AMERICAblog: New disturbing comments from Chairman of Joint Chiefs on DADT
nicho
· 4 months ago
The real problem isn't DADT. The real problem is that there has been a quiet coup in the military and it is now controlled by a powerful evangelical cult. There is a huge evangelical office in the Pentagon whose goal is to subvert all the top brass to their radical right-wing agenda. The Air Force Academy has been totally corrupted and is now nothing but an evangelical seminary.
This is a serious problem, because pretty soon, we will be pretty much of an evangelical dictatorship and they will have the military to back them up.
Judas Peckerwood
· 4 months ago
Actually, the problem is that most of the Democratic "leaders" are afraid to take strong stands on military matters because they've never served in the armed forces -- in contrast to the Republican chickenhawks who have no problem advocating for unnecessary wars and major military casualties despite never serving.
offspring
· 4 months ago
you know no matter what or why they do or dont do anything for us, and no matter how we fight, I find myself thinking of that lone gay kid, sitting in their room right now, leaned up against the headboard of their bed, staring out the window at the sky, then back to their lonely dark room, they sit there knowing that tomorrow they have to get back up, they have to carry on the act, to be someone they are not, to lie to everyone to themselves, to be afraid that one slip one mistake could mean the end of them, or their lives, that one hint that they have a crush, that one spark in the eye of wanting to be held, the thing they must at all cost to them and their family supress. They sit there thinking how alone how unloved, how unfriendly life is, how unfair to watch everyone have a life, have total freedom, to have to live a half life with them and family, and then when they are out of school, they have a choice stay in the same small town, go to community, or go military, and then there is the risk of really slipping up as hormones at 18 are horrible, they only see this hiding this fear this half life in their future, then after thinking of them i think of the democrates using us, and us allowing it, of us, sitting and waiting for people to give us the same human rights as everyone else on our street, to allow those that risk a HELL of a lot more than straights do in the military, "yes I said it" to serve without the fear the witch hunt, it makes me sick that we have no choice but to wait and wait and wait, no matter what any of us do it is in the end up to them. I heard a lady today say gays where weak minded souless, this is in oklahoma you hear this stuff alot, I was standing behind her and felt the fear i had as a kid if i said anything to her, and i admit I was a complete and utter coward, i stood there wanting to say that she couldnt be brave enough to trade places with a gay person for even a day, that gays have more mental strenght than most they are torture mentally daily, they are denied a life, they are put down, they are beaten, denied rights, arrested, harrassed abused, and so on that even though that they survive, they still survive, no to many straights could put up with what gay people have to mentally and physically from school through military the adult hood especially in a small town, but my big brave as stood there like some idiot I was a complete coward. So anything i say on here is just bravado from now on, it is easy for me to say stuff on here but when it counts I couldnt do it, I dont think i have been more ashamed I am almost forty and I can even stand up for people let alone myself. I am actually sorry to all that i couldnt.
Mateo1970
· 4 months ago
Don't be so hard on yourself 'Offspring'. Most of us are like that. We have been trained since childhood that we are scum and better watch out what we say "or else" (with the hint of violence).
lileasy
· 4 months ago
Coming from the mid-west, you must also overcome your innate heartland politeness. Even if you had confronted this person, it is most unlikely that any comment you could have made would have enlightened her, although it may have embarrassed her a bit. I agree with Mateo, don't be so hard on yourself.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
This was very powerful. Thank you for posting it.
Mike_in_the_Tundra
· 4 months ago
Be kind to yourself. Alright, you played a lousy game today, but tomorrow you may be great. We've all felt that fear you felt today. It's a horrible feeling, but it's worse if you get down on yourself.
Keith & Dustin
· 4 months ago
Offspring,
You can't fix stupid
1st Republic 14th Star
· 4 months ago
Mullen should be fired and fired now.
I'm tried of military officers who think it's acceptable to appear in public criticizing Democratic presidents while sucking up to Republican ones.
The president's job is to gather information and advice, and then set policy.
The job of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to give the president his best advice and judgment in private, and then be supportive of the president once the decision is made. If the CJCS thinks he can't carry out the policy on good conscience, his remedy is to resign. Period.
We cannot allow these officers to continue running roughshod over civilian leaders when it suits them. If we do, we're little better than Honduras -- one step away from an outright coup.
Keith & Dustin
· 4 months ago
You're exactly right. He is stirring up the fears so all these right wing whackos will go crazy and Obama will fold and sell us out. Attempting to stir up hatred should be reason enough for his immediate dismissal. I think all of the hawks already figured out that Obama is all talk and no action so they are going to rip him to shreds. He will spend the rest of his term in defensive mode instead of the other way around. Leave it to these weak ass dumbocrats to screw up a golden opportunity to get our country back on track.
JamesR
· 4 months ago
Regardless that it's a "gay" issue - here's a GENERAL going off the reservation, talking about all sorts of politics it looks like he's been given no firm policy (from above) to deal with. Like Sarah Palin with stripes. Everyone with some sort of power likes to be oh-so-important, getting asked about their opinion as if it matters as a separate entity. As the head of the Joint Chiefs of (fucking) Staff - IT DOESN'T. If he were a Senator it would. If he were a regular Cabinet member, it would with qualifications. As a military officer WTF? As a General he's got to know the meaning of STFU. Does that order need repeating when an administration changes?? What a divisive idiot. How unprofessional. What a mess.
He's advising the President - OK. Like a lawyer? Like a CIA analyst?? ...a military strategist perhaps? Since when do these squawk to the press about what they are saying?
It spells W E A K N E S S. It says the President does not have the respect of the military. IF he had, the GENERAL would say he is discussing policy with HIS COMMANDER IN CHIEF and he will let the press know when the PRESIDENT has reached a policy decision.
This is the not-gay part of the issue, and in my view way worse than his ludicrous and disgustingly dishonest and dishonorable actual words on the matter.
Amazing.
- And if he's been advised to say these things to sort of softly get the bullshit all out there evenly - WTF? - That would indicate the whole administration doesn't know how to handle the military and Mullen is too stupid to know the difference. Or doesn't care. He can always STFU as is proper. Making his Commander In Chief look like a cuckold is not part of his sworn duty, or a promising beginning of an independent political career.
megatronbomb
· 4 months ago
It's not just a "gay" issue. There's national security and economics at play as well.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Not to mention it is the same military that was torturing people and not giving them trials.
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
Oh he is not alone on this and he did it on purpose - My guess it was a warning shot at Obama and everyone else who wants DADT removed they are going to fight hard and do everything they can to keep it - hell if it was up to them they would still be just kicking people out for suspicion.
JamesR
· 4 months ago
If I were President, and a General of mine oh-so-nobly took "a warning shot" at me they would be gone. And in wartime they'd be lucky if it were done with paper. Plenty of other Generals in the Sea. And the next one would be more respectful. I don't see what is to be gained by making it look like a President is a General's bitch.
jpjones
· 4 months ago
I didn't see this as a "warning shot" at all, but rather a fig leaf providing Obama with a cover story he can try to sell the LGBT community. Adm. Mullen repeats the administration talking point that it is "very clear" that Obama "intends" to see the law change, then reveals that he has advised the president to "move in a measured way".
So it's the same bullshit we've been hearing ever since we had the bad manners to start making noise on this issue - a vague reassurance that something will change at some point in the unidentifiable future, accompanied by a reminder to not hold our breath while we wait.
TimK
· 4 months ago
OH this pisses me off.
For one thing, even the military leader who was standing in the way in '93, Colin Powell, is on record saying DADT needs to go.
For another: I was at church this evening, and a young man was in tears because he's about to be deployed to Iraq (this week, I think) and will be leaving his partner behind.
Our families count too, and HOW DARE Mullen imply that they don't.
fuzzzy
· 4 months ago
Colin Powell is NOT on record as saying DADT needs to go; he IS on record as saying its time to review it. And reviewing it is something most people here, including myself, see as just a stall tactic. but it IS a shift in position that this m-f'er has taken after 16 years; just much much less of a shift than the majority of the American population.
Mateo1970
· 4 months ago
Look, we need to be honest: OBAMA LIED!! We keep being told by Gibbs that Obama is working with the military and the Pentagon to solve the problem. Then when you ask them, they say "We don't know what he's talking about. There is currently no move to change the policy."
We are the minority that is seen as a joke and given zero respect by deceitful politicians like Obama.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Agree. You have to take power. Don't expect to be given power. They don't really care about us.
nycwill
· 4 months ago
that's exactly how i feel. i just feel lied to. he promised to LEAD on these issues. and so did Gibbs. and they just flat out are lying liars. period.
FunMe
· 4 months ago
Maybe the question needs to be asked to Obama's face:
why did you LIE?
bluebear
· 4 months ago
Just go back and re-listen to Donnie McClurkin's sermon at Obama's own fundraiser. "God delivered me from homosexuality!"
