Gates: No change soon on `don't ask, don't tell' - he and Obama have "a lot on our plates right now.

[The Straight Story]

Gates: No change soon on `don't ask, don't tell'

WASHINGTON – Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

The Pentagon policy was put in place after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993.

The policy refers to the military practice of not asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.

Gates appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gays_military

[lunatica]

1. Well, Fuck!

Let's push the most basic human rights right on down that convenient endless road. We're just to busy right now, bailing out the Plutocracy who's right to taxpayer billions is more important.

:sarcasm:

[ensho]

2. I think there is a big fight going on between the Obama team and the

Pentagon for Obama's 'power'.

[Vanje]

19. Gates

Why?

[liberalmuse]

3. I detest Gates.

Fucking leftover pieced of crap from the Bush administration. He needs to go.

[Webster Green]

4. Seems that nobody in government is capable of multi-tasking..

The White House, the Senate, the Congress... all of them can only do one thing at a time.

Very sad that they are so fucking lame. :puke:

[Zuiderelle]

5. Yes, because it's so complicated to just do away with the policy. Civil rights are so unimportant

anyway.

[DURHAM D]

9. Does that mean you want to revert to the prior policy? n/t

[Zuiderelle]

10. Yeah, right, that's what I meant.

:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. Um...how the fuck did you get that from her post?

[Jamastiene]

186. Do what?

:wtf:

[terisan]

6. No task force set up on Day 1 to figure the mechanics of implementation? To be fair

is it possible the task force is meeting and has a timeline set for implementation?

Gates and Obama certainly don't have to add it to their workload.

[roughsatori]

47. "TO BE FAIR" we should all have the same CIVIL-RIGHTS.

Their workload??? Imagine if you read a post from a Freeper about Bushs* "WORKLOAD" as an apologetic.

[Mari333]

7. Gates has a lot of warmongering bullshit on his plate

he can kiss my ass.

[closeupready]

8. Of course. Homophobia before national security. Nothing new there.

n/t

[Bluebear]

12. All these views and recs

People are up in arms. :eyes:

[Bluebear]

11. Keep HOPING for CHANGE!

[Jamastiene]

183. We'll all be on our death beds in our old age hoping for "change,"

unfortunately.

[Bluebear]

188. Ain't that the truth

[Solon]

13. Obama is President can't he just tell the military not to enforce it until the law is changed?

I strongly doubt Congress would impeach him over it even if its before they repeal the law.

[Bluebear]

15. Sorry. Just too much on the plate now.

:eyes:

[roughsatori]

50. I'm starting to feel like left-overs or a piece of broccoli. NT

[dsc]

57. No he can't

I want the policy changed as much as anyone else but we just got off 8 years of a President who decided, upon his whim, which laws he would and which he wouldn't enforce. That is the last thing we need.

[spoony]

152. Is it actually a law though?

I was under the impression it was a policy, maybe not. Either way shouldn't the CiC, ultimately the head of the armed forces, be able to change it without many obstacles (besides blowhards yelling about it)?

Edit: Okay, I went and read up and it is part of federal law. I was confused by it being repeatedly called a policy, which makes it sound less formal. Still, it seems a lot less complicated than the other things he's trying to juggle; like submitting a short repeal bill would be a relatively easy check-off on the "to do" list.

[alarimer]

14. Obviously civil rights are not a high priority.

Gates is a piece of shit who should be gone. Obama is an idiot for trusting a Bushie like that.

Fuck them all. I am so tired of fighting the same old battles. You'd think Democrats would be better but most of them are just as bad as Republicans. A pox on all their houses.

[Bluebear]

16. Robert Gates is only singing ONE SONG. nt

[Vanje]

17. Change I can believe in?

"Thats not change!
Thats more of the same!"

[dem629]

18. Obama and Gates are correct.

Fixing the economy (including dealing with health care and energy), repositioning ourselves on two war fronts, and going into a budget battle takes a lot of political capital.

The last thing they need to do is hand the 'cons a gift in the form of an issue that riles up the righties almost as much as abortion, and weakening the administration's position in the really important battles.

They know this little dust-up will blow over and in the long run they're better off.

[Bluebear]

20. Thank you for explaining that equality for gay Americans is not a "really important battle".

January 14, 2009: "Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' ""

====

>>and weakening the administration's position in the really important battles.<<

Thank you for explaining that equality for gay Americans is not a "really important battle".

[dem629]

21. For most people, including Obama and myself....

the others I listed are much bigger priorities. You may disagree and that's quite fine with me.

I might add that it's not that this shouldn't or couldn't be done, it's just a matter of the timing and their assessment of the political climate.

I trust them. Others don't. It's okay to disagree.

