Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

[boston bean]

Source: Huffpo

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

[newinnm]

1. He needs to stop this practice

No excuses none. It is a moral imperative that we promote equality. Will it spark an up roar, yes! Will it delay some of his other goals, maybe. However I believe that history would judge him as corageous. Its time. At no other point in the recent history has a president enjoyed as much political capital and it should be spent wisely.

nnnm

[Baby Snooks]

3. But he won't...

He could have stopped it with an executive order. But his advisors obviously advised him against it. No doubt among those advisors was Hillary Clinton. Defending her own policy. Her and husband's policy that is. Don't ask, don't tell, and if you get caught, well, too bad.

[newinnm]

6. But...but..

There are political realities. He can only do so much. He has only been in office for...:sarcasm:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

122. Um...it's Sam Nunn's policy

Not the Clintons. Read the history on it.

[blm]

134. Clinton had the choice to back Nunn or policy pushed by Sen. Kerry and Gen. Clark at the time

to allow gays to serve openly. Clinton rolled over for the RW every time they pushed him even a little.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

153. And the ban on gays in the military would have passed

[Ken Burch]

169. the difference between 'the ban' and DADT is tritivial

It was not a victory to force gay and lesbian servicemembers to continue to have to live in obsessive secrecy. Not only wasn't it half a loaf, it wasn't even a moldy slice.

[DURHAM D]

155. And Colin Powell.

What I love is that everyone wants to repeal DADT so they can go back to the way it used to be.

You know, great times when you could just murder the gay folk in the military - no questions asked.

[snowdays]

160. I recall a photo of Nunn on a submarine with small sleeping bunks in the background. It is an

image that was a killer!! It said---look how close together these guys sleep!! oh my!! It was a major paper--front page at the time this policy was being discussed.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. My guess is that history will judge him well should he succeed at national health care.

My guess is that politically, he will be in a much stronger position to implement a military executive order after he has reformed health care.

Both healthcare and the right to love are human rights issues and both are important.
But the right to quality health care effects at least 350 million Americans directly and indirectly.

Don't ask don't tell, while ridiculously anti basic human rights, effects gays and lesbians serving in the military. While this is wrong and flies in the face of basic fairness and equal protection, it is still an issue which directly effects a relatively small number of people. It effects others of us in that we know our fellow citizens are being discriminated against based on their gender preference for a partner.

i could handle it this time if health care went first and then DADT. I think both would fare better than last time.

[Psephos]

38. oops - self delete

[howmad1]

49. So what you are saying is that:

Obama can't walk and and chew gum at the same time. I don't get your logic at all. Gee, look how long it took for Obama to bail out AIG and a bunch of banks. About a nanosecond, I guess.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. If you don't have banks you don't have an economy. one of the lessons learned from the depression

was until the banks are working, everything else was stuck. Activists will tell you banks lending is important Political scientists will tell you, "it's the economy, stupid."

I think DADT will be hard for the military to swallow, and Obama will need to have the full confidence and good will of all the American people to help make it just!

And if he passes health care reform he will have a generation of good will and confidence to get a lot of shit done. Because gay people need health care reform too. We all do.

DADT is repression. It needs to go. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. my guess is once health care is finally seriously addressed, there are so many other causes and needs and struggles that all will benefit because people can go to a doctor when they need to.

A lot of folks who work on health care reform will work on something else. Think of the energy and talent it would release to other places.

i happen to believe that prioritizing is important. And different policy initiatives require different resources and some over-lapping resources. And resources are finite.

[IntravenousDemilo]

96. Sorry, but your military is going to have to stop spitting and start swallowing.

Homophobes must not under any circumstances be indulged. We've had no ill effect from having gay members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[TheMadMonk]

98. Me thinks it's more a case of someone shoving a walking cane...

...between his legs if he tries.

The more sacred cows he simultaneously assaults the larger the crowd in the "big tent" to block ALL reforms.

Far better to take things one at a time and hopefully achieve some successes that aren't "compromised" away to nothing.


And I suspect there might be a fair chunk of political pragmatism behind federal "blindness" to anything to do with "The Gay". The anti-gay voting block is just plain too fucking big to ignore.

Conservatives can and will pander to their bigotry (or at least give the appearance - interesting how often directly anti-gay laws end up being struck down when put to the test of the courts.)

Progressives (or what passes for such in US politics) seem to make their own compromises by not making laws which can be construed as exclusively pro-gay.

And yet somehow or other GLBT rights still seem to be progressing positively at a pace which far outstrips the rate of progress of simple gender equality or the rights of African Americans.

Then there is the question what all this distraction is costing the US in real terms. The civil rights of select minorities have been improving, but at the same time the overall rights of every single individual in the country have been pared back like never before in the nation's history.

[No Elephants]

105. Is what you call the "anti-gay block" any bigger than the bloc that

assumed the military would always be segregated (Truman), or the anti-Nixon bloc the day the Nixons got on the helicopter (Ford) or the anti amnesty bloc the day Carter took office? Truman never campaigned on integrating the military. Ford never campaigned on pardoning Nixon (or anything else). (I cannot recall about Carter.) However, whether they were right or wrong, they did what they thought was the right thing for the nation, even if it was very unpopular at the time.

The reason that gay rights are progressing is that a few states, mostly in the Northeast, are doing the right thing. That has nothing to do with the federal government or Obama.

Btw, I don't think any laws are pro-gay. At most, they offer equal rights, which is as it should be. Inequality is a grievous wrong. Considering equality "pro" anyone is not appropriate, IMO.

[No Elephants]

103. Wasn't that Bush?

[ruggerson]

74. There were plenty of other important issues when Harry Truman integrated the military

the thing is Truman did what was right without political consideration.

[DissedByBush]

77. That's a lot of Americans affected

Especially when there are only 304 million of us.

[No Elephants]

104. You think most Presidents gain support as their terms proceed? I don't. Obama came in with a lot

of popularity, but probably in great measure because Bush and Cheney were so unpopular by then AND had put the global economy in such a black hole. I bet most people who voted for Obama could not name you two of the policies on which he campaigned. And many of those who can are by now scratching their heads at this point, or furious, or both.

Unless Obama turns the economy around fast--a herculean task, given where he found it and the pigginess of Congress, he is a one term President. That is what he himself said, and I agree with him. Barring that, he stands to lose capital as time passes, not gain it. He's certainly lost with me, and I started donating to him in November 2007 and gave my legal max.

He could have--and should have--signed the order on day one, as Ford did with the pardon and Carter did with the amnesty. Whether they were right or wrong, they acted courageously. By now, most Americans would have forgotten about it. Instead, Obama chose to consult with the military, then tell America the military said (SHOCK), no. How disingenuous!

