Pentagon: Repeal of DADT will be a "several-year process"; they need ANOTHER STUDY

[Bluebear]

:banghead: Message to "Democrats in Congress": Unfortunately, the GayTM is still closed.

===
WASHINGTON -- The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.

A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama's goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore...

Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military's command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don't, what should the Pentagon do about it? ...

Democrats in Congress are also unlikely to press the issue until after this fall's midterm elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000404.html

http://www.dontaskdontgive.com/

[AndyA]

1. Shit or get off the F*CKING pot, people.

You've had lots of time to think about this. Now it's going to take a year to do a study, then a couple more to implement?

Is it any wonder people hate government so much?

News flash to Pentagon: Being gay is NORMAL. Just like having red hair or blue eyes. Or black skin. Get the hell over it already. Crawl, or drag yourself out of the 19th century!

[TheWraith]

44. This news story smells like BS in every respect.

Previous reports have the congressional bill attached to the 2011 defense appropriations bill, which was tentatively scheduled for late March.

[Robb]

49. Indeed.

Google the story's author. Speaks volumes.

We're already falling for it, too. "Expected to be announced."

Divide the left and encourage the right. How many times must it be repeated??

[Robb]

50. A quick reminder of this author's track record:

Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year. Of course, nearly every year has been a new record.

Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill. Democrats. Failing.

Senate refuses to expand detainee rights. In this case it was the Republicans. But who's counting?

Democrats must figure next step on Iraq. Or "risk leaving troops in the lurch."

More return to fight after leaving Gitmo. Remember this one??

THE MEDIA IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.

[TheWraith]

62. Nice catch, Robb! Another anti-Dems story designed to stir the shit. nt

[berni_mccoy]

63. +1. It can not be reinforced enough around here. DUers all too often fall for shit like this.

[Bluebear]

64. Here's an article by Tony Romm, is he lying too?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/78875-pentagon-to-investigate-possible-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal

[Robb]

65. That's not original reporting, it's clearly based on the WAPO piece.

Not a single attribution.

[Bluebear]

67. Well let us know when it's sufficiently reported to be upset about.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. No shit?

I'm shocked.

[Solly Mack]

3. What a crock of shit

The command structure is simple. Higher rank is higher rank and insubordination is insubordination. The Pentagon is full of shit if they pretend they don't already have a working set of regulations in place for dealing with insubordination/failure to follow a lawful order.


Nobody will take orders from a woman..from a black man...same bullshit excuses were used then.

[bigwillq]

4. BOO!

:mad:

[HeresyLives]

5. Most other western countries have it, including the UK

and there hasn't been a problem, so I'd say the 'studies' are just another excuse/delay etc.

[BadgerKid]

6. Several YEARS? ANOTHER study?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

8. Subcommittee C, to plan the implementation of a study to investigate the issue

If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier.

[Bluebear]

14. "If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier."

As you know, The President could end the firing of service personnel with one stroke of the pen while all this bullshit played out.

[Tailormyst]

15. Of course he did. But he doesn't want to change the law.

He just wants to string us along through his presidency so we stop bitching at him. What else in his "HISTORIC BESTEST EVER SPEECH EVER" was just a line of bullshit.

[Skittles]

9. oh it's just so much bullshit

SEVERAL YEARS? :thumbsdown:

[Tailormyst]

11. Just in time for the " we have to wait until after the election" excuse.

They have no plans to jack shit. Just empty words, trying to get the queers to shut the fuck up about that pesky equality shit. I am SO pissed off.

[Skittles]

24. yup, that's what it is

tossing a WE CARE bone - they care enough to only yak about it

[Neecy]

10. They've had countless studies, some quite recent

Just another bullshit bait-and-switch. Politics are more important than people's lives.

Hope and Change - LOL.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Several YEARS??

Polling has this issue as the easiest one to tackle didn't it? Did I imagine that? There was already high approval. This is such BS!

[Jamastiene]

13. Ridiculous.

How long does it take to stop harassing, targeting, and destroying people's lives? That's just fucking stupid.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. I just love the smell of CHANGE in the morning.

[NorthCarolina]

17. Amyone know how long the "transition" took in other countries like the UK? eom

[Libertas1776]

20. This link gives a pretty good idea, at least for the UK

http://www.proud2serve.net/lifestyle/theroadtoequality.htm

[Bluebear]

23. Thank you!

[QC]

18. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[Bluebear]

19. "It's the right thing to do!"