[FreeState]

23. Got it - Ill got take my place at the back of the bus again and patiently wait to be treated

with respect and equality under the law because we all know its just not important that people have their civil rights.

[Rhythm]

33. Guess you'll have to save me a seat too...

:grr:

[mitchtv]

53. It's okay to disagree>>.

Gee thanks (in all honesty , your rights are a low priority for me ,too)

[dem629]

60. Okay.

[dbackjon]

162. Send me your address so we can pass laws discriminating Specifically at you

No big deal, right.


I want your employer, too, so we can get you fired.


But no big deal, right?


You married? NOT ANY MORE. People just voted your marriage null and void.


But no big deal, right?

[Bluebear]

124. +1

[Skittles]

56. that's true of most bigots

NOT true for the rest of us

[dem629]

61. I don't consider Obama a bigot.

Others might, and if that's the case, so be it, but I just don't think so.

[Skittles]

64. I don't know if he is personally against gay marriage

but he sure doesn't have the guts to stand up for it - or for our gay troops who serve, and have long served, honorably in the military

[dem629]

69. I don't have any evidence that he is either. That's why I think "bigot" is a harsh term for him.

And for anyone who supports him.

[Skittles]

71. I call 'em as I see 'em

[Bluebear]

161. .

[Jamastiene]

184. +1

[Jamastiene]

185. +1

[dbackjon]

83. OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS WON'T DO SHIT FOR GAYS

With people like you making excuses for them.

FUCK THAT

[dem629]

85. I guess since you put it in all caps it must be true.

I'm not making excuses, but if that's how you want to frame it, go ahead.

Again, I'm stating my opinion on what I believe they're doing -- determining that there would be a political price to pay that would inhibit their effectiveness in addressing other issues that they have deemed more pressing crises.

[dbackjon]

86. But you are giving them cover

And it is sickening.

[dem629]

88. They don't need my cover.

I never thought it would be such a problem to give a Democratic President the benefit of the doubt on a Democratic website.

[cboy4]

93. Spoken like someone with more civil rightss than they know

what to do with.

It must be nice.

Oh, and :eyes:

[dem629]

94. Thank you for that content-free response.

[cboy4]

98. It was sarcasm to match your sarcasm about how persecuted

you seem to feel about giving a Democratic president the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder who feels more persecuted?

All of the gay people who have been fired from their careers in the military and those who are forced to serve in silence by lying and deceiving.

Or is it dem629, who wishes a minority group would roll duct tape over their mouths and wait their turn for civil rights?

Which one?

[dem629]

101. Oh, I don't feel persecuted at all for defending President Obama.

So it must be the group in the second option, written in such a hyperbolic style as to almost make one :eyes:.

But I won't.

[cboy4]

103. Hyperbole. Uh huh.Well at any rate it's sad, as well as disgraceful

that you so easily sign off on delaying human rights.

Because that's your position. Shame on you.

And you're a Democrat? :thumbsdown:

[dem629]

104. OK.

So what we have here is you contributing nothing but comically-overstated characterizations of my view, and a casting of shame on me.

Oh no! How will I go on?

Look, if you have any serious (or, hell, even somewhat relevant) points to make, make them and I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, I'll leave you alone in your sandbox.

[cboy4]

106. You are dismissing human rights (being protected to earn

a living in a work place to pay for your housing and food to live), by signing off on the delay of said human rights relayed on FOX this morning.

Why do you refuse to see how shameful that view is?

Are you telling me you don't care about a linguist who speaks Arabic and/or Farsi being fired?

I don't understand people like you who laugh at the frustration gay people feel over the struggle for equal protection.

It's shameful, and it's a position ripped right out of the pages of the right wing.

If you feel as though I'm picking on you, I am.

And I'm only getting started.

[dem629]

108. Couple of answers:

I'm not dismissing human rights anymore than President Obama is, and I don't believe he is.

I refuse to see how shameful it is because I don't think it is. Why? Because motivation counts, and I don't believe President Obama has ill motive toward gay people.

I am not telling you that I don't care about a linguist who speaks Arabic and/or Farsi being fired, because, well, I never said I didn't care about it.

The reason you don't understand people like me "who laugh at the frustration of gay people" is because I am not "laughing at the frustration of gay people." So, since you have the premise wrong, it's not surprising that you don't understand the other things you made up.

I don't feel as though you're picking on me. I feel as though know you are incapable of stating an opinion without ridiculously embellishing what I'm saying. (You have done this three times so far.) Which of course means that you have no points to make in response to what I actually said. Noted.

If you're getting some satisfaction of "only getting started" in terms of "picking on" me, like I said, the sandbox is all yours, kid. Don't get any in your eyes.