[saigon68]

114. WELL PUT Unfortunately the military ie the West Point crowd

Still is infatuated at kicking Osama and friends out of Afghanistan.

660 Billion for destruction next year.

Unreal He has been co-opted to support these thugs

[John Q. Citizen]

172. I think Clintons bigger mistake was once broached he should have actually "made it so."

While the right of any American who is desperate, brainwashed, or fanciful enough to join the military should be affirmed, i don't think Obama personally owes anybody the abolition of the Clinton policy, which bush extended apparently.

i know for a fact if Obama gets a major health care reform passed with a public insurance pool that he could very well be stronger as he goes along.

He needs people and votes right now to pass his health care bill. Later, he won't need anybody to order the military to observe a new policy as regards homosexuals and lesbians in the military. He is the commander and chief and doesn't need anybody else's permission or votes to direct policy in the military. But he will need cooperation to implement it.

[closeupready]

112. Oh, God.

:puke:

[Dr.Phool]

111. The Army is too busy converting Muslims to Jesus.

[marshall]

135. But maybe they need a cunning linguist!

I'm glad to see the person get a job that he is qualified for.

[Robbien]

2. Someone needs to get that pen out

and start scribbling fast.

[LakeSamish706]

4. Obama needs to either put up or shut up on Don't ask don't tell... This is absolute...

bullshit.... So get off your ass Obama and deal with this now.

[No Elephants]

106. Sadly, he's already dealt with it. He's told us that he asked his military advisors and they said

'not yet." Case closed.

Exactly how soon do you think his military advisors are going to say, "This is the time! Go for it!"


The hard things are never easy. They don't get consensus for decads after they occur. They take courage, leadership and moral fiber. But the consequenccs of leaving them undone are often more damaging to the nation than doing them.

[zipplewrath]

120. The right things are simple

I'm reminded of this old saying quite often these days.

The right things are simple. The simple things are usually hard.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. You Never Forget Your First Gay Arabic Linguist

Levity aside ... I am confident that he will suspend the rule, if not rescind it outright.

DADT was useful for about 18 months back in 1993-4. It has become a national humiliation.

--d!

[newinnm]

7. How was it useful in 93-94

[Dogmudgeon]

13. It could have taken the steam out of an anti-gay campaign ...

... while Clinton brought the top brass into line.

Harshly, if necessary.

There was a near-mutiny in the military, and it was 100% the doing of the wingnut officers. A transition period could have allowed the phony outrage to dissipate. Clinton should have also fired the wingnuts, but his real error was in issuing the order before he was comfortable with his power.

I would have much preferred that Clinton's original order was obeyed. The fact that he caved in to his subordinates was like throwing a meaty bone to the dogs of the Right.

--d!

[newinnm]

18. I dont think I understand

In your original post you spoke in absolutes and in this post you said things like "could", "should" etc. Are you saying that it was useful or that it could have been useful.


nnnm

[Dogmudgeon]

55. I can make it simpler

1. It WAS useful because it ended the practice of separating the gay service member by a dishonorable discharge.

2. It WOULD HAVE BEEN useful as a way to allow the RW to have its tantrum and burn itself out. Clinton failed to pursue that option.

I have read some of your other posts. I may be wrong, but I think you are here to express your cynicism and maybe pick a few fights. No matter what you may think of my historical perspective of a policy I oppose, you will have to find someone else for combat. I have already registered my disapproval with my legislators and with the Obama White House. And the Bush White House. And the Clinton White House.

--d!

[Bluenorthwest]

141. And Obama is caving to his subordinates

and also allowing his subordinates from Gates to Gibbs to do all of his speaking on this issue for him. If it was bad for Bill, it is bad for Barack.

[jobycom]

17. It stopped Congress from passing a tougher law. History lesson:

Clinton promised on the campaign trail to do away with the military ban on gays, and when he took office it was one of his first executive orders. Immediately, the Republicans and some turncoat Dems, led by the unforgivable Sam Nunn, rallied enough opposition to pass a law banning gays in the military, and to override Clinton's veto. DADT was Clinton's way to siphon off just enough votes to keep the bill from passing. It was better than the outright ban that came before, and it was better than the bill Congress was going to pass, but obviously it is still a bad policy.

[newinnm]

19. In retrospect a law banning homosexuals would have been better

The practicality of dadt was the same as banning. At least if there had been names attached to a ban, there could have been targeted opposition to the bigotry. The way it out no one really had to stand up and be counted. Hurray for triangulation.


nnnm

[jobycom]

29. That's just wrong.

Clinton had an approval rating in the 40s at the time, and it plunged to the 30s within the year. The voters were for the ban, Clinton was the one standing up to be counted. Voting against the bill would have been suicide for most Congresscritters. They wanted their name attached to the ban.

If it had passed, the policy would have been more strict, possibly carried prison time for violation, and would have been much harder to change.

[newinnm]

33. Go forth and lead!

[LostinVA]

128. Same thing with DOMA

DOMA is despicable, but relatively easy to do away with, if Congress and the Executive Office want to. However, it's an extremely difficult and long (almost impossible) process to get rid of a Constitutional Amendment. DADT and DOMA suck, but the alternative would have been far worse, and almost 20 years ago, we would have gotten the alternative.

It pisses me off when I see Bill Clinton blamed for this. People need to blame the REAL villains: the GOP and homophobic turncoats like Sam Nunn (who now says gays should eb allow3ed to serve).

[LostinVA]

127. "homosexuals"

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onetwo]

8. Dumb headline.

[peace13]

10. Obama... Commander and Chief.

He knows this has happened. He stands responsible. Simple fact.

[newinnm]

12. hmmm

You read my mind..

nnnm

[onetwo]

14. Law dictates how this situation is to be handled. Period.

As valuable as he appears to be, Lt. Choi cannot be placed above the law because he speaks fluent Arabic and graduated from prestigious West Point.

[Dragonfli]

21. You are correct only discredited politicians and CIA are above the law

Even then, the laws broken must be so grievous as to reach the level of International war crimes.
You make perfect sense. FOR RULE OF LAW CHOI MUST BE SACRIFICED!!

[onetwo]

73. Lt. Choi knew the law and made clear his awareness of the fact that his actions put his job in peril

He martyred himself. Who knows -- it might work. But Obama and his administration shouldn't be blamed for following the law in an open-and-shut case like this one. There is no justification for an exception beyond the fact that Lt. Choi appears to be extremely competent.

[Dragonfli]

75. I expect then that the rule of law will apply to torture as well

I thought it was only for Choi. Thank god you set me straight.

