A call to repeal DADT ...... why did it take so long?

[Stinky The Clown]

It has almost no financial downside. It is simply right. Why did we have to wait so long to hear this?

[babylonsister]

1. Did you hear it? First time eva? nt

[Joe the Liberal]

2. Well because this is America......

and America is always dead last on issues like this.

[ruggerson]

3. 80% of the country supports repealing it

yet, in DC, it's somehow "controversial."

[Rhiannon12866]

4. It's actually way too late...

Considering how many Arabic speakers that they've lost. :-(

[shadowknows69]

9. I met one once. A woman, outed and discharged on nothing but hearsay

[Rhiannon12866]

15. That's not just shameful,

But it jeopardizes our security... :crazy:

[shadowknows69]

16. Yep.

[timeforpeace]

5. It's the big accomplishment of the first year so it's reasonable to save it for the big finish.

[shadowknows69]

6. We heard it on the campaign trail. He could still stop the discharges with a pen stroke.

And there's no excuse that forgives why he hasn't

[la la]

7. but--i'm seriously happy

that is was finally done---let's not complain about why it 'took so long', let's celebrate that Obama said it and we go from there....

[shadowknows69]

13. He said it over a year ago. I'm with Stinky. WTF is taking so long?

[cliffordu]

8. shit.

[onehandle]

10. And maybe some of teh gays will die on the battlefield.

You would think that the GOP would be in favor of this.

[HeresyLives]

11. He's been a little busy, ya know?

:eyes:

[falcon97]

12. Who cares?

:shrug:

It's here now.

[Quantess]

14. Did you see how grumpy the generals looked when he said that?

Stonefaced, no applause. Everyone else was clapping.

[ruggerson]

20. they don't applaud anything. They are supposed to remain apolitical.

[David Zephyr]

17. It's still only words. The same words we heard from him two years ago.

Just words.

[shadowknows69]

18. Thank you for confirming my sanity David. Apparently you and I

Are the only ones not hearing this for the first time.

[Rockholm]

21. You are right. As always.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Serious answer: when Clinton tried it, it was a disaster

While the majority of people do support it, the minority against it are loud and vocal. Unfortunately the minority contains a lot of people who has stars on their shirt. Clinton couldn't win a PR battle against the Pentagon's top brass, particularly since he had never served in the military.

Obama has this same problem to a certain extent. He has never served in the military. He's going to have people who have spent their entire careers in the military going on television telling saying that he's jeopardizing our national security by using the military as a vehicle for "social engineering". And because these people have spent their entire career in the military, people are going to take them seriously.

Fortunately it's not 1993 it is 2009 and the fact is that a lot of attitudes have evolved on this. But this PR aspect is still there and Obama is going to face a fight from a lot of people in the Pentagon over this.

I think one thing he should do (actually should've done tonight) is announced that he's appointing somebody like Wes Clark in charge of the task force to get this done. Associating the policy with somebody who is career military will be a good preemptive strike against the career military people that will oppose him.