DADT Repeal now on track, with quiet administration role

[ruggerson]

DADT Repeal now on track, with quiet administration role

Congress appears poised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, with the quiet support of the White House and without opposition from the Pentagon, according to statements out from gay rights groups this evening.

The repeal is a careful dance: The Pentagon has remained publicly neutral in the process, while the Administration weighed in in a low-key, wonky, two-paragraph letter to Congress that makes no reference to the moral case for repeal. It is signed not by President Obama but by Budget Director Peter Orszag.

The effect of the public relations moves is to put the credit or blame for repeal on Congress and a group led by Senators Carl Levin and Joe Lieberman and Rep. Patrick Murphy. But the practical effect is the same: A military that, some time next year, will likely begin to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Says the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund's Aubrey Sarvis:

"The White House announcement is a dramatic breakthrough in dismantling ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The path forward crafted by the President, Department of Defense officials, and repeal leaders on Capitol Hill respects the ongoing work by the Pentagon on how to implement open service and allows for a vote this week. President Obama’s support and Secretary Gates’ buy-in should insure a winning vote, but we are not there yet. The votes still need to be worked and counted."

The proposal, Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese said in a statement, is a technical compromise, though it likely achieves most of gay rights advocates' goals:

"The proposal would allow Congress to vote to repeal the current DADT law now with implementation to follow upon completion of the Pentagon Working Group study due December 1, 2010. The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would need to certify that implementation policies and regulations are prepared and that they are consistent with standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. The plan therefore addresses concerns expressed by the Pentagon that the implementation study process be respected."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears to be maintaining a public posture of distance from the changes.

"Given that Congress intends to address this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," his spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said earlier today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Dont_Ask_repeal_now_on_track_with_quiet_administration_role.html

[ruggerson]

1. If this is the way they have to get it done

I'm all for it. It's far better than waiting for the "study" to be completed.

It is frankly a bit bizarre, though, that they feel they all have to do this little dance around an issue that has 80% support nationwide.

[ruggerson]

2. Here's the NY Times take on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25tell.html

[robinblue]

30. The way I read it is that Obama is not pushing it personally but

allowing his staff to sign on to it. Weak-is the only way to put it.

[zipplewrath]

3. Why do I feel like there is another shoe dropping?

Something isn't making much sense here. They're going to pass something, but the DoD will do a study to figure out how to "implement" this. Shouldn't congress be instructing them on how to implement it? They are repealing DADT, not just modifying it right? I don't understand what power the DoD will have to "implement" anything.

[ruggerson]

4. My sense is it is allowing the military to save face with it's absurd study

Congress repeals the law.

The military then can quietly start to comply with the new regulations for the next six months.

In December they issue a "report" which outlines how repealing DADT does nothing to harm combat readiness.

[PopSixSquish]

5. Sounds About Right to Me

As long as it gets done...

[johnaries]

6. I think you've nailed it, except I've got a gut feeling it will take more

than 6 months.

There are still some pro-DADT folks in the machinery who know plenty of ways to throw wrenches into the gears. I believe that it WILL happen, but like Guantanomo there will be unforseen delays.

But, it WILL happen! :party:

Personally, I had faith all along that it would happen, eventually.

[vaberella]

8. That makes sense to me too. n/t

[Jennicut]

15. Yes. It is actually not a terrible way to go.

The military (at least some) tend to be the most resistant. Cinton's biggest problem was the military. Not the soldiers necessarily, but the leadership. that turned many Senators against him. Legally, they will have to comply with the law. Gates actually seems like he will move on this. Some of the others, not so sure. But as Sec of Defense, he can be a big influence.

[Prism]

7. "The effect . . . is to put the credit or blame for repeal on Congress" - LOL

Yeah, I'm sure Congress will get all of the credit for repeal. The man will risk absolutely nothing in terms of political capital, but if it goes well, wait for it. It'll be quite something to witness.

The fact we have to browbeat this President into keeping a promise with 75% popularity is something else. Truly. He is being dragged to the finish by just about everyone in the community and the party.

Infuriating.

Also, are there any other gays except Joe Solmonese? Every single story I read about LGBT issues in the MSM includes quotes from that jerk. I don't know a single person in the community with a kind thing to say about him, but the media and party operatives seem to think he's our queen.

He's another one who is perfectly fine apologizing for inaction until he has no other choice. He should have a cocktail. He's earned it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Would you prefer he veto it like a Republican would?

And if this really has 75% popularity (which is suspect in the first place), why hasn't Congress just repealed it? It's their job and they sure as fuck don't need Obama to do it. Why isn't the pressure on Congress, who - just in case you haven't been paying attention - has to do the repeal anyway?

It'd be more useful if you channeled your rage into something more practical, or at least in the proper directions.

[Prism]

17. It'd be more useful if you knew what you were talking about

Congress has wanted to do the repeal for some time. It is the President who has urged delay from day one of his administration. It has reached a boiling point, with Congress telling the President they're ready to go ahead without him whether he wants it or not.