They just don't want to do it.

The Commander-in-Chief could say "I WANT THIS DONE. NOW!"

Couldn't he?

[QC]

21. But ending DADT might offend some knuckledragging fascist somewhere,

someone who despises Obama and would never in a million years vote for him but whose sensibilities must always be protected at all costs.

If anything prevents Obama from being a great, or even good, president, it will be his intense, even dysfunctional aversion to conflict. Never has there been a president more afraid of offending his enemies and more willing to offend his friends. It is Bill Clinton times ten.

[Jennicut]

22. The military is not keen on it and they have not changed since Clinton was in office.

That being said, Obama needs to tell them directly to their faces that he wants this done by the end of the year at the latest. Or threaten an executive order. How much more studying needs to be done to figure out how to have gay and straight troops living together?
Now, it needs to be lifted under Congress as well because then no other President can come in and put the ban in place again unless Congress passes that too.
It is ridiculous that it would be several years. I have defended Obama on many things, but will not on this if he does not follow through.

[Skittles]

25. the "military" includes a lot of gay and lesbian soldiers

and the "military" wasn't too keen on blacks back in the day

[Jennicut]

26. Sorry, I really mean just the head of the Marines, Army, etc.

They just don't want to change anything. I have no idea what they are afraid of.

[Skittles]

27. correct - the old fuck guard

I served with many gay folk in the 70's and recall no problems whatsoever

[TheWraith]

46. No. DADT is statutory law, and can't simply be ordered away.

It needs to be repealed via an act of Congress.

However, this story sounds dubious to me, and contradicts previous information.

[QC]

28. For those who were asking, this is why DU's remaining homos were not

doubled over in paroxysms of gratitude during the speech the other night.

Do you get it now?

[theHandpuppet]

29. SOTU: All sound and fury, signifying nothing

What I heard in the SOTU was exactly what I expected -- more rhetoric painting himself as some kind of fierce advocate of GLBT rights. But if you dissect what he really said, it was a neat trick of simply passing the buck. This "I will work with Congress..." bullcrap set off all the alarm bells I had anticipated. IOW, he passed the buck to Congress in an election year, knowing full well that it only took one turn of phrase to absolve him of any personal responsibility or leadership on this issue. He knows Congress won't do squat on DADT in an election year and he wasn't willing to step up to the plate and suspend DADT until the issue was resolved. Hey, Mr. President, you aren't the "Commander in Chief" for nothing. Stop making pretty speeches and LEAD, dammit!

[FreeState]

30. That and the contents of the study is beyond homophobic and insulting to GLBT persons

The review to be announced next week was expected to delve into practical issues that surround changing the law:

Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex?

Because all gays want to get into all straights pants. Really - did we ask this question when we stopped racial segregation of the military? And yes it was just as offensive then.

Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member's partner?

Seriously? Its against federal law to recognize them now. Why do we need a study for this? The answer is no - legally they cant. When DOMA is finally overturned yes no question the military must treat GLBT persons with the same dignity they show other families.

Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren't passed over for promotions?

Good god... really. Time to make up some more excuses to justify discrimination already.

[Neecy]

31. Ugh....

Yeah, like women or minorities have quotas now in the military. What complete bullshit. Promotion isn't the issue, it's losing your job and pension and benefits for NO good reason at all.

All of that is offensive - not that anyone in this administration cares.

[EFerrari]

32. Disgusting. They're playing politics with lives.

:puke:

[jmowreader]

33. It would be less expensive to extend benefits to a partner than to a wife

Partners don't get pregnant.

[Starry Messenger]

35. That's awful.

Gay people already serve, this is ridiculous.

[Bluebear]

39. Disgraceful.

[noamnety]

36. That's why I didn't bother listening to it.

A speech is not action. It's nothing - a pat on the head.

If he wanted to lift it he would have already put out orders to suspend its enforcement.

[pecwae]

56. Key word: "remaining". nt

[QC]

58. Yes, we've gotten pretty scarce lately. n/t

[Tim01]

34. Delay tactics. I don't know what to tell you all.

The bottom line is that you simply don't have the population numbers, and this country is moving more right.Bad for you , and bad for you.
Maybe if you make more noise, maybe not. I don't know.

