CNN Breaking News — The Senate has voted against starting debate on a bill that would repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
CNN Breaking News — The Senate has voted against starting debate on a bill that would repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
1) The Democrats deliberately added DADT and the DREAM act to the military appropriations bill in order to create this controversy.
2) The bill prohibited amendments and limited debate on these issues.
3) There is a pentagon study on DADT underway that is due to be finished in December.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HZ672:
ie, there’s nothing getting ahead of the pentagon study in this amendment. And as far as creating a false controversy, it isn’t doing that at all. It’s facing the political reality that if they’re going to do it, it has to happen now.
Yup, keep defending something with no actual backing behind it. If gays were such a threat, why didn’t the military fall apart with them allready in it? Why aren’t other militaries around the world where gays serve openly falling apart? Its a discriminatory policy that ha cause far more harm than good and it should be addressed now. If a person who is gay causes problems with their behavior then you address it, same as if they are straight
David K #4 – you have a problem with folk defending a policy from President Clinton and the Democrat-owned Congress in 1993 ???
Me, I figure that if the Israeli Armed Forces and the UK Armed Forces can function well with openly-gay folk in the ranks, the US should be able to also … but our Drmocrat Overlords know better than we do, now, don’t they ?
It’s a cynical ploy that it is being done in *this* way, *now*, just before a mid-term election – especially when the most important things for voters right now are the Economy, the Economy, and the Economy …
Jim K #3 – the reality is that this is just another Democrat President taking the gay community for granted, and promising to do away with “Don’t ask; don’t tell: while doing nothing real to make it happen … it has worked for Democrats in 2006, and in 2008 … why would Democrats believe it’s not going to work this time, too ?
Hmmmm – was that Freudian for ‘Dramacrat” or “Dimocrat” ?
First off, you are purposefully trying to present this as Clinton’s preferred policy. It was decidedly not, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was a compromise policy with the one enacted by Congress who had gotten out in front of his desired action which was to allow gays to serve openly. And while it doesn’t excuse the actions of the majority of Democratic congress people, let’s not kid ourselves here, Democrats were nearly evenly split on the issue while Republicans nearly universally supported requiring sexual orientation to be inquired about and cause of dismissal from the military.
And regardless of who owns the policy, the policy is wrong.
And what? Taking the gay community for granted? How? This isn’t Republicans calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. *That’s* a cynical ploy. This is an amendment that you seemingly agree with. So why not support it?
Yes Alasdair I do. Unlike you I don’t decide to defend or attack policies based on the letter by the name but on the actual policy itself.
I’m also amused that you consider Obama’s push to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as “doing nothing”. What would you consider doing something, Obama heading a military takeover, disbanding congress, delcaring himself emperor for life and then saying “oh by the way, gays can serve openly in the military now”.
Jim K #7 – I repeat – “It’s a cynical ploy that it is being done in *this* way, *now*, just before a mid-term election – especially when the most important things for voters right now are the Economy, the Economy, and the Economy …” …
That doesn’t prevent me from supporting the repeal of DADT – as a seperate Bill in its own right … as an amendment on a Defence Bill, it is a cynical partisan ploy …
As for it being “Clinton’s preferred policy”, I am going by all the efforts Clinton made to correct it during the remaining, what, 6 years of his Presidency ? Not speeches – real efforts – cuz I don’t see ’em …
Of course, if we in the US had a President currently, rather than an inexperienced leader experienced in place-holding self-face-saving, an actual President would have signed the relevant Executive Order re-integrating the US Military … sorta like President Truman in his Executive Order on July 26, 1948 … (Yes, David, what President Truman did was Presidential – members of the Democratic Party have been known to do such things in the History of the US) … the modern Democrat Party is not the Democratic Party of Harry Truman …
Clinton campaigned on it, and promptly forgot his promise once he was elected, until he was up for his second term; and, after he won re-election, he promptly forgot about it again … Bush didn’t campaign on it … Obama did campaign on it, and has been just as honorable a President as Clinton …
David K’s illusions to the contrary, *I* have pushed for Obama’s election more sincerely than Obama has pushed for repeal of DADT …
Dear lord Alasdair, the one with illusions, or in your case delusions is you. Obama is the one pushing for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell RIGHT NOW. Again, what exactly more would you like to see him do? I swear its like you just make up reality around you to suit your whim. It must be nice living in a fantasy land like you do. I just hope to high heaven that no one lets you do anything important while you are high on whatever mixture of drugs you take to get you to la la land.