Hence, this compromise.

Speaker Pelosi disagrees with you. Even she felt the White House needed to be publicly pressured on this issue. What does it tell you when even Congress is looking at the President and going "What is the hold up?"

I think I'll go with her opinion over yours there. But thanks for a fact-free foray into gay issues. Always valuable for us.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Speaker Pelosi could've advanced the bill whenever she wanted.

Or are you unfamiliar with separation of powers? I think only one of us is fact free, and it ain't on this end, thankyouverymuch.

[Prism]

19. She gave the President deference

Because, you know, they're in the same party and they often like to be on the same page when it comes to major legislation.

Be cranky if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the Speaker had to force the President into this. He did not want this during an election year, and made that clear many, many, many times. Congress had to force the White House.

So the narrative "Obama, Champion of Teh Gay" doesn't work. Oh, I know you guys will try. You always do. But you know what? You should probably wait until the discharges actually stop before explaining to us how wonderful our inequality is. Because the actual cessation of discharges may yet be a long ways off.

You'll simply have to find a new scapegoat outside of "But Congress. . . " I would suggest "But the right-wing won't like it and they're scary and will say things!" That one almost always works on LGBT issues for some reason.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I never said Obama was "Champion of Teh Gay".

But I will say that I'm a lot closer to that point of view than I am of yours, which is apparently "Obama, Homophobe in Chief". And I'm pretty sure the details put reality a lot closer to me than to you.

[Prism]

23. If only you cared about equality as much as a politician's image

What a world this could be.

But you don't, so it isn't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. I bet you think everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is a homophobe.

You must live in a lonely, lonely world.

[Prism]

26. Not particularly

But I do think anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time pushing against the LGBT community when it comes to our own issues is grappling with some anti-gay sentiment. There is disagreement on process, and then there's "Oh look, an LBGT thread. Oh look, and you're here. Oh look, you're opposed to whatever LGBTers are saying about this. Again!"

It happens with suspicious regularity. But I'm sure one should never read a thing into it.

Speaking of lonely worlds, I think the people I feel worst for are the ones who sell out their principles and their souls for DC access and cash. And the people who do that, and then harangue the LGBT community about their inequality, aren't just weasels - though weasels they certainly are - but quite simply empty people.

Empty people kicking the powerless when they're down in order to feather their own bed of political access are the worst.

Wouldn't you say? Nick?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Disagreeing on process is not disagreeing on principle.

And yes, I believe you're 100% wrong on this and it really doesn't matter what your status is. They're moving forward - that's the bottom line, and at least 99% of DUers are supportive of that bottom line. A few months left to wait is not a big deal in any grander scheme of things when the results will last hopefully forever.

As for your other part, I really have no idea what you're talking about, but you seem to like the sound of your own voice, so please, keep talking. I'll just be doing other things.

[Prism]

28. You don't care

Truly, you do not. Did you read the compromise language? Do you know there is no deadline or actual repeal, but language supporting triggers that will only be activated when various nebulous conditions are met in some undetermined future?

Did you read the DoD's and White House's statements accompanying the compromise, where they stuck a knife between the third and fourth rib of their own supposed legislation by claiming it's not really what they want?

Did you know this "repeal" does not include non-discrimination language and doesn't actually repeal anything at all?

Did you know the President could put a moratorium on discharges and actively chooses not to, resulting in the continued destruction of people's lives and careers? Speaker Pelosi called him out over it.

And yet, still with these absurd claims "DADT is over!"

Because You. Do. Not. Care. outside of promoting a politician's spin. If you cared, you'd address these issues. If you cared, you'd read the fine print, as the LGBT community has learned to do over years of politician's screwing with our equality.

Lt. Dan Choi disagrees you. He is unhappy with the White House's compromise. And given what he has sacrificed to fight for equality and justice, I think I'll stick with his opinion on this one over the usual party operatives on an internet message board.

Here. Educate yourself:

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=114445

If you actually care. Which, I highly suspect, you do not. In the slightest. Our lives are not your political game, and no one is impressed by mindless, slavish devotion in the service of injustice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Unsurprisingly, you didn't link anything but rhetoric.

Here's a citation with some facts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403681.html

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1. (Emphasis added.)

So December 1 is your "undetermined future". Oh, and I suppose the Human Rights Campaign "doesn't care" either: In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the announcement "paves the path to fulfill the President's call to end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

Got any other anger you want to vent at the people who support your cause? Or are you willing to start putting the rage where it belongs?

[Prism]

31. And you've failed again

The study is due by December 1st, not repeal. Do you understand that? There is no deadline on repeal and there is no nondiscrimination language in the compromise.

