Obama to seek repeal of "Don't ask, Don't Tell"

[mainejeff]

Why repeal DADT?

Because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO.


Nothing else matters - fairness and equality is ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Anything else is UnAmerican

There's nothing "American" about America anymore.

[danefan]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the military's yearlong study into how the ban can repealed without causing a major upheaval to the fighting forces.

[CID1990]

As I said before, just do it the way Truman handled the desgregtion of the military. Obama has all the power to just come right out with an Executive Order and overturn this, and then let Gates and whatever board needs to be set up go about the job of determining how to implement the Order. It took at least 4 years from the time Truman issued his Order to when the military said they were desgregated, and it certainly impacted the ranks for many years after that, but in the end it got done. No reason why we can't follow the same road map here. I'm not sure why Obama doesn't use some of the power he has as President and just starts this in motion with some real authority. Get 'er done.

Then I wonder why he doesn't just do it?

Maybe he secretly hates fags.

[ASUMountaineer]

As I said before, just do it the way Truman handled the desgregtion of the military. Obama has all the power to just come right out with an Executive Order and overturn this, and then let Gates and whatever board needs to be set up go about the job of determining how to implement the Order. It took at least 4 years from the time Truman issued his Order to when the military said they were desgregated, and it certainly impacted the ranks for many years after that, but in the end it got done. No reason why we can't follow the same road map here. I'm not sure why Obama doesn't use some of the power he has as President and just starts this in motion with some real authority. Get 'er done.

Then I wonder why he doesn't just do it?

Maybe he secretly hates fags.

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

Gitmo IS getting closed... there are only around 50 prisoners still there.

Don't Ask Don't Tell IS getting overturned... just takes more than Obama snapping his fingers and saying the magic words.

[clenz]

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

Gitmo IS getting closed... there are only around 50 prisoners still there.

Don't Ask Don't Tell IS getting overturned... just takes more than Obama snapping his fingers and saying the magic words.

With a majority, a super majority last year, it shouldn't have taken much more than that to get something as simple as a repeal of DADT done

[ASUMountaineer]

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

Gitmo IS getting closed... there are only around 50 prisoners still there.

Don't Ask Don't Tell IS getting overturned... just takes more than Obama snapping his fingers and saying the magic words.

Actually, he could sign an executive order (snap his fingers) and overturn DADT. I'm sure you knew that already.

As to Gitmo, NPR disagrees. Listening on my way home today, there was a long segment on how Gitmo still hasn't closed, and they still are trying to figure out what to do with many prisoners. Sorry.

[Skjellyfetti]

With a majority, a super majority last year, it shouldn't have taken much more than that to get something as simple as a repeal of DADT done

Not to be done the right way. It took years to desegregate the military. It will probably take a lot more time to roll out this policy. Nothing in government is as easy as a snap of the fingers and a magic word (in a democracy, in a dictatorship things are accomplished much faster ).

[ASUMountaineer]

With a majority, a super majority last year, it shouldn't have taken much more than that to get something as simple as a repeal of DADT done

Not to be done the right way. It took years to desegregate the military. It will probably take a lot more time to roll out this policy. Nothing in government is as easy as a snap of the fingers and a magic word (in a democracy, in a dictatorship things are accomplished much faster ).

You keep saying that, but as noted here already, Truman "snapped his fingers" and made policy. With that said, it took time to institute the new policy, but overturning it was the easy part. You're talking about two different things. It's cute though.

It must be hard for you to have "conservatives" actually supporting a policy you do. I mean, I support overturning DADT. The fact it hasn't happened yet, as promised, is not my fault.

[Skjellyfetti]

You keep saying that, but as noted here already, Truman "snapped his fingers" and made policy. With that said, it took time to institute the new policy, but overturning it was the easy part. You're talking about two different things. It's cute though.

It must be hard for you to have "conservatives" actually supporting a policy you do. I mean, I support overturning DADT. The fact it hasn't happened yet, as promised, is not my fault.

Here's a timeline to help you figure all this out:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... chronology

It wasn't nearly as quick or as easy to desegregate the military as you believe. Doesn't sound like Truman snapped his fingers to me at all.

Hmmmm. Looks like it took 5 years after his excecutive order for 95% of the Army to be desegregated.

DADT will be repealed. It will take time, but it will happen.

[ASUMountaineer]

You keep saying that, but as noted here already, Truman "snapped his fingers" and made policy. With that said, it took time to institute the new policy, but overturning it was the easy part. You're talking about two different things. It's cute though.