President Obama has had nearly two years and the Democratic Congress four years to bring this issue up, either as a separate bill as it should be, or attached to another bill…even a previous military expenditures bill. They haven’t done so. The only reason they are doing so now is because they are facing a catastrophic electoral defeat and desperately need red meat to throw to their special interests.
Dream on gahrie, Obama said back in January that he would push for repeal of DADT this year, which basically blows your whole election hail mary fantasy out of the water. As for putting it off, um, yeah he’s been kinda busy passing health care reform, financial reform and keeping the economy from tanking completely. It’s called prioritizing. Don’t pretend you actually believe a President is supposed to do everything all at once or that this might not have been something that has been worked on for quite some time without all the public fanfare. You are basically ignoring facts and reasonable explanations to fit the story into your partisan narrative. How very Beck-ian of you.
keep whistling past that graveyard……
I couldn’t care less if DADT is repealed if that’s what the military as a whole generally wants (as opposed to self-righteous busybodies), but if the Dems are such champions of gay rights, one would expect them to do a better job of it than this.
Just to challenge your premise for a moment, why should the question of whether gays deserve equal rights in the military be determined solely by “what the military as a whole generally wants,” particularly when the “military as a whole” at present systematically excludes gays from openly serving? Isn’t that a bit like allowing a segregated white school in the South, circa the 1950s or 1960s, to take a vote on whether blacks should be allowed in? Not exactly a fair playing field.
I realize there are complex issues here and I’m not trying to say there is a direct, one-to-one equivalence between racial school integration and gays in the military, but I also don’t think your “what the military as a whole generally wants” analysis should be accepted uncritically. Nor is it clear that individuals outside the military demanding equal rights within the military should necessarily be dismissed as “self-righteous busybodies,” as this assumes that neither potential gay servicemembers (who effectively can’t join because they’re openly gay) nor members of the broader society have an interest in whether our nation’s military discriminates against gays. Obviously, that assumption is categorically untrue.
This is not a decision for the military to make. This is a decision for the country to make, with input from the military.
P.S. I realize your comment doesn’t, on its face, necessarily conflict with my final paragraph, and I’m NOT suggesting that your position is that this should be left solely up to the military. However your stated position does, at a minimum, tilt somewhat in that direction, and I think that needs to be challenged.
What I mean is that since it’s the military that is doing the serving — an activity that is totally different than sitting in a classroom in the South in the 1950s-60s — and has to live (and die) with the consequences of whether gays “deserve equal rights in the military,” I think what the military generally wants here should be the most important concern (or the most valuable “input” if you like). That is not to say that the military’s morality is beyond question in all circumstances, but I would argue that in this instance it certainly trumps what those outside the military “demanding equal rights within the military” think, especially when the latter too often make the convenient but ultimately inapt comparison between a combat unit and a classroom, or sexual orientation and race.
P.S. I’m of course not saying that servicemembers will die if DADT is repealed. I’m just pointing out that being in the military is fundamentally different than being a civilian.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2010/07/soldiers-casket.jpg
Quick, somone point out the gay soldier.
Like I said, if a gay soldiers actions are causing issues then you address those, just as you would a straight soldier. Otherwise the real world results of other militaries show that allowing gay soldiers to openly serve is a non-issue AND if you look at the effects of booting gay soldiers in our military it shows that qualified, often decorated men and women are being kicked out causing morale issues and readiness problems.