT is the one gay right I am opposed to. America doesn't deserve their sacrifice.

I do not think the U.S. Military has the right to draft gay people into military service until DOMA is repealed, and until gay people have an equal right to Civil Marriage.

But if we "need more study," why not follow the Tuskeegee Airman model, and create divisions within the military composed ONLY of gay soldiers?

Alternatively, why not apply DADT to the STRAIGHT soldiers, EQUALLY with the gay soldiers? Make it a firing offense to reveal any information revealing that you're STRAIGHT, or any information revealing that you're gay?

If a soldier mentions they're married to a woman, they get dishonorably discharged. If a soldier has a photo of them kissing their gay partner, they get dishonorably discharged. Let EVERYONE serve in EQUAL secrecy.

That's my own, personal opinion.

[Eryemil]

25. The fact that there are any gay soldiers at all, fighting for a nation that does not want them,

does not appreciate them and in fact would like nothing better than pretend they don't exist is a credit to my people.

I certainly would never put my life in the hands of such a state.

[Ian David]

The only REAL reason Conservatards don't want gays in the military is because...

... they don't want gay people learning how to arm and defend themselves.

[No Elephants]

109. Oh, but cons do want gays serving in the military. They simply want gays

discriminated against while they risk their lives, limbs and sanity for us.

[Ian David]

126. I don't think so. I really think they're afraid of armed, trained, angry gay people. n/t

[No Elephants]

169. But, DADT does not keep gays out of the military. In fact, they get returned to Iraq a lot. DADT

simply ensures that gays who are risking their lives for us know "their place."

[WeDidIt]

20. UM, he cannot unilaterally end the policy.

Seriously, the study is in effect, how to get an act of congress to alter the law.

It is against the law for anybody who is homosexual to be in the military, which is how Don't Ask Don't Tell came about. Under the UCMJ, homosexuals are prosecuted as criminals. Under Don't Ask Don't Tell, commanders were prohibited from asking any service member serving under them about their sexual identity and so long as the service members are not open about their sexuality, there is no way to prosecute under the law. Basically, Don't Ask Don't Tell skirted existing law.

Only the Congress can alter the law.

Please, do not attack me for giving out this information. I am merely stating the facts. To remove the hindrances put in place keeping homosexuals out of the military, the Congress must alter the law. Obama cannot do this unilaterally as no president can alter the UCMJ unilaterally.

[Maven]

29. He doesn't need a "study" about how to change the law.

I imagine we'll be revisiting all the old insulting, bullshit excuses for bigotry like "unit cohesion" so that Obama can say he tried to disprove what has already been disproven many times over in studies and in practice by other countries.

[Radical Activist]

97. Then one more new study

will strengthen the argument to repeal DADT. It's called building support.

[xchrom]

22. reading this thread --

:eyes:

[donco6]

94. "Obama's a Genius!"

He has a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan

And we'll all see.

[xchrom]

101. ...

:spray: ain't that right.

[No Elephants]

111. And opposition to each of those plans is also part of his grand master plan.

[stillcool]

141. Apparently Obama is a King..

if the legislation were voted on today it would pass on his say-so. How would your representative and Senators vote?

[donco6]

149. Both yes.

Diana DeGette and Perlmutter.

But that's not the issue. The issue is the obvious tactic of delay, delay, delay. "It's too close to the election to raise this - we have to win the seat or we get nothing! . . . Things are too hot right now, wait until after this vote . . . The mood of the country is not conducive to this issue, maybe next fall . . . After this major scandal blows over, then we're ready with a bill . . . Oops! The bill's cosponsor got indicted! We'll have to find another . . . "

And so on and so on.

[stillcool]

151. So the legislation Kennedy has written..

and the other legislation being written..along with trying to get the votes, doesn't matter? Do it now, whether it can pass or not? If the military and the Republicans come out against this without even enough support from the Democrats it crashes and burns. Doesn't that matter?

[donco6]

152. Yeah, sure, whatever.

I have no confidence that anything will see the light of day.

Kennedy: "I have a bill, but I won't put it forward without a Republican co-sponsor"

Oh, you mean that other party that thinks gays are pedophiles?

"Yeah, that's the one."

Do you mind if I don't hold my breath?

"Fucking Obama-basher!"

[stillcool]

154. You're right..

they should just present legislation and vote on it. Either it passes or it fails. No big deal.

[donco6]

155. It would be more than I expect.

I have little faith in any politician at this point.