Open and shut case. CIA agents tortured under the law, there is no provision under the law to be protected by "orders" or bad advice, this is very clear under the laws regarding torture.
There is ample evidence - I expect arrests are immanent.

The only problem is that Lt. Choi broke a policy that the administration can change legally in a nano-second.
He had no such power to declare torture experts above national and international law.

I guess I am having trouble understanding this absolute(sometimes) rule of law you describe to me.

[onetwo]

89. Hey, I hope so, too.

But let's not pretend that there is any sort of parallel between Lt. Choi's actions and the CIA and Bush DoJ transgressions.

On national TV, Lt. Choi in very clear terms admitted to possessing full knowledge of the law and the repercussions of his actions. Very different from the torturers who have claimed innocence for the past six years or so. I don't see how this could have turned out any differently for the Lieutenant.

The President is not a monarch. Obama may be able to pull a Bush move and go around Congress to get things done, but it hurts his chances of moving forward his bigger agenda every time he opts to travel that road. Obama was approaching the two month mark when Lt. Choi decided to come out on the big stage and attempt to force Obama's hand (something he had years to attempt under Bush but curiously didn't). I don't think Obama should jeopardize any milestone on the path towards The Big Picture by moving too fast on a highly controversial issue like DADT.

Still, we are two weeks out from the actual dismissal -- let's hope that the Smooth Operator-in-Chief and figure out a way to keep Lt. Choi on through either a change in the law or a justifiable exception. Anything else will be unfair to the nearly 10,000 discharged servicemen and women who came before Lt. Choi.

[DissedByBush]

81. It's question of and/or

(b)(1) of the policy is a list of exceptions that can save a soldier and (D) is

"under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and"

Also they do investigations on the suspicion of a soldier being homosexual. Obama can order the fishing expeditions stopped.

[Dragonfli]

88. I really should learn to use that sarcasm smiley

It just never occurs to me that people will take posts like the one you responded to as anything other than :sarcasm:

My fault that you misunderstood me (I forget there are too many people posting crazy things to not use that smiley)

Thank you for the info however, I did not know those details, I did however know that The president can suspend the policy if he wished to. I have been advocating that along with legislation to make sure a new policy could not be adopted by future administrations that would be as discriminatory as DADT.

:hi:

[uberllama42]

138. Choi is practicing civil disobedience

Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of breaking an unjust law. Choi being punished is an important step toward overturning DADT. He understands this, and if he wasn't willing to accept that, he would not have come out on national television.

The idea is that we will see what is happening and be outraged and do something about it. Choi is the one brave enough to stand up and do what needs to be done to abolish this stupid policy.

[peace13]

24. No , but the loss of these interpreters is a national security issue.

Obama will have to put some pressure on to either expedite a change in the law or uncover a loophole. One way or another the bucks stop with him. Don't get me wrong I love the guy, worked my ass off for him but this is his problem. Peace, Kim

[onetwo]

79. Good point. But it was irresponsible (and maybe a bit arrogant) of Lt. Choi to attempt to

force a change in Obama's timetable for the repeal of DADT. The President has to carefully navigate a minefield of political issues to finally get us to the "Change We Can Believe In." Shoving him in the back while he tiptoes towards the goal is incredibly stupid. When Lt. Choi made his announcement on national TV, Obama had only been in office for two months.

It was likely extreme naivete that led him to believe that a strategy that he clearly believed wouldn't work under a Bush administration (as evidenced by his years of non-action) could not only move the Obama White House, but move them well before they were ready. We will see if he is saved from his mistake. I do not think that he is owed any sort of clemency.

[Psephos]

43. Except this is a policy, not a law, and could be changed in one minute by the President n/t

[ruggerson]

70. It's a law. DADT is law.

[Psephos]

76. Even if you say it three times loud it still won't make it a law

It's a policy crafted by Colin Powell in 1993, and part of US Code.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/gay-rights-military-pentagon-s-new-policy-guidelines-homosexuals-military.html

Here's the governing code section:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Obama can wipe this away by directing the Pentagon to change the policy.

[Dragonfli]

78. LOL Not fair! He typed louder so he must be right!

:rofl:

[ruggerson]

91. I am right actually

even typing softly. It's a statute passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

BEFORE Clinton tried to change it, it was only military policy. Then when he indicated he was going to sign an executive order, the whole public firestorm erupted.

The compromise at the end was DADT. Codified by Congress and signed by the President.

It's a federal law.

[ruggerson]

85. It's a statute passed by Congress

"Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html#statute

[Psephos]

93. If you actually read that whole wikipedia article, you'll understand

that the Congressional Statute (which I posted - you did see that, right?) from 1993 was a codification of Clinton's "evolved" policy view, crafted at his request by Powell, called the Solomon Amendment.

It could be overridden by an Executive Order from Obama. I.e., it's a de facto policy issue. The XO would provide immediate relief while he "persuaded" Pelosi, Reid et al. to deep-six it. Remember, Obama made a campaign promise to get rid of this rule.

Barring that, there are three constitutional challenges before the courts. One from the Log Cabin Republicans, one from S.L.D.N., and one by a private individual, a gay veteran named Steve Loomis.

[ruggerson]

95. It can't be overridden by Executive Order

you are mistaken. It's federal law and was codified by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by Clinton.

BEFORE the statute, it was just military policy and could have been amended by EO.

The only way to get rid of it now is for Congress to specifically repeal it and the Prez to sign the repeal.

Obama COULD do an end run around DADT by issuing an EO stopping the investigations - thus effectively neutering the statute.

But to actually repeal it - it has to be done by Congress.

[Psephos]

97. Others with skin in the game think it could

for example

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a public policy think tank at UC Santa Barbara that has studied the issue of gays in the military and was the first to call attention to Choi's case, said Obama could lift the ban now by executive order.

"The president obviously wants to avoid a fight with conservatives in both parties in Congress, but what's tragic about the delay is that he could suspend the discharge process for gay soldiers with the stroke of a pen," he said.

whole article here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/07/MN9L17GJM3.DTL


I think we have a semantic difference here. I treat as "policy" anything that can be changed or overridden by XO. You treat as "law" a policy that has been codified into US Code.

Bottom line, I assume that you, like me, think DADT is long overdue for the wastebin. One way or another, Obama has it within his power to rid us of it, through executive orders now and through Congress this summer. Furthermore, he promised he would do just that.

I think we need to hold his feet to the fire. Choi would still have his commission if Obama had wanted to do something about it. That much is indisputable.