(edit: typo)

[cboy4]

109. LOL. Of course you're dismissing human rights.

You are fine with delaying them.

That's a dismissal.

Now then, how would you feel if I said people with mental illnesses should have to wait at the back of the bus until you can get your medication?

How would that make you feel.

I mean, I'm not against people with mental illnesses.

I just think there are things a little more important right now.

How fucked up would a person have to be to hold that view?

And how fucked up would someone (dem629) have to be for being fine with delaying and dismissing basic human rights, like not being fired from your workplace?

[dem629]

110. Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the fact that people prioritize.

And if you don't think there are plenty of examples in how the gov't addresses medical needs (especially with regard to mental illness), well, then you have a lot more to learn than I previously thought.

Obviously the point you are trying to make in this most recent post is an offshoot of your absurd claim that I think people should shut up ("duct tape" comment in post 98) about this issue. I said nothing of the sort. I didn't even imply it. (I'm sure anyone reading this will be shocked that you once again completely misrepresented my position.)

People are going to speak their mind and protest and take other action (as they do in the case of advocating for those with mental illness) and that's the greatness of our system. I don't want to shut anyone up.

Frankly, I'm no longer sure you even have a point to make.

Here's the part where you make up more things I never said. Ready? Go!

I'm out for the night. Enjoy. :hi:

[cboy4]

113. Ohhhhh, you mean straight people prioritize. Why I am actually

familiar with that.

After chatting with you,

I've suddenly had a huge change of position on mental illness .. but only concerning you.

I couldn't give a rat's fuck whether you have the health care or the financial means to see a doctor or get any life-sustaining medication you need ever again.

Nope, I can't be bothered with that when I have to look out for myself in this economy. :sarcasm:

But best of luck.

You do a lousy job trying to hide your bigotry in a very slick passive-aggressive manner.

But you don't fool me.

And I had a feeling you'd have to run.

[Zhade]

115. "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED." -- MLK

Argue with THAT, asshole.

[dem629]

129. My, my, so angry.

For the sake of argument, I could take issue with that statement as it was constructed, but that would be a little picky. Plus, I agree with the point he was trying to make.

You are arguing with the wrong asshole. First, I have no power. Secondly, I'm not against equality for gay people.

[WhollyHeretic]

135. You're right. He really should be much calmer about getting thrown under the bus

[dem629]

136. If you say so.

[Vanje]

137. dem629 is not against equality for gay people

He's just not for it. At this time.

[dem629]

138. I trust President Obama's judgment and decision on this matter.

He certainly knows more about the political calculus than we do.

[Bluebear]

158. Human rights should not be politically calculated.

[Toasterlad]

167. Playing Political Games With Human Rights Is Not Good Judgment

It's cowardice. And not calling your president on his cowardice allows him to continue be a coward.

But what do you care? You've got YOUR rights.

[Bluebear]

157. Let's "kick it down the road" a little bit.

Can you believe this?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[The Straight Story]

22. Oh I dunno

To me it is about easily doing what someone knows is right and quickly issuing an order to make it right - and screw those who want to make a hoopla over it.

If others focus on it (the right, media) then it is they who have the problem, not the administration - and not doing the right thing because you are worried about how others will see or use it is cowardice imho.

The commander in chief can say 'this is how it is going to be, I am the boss' and those under his authority need to get off their high horses and do what is right for the country and quit whining.

We will never get anywhere when we are afraid of doing the right thing because of how others might see it or use it.

[dem629]

24. I think it's about calculating the cost (in terms of political capital)

and they know what'll happen in the public discourse, and the fallout just isn't worth it while they're trying to handle the more pressing crises facing the country.

[FreeState]

26. Complete BS - there is no capital used in overturning it - 75% want it overturned

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/dont-ask-dont-tell-getting-repeal-right-this-time/

To get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" we must proceed deliberately and according to a plan, which will not require grandstanding but which will require leadership, lining up the votes one by one and reaching out to the Pentagon to ensure their cooperation. Public sentiment (in contrast to 1993), is leading the way. An ABC News - Washington Post poll identical to the 1993 poll was taken last July. It showed 75 percent in favor of open service with only 22 percent opposed. (One might note that the percentage of those opposed is virtually the same as President Bush's approval rating.)

[dem629]

27. None, huh? If you say so.

[FreeState]

28. dupe n.t

[FreeState]

29. Obamas approval rating is at 63% - 75% want it overturned - wheres the expenditure ? n/t

[dem629]

30. Oh.

I'm sure it would be as easy as handing out free candy to kids. No one would object. There would be no opposition in the Congress, and none of that would be used to stir up the social 'cons who might otherwise remain silent and inactive in terms of opposition to economic and foreign affairs initiatives set forth by the Obama admin.