[biopowertoday]

28. well-perhaps these folks can to lobbiests for his increased funding that

he promised he would do (increase funding for faith-based programs).


yup--good strategy.




note: sarcasm icon

[biopowertoday]

69. Sorry, ignore as i posted this on the wrong thread.

[anonymous171]

30. Obama will be a one-term president if he keeps conceding shit.

I say that as an avid Obama fan.

[Aloha Spirit]

42. After reading the Globe article, perhaps you would agree that this is not a concession...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/01/obama_seeks_assessment_on_gays_in_military?mode=PF

The news story strongly suggests that the White House and Kennedy, and other allies have some convincing to do. If McCaskill and Bayh aren't yet on board, I think that is an indication of the need for significant leadership before DADT gets repealed.

[Starry Messenger]

Thank you for the article.

I wasn't aware that there were some Dems holding out on this in the Senate. That's really disappointing.

[MarjorieG]

58. Yes, he has 2 yrs, but is DADT more important than, say, stimulus and other contentious subjects.

Nothing divides more than LGBT issues and the military, which if stories are true, aren't thrilled with leaving Iraq in 16 mos. Can we please be part of the whole USA/world's entire agenda?

[No Elephants]

116. Kennedy is on board. He simply wants a Republican do-sponsor for his bill--and he thinks he can get

more than one.

[msongs]

34. yeah but he's having a "faith" conference for all the gay bashers. isnt that good enuff? nt

[Neecy]

38. I'm not surprised

When we were offended and angry about Warren, there were lots of posts here about how gay-friendly Obama was, and what super-nifty things were in the Civil Rights section of whitehouse.gov and how Obama would FREE us....yay!

When we said that action, and not words, were our priority we were shouted down, accused of 'poutrage' and how DARE we question Obama's committment to GLBT causes.

Wonder where all those folks are now.

[QC]

40. "Wonder where all those folks are now. "

Don't worry, they will come along any minute.

Can't pass up an opportunity to pile on the queers, you know.

[Neecy]

47. true, that

I'm sure we'll soon be pilloried for not shutting up and letting ourselves be crapped on once again.

This military ban has always irked me. The US military is the country's largest employer, and the ban has told the country at large that we're the Other, that we're sexual predators preying on the straight population and that we're so odious we have to hide our identity - something that would NEVER be asked of a straight person - in order to carry a rifle and be blown up or shot for our country.

The policy is a mental sickness and overturning it should be a priority in the first 100 days. Instead we're getting yet another 'study', asking if we're too pervy to serve our country. What absolute BS.

[donco6]

135. Especially considering so many have already been blown up.

I mean, it was OK for them, as long as they lied about themselves. But be honest and it's somehow bad.

[Marrah_G]

173. They are all over this thread

It's disgusting and pathetic.

[AngryAmish]

39. One day Human Rights will be important to this country

It looks like gay folks get the shiv between the ribs again.

[No Elephants]

114. The GLBTrights folks. (Gays are not the only ones who are for GLBT

rights. Some heteros are avid supporters, too.)

[unblock]

43. here's a thought: maybe he could combine allowing gays in with the ramp up in afghanistan

by saying that the armed forces are tired from multiple tours of duty and limited numbers when we need to increase our numbers in afghanistan, permitting homosexuals to serve openly helps alleviate this problem.

this lets him put a pro-military rah-rah spin on an issue that otherwise is something the right-wing drools over attacking us for.


i'm a huge supporter of equal rights for homosexuals, and am hoping that this is just a matter of tactics in getting it implemented with minimal controversy or political cost.

[Amimnoch]

50. My hopes exactly! nt.

[No Elephants]

117. Good idea. Send it to whitehouse.gov!

[bvar22]

159. Hey WAIT!

I absolutely OPPOSE the escalation of the Occupation of Afghanistan.
:shrug:

[unblock]

167. well me too, but i'm just talking strategery here.

if we're gonna do it, we should use the opportunity to justify the inclusion of homosexuals.

[riqster]

44. Three examples of actions that trump his words:

McClurkin. Warren. DADT.

Obama is a good man, and is certainly a vast improvement over the alternative, but he is demonstrably cursed with a tin ear when it comes to GLBT matters.

He MUST learn to understand that community's reactions to his actions, and that those reactions are valid and understandable.

Actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Er, the first two are actually just different words. nt

[riqster]

68. Two words representing actions by Obama

...representing choices he made that outraged the GLBT community.





As to Rick Warren, there are many threads on DU about Obama choosing that biigot to deliver the invocation.