[ruggerson]

149. What Aaron Belkin is discussing is an EO which gets AROUND the statute

and I agree with him. An EO which stops the investigations would neuter DADT, but it would not repeal it.

It's a clever way of effectively temporarily stopping the discharges.

But the law would still need to be repealed down the road or there would be a court challenge to any EO.

Again, it's a statute. That's why it's problematic.

And I agree with you - one way or another Obama has to stop this.

[Bluenorthwest]

143. But CIA officers were given immunity for committing war crimes

with no investigation, even. It seems that the entire Bush administration has been declared above the law. The law says Waterboarding is torture, and we have exceuted people for doing it.
Funny how the law seems so crystal clear when it allows one to express prejudice, but it is presented as confoundingly complex when it demands justice.

[JanusAscending]

53. Well...............

I guess you're right...........or maybe wrong? Do you know that Pres. Obama sent this very valuable officer a hand written note? Letting him know that he's aware of what's going on, and that he plans to rectify it in the near future?? Just sayin'........:dunce:

[peace13]

69. I thought that he wrote the note to a woman. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

145. No he did not

he wrote a letter to another fired officer who is a woman. It said:
"You are still fired. Thanks for playing. Good luck on the job search, I agree it sucks but I am powerless.
Insincerely,
The Most Powerful Man on Earth

[JanusAscending]

170. You lie like a republican!

The note was written to the man that Rachel interviewed. She showed it on the air just before he came on. on edit, you are correct, the note was to a woman, but you still lie like a republican, because nothing you "quoted" was in the note from Obama!!

[JanusAscending]

50. I agree!!

[elleng]

9. Headline WRONG!

MILITARY firing him, due to their f-up rules. Prez O has NOTHING to do with this.

edit: A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.


Lets see what Prez O does if/when he learns of this 'study.'

[newinnm]

11. Commander in Chief

[stillcool]

22. The President can just make laws go away?

Is that the way our government works now? No need for a Legislative Body?

[Dragonfli]

27. Ask CIA torturers about that - they have first hand knowledge and would know more

[stillcool]

28. Oh..so there is no law at all anymore?

We have a king? I didn't know. Thanks for that. I guess I don't need to contact my Senators or Congressman anymore, or bother wading around here.

[Dragonfli]

36. Hey it wasn't my doing - I like that constitution thingy myself.

Rule of law for everyone equally.

Read the posts in the thread - The president has legal authority to suspend THIS rule.
Not to excuse torturers, but I quibble about that last small point.

[stillcool]

46. Yes he does..but if he does that..

the next President can do the same thing. I suppose it's better than legislating civil rights for gays in the military.

[Dragonfli]

48. Why not do both?

Stop the firing of critically needed human resources right now with the pen, then pass legislation.
Is there a reason they can not both be done?

I agree it most definitely should not be kept under the whim of transitional presidencies.

I just fail to see how one action renders the other impossible.

[stillcool]

51. I don't know..

I don't see any political liability or any reason why Congress and/or Obama can not do this. There is little opposition, and they could pass it lickety-split. I hope that this guys story helps to force the issue into the light, and spurs action one way or another.

[Dragonfli]

54. I believe that is why he put his entire military career on the line

I also believed him when he said it went against all he had been trained in West Point to believe about honor.
He appeared to be very sincere about that.

I am not even gay and I have a man crush on his principles.
:)

[comtec]

102. Politics, as horrible as it sounds, he HAS to leave this policy in place

if he is ever going to get the massive support he will need to pass through health care reform - remember it's not the38 gopers, it's the 58+2 democrats, many of whom are DLC corporatists - he needs to mollify the people who hate the gaij.

I think that before the end of his term(s?) he will abolish this abortion of justice.

but... c'mon it's not like this guy SIMPLY came out, that could have been over looked... HE DID IT ON NATIONAL TV!!!!

that was stupid.

coming out is one thing, doing it in front of the nation when this policy is still in place was just plain dumb.

I see this as politics, this guy was dumb and will pay for it. It's unfortunate, as we need all the qualified translators we can get. hopefully this guy will get a contract to translate for the USG instead?

just curious... does anyone else find it strange that ALL of our arabic translators are GAY!?

[Dragonfli]

117. I disagree

In fact all of these types of "necessary" sacrifices of principle to gain watered down dysfunctional policies in other areas is right out of the play book of the DLC. Such tactics birthed DADT.

As for this guy being dumb, I believe he and like-minded West Point graduates simply could no longer behave dishonorably (lying) or waiting for a bus that wasn't coming. He chose to do what he felt was honorable and in a way that may help show the absurdity of the policy and perhaps force the hand of justice - they are trained to lead there you know.

I honestly do not know if ALL of our capable translators are gay. I only know we lost many due to a stupid homophobic rule that helped put us at risk.

I realize the meme is that controversy is a bad thing and this is all strategy, I simply think after watching political circus for thirty years that this is merely a political excuse, and so I disagree with you.

[comtec]

150. I'm not clear what you are disagreeing with?

He was dumb to do it on TV!
If he had simply come out to his CO, i don't think anyone would have cared.

we agree about this being a political exercise.

but... that's politics *shrug* you can only crap so much change down the establishment's throats before they say, not... another... fucking... byte!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

123. Most Americans support repealing it

It's not going to hurt his "massive support."

[newinnm]

30. DADT wasnt instituted by legislation

DADT was done by executive order which can be rescinded by the presiddent immediately. If you recall Clinton's original executive order completely did away with the practice of banning gays in the military but the he caved in and instituted dadt. If Clinton could issue an executiove order allowing gays in the military why cant this president.

nnnm

[stillcool]

41. It depends if you want to legislate..

civil rights for gays serving in the military, or if you want to keep it a political issue that can change with every administration.


http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid75758.asp

March 19, 2009

Who Will Take the Lead on DADT?

By Kerry Eleveld
Who Will Take the Lead on DADT?

The chief sponsor of the legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Rep. Ellen Tauscher (pictured), announced Wednesday that she will be resigning her congressional seat to take a post at the State Department, leaving the bill in flux.


A spokesperson at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that lobbies to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military, said the organization was “in the process of looking at several strong champions in the House who can step in and take the lead,” but they declined to name names.

Rep. Susan Davis of California has turned up as a person of interest among some Washington insiders. Davis chairs the Military Personnel Subcommittee, where the bill is currently being held -- the same post once held by the Military Readiness Enhancement Act’s original sponsor, former Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts.

“Congresswoman Davis is probably the strongest and most logical choice to shepherd the bill on the House side,” says Steve Ralls, who worked on the issue for eight years at SLDN. “She has enormous credibility with the armed forces, and she is someone that military leaders in her district and across the country look to to lead on issues like this in the Congress.”