It must be hard for you to have "conservatives" actually supporting a policy you do. I mean, I support overturning DADT. The fact it hasn't happened yet, as promised, is not my fault.

Here's a timeline to help you figure all this out:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... chronology

It wasn't nearly as quick or as easy to desegregate the military as you believe. Doesn't sound like Truman snapped his fingers to me at all.

Hmmmm. Looks like it took 5 years after his excecutive order for 95% of the Army to be desegregated.

DADT will be repealed. It will take time, but it will happen.

That was exactly my point. Thanks for proving it. I stated, he "snapped his fingers" and changed the policy. But, that it took time to implement. However, changing the policy is the first step, you disagree? Again, thanks for proving my point.

As I said, I know it blows your mind to have a "conservative" agree with your point, but you should embrace it rather than trying to argue about it...wrongly. Perhaps, having read my post would have been easier. Of course, you could always just keep talking to be talking.

[Skjellyfetti]

That was exactly my point. Thanks for proving it. I stated, he "snapped his fingers" and changed the policy. But, that it took time to implement. However, changing the policy is the first step, you disagree? Again, thanks for proving my point.

As I said, I know it blows your mind to have a "conservative" agree with your point, but you should embrace it rather than trying to argue about it...wrongly. Perhaps, having read my post would have been easier. Of course, you could always just keep talking to be talking.

And go back to the timeline and read about the 3 years of reports, meetings, studies, testimonies, etc. before Truman's excecutive order.

Obama has taken that step. Quit your bitching.

[BDKJMU]

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

Gitmo IS getting closed... there are only around 50 prisoners still there.

Don't Ask Don't Tell IS getting overturned... just takes more than Obama snapping his fingers and saying the magic words.

WRONG! According to CNN as of Jan 22, less than 2 weeks ago, there were 196 detainees currently at Gitmo:
".....The confidential review recommending a disposition for each of the 196 remaining Guantanamo detainees was first reported by the Washington Post....."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... FUbSqE-8nZ

And Obama's deadline for closing it within one year also passed on Jan 22:
"....The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States....

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... acilities/

Obama will be lucky to have Gitmo closed from within 2 years of his executive order.

[ASUMountaineer]

That was exactly my point. Thanks for proving it. I stated, he "snapped his fingers" and changed the policy. But, that it took time to implement. However, changing the policy is the first step, you disagree? Again, thanks for proving my point.

As I said, I know it blows your mind to have a "conservative" agree with your point, but you should embrace it rather than trying to argue about it...wrongly. Perhaps, having read my post would have been easier. Of course, you could always just keep talking to be talking.

And go back to the timeline and read about the 3 years of reports, meetings, studies, testimonies, etc. before Truman's excecutive order.

Obama has taken that step. Quit your bitching.

Good form, "quit your bitching." Pot meet Kettle...Again, it's funny to watch you squirm when a conservative agrees with your position. You just don't know how to handle it, other than to gripe and argue...about agreement.

I still don't understand what your deal is, but just keep on keeping on Jelly. I guess you feel better, but the fact is, your timeline proved what I posted.

I am glad he's moving forward, and by yesterday's meeting, it appears the high defense officials are for moving forward too. I don't expect it to be done tomorrow, but it's a fact Obama could sign an executive order and make it so, with implementation coming later (as your timeline with Truman--and my post--indicated). You can't argue that, though you may try.

BTW, as far as bitching goes, you should take a look in the mirror.

[Skjellyfetti]

I am glad he's moving forward, and by yesterday's meeting, it appears the high defense officials are for moving forward too. I don't expect it to be done tomorrow, but it's a fact Obama could sign an executive order and make it so, with implementation coming later (as your timeline with Truman--and my post--indicated). You can't argue that, though you may try.

Nice 180 from this:

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Hussein Obama will never completely close Gitmo................hes a liar.

[ASUMountaineer]

I am glad he's moving forward, and by yesterday's meeting, it appears the high defense officials are for moving forward too. I don't expect it to be done tomorrow, but it's a fact Obama could sign an executive order and make it so, with implementation coming later (as your timeline with Truman--and my post--indicated). You can't argue that, though you may try.

Nice 180 from this:

I think he's scared to attach his name to it. He's scared to take ownership. When he was a candidate, it was fine. Now, not so much. Kind of like the whole Gitmo promise. Back away, slowly, as if he was never there.

It's not a 180, it's a reason as to why he waited so long to address the issue, and why he's going about it the way he is. I was/am speaking about the fact that he waited until his second year to BEGIN the process.