After that, nothing will surprise you about Obama's attitude towards GLBT issues, pretty talk aside.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
It's OK to discriminate against G/B who want to serve and have critical skills (such as Arabic linguists) and discharge them, but they lower the recruitment standards so that skinheads, skinheads and people with felony records can get in.
In what alternate realty does that even make any sense?
JamesR
· 4 months ago
Because they'd feel safer taking a shower with a Nazi-skinhead?
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Just don't drop the soap? :-)
JamesR
· 4 months ago
Alas, the billions of dollars KBR could have been making all this time supplying soap-on-a-rope!
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Well, if it's supplied by KBR, I wouldn't want to use the soap anyway. It's probably made from Niger Yellowcake. /snark
JamesR
· 4 months ago
LOL - If any company could fuck up soap-on-a-rope...
Tim
· 4 months ago
Thank you for qualifying the remark, because, shocking as it may be to some people (I knew someone who told me there were no pro-gay, anti-racist skinheads - I told her I KNEW them, and she said I was wrong...I mean, I KNOW them...), there are skinheads who are true to the roots of the movement, not the sick perversions that followed.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
They lowered the standard but not SO LOW that they would actually allow fags and dykes to openly enlist. OMG! What kind of country do you think this is? It is an honor to have a rapist in uniform, but not a crime-free gay person.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
I guess standards don't matter that much when they need to be cannon fodder. My bad!
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Yes, and wouldn't want to "offend" the White Supremacist's family's emo-sensibilities by having "some of those people" show up to send the troops off!
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Hey, Cowboy -- how are things in Okie? I was there once for an Annual Training years ago at Ft. Sill. It was beautiful there. I didn't realize that was where Geronimo was buried! Also spent some time at the Wichita Wildlife Refuge. First time I ever saw bison out on the open prairie just being bison.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Hey Helen! Doing good here, just been busy, lately.
Yea, Geronimo's skull supposedly got stolen by good ol' Prescott Bush and "Skull and Bones" society when he served there during World War I.
I'm at the NorthEastern Ozark area of the state... They call it Green Country up here. Wichita Wildlife Refuge is beautiful!
Its actually only in the 80's today! Big break from the close to 100's we have been having...
jixter
· 4 months ago
The great love of my life was from Weatherford, OK. He was half Scots-Irish and half Cheyenne and grew up on a farm there. I went there with him in August of 1981 and spent about a month in Weatherford, in OK City and finally, at Lake Texoma, which was beyond beautiful.
But yeah, you're right, it gets f*&kin HOT there!
Happy, happy memories.
Who was the duo who sang "You're The Reason God Made Oklahoma"? Shelly somebody and who else? It was a big hit that Summer. I remember ....
But yeah, you're right, it gets unbelievably HOT there.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Here, ya go! I'll light a lighter for your memories!
(My mother's ranch is just north of Cherokee County.)
jixter
· 4 months ago
Perfect.
Thank you, cowboyneok!
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Hope it brings back those good memories!
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
I didn't know that about Geronimo's skull when I was at Sill. I did learn about it later. Just read that a week or 2 ago that Geronimo's descendants had filed a lawsuit to have it returned and it was turned down by whatever jurisdiction it had been filed in.
I remember actually seeing the "jail cell" that Geronimo was allegedly held in. It was a part of one of the "museums" on Sill.
Have you ever been in that area? It's really quite beautiful -- particularly the "Medicine Bluffs" which is also part of Geronimo's stomping grounds.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Yes, I've been all over this state.
UnkaWillbur
· 4 months ago
Sigh. Elect a Christianist president and expect Christianist appointments and policies.
Zorba
· 4 months ago
I suppose there were generals who were opposed when Harry Truman integrated the military, but he did it anyway. For crying out loud, Uruguay and Romania allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. Uruguay. Romania. Both places you would not necessarily think of as being in the forefront of human rights. Israel allows gays to serve openly. They don't seem to have either a morale or preparedness problem with their military. If the families of their straight soldiers have any problem with this, I guess they're ignored. The "old guard" in command of our military needs to retire. By discharging well-trained and valuable troops, and by lowering standards to allow white-supremacists and felons in, they are undermining the effectiveness and preparedness of our military- I would even go so far as to call this treason. Resign, Mullen, it's the only honorable thing to do. (But then, he may have no honor left.)
RonNYC
· 4 months ago
Now we'll see if Obama is a coward or not. I'm betting on his turning chicken. Bill Maher got it right a few weeks ago when he said that the Democratic party has moved to the right occupying the position of the GOP in recent years; while the GOP has moved into insanity. Basically, he said there is no political party representing a liberal point of view. That seems to be the case.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
We should give them that party.
SCLiberal
· 4 months ago
The Green Party represents a liberal point of view but liberals keep sucking on the Democratic teat, thinking things will change.
lileasy
· 4 months ago
The Greens are not well-organized or well-supported, and I believe their leadership is about as affective as that of the LGBT community.
Mike_H
· 4 months ago
And supporting the better organized Democratic Party has done so well for us???
Perhaps the Greens would do better if more of us supported them more aggressively. And maybe the Dems would start to pay more attention if the GayTM was suddenly closed to them.
lileasy
· 4 months ago
It would be nice to think that all the Greens need to get them going is support from disaffected progressives like those posting on this blog. Regretably, in many states, such as Alabama, the Greens are nonexistant. Believe me, I am open to all options, and returning the DNC membership renewal form I received in the mail today with the the usual regarding no financial support until DADT and DOMA are repealed.
Savage8862
· 4 months ago
Let's face it. Obama lied to the gay community. Democrats lied to the gay community. The military will never drop DADT. Obama will not overturn DADT and Congress will never overturn DADT. Obama is a coward. Democrats are cowards. I am sorry to have supported both in the last election. My hope has been taken away.
Malcolm
· 4 months ago
Outrageous. Something dramatic needs to be done, but with gay lapdogs in O's lap, it's not going to come from the "top" of the gay pyramid. And it's not just gays who are outraged; I'm a boring old (62) straight and I'm outraged. Tell us what to do and we'll do it. Having all the gays in the military now walk out would be dramatic all right, but I don't think those brave souls who have kept at it all these years are likely to be prepared to give it all up now in the remote hope of something better. Please come up with an idea for us.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Malcolm, I'm a "boring old (59) straight female Army vet who is outraged just like you. When I did my time (30 years ago), I served with lesbians that I know of for sure. Might have been some gay guys -- don't know -- but the females were all very strac troops and highly qualified. There have been gays in the military ever since "Christ was a corporal" and I'm amazed that this is even still an issue.
lileasy
· 4 months ago
Back in the 60's, I spent a year at the Naval Air Station in Norfolk. I remember there being a big purge of lesbians that decimated the women's barracks next door. Two men from my barracks were also booted...probably the best and brightest we had.
SD_Dave
· 4 months ago
My suggestion would be for all of those who are being booted out, to have their straight allies (hopefully they would stand up with them) stand with them. Meaning, Choi's unit (same with Fehrenbach) has said they support him, it would be great if they all "came out of the closet" as gay even though they are not. This goes for everyone one of the straight allies these soldiers have.
Absolutely bombard the hell out of those overseeing the discharges and force them to go after everybody. I just don't know if all of them would be willing to put their careers on the line.
fuzzzy
· 4 months ago
i like this idea! the idea that all gays come out has vbeen floating around for awhile, but why not just everyone is the armed forces who is supportive? would really fuck things up, eh?
Valentinefrey
· 4 months ago
Pension. Career. It's one thing to like someone and support them, it's another to jump off a bridge for them. Rotten people are able to do rotten things because everyone has to think of themselves first. I don't mean that in a nasty way - it's just a fact of life. People who are willing to really take a fall for someone else are always going to be in a minority - that's the nature of heroism.
SD_Dave
· 4 months ago
Oh trust me, I understand what you are saying - AND I agree with you in that it would be too much to ask of someone to put their careers on the line for someone else. There are a few out there, unfortunately not enough to make a difference, but they are out there. I still think they would send a very strong message and would force the administration's hand in finally addressing DADT. Again, that is idealistically speaking (and we know how well idealism actually works - it rarely does.)
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Do things differently than we have been doing because what we are doing doesn't work. Get angry with R and D politicians and tell them why. No money for them. No assistance. No exceptions. Work for 3rd party and their candidates when they support our issues. No money or assistance for GLBT orgs who support R and D candidates. No exceptions. Difficult, but they will get the message quickly. Tell them why. Get angry but be respectful No name calling.
superstition
· 4 months ago
I hope everyone remembers how our "dearly beloved moderate" (media-fabricated image) Colin Powell publicly advocated mutiny against Clinton when he tried to lift the ban.