[Occam Bandage]

73. Yes, choices and actions that involved nothing but words. What you are saying

is not "actions speak louder than words," but rather "words I don't like speak louder than words I do," which I guess is sort of true but which isn't nearly as snappy.

[riqster]

75. So, since McClurkin and Warren only SAY hate speech towards GLBT citizens

that makes Obama's actions in choosing them as his surrogates acceptable?

I suppose you'd draw the line if Rev. Rick or Donnie dragged a fag to his death, but not until then? Or even then, would you still support Obama's endorsement of these two individuals?

If Obama had a Grand Kleagle of the KKK speaking for him, would you concur then also?

Obama gave his endorsement to two gay-haters. Endorsement is action.

[Occam Bandage]

76. I didn't say anything about acceptability.

I only said that "actions speak louder than words" isn't a good line to use when only words are involved. The problem with Rick Warren/Donnie McClurkin was that they said offensive words in the past, and then said some other words at an Obama event. Which you say speaks louder than both the words Obama has said, and the words of the many, many pro-gay-rights people that have said some words at an Obama event.

Which is an understandable viewpoint, but which isn't really an instance of actions being opposed to words.

[riqster]

86. Words frequently ARE actions.

Saying "Fire!" to a firing squad is the classic example. Did the officer 'act' by saying that word, or can she/he truly evade responsibility for the consequences of having given that order? (A declaration of war is the large-scale example of this.)

In other words, speech is an action in and of itself. Politicians know this - in fact, many actions politicians take are via speech. Rarely do we see Presidents shooting rifles, but their speech can be the direct cause of rifles being fired.

Obama ACTED by having gay-haters speak for him.


The other side of the Warren/McClurkin examples - in neither case has Obama explicitly apologized to the GLBT community for those specific actions. We see him say "I screwed up" with respect to tax matters among his nominees, but he has refused to come out and do the same when it comes to his actions and words that offend gays. To mitigate the effects of his speech by clarifying or disavowing it is an action, too, and one that has not yet been taken.

This does not mean that Obama has not had pro-gay-rights people on his team, of course, but he needs to learn that all the pats on the head don't completely take the sting out of the occasional slap in the face, whether that slap be delivered with the larynx or the hand.

[Amimnoch]

46. It's still early in the administration, and I'm sitting back and reading/watching, BUT

in 2 years, it will be clear exactly how our Party, and our President will be at keeping their word.

Just a reminder, from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

"Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. "

This potential flip-flop concerns me. One week he says he will work to get it repealed, the next he says it needs more study?

Once again i worked my ass off, donated beyond it hurting, phone banked, walked, posted yard signs for the Party, including President Obama once Hillary conceded. We have a strong majority in both houses of Congress, and the presidency. Frankly, 2008 is the last year I support until I see actual results for gay rights.

[debbierlus]

53. Not surprising.

[vaberella]

57. The way most here made it sound it was a definitive no from Obama.

I realize the article is targeting and studying the use of "study" as it's said by others that this issue will never change. However what I'm seeing here is that a lot of people are automatically putting Obama in the same lump as all other administrations when this issue has been on their table. I don't see how there is no chance when the Administration did not say there was no chance and I would take them at face value rather than automatically putting the issues of past administrations on him. If he fails to deliever in a reasonable time, one longer than 15+ days then I can see being this affronted.

All I'm seeing however are people jumping up and down on just word analysis. The man hasn't even gotten his entire cabinet yet. I'm not saying there is no rights to the feeling, just that we don't know his actions yet when a month hasn't even gone by but the analysis of an article. I don't even want to read the hundreds of articles out there already disappointed in his many unrealized actions when he's bombarded by a lot.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. What we need is a study of the impact of the study

on those who do studies. Then we can procede. Why isn't that obvious to everyone?

[uponit7771]

61. Yes, while we're trying to get the stimulus passed lets start some shit that'll get extreme oppositi

...opposition.

[Maven]

80. "Extreme opposition"

You mean like zero Republicans in the House voting for the stimulus package?

[No Elephants]

119. What does that have to do with anything? Why, when "we're" trying to get the stimulus package

passed, announce the we need a study by the military about DADT?

By the way, when is it going to be the correct time to fight for equal rights for members of the GLBT community?

[zulchzulu]

64. “undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.”

That's not a punt. It's a step.

I'd like DADT to be repealed yesterday, but this step that the Obama administration is making will actually skewer the excuses that some in the Pentagon may put in the study.