Of course, implementation of a new policy will take time, that's a given. But, the change of policy, signing the executive order to begin, doesn't take as much time. Like I said, if it makes you feel better to argue about agreeing with a policy...ok. I do think he's scared to sign an executive order...he's trying to get the best of both worlds. That's what most politicians do.

Again, I still don't get what your deal is. What you're arguing about, or why the need to act in such a way. From his time campaigning, he made it a pressing issue he was going to tackle quickly (I'm CLEARLY not the only one who took it this way, and have been disappointed). Just like closing Gitmo, neither of which happened based on what he said as a candidate (and in the case of Gitmo also as President).

For the record, I support both of these actions. Again, I know that's hard for you to comprehend, but oh well. Perhaps, next time, instead of arguing for the sake of arguing (or whatever the reason you felt the need to respond the way you did), we could have a real discussion...maybe.

Hey, at least we can agree (I think) on this. GO APPS! (Fok you King College )

[GannonFan]

That was exactly my point. Thanks for proving it. I stated, he "snapped his fingers" and changed the policy. But, that it took time to implement. However, changing the policy is the first step, you disagree? Again, thanks for proving my point.

As I said, I know it blows your mind to have a "conservative" agree with your point, but you should embrace it rather than trying to argue about it...wrongly. Perhaps, having read my post would have been easier. Of course, you could always just keep talking to be talking.

And go back to the timeline and read about the 3 years of reports, meetings, studies, testimonies, etc. before Truman's excecutive order.

Obama has taken that step. Quit your bitching.

Your kinda distoring history here. Desegregation of the military wasn't something that was easily evolving and Truman's Executive Order was just a coup de tat (sp) - Truman had to buck the system and the Executive Order did that - it needed something of that magnitude to push it along. Just as an Executive Order from Obama would work today. And it's not like we haven't talked about and studied this issue - heck, this has been a standing issue for almost 15 years now - why do we need to have another year or two of studying and debating the issue? Just get it done - issue the Executive Order and the military will go about their job of executing the order. It may take another 3-5 years to finally say that we're basically there, but let's start the clock now. No sense dragging feet on this one - issue the Executive Order.

[Ibanez]

Gitmo IS getting closed... there are only around 50 prisoners still there.

Don't Ask Don't Tell IS getting overturned... just takes more than Obama snapping his fingers and saying the magic words.

With a majority, a super majority last year, it shouldn't have taken much more than that to get something as simple as a repeal of DADT done

Barak Obama doesn't care about gay people.

[Ibanez]

And go back to the timeline and read about the 3 years of reports, meetings, studies, testimonies, etc. before Truman's excecutive order.

Obama has taken that step. Quit your bitching.

Your kinda distoring history here. Desegregation of the military wasn't something that was easily evolving and Truman's Executive Order was just a coup de tat (sp) - Truman had to buck the system and the Executive Order did that - it needed something of that magnitude to push it along. Just as an Executive Order from Obama would work today. And it's not like we haven't talked about and studied this issue - heck, this has been a standing issue for almost 15 years now - why do we need to have another year or two of studying and debating the issue? Just get it done - issue the Executive Order and the military will go about their job of executing the order. It may take another 3-5 years to finally say that we're basically there, but let's start the clock now. No sense dragging feet on this one - issue the Executive Order.

With the supermajority and majority that the Democrats have had, many of thier issues could've been pushed through and enacted. Why don't they follow through? There must be an internal division.

[GannonFan]

Your kinda distoring history here. Desegregation of the military wasn't something that was easily evolving and Truman's Executive Order was just a coup de tat (sp) - Truman had to buck the system and the Executive Order did that - it needed something of that magnitude to push it along. Just as an Executive Order from Obama would work today. And it's not like we haven't talked about and studied this issue - heck, this has been a standing issue for almost 15 years now - why do we need to have another year or two of studying and debating the issue? Just get it done - issue the Executive Order and the military will go about their job of executing the order. It may take another 3-5 years to finally say that we're basically there, but let's start the clock now. No sense dragging feet on this one - issue the Executive Order.

With the supermajority and majority that the Democrats have had, many of thier issues could've been pushed through and enacted. Why don't they follow through? There must be an internal division.

Obama could issue an Executive Order and end this right now even if Republicans had the supermajority. That's the great thing about being President - you have Presidential powers and this is a time when it's worth using them.

[Ibanez]

With the supermajority and majority that the Democrats have had, many of thier issues could've been pushed through and enacted. Why don't they follow through? There must be an internal division.

Obama could issue an Executive Order and end this right now even if Republicans had the supermajority. That's the great thing about being President - you have Presidential powers and this is a time when it's worth using them.