Korb suggested that someone like Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania might also make a good choice. “If you have someone like Congressman Murphy, who has a lot of military experience and is an Iraq veteran -- someone who can say, ‘Look, I was out there in the field and this was not an issue,’ -- that’s what you would like to see.” Murphy made a particularly strong showing of support for repeal of the policy during the first hearings on the issue hosted by Representative Tauscher last year, but he was elected in 2006 and is still relatively new to Congress.

Perhaps an even greater wild-card question is who’s going to carry the bill in the Senate. The Boston Globe reported last month that Sen. Edward Kennedy planned on sponsoring the bill and was looking for a Republican cosponsor before introducing it. Though Kennedy sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has long been a champion of LGBT equality, it’s not clear how his ailing health might affect his leadership on this issue. Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor after suffering seizures last spring

[ruggerson]

65. You're dead wrong. It's a law, passed by Congress

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. DADT is not a law; it's a policy

And yes, he can make it go away.

[stillcool]

44. and it will come right back again...

with a new administration.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. So we should just forget about getting it overturned?

[stillcool]

59. Absolutely not..

and it will be overturned. I think there is too much support, and too little opposition to think otherwise. I don't know why action is being delayed, but I do hope this guys story forces the issue. I guess it takes public pressure to get government officials to act. And we know how little there is of that.

[snowdays]

156. Whitehouse.gov Backs Down on Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The delay

is because Pres Obama is listening----to his commanders on the ground. The 'leadership" is coming from Gates at this point and the WH is going along with it. Congress? who knows--it seems they have it on the back burner also.


If you go to the link the changed parts are highlighted in different colors and easy to see.

At the bottom of the article, it also explains this Tracker tool.

http://www.propublica.org/article/whitehouse.gov-backs-down-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-501



Whitehouse.gov Backs Down on Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
by Brian Boyer, ProPublica - May 1, 2009 3:47 pm EDT




May 1: This post has been updated <1>.

Update, May 2: Friday night, Whitehouse.gov reinserted language <2> saying President Obama supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The specific language: "He supports repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and national security."



A subtle but substantive change in the president's position on "don't ask don't tell" was noticed today by our watchful eye-on-the-administration tool, ChangeTracker <3>. An edit to the civil rights issues page <4> tells the tale.


<4>

Previously, the message was clear. As of two days ago, whitehouse.gov said, "We need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." The new version of the page says that the president "supports changing Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

In January, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy?" Gibbs proudly gave a one-word answer <5>, "Yes.”

In March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to back away from that stance <6>. When asked by Fox News about "don't ask don't tell," he said, "I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now."

The latest changes on whitehouse.gov seem to further that hedge -- and make it the White House position.........

[ruggerson]

68. DADT is indeed a law

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. But didn't the serviceman in this case out himself?

It didn't require any investigation - it was right there on video.

Obama couldn't stop his firing if he wanted to. The military WILL follow its rules.

[stillcool]

25. Obviously, that doesn't matter anymore..

I guess it's true about the Imperial Presidency. The Legislature and the Judiciary should close up shop and go home.

[elleng]

31. Yes he did, on Rachel's show.

Have to examine the 'rules,' and what the Prez can do about them without a ruckus.

[Swede Atlanta]

139. Yes, he "outed" himself

The point isn't whether he would have been investigated or not. His point was that here is a West Point grad, a veteran of Iraq, an Arabic linguist who simply because he is gay must be forced out of the military.

This is ridiculous public policy whether it is an executive branch policy or a duly-enacted law. This has nothing to do with unit cohesion or effectiveness. It has to do with a world view that considers gays and lesbians as inherently inferior, single-minded on sex or just plain evil and abominations.

I am supportive of strong disciplinary action up to and including removal for any type of prohibited sexual advance, touching etc. whether it is between a man and a woman, two men or two women. The military does need to maintain order and decorum but that should be gender and sexual orientation neutral.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. Did they follow their rules about the handling of prisoners?

No, really. If they WILL follow their rules, what about the rules that govern interrogations and detentions?
When WILL they follow their rules? Let me know.

[bertman]

15. Get out your pens and pencils, your cell phones and computer keyboards. I phones too.

Start contacting whitehouse.gov and let them know how you feel about this travesty.

The President is the Commander-In-Chief, and as the boston bean points out, he has the power to stop this so no more damage is done until Congress can set this right.

Lt. Choi is a courageous person. I'd be proud for him to stay in and serve in our military.

I'm a Vietnam combat veteran and I support allowing gay men and women to serve in our military just as straights are allowed to serve. When I was in we knew there were gays who were in our units, but no one gave a damn because they did their jobs and they didn't create problems. This "don't ask, don't tell" law has to go!!

[handmade34]

34. well said...

Lt. Choi said he intends to fight this to the end and we all need to do whatever we can to help in that fight. I greatly admire Lt. Choi is his act of Civil Disobedience. My partner was a medic in Vietnam and he was saying the same thing tonight. He knew there were gay men serving and they were there to do their job, no problem. It is time to fight all discrimination.

[Dragonfli]

16. Oh No - The loyalty police will be here soon. (take cover or take scorn)

You have been warned.

I hope you don't give a shit about the loyalty police myself ;-)

[Egnever]

23. I heard he picks his nose too!

and eats mustard on hamburgers! Oh the humanity!

[Mari333]

26. BEST thing that could happen to Obama , this is front and center

now he HAS to do something...cannot ignore the civil rights of gay folks forever...
get on the stick, Obama, and sign DADT into history or you look like an ass.

[Gamey]

37. Believing BHO is ineffective because he can't save

this one individual is hard to believe. Get a perspective clue.

[Baby Snooks]

45. This one individual?

It goes beyond the one individual. With a stroke of a pen Obama could do what Clinton should have done. Ban discrimination in the military.

[Gamey]

47. "With a stroke of a pen Obama could do what Clinton should have done"

Here's my quote, again, "Get a perspective clue."

Remember your three branches of government? I know that * trained you to believe the CIC or the executive branch could do whatever the hell they wanted but that is not how it is supposed to work.

Appealing to me is not the answer. Try swearing?

[No Elephants]

107. Sorry, wrong spot.

[Psephos]

40. Hmmm...who's doing actual, not theoretical, harm to a gay man, Miss California or Obama?

Gotta give this one to Obama.

How disappointing.

[Gamey]

52. Can't give it to either.

Gays don't like her.

She don't like gays.

Whether you like it or not, she has a valid opinion.

My opinion of her is she is a clueless plus hypocritical idiot.

[Psephos]

63. Sounds like you misunderstood me

because I agree with you.