Someone at the Pentagon will have to go on record saying that gays can't serve and then they can be attacked with evidence otherwise.

[biopowertoday]

67. ITs a PUNT--a delay. His message is Gays are SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.

[Amimnoch]

71. It will be that message if in the end he doesn't act on his promise.

It's discouraging to say the least that he's making that kind of statement now. But, really, it is still early. The election is over for 2 years. Our party has the majority in both houses, and the Presidency now. I for one, am willing to wait it out the 2 years and see if they make good on the promises or if it really was just a bunch of smoke being blown.

[biopowertoday]

77. I do not agree. He is in his honeymoon phase. Time to hit this issue Hard!!--no delays

[zulchzulu]

95. OK...you win.... everybody hates gays....

Ferchrissakes, can't you even see how the Pentagon study is designed to show that anyone who puts their name down saying gays can't serve will be exposed and the next steps to get DADT repealed will be made easier?

Is this over your head? Do you have to absolutely lie about Obama and say he's a homophobe?

DON'T ANSWER. I'm out of this thread. It's pointless.

[donco6]

131. Good riddance.

And take your hyperbole with you.

[donco6]

130. Which has already happened a number of times.

I watched the hearings last time. The anti-gay bigots were OVERWHELMED with evidence to the contrary. Instead of a study, they should just watch that again. I'm sure they can get tapes from CSPAN.

[ieoeja]

72. Do you want Robert Gates writing the new policy?

The legal process for this requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a new policy to the President. Shortly after Obama chose to retain the current Secretary of Defense through the withdrawal from Iraq, he announced that DADT would be delayed a couple years.

He did not say the two were related, but I suggested then they were. And continue to believe so today. He will ask this be modified when *his* Secretary of Defense is in place to write the new policy.

[RollWithIt]

74. Obama hates gay people!

JK... :-)

[marshall]

83. Hopefully nobody is surprised by this

And at this point he's got to put his political capital elsewhere--he's got way too many fish to fry.

[Runcible Spoon]

84. This makes me sick, but I'm far from surprised.

Tell me more again about Obama the constitutional law expert again? :eyes:

[pretty]

85. we shall see what he does

It's too early to tell right now.

[Fleshdancer]

87. Hasn't the past 8 years of gays fighting in wars been enough "study"?

DADT is nothing more than bigoted peace time theoretical bullsh*t. It's amazing how little one cares about the sexual orientation of his/her fellow soldier when bullets are flying toward them.

[Ioo]

90. and the 150 years before that.

[Fleshdancer]

92. touche

You're very right about that. I stand corrected. :)

[No Elephants]

120. 8 years of gays fighting in wars? More like 8000 years.

[Fleshdancer]

153. well yes...

I was just thinking in terms of our govt needing to "study" DADT in particular.

[No Elephants]

168. So am I.

[donco6]

93. Not at all surprised.

Just more confirmation.

And I supported this guy from Day One. So bite me.

[stillcool]

142. Did you read the article?

or only the parts you like

But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations. Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views.

The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation.

[Radical Activist]

96. This is the next step to overturn DADT.

That's not throwing anyone under the bus. Claiming so is idiotic.

[Teaser]

98. Obama has murdered gays for years.

That is an open secret in washington. He has burned them alive at small, private gatherings. So it is no surprise that he would delay action on this for a few months.

It just goes to show that if you murder gays as a "family pasttime" you are likely to put off controversial decisions regarding their status in the military for a couple of months.

[Lyric]

100. ...

:cry:

[jenmito]

105. Then he better take THIS off of the whitehouse.gov website:

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

[donco6]

129. You forgot the addendum:

". . . Right after another interminable study, conducted among current forces who oppose the policy change, resulting in another faulty study which will be shelved and avoided as long as there are controversies to deal with in Washington."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. I'm not happy to hear this, but give the guy some time and I'm sure he'll deliver on his promise.

[Two Americas]

110. stop the persecution

We are fighting to stop persecution and the denial of human rights. We need to stop talking about "giving" and "allowing" things to "them."

Force those who wish to continue to persecute people and deny them human rights to defend their position.

Saying it is "not the right time" to "give them" something - usually phrased as "what they want" - is to say that it is the right time to persecute people and deny them equality. There is no "middle" position here.

It is always "the right time" to take a strong stand against the persecution and abuse of any group of people on any pretext.

A failure to take a stand here is a failure to take a stand anywhere.