He said he'd resign in protest and encouraged other members of the military to do the same.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
I knew there was another reason beyond his shilling of Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes that i disliked that craven, spineless douchebag of a milksop.
superstition
· 4 months ago
I remember watching the press conference he gave back then. And, although I haven't scoured the media/Net, I am the only person I know of who notes the centrality of his role as PR man for the mutinous opposition.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Perhaps it should be dug up and replayed for the enlightenment of all.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
I always thought gays in the military was one of Colin Powell's pet issues and one MAJOR reason to push him to be a Republican. We talk a lot about projection, and me thinks Powell has protested WAYYYyyyyyy too much re: gays in the military for me not to think he has a few "issues" and "insecurities" around that particular subject.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 4 months ago
Yup I always thought that too...we need to locate one of his rentboys.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
That or our WORST ENEMIES are those self loathing people who struggle with their bisexual or gay feelings and live a lie. Our BEST FRIENDS are people who are totally comfortable with their sexuality whether they are straight, bi or gay. My brother, for instance, isn't the least bit intimidated by gay rights because he doesn't live in constant fear he will pop a hard on around gays in a public shower. People like Powell are TERRIFIED of their reaction (erection) that might expose their little secret.
JustAGuy
· 4 months ago
It's happening all over again. The military is running roughshod over a Democratic commander in chief. Does anyone believe for a moment that a Republican president would let his military commanders get away with this kind of insubordination?
Perhaps a better question is: "who's leading whom?"
Is this an act of open insubordination from Obama's military commanders or are the military commanders following Obama's lead?
Bush often hid behind his military commanders when Iraq went to hell - "Deferring to their judgement." I wouldn't be surprised if Obama were making the same play here.
Yes, I'm that cynical.
-Sean
PeteWa
· 4 months ago
Well, Bush "deferred to the military commanders judgement" only so far as the "leaders" thoughts mirrored his own.
Otherwise they were shown the door.
Mike_in_the_Tundra
· 4 months ago
I'm really seeing red over this. Actually this comment of Gates was the worse: "selectively enforced as part of an effort to find "a more humane way" to apply the law until it is changed."
Well, I call Bullsh*t! There's no way to make that law humane. Selectively?!? If a guy is a little too effeminate or a woman a little too butch, do they go? Perhaps they should go check for limp wrists or a sibilant S. Obviously those guys need to go. Maybe they could even go back to the dark ages, and check the guys for a gag reflex. If they have one, they can stay.
I don't get mad easily, but this has really done it.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
So I'm watching Alice in Wonderland right now and I totally think that any "reform" we might get will be like all the economic "reform" we got. They'll just Paint the Roses Red.
Sorry if that seemed like I disrespected you or something. The song is so true, and I just don't want to really get sad/mad before bed again. I suspect when John writes tomorrow I'll see you again with a willingness to engage.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
If we get pissed enough Obama will also hold a ceremony declaring that today is our unbirthday. I think everyone should watch this movie with their political hat on.
FunMe
· 4 months ago
Will there be champagne and caviar. Again?
Whopee!
Keith & Dustin
· 4 months ago
Everyone must understand that no one is going to fight for us, it's a fight we have to wage and win. Right now we lack organization and we have to fix that.
If/when we become organized as a movement we will get results because there is strength in numbers. Right now we are being divided and conquered, and quite easily at that. I wish I had a sure fire solution because to criticize without possible solutions is easy but at least I have an idea.
In my opinion we have too many organizations, GLAAD, HRC, GLTF just to name fewer of the big ones. We need to come together under one umbrella of power, maybe incorporate all of these organizations into one, just like businesses consolidate to become more powerful. I really think it would have a chance. Just ask yourself, are we better off with 20 different organizations fighting for us or one gigantic one with enough power and force behind it to elect or remove politicians?
Just a thought
Jophus
· 4 months ago
I'm ready to get behind a unified cause leader and march like King in Selma. I don't have the resources to initiate that or know anyone who does. Until then I can only make tiny contributions and bitch on the internet.
I seriously don't know what you are suggesting. I'm not going anywhere. I'm doing what I can.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
I don't think Obama has the guts to fire anybody. The stim bill was an utter failure and now they all admit they are clueless and those same economic "advisers" will stay and give us another watered down stim bill to follow. Now these military commanders are running roughshod over Obama and talking out of turn and Ob will do nothing.
This is getting embarrassing. Who is running this freaking country? Obama isn't inspiring confidence in any area. Not one area of concern -- economic, civil rights, military/foreign policy, health care, judicial -- NOT ONE AREA -- does he make me feel safe and secure.
Where are the fricking grownups? If Obama couldn't figure out before the primary or during it that if he won he would need balls of steel to manage dozens of power-hungry, politically savvy, and cutthroat careerists in all of his departments, he should never have run. Obama is a slick politician but part of me also believes he's in way over his head and is absolutely clueless. He simply doesn't have enough experience to know what the fuck he is doing. And it shows.
Obama is "playing nice" with people who are actively plotting and instigating his failure. When is he going to get that? When is that light bulb going to go off for the guy? What's it going to take?
kevinbgoode
· 4 months ago
Since it is becoming increasingly obvious that the ridiculous policy is only in effect to massage the heterosupremacists who serve some penis-is-power god rather than their country, perhaps it is time to take a different approach.
Congress and President "Separate-but-Equal" Obama need to put some money where their mouth is - so if the bigots demand that the gay community continue to sacrifice their right to serve their country to placate the bigot's psychological sexual projections and obsessions, then the government needs to sign every member of the adult gay community up for the same pay and benefits for NOT serving.
We've been paying the damn taxes for this heterosupremacist clusterfuck for decades - and if they want to keep coming up with f*cking excuses for denying us our rights, then they need to quickly pass legislation giving us the benefits for making that sacrifice.
It is outrageous enough that good men and women in uniform have been stripped of their career and their honor for nothing more than being an American willing to serve their country. But to continue forcing those same people to make these extra sacrifices for some nosy-ass other citizens is beyond the pale. I'm not paying taxes for some exclusive heterosexual private club.
Malcolm
· 4 months ago
I think this a very good idea. Gays should stop paying taxes. If they don't have all the rights of citizenship, why should they have all the obligations? Makes sense to me. How about a campaign for all gays to stop withholding? There must be a way to do this - declaring 20 dependants, perhaps, if you are subject to withholding. Go for it.
superstition
· 4 months ago
Then the right wing would be thrilled because we'd all be in jail.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
It might just take us being willing to go to jail. If I thought, for a moment, I could change the future and make it better for the next generation I would do it. I would go to jail.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
I don't know about that, but the IRS would make life miserable for us.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
This is where the 2nd amendment comes in.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
The amendment that says we can worship money?
Malcolm
· 4 months ago
I'm not sure that's true. There is a not unreasonable case to be made that taxation without all of the privileges of citizenship is unjust. Of course, DC residents have been suffering that forever, but I don't think anyone has actually brought it to court. And even more of course, it's not fair to ask gays to put themselves on the line in front of the IRS, so I apologize for not thinking about this. Still, there's got to be something that can be done by all of us to help on this issue. I just don't know what it is, although it's certainly a start to refuse to give money to the dems. That's what I've been doing, I just tell them to call when DADT and DOMA have been repealed. But so far as I can tell, it's not had any effect.
John
· 4 months ago
My Lords, Mister Speaker, and Members of the House of Commons, I'm pleased to report that after a decade of integration, the armed services are performing well. The presence of openly gay men has not led to the end of the world and...
Oops, wrong country.
superstition
· 4 months ago
And, when we come down to it... Dr. Evelyn Hooker's 1956 study, which was independently verified (including by one expert who was so certain that homosexuality was a disorder prior to analyzing the research that he did so twice) and became the basis for the 1973 decision by the APA to take homosexuality off its list of disorders.
When we come down to it -- the fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder means gay people are equal to heterosexuals in every respect. Job performance. Parenting. Relationships. Everything.
There is simply no justification for any form of heterosexist discrimination because of this simple fact.
The fact that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that is not disordered means we already have equal rights via the Constitution. The 1st Amendment makes our legal system secular and the 14th Amendment gives all citizens the same rights.
Since gay people are gay, gay people marry each other. Since gay people are not disordered, there is no justification for DADT, or any other anti-gay policy.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
For some time now, politicians have relied on the self-deprecating nature of the majority of GLBT people. We have deferred to what have been seen as the higher priorities of the Iraq "war", the Afghanistan war, the economic crisis, health care, auto companies, immigration, issues of other minority groups, foreign policy crises, etc.
We have never said, "NO, US FIRST" We are hard-working, intelligent, dignified, taxpaying, respectable AMERICAN citizens deserving of FULL RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are part of what makes this country great.
US FIRST!