To be clear, Obama stood by with his pen in his pocket while a gay man's career was terminated. If he had taken the pen out of his pocket, the man (who by all accounts does an excellent job) would still have his career.

Prejean voiced an opinion that none of us like, but her opinion does not cost gay servicemen and women their careers. Obama's does. The DADT policy is not a law. Obama is the Policy Maker in Chief, with the power to change that policy. Just ask WJC.

[Psephos]

57. oops - self delete

[Gamey]

62. Get a gripness alert...

"Obama stood by with his pen in his pocket while a gay man's career was terminated"

[Psephos]

67. lol

I take it you're not an attorney, or if you are, you're a very hungry one.

[elshiva]

42. FUCK Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's the benefit of it?

:nuke: :nuke:

[shireen]

58. isn't he Commander in Chief of the Military?

sounds like he has the authority to overturn that stupid decision. And if he does not, it will look really bad for him.

i bet the idiots who made that decision never realized that Obama actually read her letter and responded personally! Surprise .....

[GoddessOfGuinness]

61. Maybe it's time for the men and women of our armed forces to

all come out at once. And if there isn't enough of a dent in personnel to freak out the powers that be, maybe the straight folks who are tired of this shit should "come out" too.

[Gamey]

66. clueless

[GoddessOfGuinness]

72. Well thanks. What a helpful comment.

Instead of insulting me, why not attempt to educate?

Or are you clueless?

[Jakes Progress]

161. He doesn't have a point.

Not one he/she can defend. Used up all progressive spirit in the primary and has fallen back to reflex action. Don't expect thought.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Time to "put up or shut up!"

Given all he needs to do is sign away this policy, I will gladly give him my pen from under the rear tire of the bus.

[cboy4]

82. Hey dude, I'm under the bumper

:hi:

[Political Tiger]

87. It's federal law, he can't just "sign it away."

If presidents could just "sign away" laws they don't like they would be called King instead of President.

[ruggerson]

92. read the OP - he can sign an executive order tomorrow if he wishes

effectively neutering DADT.

[kdpeters]

71. DADT is an easy out for straight guys who want out of the military

I personally know a friend of my younger brother's who figured his easiest, quickest way out with an honorable discharge was to "come out". He's actually not gay; he just wanted to get out of the military.

[CEDAWrocks]

84. To clarify a few points...

You are absolutely correct that many soldiers use the DADT to separate from the military (even though they are not gay). Unfortunately along this line, many linguists use the provision to separate from the military just after receiving extensive language training. DADT thus provides a very convenient loop hole to allow linguists to pursue lucrative contracts in the civilian sector rather than fulfill their obligation with the military. Repealing DADT would close this loop. As such, another benefit would be obtained by ending DADT.

Indeed DADT is a bad policy on many accounts. I find it amazing that Israel, Australia, the U.K., and many other of our allies allow for openly gay soldiers to serve in their military, but we still have this anachronistic policy in the US. The current defense budget encourages our military to become more joint and to engage more with our coalition partners. No matter what any homophobe might say -- the more you engage with coalition forces -- the more you will likely encounter openly gay coalition troops. If therefore, there are no issues for US soldiers fighting, training, and dying alongside our coalition openly gay men and women -- why can't they be allowed to do the same with our gay US soldiers?

I've been in the military for close to 20 years and I've met many gay men and women in uniform. Never once have I seen any negative impact come from their service to our country. It is true there are idiots who serve who might feel "uncomfortable" serving with a gay man or woman -- but these are the same idiots who would have other prejudices (gender, race, etc.) if allowed to pursue them.

I could rant for hours on this topic, but I just have to conclude by saying that I'm pleased you are all ranting about this topic for me. I hope that this policy with end soon. It is bad for those serving in silence. It is bad for the military by allowing dishonest soldiers to end their commitments early, and it is bad for our country because it continues to demonstrate how far behind we are when it comes to recognizing equality.

Keep up the good work DU! With your help perhaps this policy will end -- sooner rather than later!

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orleans]

83. rachel did this story on her show tonight.

the congressman who she spoke with (who might run against arlen) pointed out that the fuckhead (aka bush) did a lot of executive orders and broke laws and obama shouldn't repeat the crimes of the fuckhead...and said the change to this law needs to come from congress.

rach proposed obama put a freeze on this law for the time being. the guy justified why he shouldn't (i don't remember--i probably stopped listening to him a little bit) but said congress could get to this late summer or early fall if they wanted to and obama pushed it.

my opinion?
freeze the law. push congress to get to this asap. and do the right fucking thing. let's stop pissing around about this.

[Little Star]

116. Rachel had a good show last night

Sestak is the congressman who might run against Specter. He would be so much better than Arlen.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

90. MORE and BETTER on Rachel tonight;

letter from Prez O, saying he will remedy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30632035

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Eventually...if congress does it for him

That note says nothing he has not said before, then pulled back from again and again. The woman he wrote to is still discharged, so the note is cute, but without any real world meaning.
He is telling her that while the torture program people who broke dozens of US and International laws and treaties deserve to go undiscovered and unpunished, hence his blanket advance pardon, but the talented woman deserves to be ousted over one unjust law that he says he does not agree with. So. Those who beat children to get 'intel' from their parents get a pass, but not ethical and decent gay people who wish to serve with honor.

[Dark]

94. Ooh boy. Don't get me wrong, I'm against DADT. But isn't the president saying "I'm going to ignore

the law/not enforce it" one of the things we despised Bush for doing?

OTOH, it's a fucking stupid law that's endangering the country.

[IntravenousDemilo]

99. Why any gay American would even want to serve in the military of a country that considers him a

second-class citizen without equal rights, is beyond me. It's like a battered wife who still sticks by her husband because she "still loves him" in her own self-destructive way.

By the way, what ever happened to the "Don't Pursue" part of it? As long as that part is being flouted by military brass, then the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" part should be thrown out the window as well.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. gay american can be poor too. or they could already have started their careers before coming out

or have a skillset that is only useful for the military

[readmoreoften]

100. Right now they're using any reason possible to throw people out and deprive them of benefits.

It's happening across the military--they're throwing out anyone they can by dishonorable discharge so that they can cut off their benefits. The active duty soldiers I've talked to are afraid of getting treatment for addiction and/or PTSD because its being used as an excuse to get rid of them close to the end of their time served so that they can cut their benefits.

It's not just us gays getting shafted. Anything to deprive the worker of a buck.

[Devil_Fish]

101. What if every one in the military came out and no one was left?

Would we have to stop the War?

[Tab]

108. This just after replying to that letter from a lesbian soldier...

Being discharged under DADT.

