Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

[babylonsister]

Sam Stein

Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell (VIDEO)
First Posted: 07-13-09 06:31 PM | Updated: 07-13-09 10:18 PM


President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the White House was powerless in seeking such a reversal, forced to wait for the legislative branch to act first. And, in terminology likely to anger the gay rights community, the president called for a "change" rather than "repeal" of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with {Defense Secretary} Bob Gates as well as Admiral {Mike} Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see changed?" Cooper interjected.

"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/obama-wants-quick-change_n_231061.html

[CTyankee]

1. Well, the Pentagon has had plenty of chances to think this thing thru.

And it's losing valuable citizens who have offered their service and their lives to their country. How about that?

I'm all for legislative strategy, but let's just line up the votes we can get, work with the GLBT community (which is smart and able to give enormous assistance to this effort) and git er done. And if that is NOT the strategy, and something else (perhaps DOMA) is the better law to go after right now, fine, just do it...I just hope and pray Obama is consulting gay activist orgs. on this and they are planning an offensive against DADT (and DOMA).

Enough is enough...roll over the bastards if necessary...

[ruggerson]

2. I think he uses the words interchangeably

I don't think it's meant as a "signal" of any kind.

[Pirate Smile]

4. I agree.

[bluestateguy]

3. This sounds like a reporter who thinks he's really smart parsing words

nt

[Political Tiger]

5. Title of this story here is incorrect and misleading.

He never says he won't repeal it. This is just inflammatory semantics - trying to make the story more interesting by polarizing it.

[boppers]

6. People who don't understand law often fare poorly when trying to report it.

They wind up making themselves, and their readers, worse for the effort.

For starters: repealing DADT? Hell no. DADT is legal protection. Repealing it sends us back 20 years, not forwards.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. OMFG

On the day Obama signs the bill repealing DADT into law, there will be 20 posts here noting that he used a blue rather than a black pen, which definitely indicates that he's a homophobe against repeal.

As it stands, oh great "Interpreters of Malice," the law cannot be simply "repealed," because that would leave policy up to the executive, which means it would be contingent on who occupies the office. The bill currently under consideration does TWO things:

1) Repeals the existing public law AND
2) Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the armed forces.

So, to say MERELY "repeal" would be inaccurate, and would no doubt have produced a similar article bashing Obama for not mentioning the substantive change to the policy reflected by point #2.

I mean fucking PUH-LEEZ already. PUH-fucking-Leez.

[Prism]

8. This is reaching, but I see the President's lying again

There doesn't seem to be a substantive difference between "change" and "repeal". I don't see the call for alarm on that account.

However, I'm growing somewhat tired of these constant claims by the President that he is no position to do anything at all. He could use his stop-loss powers to effect temporary change. He could at the very least endorse h.r. 1283.

I understand what he's doing; we all do. He doesn't want to expend the political capital. He wants someone, anyone, to take the problem out of his hands, and he's going to do the bare minimum he can to see the policy expire. If he lacks the courage, so be it. (Although I'm sure once it is repealed, he'll be quite happy to take all of the credit and many of his ardent supporters will give it to him).

But the constant refrain that there is nothing he can legally do is very insulting. He should be honest. I'd give him credit for it. People don't understand that this sort of thing is what's so galling about his lack of leadership on LGBT issues. The constant, pervasive, willful, in-your-face nature of his lying about it.

[Metta]

9. Discrimination is constitutionally legal? Plus, more buck passing.

He apparently thinks his poll numbers are invulnerable and he inherits no part of the suffering his collusion causes.

[Mass]

10. Huffington Post is certainly becoming the new New York Post.

Different ideologies, but same reporting methods.

However, can we get a senator to propose the repeal of DADT?

[babylonsister]

16. Gillibrand in the Senate, maybe this week...

not a repeal, but a moratorium. It's a start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8524324

"Don't Ask" Fight Hits Senate

[redqueen]

11. What utter bullshit... "..., Not "Repeal""?

Shameful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Shit thread.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. It seems like it's an all or nothing proposition

There's no way IMHO that he (or anybody else) can "change" DADT to make it *better*. DADT simply needs to be repealed. period. I believe that there is existing military code dealing with fraternization and sexual misconduct, so just make sure that those are enforced and drop DADT completely. I think that's what he meant (and still intends to do).

[TheWraith]

14. Distinction without a difference. Of course we want to CHANGE it, not REPEAL it.

We want to change the policy to something else, not return it to the state it was at before DADT.

[Renew Deal]

15. Where is the quoteof him saying he doesn't want to "repeal" the law?

:shrug:

[chrisa]

17. What is their to change about this.

Clearly bigotted, antiquated policy that was built on the logic of centuries ago?