[Vidar]

37. Here we go again. Harry Truman didn't need any studies when he desegregated the army.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. +1 nt

[Renew Deal]

38. The military should handle it just like every other "job" does.

Don't sexually harrass your coworkers.

[TexasObserver]

40. "Get it done, or give me your resignations." - what the president should tell them.

This has always been about the old warriors in the military who can't get it through their pre 1975 mindsets that gays are openly part of military in every Western country in the world.

Fire them or retire them, but get them out.

[Betty Karlson]

41. K& R, aspecially that answer. N/T

[theHandpuppet]

42. That would require REAL leadership.

"Get it done, or give me your resignations."

[TheWraith]

43. The Post should have asked Barney Frank, he'd have actually told them the facts.

It's slated to be attached to the 2011 defense appropriations bill, probably scheduled for late March or thereabouts.

[Tailormyst]

57. Just in time for it to be put aside AGAIN because of an important election

We've been playing this game for a long time now. It's old and it's tired.

[Tesha]

66. There won't be enough Democrats to matter then. (NT)

[Autumn]

45. Is that a carrot on a stick? Okay Sucker ,

vote for me this NEXT election and MAYBE I will toss you a bone after that. Guess what, I know a few Democrats who are also unlikely to vote this fall's midterm election based on your sorry put offs. Don't even need a study for that.

[asdjrocky]

47. Fake.

This makes the whole fucking speech fake.

He's a faker.

A big fat faker.

[FLDCVADem]

48. No reason this can't be done much sooner

It isn't rocket science.

The President can't change the UCMJ by fiat, but he can order that all prosecutions stop and that no further prosecutions go forward while the process plays out.

Service members would still not be able to serve openly, but the witch hunts would be meaningless, as no prosecutions could take place.

Congress would need to modify the UCMJ to delete portions dealing with homosexuality being a crime.
Additional modifications would be needed to ensure that members could be prosecuted for discrimination against homosexuals, as they can be now for gender, religious or race based discrimination.

No need for any quotas, as there aren't currently quotas for women or minorities.

[ProgressIn2008]

51. Bluebear, I was so angry at people crowing over SOTU, scoring their little political points

when they had the luxury not to see the pattern: empty talk to work up the fanbase, followed by a kick in the teeth that we're supposed to ignore. Because we're good little soldiers. Everyone should have seen how the theater would go, by now. That's how the theater always goes -- pretty words and we're supposed to fall to our knees in gratitude. I don't know what to do with my anger anymore.

[Bluebear]

61. So is Obama lying or is the miltary insubordinate to him?

> The only remaining question is whether the President is a party to this utter slap in the face to gay and lesbian Americans, gay and lesbian members of the armed services, gay and lesbian Democrats, and every single one of our allies, or whether the US military, and President Obama's own administration, are going rogue in direct insubordination of the President, and he just can't handle keeping his own staff under control.<




http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/about-this-new-administration-talking.html#disqus_thread

[LWolf]

52. What, exactly, is there to study?

That really makes a difference?

:wtf:

[JerseygirlCT]

53. What's to study?

Honestly. Do I really care if some of the servicepeople don't like it? No. Should it matter? No. It's discrimination, period. If they don't like fixing that, they can lump it. Too bad. Learn to deal with it, as you learn to deal with anything else required in the service.

I don't actually think most of the service people *would* have a problem with it. Higher up the food chain, perhaps. But either way, tough.

[Posteritatis]

55. Any troops whose morale/readiness would be hurt by this shouldn't be there in the first place. (nt)

[JetCityLiberal]

59. To the OUTSTANDING GLBT DUers, I am so sorry. This fucking shit

has MORE than grown old. Back to the phone, e mail, pen and paper to my Reps and the President.

No more 'it takes time, you have to wait' condescending crap. Enough.

Study your own fucking homophobic bigotry you classless and clueless assholes.

You are the morale busters cowardly Democrats, or whatever you think you are, and you DOD and Pentagon fucks...

I am pissed....

Paul the hetero who will stand beside you and behind you for ALL equal rights under the law.

:mad:

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Well such a surprise. Good thing he waited a full year to begin

an extended multi-year process. He's so full of hot air, so lacking in muscle.

[tabbycat31]

68. the pentagon wants another study cause they want funding for it