[livefreest]

109. what a shame! what a waste! this discrimination has to be stopped now.

our country is suffering

[DFW]

110. Delete--posted elsewhere

[tclambert]

113. This would be a good test for a new Commander-in-Chief.

The issue was a test for Clinton as Commander-in-Chief, but he fumbled it. Inside of demonstrating his ability to command, he played political compromise with it, resulting in the universally disliked "don't ask, don't tell." A good C-in-C would give the order and brook no compromise from his military subordinates once given. That is how you get respect from the military.

[Buzz Clik]

115. More of this shit.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

157. Bullshit.

You're pissed because this is of highest priority to you and not to him.

My priority is the environment. He's being "slow" on that, too, but I have the maturity to be patient.

[berni_mccoy]

118. Those who think Obama has the power with the "stroke of a pen" to undo this have never served

a day in their life. If Obama overrides this law, he is overriding the authority of every person in the chain of command underneath him. And if you don't think that won't piss off just about every general in the army, you don't understand a damn thing. Politics does matter and you have to pick your battles. He doesn't need to start a war with his own military. Not over this. Not when DADT is a LAW.

[Vinca]

121. On the other hand, he is the Commander In Chief

and he should have the balls to do what's right. I love Obama, but he's dead wrong on this issue.

[Dawgs]

130. How is he wrong? It's a law. He can't overturn DADT without Congress.

Unless you think we elected a King.

[Vinca]

131. He's wrong to be turning a blind eye. We've got a majority and

he should be trying to do away with this idiotic legislation. Why Clinton cooked this up is a mystery. Gays have served in the military forever and they weren't suddenly trying to hump the guy in the foxhole with them. It was stupid and foolish and gave into every homophobic belief uneducated people might have. And now this. Allowing a West Point graduate who happens to be an Arabic linguist to be drummed out of the military for this stupid, stupid reason is outrageous.

[berni_mccoy]

132. "he should have the balls to do what's right". So, breaking the law and overriding everyone

in your chain of command is a requirement for him to be a man?

Tell me, what "balls" do you have?

[Politicub]

137. But he has the bully pulpit

and I hope he uses it to rally people and the congress against this injustice - which will lead to a repeal of the DADT law.

[berni_mccoy]

144. That, my friend is a valid statement. I hope so as well. But the headline of the OP is wrong.

I wish the mods would take it off the home page.

[Bluenorthwest]

154. Our military is commanded by civilians

That is how it works. The Generals do not make law.

Plus the Geneva Conventions are LAW as well. I guess we select which LAW to enforce as the situation dictates, but the idea that we follow LAW is very 1998 at this point. Waterborading is torture, well established as such by many prosecutions by US military and civilian authorities. And yet, somehow, not one person is culpable under that LAW...
So sure. Whatever. Pick a law, one that lets you get some minority bashing in, and run with that law so you can have an image of being all into the 'rule of law'...for underlings and gays only.

[IntravenousDemilo]

167. Pissing off people in the chain of command underneath you is the prerogative of a boss.

The people you don't want to piss off are the people in the chain of command above you.

And in the President's case, those people are the voting public.

[mdmc]

125. I'd rather lose all I hold dear to a terrorist attack then be saved

by gay data.
(Colbert got some fundie to actually say this)...

[stray cat]

126. Actually you and I as Americans are firing him

You can't blame Obama anymore than yourself - neither one of you alone are likely to change the rule.

[Rebubula]

129. This needs to end...

....SOON.

However, with a population filled with assholes like Joe the Plumber (in the closet) - it may be another generation or two.

[nichomachus]

133. It's only one song. It's only a two minute speech. Oh, look, a picture of a cute puppy.

[Politicub]

136. This presents an opportunity for President Obama to take a critical stand

While he wouldn't be able to get rid of the law outright, he could use the bully pulpit to rally people around the unfairness of the position, and push the Democratic-dominated congress to repeal the law.

[DWilliamsamh]

140. Um... I think Gays should be able to serve openly in the military

But even if investigations of soldiers sexuality was suspended (I would support such an executive order), it seems the don't ask don't tell policy would still be triggered by a soldier coming out on national television. Not much investigation involved there.

Put it this way, if I break the law, if I go on national television and confess to breaking said law - even if the police didn't investigate the initial "crime," I am pretty sure I'm going to get a knock at the door. And the Mayor has nothing to do with it.

The don't ask don't tell policy needs to be scrapped. The UCOMJ needs to have the anti-gay provisions removed.

[McCamy Taylor]

142. Anti-gay rules are aimed at everyone. Homosexuality is a charge leveled at enemies of the state

who do not happen to be members of racial, ethnic or religious minority group. Since anyone can be called "gay" or nowadays "a pedophile" and have their career destroyed, the powers that run this country use the charge to keep the opposition in line.

Maintaining the current bias against sexuality in all its forms is insane. Everyone becomes a potential victim, not just folks who are actively living a gay lifestyle. It is the equivalent of condemning people for being "human".

[shadowknows69]

146. Getting rid of DADT was one of his promises. This is bullshit.

[MikeNearMcChord]

148. Last I checked, we won, the Right Wing lost

If DADT is repealed, yeah the RW will bleat about, but guess what, THEY LOST! And LOST BIG!!! Mr. President do the right thing repeal DADT.

[The Backlash Cometh]

152. Okay, I'm coming out.

I'm coming out to explain to you what the incredible flaw is in this system, and I'm not holding back my language. You asshats, and that includes Obama, who let go of Arabic translators because they're gay put us in a weaker position. Who do you have left to count on? From my research I find that you have ethically challenged Arabic-Americans living in this country to count on, to find you these translators through their connections. These people feel entitled. Through newspaper articles I've been able track down the going-ons of one family. One was a lawyer who photographed a client naked, but that's not why he got disbarred. He got disabarred for attempting to sell presidential pardons through a family connection with ties to the George Mitchell lawfirm. No one understood why he got off so easy, but a research in the files shows that he had at least one client who was an Arabic translator, and he had lived in the country, working on a pipeline for many years.

His son was part of a terrible real estate nightmare which will probably end up with the homeowners paying for the mistakes, because the issue is so incredibly complicated, not the least of which is that half of the guilty parties may have connections through the Democratic party. The other, to the GOP. I don't see how it's ever going to be resolved, because both parties have either good campaign donors, or political operatives to protect.

And through marriage, a third person in this family, a campaign donor darling of the Democratic party, was outed by a Republican governor for attempting to muscle him for more public money for a real estate venture.

If you don't know the hell that these people are creating IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, YOU ARE BLIND OR STUPID.