I'm aware he could issue an Executive Order but it's goes to show that him and his party don't really care. If you wanted to make a difference, don't look past 4 years. Do what you think is right, others be damned. Hell, Bush lived by that mantra and was a 2 Term President.

[BDKJMU]

You have hit a few things I did not go into detail on in my previous posts...

In certain areas of the military, machoismo is "overflowing"...gay jokes, and anti-gay sentiment is strong...

It is not something that you can simply "issue an order" and it will go away...

Women are just now being accepted into positions in places like fighter squadrons in the Air Force, which are bastions of macho guys...

In an infantry company, full of "macho" young men, gays will be "at risk" ...its a fact, not one I'm proud of, but its fact...

So to put them there during combat only makes the risk higher...

And by the way...you really do want those young men full of "macho" ...that's how they daily put themselves into harms way...go places most of you would never go...

You hit the nail on the head I think Col. I remember in my national guard infantry unit back in the mid 90s-early 00s you would constantly hear harsh locker room banter. Guys all the time calling each other f*cking cocksuckers, faggots, homos. Granted my unit was made up of a bunch of country boys (for example couldn't schedule drill weekend on opening day of deer season or half the company would be AWOL) but I doubt it was any different with active duty combat arms units. Heck, about 1/3rd of my Nat Guard company was prior active duty. (For those of you not familiar with the military that refers to elements that are front line: infantry, artillery, armor, air cav, etc). And I doubt much has changed in the last 10-15 years. People need to remember that these are made up mostly of 18-mid 20s (avg age in the guard is a little older) non pc, gung ho, full of machismo young men.

If for example you're in one of these front line combat arms units (which don't make up the majority of the military) on an FTX or at an FOB, you're working, eating, sleeping, and spending any downtime with the same guys literally 24-7. If you have a guy that's openly gay, its probably not going to be pretty. What happens during a wartime deployment to the guy who is forced to share a tent with or foxhole with the known gay guy, when people's lives are at risk? This is something that has the potential to f*ck up unit cohesion and morale in these front line units, which will put peoples lives at risk, and defintely should not be implemented in time of war.

Obama should at least wait till we're not at war before trying his social experiment on the military.

[BDKJMU]

Why repeal DADT?

Because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO.


Nothing else matters - fairness and equality is ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Anything else is UnAmerican

And to hell with the consequences...

Exactly.

[Ibanez]

You have hit a few things I did not go into detail on in my previous posts...

In certain areas of the military, machoismo is "overflowing"...gay jokes, and anti-gay sentiment is strong...

It is not something that you can simply "issue an order" and it will go away...

Women are just now being accepted into positions in places like fighter squadrons in the Air Force, which are bastions of macho guys...

In an infantry company, full of "macho" young men, gays will be "at risk" ...its a fact, not one I'm proud of, but its fact...

So to put them there during combat only makes the risk higher...

And by the way...you really do want those young men full of "macho" ...that's how they daily put themselves into harms way...go places most of you would never go...

You hit the nail on the head I think Col. I remember in my national guard infantry unit back in the mid 90s-early 00s you would constantly hear harsh locker room banter. Guys all the time calling each other f*cking cocksuckers, faggots, homos. Granted my unit was made up of a bunch of country boys (for example couldn't schedule drill weekend on opening day of deer season or half the company would be AWOL) but I doubt it was any different with active duty combat arms units. Heck, about 1/3rd of my Nat Guard company was prior active duty. (For those of you not familiar with the military that refers to elements that are front line: infantry, artillery, armor, air cav, etc). And I doubt much has changed in the last 10-15 years. People need to remember that these are made up mostly of 18-mid 20s (avg age in the guard is a little older) non pc, gung ho, full of machismo young men.

If for example you're in one of these front line combat arms units (which don't make up the majority of the military) on an FTX or at an FOB, you're working, eating, sleeping, and spending any downtime with the same guys literally 24-7. If you have a guy that's openly gay, its probably not going to be pretty. What happens during a wartime deployment to the guy who is forced to share a tent with or foxhole with the known gay guy, when people's lives are at risk? This is something that has the potential to f*ck up unit cohesion and morale in these front line units, which will put peoples lives at risk, and defintely should not be implemented in time of war.

Obama should at least wait till we're not at war before trying his social experiment on the military.

You really think that during a fire fight, some gay guy is going to be more concerned with fucking you than saving his own life? Gay people are in the military for the same reasons as straight people. They aren't there soley to fuck Sailors, Soldiers and Marines. It comes down to their personal safety, not thier ability to perform in theater. It can be done, you think blacks were openly accepted early on?