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
"you're being shrill and impatient, stop throwing such a selfish hissy fit, you people are driving supporters away with your constant Obama bashing." - supposed 'allies'
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Partially true, but not Obama bashing. Creating GLBT rights as a priority for the Administration.
Plus, I don't expect all GLBT to agree on strategy. Just enough to make a diff. The others can still follow their own path.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Yeah, but they throw that in there even if you're criticizing an action for good reason in a calm fashion :P
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
NBD. I can take the criticism. You probably can. Those who agree with us probably can. Can the other side take our criticism? I can take it because I want to see progress on this issue. I'm willing to take the heat.
Raise your hand if you like being treated like less than all other Americans.
JamesR
· 4 months ago
Not only us first but the USA first - this is a National Security issue. Tossing out valuable trained men and women, during time of war, when it could be stopped several easy ways because of the NEED, and supported by veterans such as McCain, Webb, and now one of the authors of the policy Powell, we're not doing this WHY?
Because of "the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times?" Because they want to to move "in a measured way?" And because they wish to be "humane?"
There are evidently many, many hurt feelings in the Defense Department.
I mean, to use the vernacular, they're really acting like a bunch of faggots.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
YES! And we ALSO have to remember all the young LGBT kids growing up and it is up to us to, in the famous words of Harvey Milk, "We've got to give them HOPE!"
davidinchelseama
· 4 months ago
"Our people and their families"......indeed.
How absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, the hell with all the service members who are gay and the hell with THEIR families, right, Mullen?
What an ass he is.
shell
· 4 months ago
What is going on? On this issue, and others, the right-wingers are winning. DODT, health care, on and on.
Yes, Obama acts like a smarmy weakling, but Congress does, too.
It is the majority of Americans. The POTUS and Congress know this. Sure, some gays object, sure some sick people object. But they know the vast majority of Americans don't pay attention. Why else do so few Americans vote? Why else do those who vote keep voting in the same old imbeciles? (In other words, why is it so hard to take out a bad congressperson?)
It is sick.
nycwill
· 4 months ago
well sure, exactly right, unless it's NOT INSUBORDINATION. unless this guy is calling the shots exactly how BO wants him to. rahm/pelosi strategy is, I believe, that the LGBT community is going to take another 10-20 years before we catch on to their tactics. but wait - didn't we already do this, even without 6 states legalizing marriage, 20 years ago? this time, we have to be pre-emptive. as Maggie Gallagher said (and I hate to quote her, but she's right on this one) when she talked about the gay marriage fight in NY state: it takes alot more to get someone to do something, than to get them to do nothing. we have to get people to DO SOMETHING. yet again - we're the ones who have to strike first. but how?
mikeyDe
· 4 months ago
Aside from what comes out of Biden's mouth, there's no such thing as accidents. Why would Mullen speak out now? Several days after the First Annual Stonewall Cocktail Party and while Obama is out of the country? I must assume he's speaking for the President.
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
More likely speaking publicly to him as a warning from all his white bigot buddies with uniforms - they are going to fight and they are going to get bloody to keep it.
They saw Prop 8 in CA and think there are enough bigots closeted and open in their ranks and in the country that will back them up - hopefully they are wrong.
thomasmurnien
· 4 months ago
S.V.P.-"Modern Day Democrats," not all Dems, can't/won't control the military leadership. FDR and Harry Truman were very good at it.
psychodrew
· 4 months ago
Is this at all surprising, given the Commander in Chief's reluctance to change the law?
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
Yes in short they would do this over a Republican president if one tried to take on this policy. I read this blog all the time and your blinders on this are astounding.
The reason Obama doesn't just lift the policy - it was on display - 98 percent of the senior commanders in the Pentagon are going to rebel - it is going to be chaos in the press - and the Whitehouse is going to be spending all of it's time fighting back in the PR world on anything and everything. Once DADT is repealed the Pentagon and most of the Old White Joint Chiefs are going to have their aides start picking up the phone and undermining Obama on every single little military policy they can think of.
Repealing the policy (and he will repeal it) is going to cost him seats in the house and in the Senate - The Joint Chiefs are going to try and make it cost him the Whitehouse.
Hopefully one day soon that will click and you will at least somewhat start to understand the shit storm that is coming Obama's way - but I doubt it, instead you are going to continue to make him the boogy man forever and ever because that is easier than having to accept their are some serious bigots in the Pentagon with serious Power and access and with their friends in GOP and they can use the repeal pf DADT and DOMA for that matter to do serious harm to the rest of his Agenda.
These policies are wrong and they need to be repealed but Obama has to make sure he has enough support in the Pentagon which is going to be no easy thing to survive the mutiny that will happen. And you can't just fire every single Commander that is not realistic.
See 1992.
nicho
· 4 months ago
Then, why didn't he run on a platform of "I'm a powerless fuck who can't or won't do anything the big bad military or corporations won't let me do" (which is what you're saying he is) instead of promising us hope, change, and fierce advocacy.
You need to take off your blinders. If what you're saying is true, then his whole campaign was a non-stop fraud.
Malcolm
· 4 months ago
It was a non-stop fraud. Everything that's happened since the election shows this, including Sotomayor, who'll overrule Roe the first chance she gets.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Yeah, seriously. Then why promise these things if we're supposed to understand that they're undoable? Or, rather, not worth the trouble?
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
First off his platform was not Elect me and in the first 6- days I am going to repel DOMA and DADT - he very clearly and still does say he is for the repeal of the policy and he will do it.
Listen issuing an executive order repealing the policy would be a temporary fix and could be undone very easily - The damage the Joint Chiefs can do in the next 3 years is real and He has to manage the risk and make sure he can win the fight - If he does need to clean out senior commanders then he has to find replacements and that takes time.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Yes, please do see 1992. And by 1992, you mean 1993, of course. When Bill Clinton had no plan for how to follow through on his promise to repeal DADT, and then let the military run over him with impunity. How is today any different? What is Obama's plan? Why is he letting the senior commanders go public and undercut him? And for that matter, why even promise the gay community that he'd repeal the ban if 98% of the commanders are going to get in his way, and thus he needs to cave in order to save us seats in the House and Senate? Your arguments don't really hold together. Don't promise me to save my people if you have no desire or plan to do so. These are my civil rights you're talking about. Not some promise to send pork my way. And frankly, I don't give a damn if Democrats lose seats by freeing my people. Because the shit storm is most certainly coming, and it's coming from people who are sick of being lied to, and sick of being told to sit at the back of the bus and shut up for the good of a party that repeatedly uses them, then stabs them in the back. No more.
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
John he can't fire them all plain and simple - and they are old White bigots with serious power and sway. Reversing the policy right by executive order would cause a serious shit storm. And you should care if Dems lose enough seats before securing the legislative solution - and executive order can be ran over through the Congress and that will be number one on the list. I am not saying you should not be fighting or screaming from the roof tops - it is not going to happen if the grass roots don't keep pushing - that being said you can't keep blaming Obama everytime a bigot comes out - Or that there are Admirals and Generals who are bigots news flash - most of them are.
He doesn't have to cave he has to muster enough support so the mutiny is managable - if he repealed the policy now the tidal wave would not be.
If the policy is not repealed in the next 2 years then your venom is completely warranted but as someone who has been in the Military trust me this is not a simplistic change - if he did snap his fingers you may get what you want now but it could be just as easily taken away. Prop 8 proved that - there are to many closeted bigots in the world and open ones for that matter.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Fair enough, those are good points. Unfortunately, this administration has given no sign, to anyone, that it plans on doing anything at all, ever. And the signs we do see, suggest the contrary.
nycwill
· 4 months ago
but! but ... maybe, hopefully, obama has a plan. and maybe that plan is to keep his head down on "these issues" as he calls them (god forbid he should utter the word GAY) and really make something happen behind closed doors in the next couple of years. honestly, my gut says expect nothing and RAISE HELL DAILY (which i hope we all continue to do until forever), but my heart says maybe BO has a plan. (ok .... huge ... fucking ... sigh....)
jpjones
· 4 months ago
Oh, but you forget, Obama DID utter the word "gay" a few times in the East Room last week, and each time the "leaders" of our movement reacted as if Madonna had unexpectedly descended from the rafters on a rope wearing a sequined cowgirl costume.
Tim
· 4 months ago
What? With projectile vomiting? That's how I'd react. :)
Butch1
· 4 months ago
"Why is he letting the senior commanders go public and undercut him?" ================================== This gives him the excuse that his administration is transparent and that he listens to his generals and makes "decisions" upon what they tell him. It's a catch-22 for us and an easy out for him to do nothing, in my opinion.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
I understand the perspective you are presenting here and suspect you are correct. It makes a lot of sense. Like you, I do not agree with it either. Interesting though, this is turning out to be more of a "socially" contentious issue than integrating blacks into the military. When that occurred, as I understand, Roosevelt just signed an order and the military integrated blacks into white units. When I was in the Army Reserve in the 80s, there were still officers who didn't think females should be in the military.