These are the people we, this government, are selecting, over gay translators. Frankly, I would want all the gay translators to come out of the closet. That way, they're insulated from blackmail.

Why are we hand-picking sexual orientation as a factor for translators, and not all the other indiscretions that amount to Civil torts in a community? What the hell did we do to deserve this? You make our entire country, a lie.

[bicentennial_baby]

158. Why was this moved out of LBN?!

:banghead:

[lynnertic]

159. That's not true! An enlisted gay arabic linguist was fired, and then re-hired under Bush.

I can't remember his name. and I guess they're going on about firing the guy in this admin vs. the last. but whatever.

[BAPhill]

162. In time...

This will be changed...the guy is pretty busy right now.

[MasonJar]

163. Stop blaming Bill Clinton. He got as much as he could for gays from

a hate-filled, fear-mongering Congress and military over 15 years ago. (Thank God that the attitudes have changed immeasurably for gays since that time period.) The GOPers tried to defeat anything Clinton wanted because for some unfathomable reason they hated him so. They hated him as much as they hated gays. Bill Clinton was possibly the most engaged, brilliant and empathetic president ever. A small town boy with enthusiasm probably gained from his childhood of not being one of the elite, but of being one of the fortunate, Bill Clinton cared then (and still does) about people and considered the impact on them more than most politicians do when in the throes of seemingly insurmountable policy decisions. And leave Hillary out too. Obama is president. I hope he issues the executive order, but if he doesn't, it will be his call, not the Clintons. The buck now stops on all the administration calls with Obama.

[bluedawg12]

164. What happened to : The Military Readiness Enhancement Act ( HR 1059 )?

Does anyone know where this stands? The last I heard it was due for Congressional consideration in March of 2009.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=7611

Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Launched

by Bob Roehr

2005-03-09

The first legislative attempt to repeal the antigay military policy known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives March 2.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act ( HR 1059 ) is sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Conventional Threats and Capabilities. He is joined by 61 cosponsors. The lone Republican is Christopher Shays, R-Conn., though others have said they will join as cosponsors.

'The strain on our military personnel is one of the key national security challenges facing this country today. In a time of war, it is outrageous that our military continues to discharge thousands of experienced and dedicated Servicemembers-many with critical skills in the war on terror-for reasons that have nothing to do with their conduct in uniform or their willingness to serve their country,' Meehan said.

The repeal is being supported by eight senior retired military officers in an effort organized by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network ( SLDN ) .

At Meehan's request, the General Accounting Office ( GAO ) conducted an analysis of the cost of the 10-year-old policy. Their report, released Feb. 25, estimated it had cost the Pentagon more than $200 million to recruit and train personnel to replace those kicked out under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

Money is but one of the issues. Many of those who have been discharged have language and other skills that are in short supply in the military.

<snip>



Osburn acknowledges that hearings on this measure, or a companion bill to be introduced in the Senate, are not assured and a vote is not likely during this session. But it is a way to begin the education process.


...read more...

[bluedawg12]

165. President Barack Obama sent a hand-written note in response to a lesbian's plea

It's time for Congress to act.

Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired USN Admiral (Dem Penn) was on Rachel Maddow last night and that was exactly his message.: Congress needs to change a law that is harmful to the military and unfair to 12,500 gay Americans who have been discharged for being gay and yet served with honor in every way.

. 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao photo by Donna

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21121

President Barack Obama sent a hand-written note in response to a Chicago-area lesbian's plea for him to change the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers. She sent her letter to Obama just six days after his inauguration, and it was published in the Feb. 11 Windy City Times as a cover story. 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao photo by Donna
Tsao said she is “very hopeful” after receiving the letter May 5. “I believe he is a man of his word. … My heart is bounding with joy.” The timing is bittersweet: Tsao's last day in the service will be May 19, 2009.

Obama's note reads: “Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete ( partly because it needs Congressional action ) I intend to fulfill my commitment!” It is signed Barack Obama. Windy City Times has contacted the White House but has not had word back confirming the letter's veracity.

In her Jan. 26 letter to President Barack Obama, 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, 24, came out as a lesbian in the U.S. Army. The former resident of Chicago's Bridgeport neighborhood wrote a fellow former South Sider in his new White House home to tell him she could no longer serve her country because she is a lesbian.

Sunday, Feb. 8, marked the one-year anniversary of Tsao's active duty, full-time service to her country. On May 19, Tsao expects to receive an Article 15 honorable discharge because of homosexual conduct.

Tsao was told by her chain of command that her letter was received by Obama's White House. It was her own choice to come out. In early February, she wrote to Windy City Times that she had "finished my full medical examination and have finished my last session with my counselor. My counselor has signed an evaluation form that confirms that I am in a healthy mental state."

[snowdays]

166. A bill was introduced in congress but Pelosi did not

bring it up for a vote (see rest of article).




http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/




...... During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because it is dictated by federal law, he can not end it unilaterally.

Congress must pass legislation overturning the policy, which was put into place at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Former President Bill Clinton tried to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he took office in 1993, but he was strenuously opposed by the military leadership.

In the last Congress, a bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Massachusetts, that would have implemented "a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

The bill had 149 co-sponsors, but it never came up for a full vote in the House. It has yet to be re-introduced in the new Congress, which began last week.

"The key here is to get bills that pass the House and the Senate, that we can get to President-elect Obama to sign, and I think that we can do that, certainly, the first year of the administration," one of the co-sponsors, Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, told CNN in November.

Public opinion appears to be shifting on the matter. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 19-21 found that 81 percent of respondents believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, while 17 percent said they shouldn't. The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points. iReport.com: 'Gays in the military? No thanks'
advertisement

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the time, retired Gen. Colin Powell, also believes it is time to reevaluate the policy -- although he has not said he favors its reversal.

"It's been 15 years and attitudes have changed," Powell told CNN in December. "And, so, I think it is time for the Congress, since it is their law, to have a full review of it. And I'm quite sure that's what President-elect Obama will want to do." ............

[jeremyfive]

168. Support the Troops? Sorry, Can't Do It.

No way can I respect the troops with this sort of disgusting bigotry so rampant.

Stop this vile lunacy that is destroying the lives of good people. The military needs top talent, not to be a safe haven for vile bigots and irrational hatred.

[Stinger2]

171. “Obama Did It“

“Obama Did It“

Keeping the Gay Thing on the front page is working for the Republicans, Talking Points about Gays, Abortion, Religion and Torture, Ooops not Torture that’s just something the they do for fun. I like how the title is put “Obama Did It“, when it was put in by Clinton, before everything was Clinton Did It.