(Joe) Wilson says he hopes to reinstate DADT

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (DoD? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.
To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: I'll bet Joe thinks he can also stuff toothpaste back into the tube.




Wilson says he hopes to reinstate DADT
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 6, 2011 16:05:01 EST

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who became the personnel subcommittee chairman on Wednesday when the 112th Congress convened, said it was “irresponsible” for Congress to repeal the ban on openly gay service members without giving the House of Representatives time to hold hearings into what is involved in changing the law and how the change might effect current and future service members.

[ladjf]

1. ".... a tale told by an idiot......" nt

[rurallib]

2. train left the station Joe

lay down on the tracks and wait for the next one.

[DeadEyeDyck]

3. Okay , here is how it will work

All you that have come out of the closet, I will turn my back. When I turn back around, you will be back in the closet.

"Tennnnn Hut"!

[RetiredTrotskyite]

4. Good Luck, Bigot

K&R

[Pab Sungenis]

5. I warned everyone.

(breaking silence)

If and when Obama, Gates, and Mullen (assuming Mullen is even CJCS when the time comes) certify that the time is right to end the policy, there's still a 60-day window for "Congressional Review."

What do you want to bet that on the first of those days Wilson holds a hearing and speaks out that the time is not right. He then gets the House to pass a resolution saying that they disagree with the certification and that the time is not right. That would pass the House overwhelmingly.

At BEST, this will lead to months or years of lawsuits as the meaning of the "Congressional Review" language (that Byrd introduced into the repeal bill a month before he died and no one bothered to take out once his vote no longer existed and that wasn't needed to secure it) is litigated. Does it mean that Congress needs to agree that the conditions warrant the repeal? Is one of the Houses saying that conditions aren't right enough to block the repeal? And the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court would happily issue an injunction barring the lifting of the policy until all that can be settled.

Once again, the DADT "repeal" was nothing more than eyewash to mollify the gays and give Obama and the Congressional Democrats something in the "win" column while really doing and giving us nothing.

And with that said, I now await my fate for daring to doubt Fearless Leader.