It's the same principle. In fact, when I first enlisted, females still had separate basic training.
NealB
· 4 months ago
Truman. July 26, 1948. Executive Order 9981. And from what I read, the military dragged its feet on integrating blacks in the military for years before and after the order. Truman wanted black votes for his reelection in 1948. The Democratic Party was already losing the white south on racial integration. So, the order was given summer before the election.
The military remains a racist, sexist organization by-and-large. But it continues to suck hundreds of billions out of the US Treasury every year, and it continues to deploy ships, and planes, and bombs, and bodies with what seems to be some efficiency if not always useful results. Obama should just give the order. The fallout within the military will be negligible.
fuzzzy
· 4 months ago
thank you - not to be an excuse for how long its taking now, but at least some historical perspective - it took 6 years to fully implement that Executive Order - so i wish folks would stop trotting out Truman as if that Executive order fixed integration in the armed forces - sheesh, we has out of office by the time it was finally completed.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
Obama is letting these guys do a snow job on him. He's never been in the service and apparently doesn't really understand the "chain of command." ==================================== ""I haven't done any kind of extensive review." ================================ This infuriates me. How many studies do these soldiers have to do to get enough information? This is just another stall job to deny us our equal rights. Obama needs to lead and lead, now. He shouldn't be worrying about hurting these career soldier's feelings or "their families." What do their families have to do with this? What about OUR familes?
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Their families have nothing to do with it. It's simply insulting. As though they're talking about letting dogs in the military.
Sugatis02
· 4 months ago
It has nothing to do with Military families or cohesion or any of that crap - They are old White bigots that are for some unknown reason convinced that if the Evil Gays will destroy everything they have every known - they are bigots with money and power and have no problem Dying on this hill.
The challenge now is making sure they do infact die on that hill once and for all.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
I think they are afraid they will be upstaged by gay and lesbian soldiers and don't want the chance of competition. Meanwhile, Congress sits on the sidelines with their arms folded watching the show.
fuzzzy
· 4 months ago
oh yeah, Congress! i hope we're all just as mad at those do-nothing m-f'ers as we are at Obama, Mullen, etc
Butch1
· 4 months ago
Oh, we are; we are... We have no leadership in the democratic Congress or apparently in the White House, at least when it comes to our rights. We'll see if they screw up the health care bill. I've pretty much washed my hands of this bunch.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Hi Butch! Can't remember if you've ever been in the service? If not, just like any other bureaucracy, the "doing an investigation/study/blue ribbon panel" is just another fancy way of saying "We're doing something (while we really aren't)."
Butch1
· 4 months ago
Hi HelenRainier Yes, I had; I'd spent a year's tour of duty in Vietnam in 1969. I remember the service too well and it hasn't changed one bit. As many of us recall, SNAFU defines where blind leadership ( or the lack, there of ) can take us.
davidmc1
· 4 months ago
Its like reading a repeat of the way the 54th Regiment from Massachussetts was treated during the Civil War and the way all minority groups were treated in WWII African Americans, Native Americans and Japanese Americans. If you not white and married to "June Cleaver" with 3.5 kids then you don't fit their view of what a soldier/officer should be. What is this commanders problem? Did they all drink from the same special batch of Kool-Aid?
NotTimothyGeithner
· 4 months ago
Its almost a good thing the army is stretched beyond belief because nuts like this really have no on to command domestically. I shudder to think what they might do if they did.
shell
· 4 months ago
Is Obama afraid of the military? What is the connection (if any) between the SS and the military? Does Obama fear for his life, if he bucks too much? Am I paranoid?
Jophus
· 4 months ago
I'd like to think you are too paranoid. I have no idea how that world works though. I might share your paranoia if I didn't see Obama smile and swagger while telling everyone he is the President. If what you suggest might be the case, I think he would be slightly humble.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
Are there so many boys in uniform living on the down low or in the closet or with a beard of a partner that the military is genuinely afraid of being outed as the largest closet in North America? It's beginning to look a lot like Cleopatra's on her barge and steaming up DeNial
shell
· 4 months ago
I keep hearing that there are many more gays (and lesbians) in the military than any of us think/know.
What if all of them came out at once? Not a couple here, a couple there. Thousands on one day. I wonder what would happen to the military.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
What if all of them left the military at once?
Ya know, did a Sarah Palin and said, "you are making life to difficult for us and we are leaving"
lileasy
· 4 months ago
They can then join the ranks of the unemployed and homeless vets. Noble but foolhardy. Nice thought though.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
If it were coordinated it would definitely cause a huge problem for the unfair policy. The problem we have is those serving have been told to lie because of the "Don't Tell" part of the policy, and some are just plain closeted.
jimstoic
· 4 months ago
Thanks for reading between the lines so closely.
superstition
· 4 months ago
"The 1957 Crittenden report found that gay men posed no great national security risk in terms of susceptibility to extortion. The 1988 PERSEREC/Sarbin-Karols report concluded that homosexuality was as unrelated to military job performance, as was right- or left-handedness. The 1989 PERSEREC/McDaniel study found that in terms of background characteristics prior to entering military service, gay men were "as good or better than the average heterosexual" in terms of suitability for positions of trust.
The 1993 RAND study was not the first time that a group of researchers had reached the conclusion that the sexual identity of service personnel is not relevant to military service or job performance...The Crittenden report was buried for 32 years. The PERSEREC/Sarbin-Karols report was tied up by the Pentagon for almost a year. The second PERSEREC report (McDaniel) was never submitted to DOD." http://books.google.com/books?id=Go9XsJ47GswC
superstition
· 4 months ago
There are at least a dozen studies or papers on this topic, and all, without exception, say the same thing," said Sarvis.
They include: "Working Group of Retired General/Flag Officers Condemns Gay Ban" (Palm Center, 2008); Blue Ribbon Commission report, co-authored by former defense secretary William J. Perry (UC-Santa Barbara, 2006);
Please, someone, find video of Colin Powell advocating resignation instead of abiding by a gay-inclusive military in direct subordination to Bill Clinton.
Mateo1970
· 4 months ago
In his autobiography, Powell states unequivocally that he believes gays are unfit to serve in the military. He even makes a remark rebuking the glbt community not to compare itself to the African-American civil rights movement. He has never recanted those statements. Recently people have spun some b.s. that he is now pro-gay. But he has made no such statement. He just says the issue should be 're-visited'. Powell was a key architect of the policy that has ended the careers of thousands of gay soldiers. He is a shameful, dishonest, and bigoted character.
JCC
· 4 months ago
He even makes a remark rebuking the glbt community not to compare itself to the African-American civil rights movement.
In case you hadn't noted, a significant chunk of the African-American community in CA recently said not to compare GLBT issues to the AA civil rights movement.
An inconvenient truth, perhaps. Maybe time for a little self-reflection? No, certainly not... Let's assume we're right and keep moving blindly ahead.
cminca
· 4 months ago
The same Colin Powell who sat in front of the UN and told them about WMA?
I respect and admire the man. Doesn't mean he's always right. Also doesn't mean he cannot change his line of thinking over time.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Emerson. This is a pretty clear, concise outline of the last administration. I'll give Powell the benefit of the doubt.
zorbear
· 4 months ago
Mullen talked of "selective enforcement"; the US Supreme Court long ago declared that any law that was "selectively enforced" was not a law at all, and could not be enforced against anyone.
It'll be interesting to see how they get out of THIS one...
Name
· 4 months ago
Why on earth would you actually believe President Obama's claim to ease DADT after his performance on DOMA? This is a way for the President to get cover for a policy he wants to promise so you will like him, and doesn't want to implement. How many times does this have to happen before you figure it out?
fss
· 4 months ago
Hello all - It's not insubordination. As Chairman of the Joint CHeifs, it's his duty to present his views on the topic at hand. If Obama were to try to order him to state otherwise, Mullen could resign, but apparently Obama didn't do that, so Mullen presented his views on the matter. I won't weigh in on the substance of Mullen's views, other than to say I am a 10 year former military officer, married to an active duty officer, with a small child, and have no issues letting gays and lesbians serve openly.
Once last thing: why does everyone still call it a policy? It's a law, passed by the (Democratic) congress, signed by the (Democratic) president, and not overturned by the Supreme Court in 15 years. It's a law. Get your new Democratic congress and President to pass a new law, and Obama can order the military to stop throwing out gays the same day he signs, and that's that. If Mullen doesn't agree, he can resign (and so can anyone else who doesn't agree).