If taking a stand against the persecution and abuse of any of our brothers and sisters, and the denial of human rights, is not a "priority" then that means that we have abandoned any and all pretense of having any commitment to justice and human rights, and that corrupts and undermines the entire battle against the right wingers.

"Supporting gay rights" is not merely a matter of using more polite and friendly-sounding liberalish rhetoric and "practical" double talk to defend and promote the ongoing persecution and abuse and denial of human rights.

[Teaser]

121. *clears away the straw*

you sure build them men good.

[Two Americas]

122. sorry?

Not following you.

[donco6]

127. How was that a straw man?

It made perfect sense to me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. This something which has to go through Congress

Congress doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to repeal DADT. So the President is building the a case to make to Congress.

[totodeinhere]

161. No, he can repeal DADT with an executive order. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

174. The President cannot use executive orders to overturn a law

DADT is part of Public Law 103-160. It would take an act of Congress to repeal the law.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. I think that if he doesn't act on this within the first term then it's a serious violation of trust

He said during the campaign that he would end DADT and I take him at his word thus far. It's better to get this done right two years from now than do it wrong right now. Clinton learned that the hard way. However he needs to act on this or he will have indeed failed to keep a very clear campaign promise.

[stillcool]

144. Legislation is being written...

But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations. Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views.

The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation.

[Vinca]

128. I'm sorry, but this is just ignorant. Repeal the damn thing. nt

[Vattel]

134. Saying it needs further study is homophobic.

[stillcool]

143. No..it says it needs votes to pass...

if the military comes out against this with the Republicans it will not pass. But I guess it doesn't matter if it passes?

[Vattel]

164. I don't get that

Why does he need an excuse to take the necessary time to propose legislation that will pass?

[stillcool]

165. he doesn't. I messed up...

confusing two different articles. One was stating that Kennedy has written legislation, and is trying to find support for it, and someone else is writing legislation..but that is a whole separate thing than postponing so the military can have a pow-wow. If the legislation is already written, they can just vote on the damn thing. If it fails, it fails. Try again. It seems that making it a big deal by trying to get enough votes just invites more rancor. And why the military should be involved at all is beyond me.

[Kaleva]

136. Probably don't have the 60 votes in the Senate

needed to over ride any filibuster. I don't think there'd be too much trouble in the House to overturn DADT but the Senate is a different animal which goes by it's own set of rules.

[JuniperLea]

145. So, care and caution are a bad thing?

He can't just do away with this old crap, he needs to replace it with something.

[Ed76638]

146. Just sign the executive order and get it done.

Public opinion didn't stop Truman from integrating the armed forces. If the military can deal with that, they can deal with this shit as well.

[Kaleva]

148. Needs to passed by Congress

Truman could order the integration of the Armed Forces because there was no law against it.

[rug]

147. What is there to study?

Is he waiting for Warren to say the military can cure gay people?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

157. Join the club, we need a bigger bus, it's getting crowded under here.

Increasingly I'm asking myself why I bothered to vote, how many more fuckups will we have to endure?

(On the bright side, at least there's no fucking cheerleaders under here!)

[QC]

158. It's nice and warm over here by the exhaust! n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

160. Kind of smells, though

And diesel makes me cough.

[donco6]

175. They do poke sticks in now and then.

Keep your eyes peeled.

[dbmk]

162. Can someone clear this up once and for all for me?

Can he overturn this with an executive order, as implied in the story at the other end of the link? Seems to be conflicting opinions on this.

The answer should, preferably, be a little more than a yes or no. I would like to know the "why" too.

[ruggerson]

166. No

Don't Ask Don't Tell is a statute that Congress passed when Clinton had suggested he would write an Exec Order to let gays serve openly. Sam Nunn, Colin Powell and others fought Clinton on this and the eventual compromise was DADT. The only way to undo DADT is to repeal it in Congress and have Obama sign the repeal. That being said, someone has to take the leadership role to repeal it, and this is something he repeatedly affirmed he would do during his campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

176. No, he can't. It must be repealed through congress. n/t

[Political Heretic]

177. I believe in a political hierarchy of needs. This decision sucks. We can all Boo Obama for it...

..or whatever.

But I'm not going to lie to you and say pretend like much more of my attention and concerned is focus on rescuing Americans from an impending total economic collapse.

My first priority is to make sure that poor working class straight and gay individuals and families can feed themselves, afford shelter and have access to health care and a stable job. After we make some headway on stopping millions of families from falling into desperation, I'll be able to spend more time thinking about the military's policy on gays openly serving.