The Human Rights Campaign. Good grief. I can always tell who doesn't know LGBT people very well whenever they start digging around the HRC crew's nonsense and cite it as authoritative. That organization has no credibility, and Joe Solmonese is persona non grata in large swaths of the community. This is common knowledge and has been written about extensively.

But you have no idea, do you?

Because you don't care. It's not your cause, not your issue, not your life.

Do you have any other minorities you want to swoop in and inform that they don't know just how good that have it from your privileged perch? I'm sure they'd appreciate it just as much as LGBTers do.

Here's one place where my anger belongs:

Hey Nick? Get the fuck out of our way and stop playing human shield to this President when it comes to inequality. Better men and women than you or I are currently being persecuted for daring to serve their country, and you're standing there leisurely watching their careers being ripped apart one by one because you think a politician's public relations is far more important than their sacrifice.

I don't know where people get these fucked up priorities, but it plays a rather large role in why our country is in the state it is.

Get your mouth off power's ass and help people for once by redirecting your efforts away from the afflicted and instead start working on those doing the afflicting.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. HRC speaks for the LGBT community as much as anyone does.

Which is to say no one in particular does, including you. I did not cite them as an "authoritative source" - just as an example of people you'd say "don't care". And clearly, you don't think they care, which I think says more about you than them.

And if you chose to read, you'd notice that the law goes into effect after the study is released, which is December 1. But hey, that doesn't jibe with your narrative that everyone hates you, so fuck it - why bother with those details, right?

Well, if you believe that your anger should be directed at people that want to achieve equality, then fine. Unleash hell on me, if it makes you feel better. I can take it, and at the end of the day, I'll still support full equality because it's the right thing to do. So if you want to piss on me, go ahead and do it. Take it all out on me, and spare the others, because their support for your cause is a lot more tenuous than mine, and we need all the help we can get to end DADT, DOMA, and the myriad of other bigoted policies that are currently law.

[vaberella]

9. Thanks for the news Ruggerson. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

10. I'll BELIEVE that DADT is repealed when it happens. Not a moment before.

Congress can MAKE IT SO and the military should say, "Yes Sir!" to their civilian leaders.

But that won't happen and we all KNOW IT.

Don't get your hopes up ... I'd hate to see people disappointed by half-steps that lead us nowhere.

[Prism]

11. Now that I'm reading this compromise fully, I'm not too happy

This isn't actually a repeal at all. It's taking the responsibility off Congress and putting it fully in the hands of the Pentagon. Furthermore, the Pentagon's responsibility has tons of when's and if's attached about cohesion, readiness, etc.

In other words, we're getting triggers.

The San Francisco Chronicle is saying, even with this compromise, it would take years to implement. I'm trying to track down the genesis of that statement, but if true, we've just been handed one walloping cloud of smoke to go with that solar-sized mirror.

Why won't this President just fucking repeal it? 75% public support and still with this nonsense. He literally does not want to take one ounce of risk or spend one iota of political capital on this.

I want DADT gone as quickly as possible, in any way possible. But does it absolutely need to be attended with this ongoing insult from this administration?

[donco6]

32. That's what I thought when I first heard about it.

I mean, strategically - why compromise at all? Congress was ready to act. As MANY have pointed out to us, "Obama cannot supercede a law passed by Congress", so OK, we're ready to vote on this thing! But instead - along comes this rushed, surprise "compromise" meeting? Many assumed it was instigated by gay supporters - but I think just the opposite. I think it was thrown together by the military and Obama in order to provide screen cover in the event the measure actually passed. It actually pushed things back FURTHER. Now even if it passes, it gets thrown back on the military to "complete the study" then we have to wait to "make recommendations" then we'll wait to "enact the plan".

It's all bullshit. I don't trust it for a moment.

[Laughing Mirror]

12. The least they could do

Though, it is movement, and it is going in the right direction. But wouldn't the president's signature carry more weight with Congress than the signature of his budget director?

[QC]

14. Will they at least suspend the discharges while the generals dick around?

That seems to be a reasonable compromise in exchange for getting to delay ditching this unjust policy yet again.

[tranche]

16. Thank God for this president!

Thank are making good on their promise.

[racaulk]

24. The DADT repeal is moving in Congress in spite of Obama's leadership.

Not because of it.

[ieoeja]

21. The study must determine workplace rules for harrassement based on sexual orientation.

Rules will have to be made. Enforcement and punishment has to be defined. Officers have to be trained. Millions of service members, contractors, etc will need sensitivity training (which they will then ignore) on the issue.


Wonky isn't sexy. But it is necessary.

[donco6]

33. Why would it have to be different from any sexual harrassment?

Is it really that different? No, it is not. So the regs, enforcement and punishment is probably already defined (I'm assuming they have such regs now).

And the sensitivity training can happen after the ban is lifted. If the regs are in place, it's servicemembers responsibility to know them. They're not off the hook simply because they "haven't been trained". This has been argued many times already.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Nothing that is truly *landmark* has ever been accomplished quietly. eom