BTW - When Liberals whine about this issue, just remember: they helped create it by not serving during and after the Vietnam war. The military enlisted core, while slightly conservative, is much closer to a 50-50 split, politics-wise. The officer core is something like 90% conservative. Why? Because Liberals always seem to have something to whine over so they won't have to serve. This would all be much easier if the military actually had leadership and culture that reflected the Left as well as Right...
cminca
· 4 months ago
I'd suggest you compare a list of the conservative leaders and commentators vs. a list of progessives. I think you'll find a lot more Democrats served than Republicans.
Start with 5-deferments Dick.
fss
· 4 months ago
LOL - Don't get me started on the last Pres and VP. I'm referring to your current active duty military culture. You know, the back drop for politians everywhere!
robish518
· 4 months ago
I agree... I am gay and many members of my family have served in different branches of the military. I feel like the issue of DADT has put all the blame on Obama for not doing anything. We need to allow the legislative process to work correctly. Most people give me the answer "Congress can't get anything done." To which I respond, "that's the problem. Fix Congress."
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
I'd suggest both of you look at Obama's promises about DADT during the campaign, and then look at what he's doing now - which is absolutely nothing. During the campaign he was going to lead the charge to help repeal DADT in Congress. Now, he simply says that if Congress ever decides, some day, to repeal DADT, he'll be there to clap for us.
Second, the matter is not solely in Congress' hands. Obama could, today, issue a stop-loss order halting the two-a-day discharges of gay service members under his watch. He refuses to do so.
And more generally, I'm sorry, but I refuse to subscribe to the point of view that the leader of the free world is politically impotent when it comes to influencing legislation. That's absurd. I expect more of my leaders, especially when they make me promises that they don't seem interested in keeping.
fss
· 4 months ago
Sigh. I agree. Obama and this Democratic Congress can pass a new law just as quickly as the old Schoolhouse Rocks "I'm-Justa Bill" guy sang about it.
One other thought - what a mess it would be with all the states' marraige laws and how they affect HIPPA compliance. Almost seems DOMA would really need to go first, but they could create the mess first with a repeal of DADT, and then move on to the larger issue...
JamesR
· 4 months ago
Obama has every right to sign an Executive Order suspending enforcement of DADT due to national Security concerns due to wartime conditions. Read the law itself. The Secretary of Defense is named in the statute as having discretionary power to not enforce separation in two places, (at least,) subsection E part 2 and subsection B part 1 subparagraph D I believe.
A recent Time article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,... "Among other options, Gates could order the retention of all service members targeted under the law for a limited period of time by citing the nation's security needs. He could also mandate that any inquiry into the sexual orientation of a service member require his approval."
It cites a memo drafted by the Palm Center - a think tank that studies gender and sexual issues in the military at UC Santa Barbara, Their memo, ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf, supports these positions citing the statute with those subsections and other specific regulations used in conjunction with enforcement. Find it here: http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/200... - From pp 1 and 2 (of 3:)
"The Secretary of Defense has used this regulatory authority to limit the circumstances under which investigations can be initiated. For example, the regulations prohibit commanders from conducting investigations unless they first have credible information from reliable sources that there is a basis for discharge. The regulations also specify that purely associational activities, such as having gay friends, reading gay magazines, or speaking in support of gay rights, are insufficient to justify investigation. The Secretary has broad authority to devise additional restrictions on the initiation of investigations.
Department of Defense regulations also highlight the Secretary’s authority to administer “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a way that protects national security and is responsive to changing circumstances. For example, present regulations permit the Secretary to retain a gay service member on active duty “for a limited period of time in the interests of national security” (Enlisted Administrative Separations, Enclosure 3, paragraph 8.d (7)(c), page 21). A reasonable interpretation of this language would permit the Secretary to order the retention of gay service members until Congress has had full opportunity to consider repeal or amendment of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Military commanders also have significant authority to implement “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a manner consistent with national security. They have discretion to decide whether they should initiate investigations or separation proceedings, or whether no action should be taken at all: “Commanders shall exercise sound discretion regarding when credible information exists. They shall examine the information and decide whether an inquiry is warranted or whether no action should be taken” (Enlisted Administrative Separations, Enclosure 5, paragraph 3.b, page 39; Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, Enclosure 8, paragraph 3.b, page 23)."
It's not a long memo, three pages, not in pure legalese, worth a read.
There was 'wiggle room' built into this law as is in many others. Enforcement by humans using their judgment is part of the intent of the legislative dratfters. The law by itself is an ass.
If some want to challenge it calling it an "illegal order" and go to the mat on it's behalf that's a tough thing to do and they'd probably lose - in more ways than one so they are making the most noise now about it bluffing / calling Obama's bluff. It still makes Obama look weak though, which is very, very near to insubordination isn't it?
fss
· 4 months ago
Oops - forgot one more comment. You say Obama could issue a Stop-Loss order and end the whole thing under his watch. It doesn't work that way. Stop Loss stops people from leaving the military voluntarily. People get thrown out all the time for all sorts of reasons (drugs, being a total shit, etc), and Stop Loss doesn't stop them leaving. In fact, gays were discharged while the stop-loss order was in effect last time.
If you were saying he could just order the military to not comply with DADT, that would be an illegal order, and would open a whole 'nother can of worms...
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
First of all, you are proof conservatives are not as intelligent as progressives. You write:
"The officer core is something like 90% conservative. "
Its "corps," stupid, not "core."
While I was in the military there were two kinds of officers. Some were Chief Warrant Officers who came from the enlisted ranks. They were more likely to be progressives and back up the enlisted guys. The more fair minded officers tended to be more progressive. The more elitist types are Republican which is no big surprise. They vote Republican because they think they are better and deserve special treatment.
People, like you, buy into that idea because you dream, while shopping at Wal-Mart, some day you will join the ranks of the elitist, they will accept you and you can wall yourself off from "the rabble" and live a life of Republican luxury. Either that, or you are one of those inbred trust fund kids who are scared to death you will have to actually work some day. Its my experience most Republicans are just cold sociopaths who don't give a rat's ass about helping their fellow man.
Killadelphia
· 4 months ago
John A. is right. If the president really wanted to spend some political capital on this he could.
You poor gay people have been played.
TMA
· 4 months ago
There are few things as amusing as the self-righteous moral indignation of the Politically Correct in their pompous insistence that homosexual sodomy is not just normal, but superior to heterosexuality.
Do I detect a note of desperation: "PLEASE tell me I'm normal. Otherwise you are EVIL!"
banquo14
· 4 months ago
.
banquo14
· 4 months ago
Mullen, like McCain, thinks the policy is working. Hey Mullen, the outhouse worked, but in January the seats got nippy! Mullen's only worried about his bigoted Admirals and Generals who are too lazy to implement a policy that will finally reflect the American taxpayer's values.
Ron
· 4 months ago
So much for the shallow, social climbling, narcissistic "A List" gays who attended the June 25 fundraiser for the DNC over the grass roots objections. I have, on a couple of occasions, told Democratic Party telephone and mail solicitors that I will not give another penny or another vote until DADT is changed, and I have been encouraged by their reaction. Until the gay community gets its act together and tells the Democrats NO MORE, we will not see decisive action on repealing DADT.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
I have stopped giving, as well. I'm very careful about who I give to now. I still give to the ACLU because of their reaction. If they reacted, appropriately, I give to them... if they have played along, I have stopped.
FunMe
· 4 months ago
I am sick and tired of all this.
Mixner I believe said that all this treatment of GLBTs is like APARTHEID. Definitely separate and unequal treatment.
What country do I live in?
You can't get married simply because you are GLBT. You can't serve in the military simply because you are GLBT. You can be fired from a job simply because you are GLBT
When is this bs going to end?
And we just celebrated Independence day. Why are we still fighting for this?
How would Obama feel if we put into place this policy THIS year:
You can't get married simply because you are black. You can't serve in the military simply because you are black. You can be fired from a job simply because you are black
This has got to end this year.
So we must FIGHT BACK ... hard!
Guesty Guest
· 4 months ago
Outrageous! This is truly comparable to racial oppression and apartheid! Polygamists want their polyamorous unions recognized too! But those, too, are unfairly denied! It's apartheid! I'm going to keep comparing myself to blacks living under racial oppression and victimize myself ad nauseum! You'll feel sorry for me too!
All Comments
This is a serious problem, because pretty soon, we will be pretty much of an evangelical dictatorship and they will have the military to back them up.
You can't fix stupid
I'm tried of military officers who think it's acceptable to appear in public criticizing Democratic presidents while sucking up to Republican ones.
The president's job is to gather information and advice, and then set policy.
The job of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to give the president his best advice and judgment in private, and then be supportive of the president once the decision is made. If the CJCS thinks he can't carry out the policy on good conscience, his remedy is to resign. Period.
We cannot allow these officers to continue running roughshod over civilian leaders when it suits them. If we do, we're little better than Honduras -- one step away from an outright coup.
He's advising the President - OK. Like a lawyer? Like a CIA analyst?? ...a military strategist perhaps? Since when do these squawk to the press about what they are saying?
It spells W E A K N E S S. It says the President does not have the respect of the military. IF he had, the GENERAL would say he is discussing policy with HIS COMMANDER IN CHIEF and he will let the press know when the PRESIDENT has reached a policy decision.
This is the not-gay part of the issue, and in my view way worse than his ludicrous and disgustingly dishonest and dishonorable actual words on the matter.
Amazing.
- And if he's been advised to say these things to sort of softly get the bullshit all out there evenly - WTF? - That would indicate the whole administration doesn't know how to handle the military and Mullen is too stupid to know the difference. Or doesn't care. He can always STFU as is proper. Making his Commander In Chief look like a cuckold is not part of his sworn duty, or a promising beginning of an independent political career.
So it's the same bullshit we've been hearing ever since we had the bad manners to start making noise on this issue - a vague reassurance that something will change at some point in the unidentifiable future, accompanied by a reminder to not hold our breath while we wait.
For one thing, even the military leader who was standing in the way in '93, Colin Powell, is on record saying DADT needs to go.
For another: I was at church this evening, and a young man was in tears because he's about to be deployed to Iraq (this week, I think) and will be leaving his partner behind.
Our families count too, and HOW DARE Mullen imply that they don't.
We are the minority that is seen as a joke and given zero respect by deceitful politicians like Obama.
and they
just
flat out
are
lying liars.
period.
why did you LIE?
After that, nothing will surprise you about Obama's attitude towards GLBT issues, pretty talk aside.
In what alternate realty does that even make any sense?
Yea, Geronimo's skull supposedly got stolen by good ol' Prescott Bush and "Skull and Bones" society when he served there during World War I.
I'm at the NorthEastern Ozark area of the state... They call it Green Country up here. Wichita Wildlife Refuge is beautiful!
Its actually only in the 80's today! Big break from the close to 100's we have been having...
But yeah, you're right, it gets f*&kin HOT there!
Happy, happy memories.
Who was the duo who sang "You're The Reason God Made Oklahoma"? Shelly somebody and who else? It was a big hit that Summer. I remember ....
But yeah, you're right, it gets unbelievably HOT there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSVBADpK9fs&feat...
(My mother's ranch is just north of Cherokee County.)
Thank you, cowboyneok!
I remember actually seeing the "jail cell" that Geronimo was allegedly held in. It was a part of one of the "museums" on Sill.
Have you ever been in that area? It's really quite beautiful -- particularly the "Medicine Bluffs" which is also part of Geronimo's stomping grounds.
Perhaps the Greens would do better if more of us supported them more aggressively. And maybe the Dems would start to pay more attention if the GayTM was suddenly closed to them.
Absolutely bombard the hell out of those overseeing the discharges and force them to go after everybody. I just don't know if all of them would be willing to put their careers on the line.
He said he'd resign in protest and encouraged other members of the military to do the same.
Perhaps a better question is: "who's leading whom?"
Is this an act of open insubordination from Obama's military commanders or are the military commanders following Obama's lead?
Bush often hid behind his military commanders when Iraq went to hell - "Deferring to their judgement." I wouldn't be surprised if Obama were making the same play here.
Yes, I'm that cynical.
-Sean
Otherwise they were shown the door.
Well, I call Bullsh*t! There's no way to make that law humane. Selectively?!? If a guy is a little too effeminate or a woman a little too butch, do they go? Perhaps they should go check for limp wrists or a sibilant S. Obviously those guys need to go. Maybe they could even go back to the dark ages, and check the guys for a gag reflex. If they have one, they can stay.
I don't get mad easily, but this has really done it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfmAzoILaK8
I'm done with the Democrats. We need a new party that has members with balls (figurative) like the Queen of Hearts. Heads need to roll.
Dare I say, that Obama himself is just lipstick on the pig?
It is our song.
Whopee!
If/when we become organized as a movement we will get results because there is strength in numbers. Right now we are being divided and conquered, and quite easily at that. I wish I had a sure fire solution because to criticize without possible solutions is easy but at least I have an idea.
In my opinion we have too many organizations, GLAAD, HRC, GLTF just to name fewer of the big ones. We need to come together under one umbrella of power, maybe incorporate all of these organizations into one, just like businesses consolidate to become more powerful. I really think it would have a chance.
Just ask yourself, are we better off with 20 different organizations fighting for us or one gigantic one with enough power and force behind it to elect or remove politicians?
Just a thought
I seriously don't know what you are suggesting. I'm not going anywhere. I'm doing what I can.
This is getting embarrassing. Who is running this freaking country? Obama isn't inspiring confidence in any area. Not one area of concern -- economic, civil rights, military/foreign policy, health care, judicial -- NOT ONE AREA -- does he make me feel safe and secure.
Where are the fricking grownups? If Obama couldn't figure out before the primary or during it that if he won he would need balls of steel to manage dozens of power-hungry, politically savvy, and cutthroat careerists in all of his departments, he should never have run. Obama is a slick politician but part of me also believes he's in way over his head and is absolutely clueless. He simply doesn't have enough experience to know what the fuck he is doing. And it shows.
Obama is "playing nice" with people who are actively plotting and instigating his failure. When is he going to get that? When is that light bulb going to go off for the guy? What's it going to take?
Congress and President "Separate-but-Equal" Obama need to put some money where their mouth is - so if the bigots demand that the gay community continue to sacrifice their right to serve their country to placate the bigot's psychological sexual projections and obsessions, then the government needs to sign every member of the adult gay community up for the same pay and benefits for NOT serving.
We've been paying the damn taxes for this heterosupremacist clusterfuck for decades - and if they want to keep coming up with f*cking excuses for denying us our rights, then they need to quickly pass legislation giving us the benefits for making that sacrifice.
It is outrageous enough that good men and women in uniform have been stripped of their career and their honor for nothing more than being an American willing to serve their country. But to continue forcing those same people to make these extra sacrifices for some nosy-ass other citizens is beyond the pale. I'm not paying taxes for some exclusive heterosexual private club.
Oops, wrong country.
When we come down to it -- the fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder means gay people are equal to heterosexuals in every respect. Job performance. Parenting. Relationships. Everything.
There is simply no justification for any form of heterosexist discrimination because of this simple fact.
The fact that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that is not disordered means we already have equal rights via the Constitution. The 1st Amendment makes our legal system secular and the 14th Amendment gives all citizens the same rights.
Since gay people are gay, gay people marry each other. Since gay people are not disordered, there is no justification for DADT, or any other anti-gay policy.
We have never said, "NO, US FIRST" We are hard-working, intelligent, dignified, taxpaying, respectable AMERICAN citizens deserving of FULL RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are part of what makes this country great.
US FIRST!
Plus, I don't expect all GLBT to agree on strategy. Just enough to make a diff. The others can still follow their own path.
Raise your hand if you like being treated like less than all other Americans.
Because of "the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times?" Because they want to to move "in a measured way?" And because they wish to be "humane?"
There are evidently many, many hurt feelings in the Defense Department.
I mean, to use the vernacular, they're really acting like a bunch of faggots.
How absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, the hell with all the service members who are gay and the hell with THEIR families, right, Mullen?
What an ass he is.
Yes, Obama acts like a smarmy weakling, but Congress does, too.
It is the majority of Americans. The POTUS and Congress know this. Sure, some gays object, sure some sick people object. But they know the vast majority of Americans don't pay attention. Why else do so few Americans vote? Why else do those who vote keep voting in the same old imbeciles? (In other words, why is it so hard to take out a bad congressperson?)
It is sick.
yet again - we're the ones who have to strike first. but how?
They saw Prop 8 in CA and think there are enough bigots closeted and open in their ranks and in the country that will back them up - hopefully they are wrong.
The reason Obama doesn't just lift the policy - it was on display - 98 percent of the senior commanders in the Pentagon are going to rebel - it is going to be chaos in the press - and the Whitehouse is going to be spending all of it's time fighting back in the PR world on anything and everything. Once DADT is repealed the Pentagon and most of the Old White Joint Chiefs are going to have their aides start picking up the phone and undermining Obama on every single little military policy they can think of.
Repealing the policy (and he will repeal it) is going to cost him seats in the house and in the Senate - The Joint Chiefs are going to try and make it cost him the Whitehouse.
Hopefully one day soon that will click and you will at least somewhat start to understand the shit storm that is coming Obama's way - but I doubt it, instead you are going to continue to make him the boogy man forever and ever because that is easier than having to accept their are some serious bigots in the Pentagon with serious Power and access and with their friends in GOP and they can use the repeal pf DADT and DOMA for that matter to do serious harm to the rest of his Agenda.
These policies are wrong and they need to be repealed but Obama has to make sure he has enough support in the Pentagon which is going to be no easy thing to survive the mutiny that will happen. And you can't just fire every single Commander that is not realistic.
See 1992.
You need to take off your blinders. If what you're saying is true, then his whole campaign was a non-stop fraud.
Listen issuing an executive order repealing the policy would be a temporary fix and could be undone very easily - The damage the Joint Chiefs can do in the next 3 years is real and He has to manage the risk and make sure he can win the fight - If he does need to clean out senior commanders then he has to find replacements and that takes time.
He doesn't have to cave he has to muster enough support so the mutiny is managable - if he repealed the policy now the tidal wave would not be.
If the policy is not repealed in the next 2 years then your venom is completely warranted but as someone who has been in the Military trust me this is not a simplistic change - if he did snap his fingers you may get what you want now but it could be just as easily taken away. Prop 8 proved that - there are to many closeted bigots in the world and open ones for that matter.
(ok .... huge ... fucking ... sigh....)
==================================
This gives him the excuse that his administration is transparent and that he listens to his generals and makes "decisions" upon what they tell him. It's a catch-22 for us and an easy out for him to do nothing, in my opinion.
It's the same principle. In fact, when I first enlisted, females still had separate basic training.
The military remains a racist, sexist organization by-and-large. But it continues to suck hundreds of billions out of the US Treasury every year, and it continues to deploy ships, and planes, and bombs, and bodies with what seems to be some efficiency if not always useful results. Obama should just give the order. The fallout within the military will be negligible.
====================================
""I haven't done any kind of extensive review."
================================
This infuriates me. How many studies do these soldiers have to do to get enough information? This is just another stall job to deny us our equal rights. Obama needs to lead and lead, now. He shouldn't be worrying about hurting these career soldier's feelings or "their families." What do their families have to do with this? What about OUR familes?
The challenge now is making sure they do infact die on that hill once and for all.
We have no leadership in the democratic Congress or apparently in the White House, at least when it comes to our rights. We'll see if they screw up the health care bill. I've pretty much washed my hands of this bunch.
Yes, I had; I'd spent a year's tour of duty in Vietnam in 1969. I remember the service too well and it hasn't changed one bit. As many of us recall, SNAFU defines where blind leadership ( or the lack, there of ) can take us.
What if all of them came out at once? Not a couple here, a couple there. Thousands on one day. I wonder what would happen to the military.
Ya know, did a Sarah Palin and said, "you are making life to difficult for us and we are leaving"
The 1993 RAND study was not the first time that a group of researchers had reached the conclusion that the sexual identity of service personnel is not relevant to military service or job performance...The Crittenden report was buried for 32 years. The PERSEREC/Sarbin-Karols report was tied up by the Pentagon for almost a year. The second PERSEREC report (McDaniel) was never submitted to DOD."
http://books.google.com/books?id=Go9XsJ47GswC
They include: "Working Group of Retired General/Flag Officers Condemns Gay Ban" (Palm Center, 2008); Blue Ribbon Commission report, co-authored by former defense secretary William J. Perry (UC-Santa Barbara, 2006);
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Any...
In case you hadn't noted, a significant chunk of the African-American community in CA recently said not to compare GLBT issues to the AA civil rights movement.
An inconvenient truth, perhaps. Maybe time for a little self-reflection? No, certainly not... Let's assume we're right and keep moving blindly ahead.
I respect and admire the man. Doesn't mean he's always right. Also doesn't mean he cannot change his line of thinking over time.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Emerson. This is a pretty clear, concise outline of the last administration. I'll give Powell the benefit of the doubt.
It'll be interesting to see how they get out of THIS one...
Once last thing: why does everyone still call it a policy? It's a law, passed by the (Democratic) congress, signed by the (Democratic) president, and not overturned by the Supreme Court in 15 years. It's a law. Get your new Democratic congress and President to pass a new law, and Obama can order the military to stop throwing out gays the same day he signs, and that's that. If Mullen doesn't agree, he can resign (and so can anyone else who doesn't agree).
BTW - When Liberals whine about this issue, just remember: they helped create it by not serving during and after the Vietnam war. The military enlisted core, while slightly conservative, is much closer to a 50-50 split, politics-wise. The officer core is something like 90% conservative. Why? Because Liberals always seem to have something to whine over so they won't have to serve. This would all be much easier if the military actually had leadership and culture that reflected the Left as well as Right...
Start with 5-deferments Dick.
Second, the matter is not solely in Congress' hands. Obama could, today, issue a stop-loss order halting the two-a-day discharges of gay service members under his watch. He refuses to do so.
And more generally, I'm sorry, but I refuse to subscribe to the point of view that the leader of the free world is politically impotent when it comes to influencing legislation. That's absurd. I expect more of my leaders, especially when they make me promises that they don't seem interested in keeping.
One other thought - what a mess it would be with all the states' marraige laws and how they affect HIPPA compliance. Almost seems DOMA would really need to go first, but they could create the mess first with a repeal of DADT, and then move on to the larger issue...
The law is here, USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
A recent Time article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,... "Among other options, Gates could order the retention of all service members targeted under the law for a limited period of time by citing the nation's security needs. He could also mandate that any inquiry into the sexual orientation of a service member require his approval."
It cites a memo drafted by the Palm Center - a think tank that studies gender and sexual issues in the military at UC Santa Barbara, Their memo, ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf, supports these positions citing the statute with those subsections and other specific regulations used in conjunction with enforcement. Find it here: http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/200... - From pp 1 and 2 (of 3:)
"The Secretary of Defense has used this regulatory authority to limit the circumstances under which investigations can be initiated. For example, the regulations prohibit commanders from conducting investigations unless they first have credible information from reliable sources that there is a basis for discharge. The regulations also specify that purely associational activities, such as having gay friends, reading gay magazines, or speaking in support of gay rights, are insufficient to justify investigation. The Secretary has broad authority to devise additional restrictions on the initiation of investigations.
Department of Defense regulations also highlight the Secretary’s authority to administer “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a way that protects national security and is responsive to changing circumstances. For example, present regulations permit the Secretary to retain a gay service member on active duty “for a limited period of time in the interests of national security” (Enlisted Administrative Separations, Enclosure 3, paragraph 8.d (7)(c), page 21). A reasonable interpretation of this language would permit the Secretary to order the retention of gay service members until Congress has had full opportunity to consider repeal or amendment of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Military commanders also have significant authority to implement “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a manner consistent with national security. They have discretion to decide whether they should initiate investigations or separation proceedings, or whether no action should be taken at all: “Commanders shall exercise sound discretion regarding when credible information exists. They shall examine the information and decide whether an inquiry is warranted or whether no action should be taken” (Enlisted Administrative Separations, Enclosure 5, paragraph 3.b, page 39; Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, Enclosure 8, paragraph 3.b, page 23)."
It's not a long memo, three pages, not in pure legalese, worth a read.
There was 'wiggle room' built into this law as is in many others. Enforcement by humans using their judgment is part of the intent of the legislative dratfters. The law by itself is an ass.
If some want to challenge it calling it an "illegal order" and go to the mat on it's behalf that's a tough thing to do and they'd probably lose - in more ways than one so they are making the most noise now about it bluffing / calling Obama's bluff. It still makes Obama look weak though, which is very, very near to insubordination isn't it?
If you were saying he could just order the military to not comply with DADT, that would be an illegal order, and would open a whole 'nother can of worms...
"The officer core is something like 90% conservative. "
Its "corps," stupid, not "core."
While I was in the military there were two kinds of officers. Some were Chief Warrant Officers who came from the enlisted ranks. They were more likely to be progressives and back up the enlisted guys. The more fair minded officers tended to be more progressive. The more elitist types are Republican which is no big surprise. They vote Republican because they think they are better and deserve special treatment.
People, like you, buy into that idea because you dream, while shopping at Wal-Mart, some day you will join the ranks of the elitist, they will accept you and you can wall yourself off from "the rabble" and live a life of Republican luxury. Either that, or you are one of those inbred trust fund kids who are scared to death you will have to actually work some day. Its my experience most Republicans are just cold sociopaths who don't give a rat's ass about helping their fellow man.
You poor gay people have been played.
Do I detect a note of desperation: "PLEASE tell me I'm normal. Otherwise you are EVIL!"
Mixner I believe said that all this treatment of GLBTs is like APARTHEID. Definitely separate and unequal treatment.
What country do I live in?
You can't get married simply because you are GLBT.
You can't serve in the military simply because you are GLBT.
You can be fired from a job simply because you are GLBT
When is this bs going to end?
And we just celebrated Independence day. Why are we still fighting for this?
How would Obama feel if we put into place this policy THIS year:
You can't get married simply because you are black.
You can't serve in the military simply because you are black.
You can be fired from a job simply because you are black
This has got to end this year.
So we must FIGHT BACK ... hard!