Yep. No expenditure. And I'm sure SLDN's take on it is completely objective.

[FreeState]

32. That stat is not from SLDN - and its been re-polled with similar results.

to claim it would harm him to overturn it is a joke IMO.

Edit to add this:

Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.<15>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[dem629]

34. Then what's the reason?

Why is he not doing it?

I'll take the President's internal polling calculations over SLDN's take on it.

[FreeState]

36. Youve seen the Presidents internal Polling and hes governing by the results? Really?!?!? n/t

[dem629]

40. Ah. The old "answer a question with a question" method.

Sorry I asked your opinion on the reason Obama is avoiding this issue. I had no idea you had nothing to contribute.

But, to answer your question anyway, I never said I saw the internal polling. I am sure, though, that they do internal polling and they make decisions based on those numbers, just like every political leader has done since the invention of polling. That's all.

[FreeState]

44. You did not ask my opinion

you stated he was had better data than ABC/Newsweek/Washington Post etc and asked why that was - I dont know nor do I believe it, nor do I believe you know either. Its all speculation. However the amount of money used to train soldiers we kick out of the army could pay for a lot. The translators that have been kicked out could do a lot to protect our country and get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[dem629]

46. Yes I did.

Four posts above your response. Twelve minutes ago. Post #34

dem629
Donating Member
Sun Mar-29-09 10:12 PM

Then what's the reason?

Why is he not doing it?

[FreeState]

48. You left the last sentence off: "I'll take the President's internal polling calculations over SLDN's

but either way Im done posting with you. Have a nice night.

[dem629]

51. Well, sorry I asked!

I didn't realize that posting my opinion would render you incapable of forming your own.

Goodnight! I think I've had enough of this too.

:hi:

[Zhade]

117. How fucking dishonest of you to leave off the last sentence.

So not only are you a bigot, but a liar as well.

[anigbrowl]

119. Oh BS. It's not like he edited it from the first message

What about the other poster saying 'you never asked me a question', which the poster obviously had? You don't think that's disingenuous or dishonest? Spare us your fake outrage.

[Bluebear]

120. Ah yes, we're back to "fake outrage"

[anigbrowl]

121. The contents of this particular thread branch speak for themselves

I'm not talking about the DADT issue. I'd rather they abolish it.

[Bluebear]

122. Merci.

:)

[dem629]

134. Right. My last sentence shouldn't prevent him from answering.

Why would it?

The fact is that he didn't have an answer and was looking for some kind of scandal: "You left off the last sentence! Even though it has no bearing on whether I'm capable of answering! But I won't answer you! I'll make a big deal out of one sentence to deflect attention from the fact that I am not answering you!"

[dem629]

130. Nah. You're just looking for something in my post to complain about.

LOL @ what you came up with.

[dbackjon]

84. BECAUSE HE IS HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT THAT DOESNT CARE ABOUT GAYS

[dem629]

If you think putting it in caps makes it true, well....

sorry. I don't think President Obama is a "HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT."

Just my opinion.

[Zhade]

116. Ah. A true believer hiding his bigotry behind Obama.

Fucking coward.

[dem629]

132. No. I'd say it in person. I'm not ashamed of being a person who

recognizes how politics works and how decisions are made.

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

35. So we shouldn't do the right thing because of how others would react

or might react? A minority to boot?

So what if they object. I object to the bailouts, the wars, and other issues. You think they care???

Either lead or get someone in power who can - leaders don't often do what people want, they do what is right. I didn't push for the election of someone to play it safe and tiptoe around, I wanted and still want someone who will say 'This is the course we have set and we are doing it'.

Progress does not come by appeasement, it comes by pushing ahead for what is right even when those around you are kicking your ass for it.

I don't want a leader that follows, I want one that leads.

[dem629]

38. He is leading.

And apparently he and his people have calculated that there's a risk in terms of political capital. They have more pressing crises to handle and they can't afford to ignite a backlash on something that they could otherwise avoid.

It's just smart politics when you have major things to accomplish. There's no reason to hand the opposition a weapon to use against you.

[The Straight Story]

41. Yeah, have heard it all before - "keep your powder dry"

Hear it every election. Well, next one is a long way away, and the sooner you get things over with now the less you will have to worry about them next election.

He might be getting advice, but it is poor advice.

[dem629]

43. Maybe so. We'll see.

This is just my take on why they're doing what they're doing (or not doing).

[roughsatori]

52. "Smart Politics" are to refuse to give Equal Civil-Rights to ALL Americans

that sounds Repigish to me.

Changed Policy to Politics as per note of Dem629

[dem629]

55. Well, call me all the names you wish if it makes you feel better.

Just for the record, I did not write "smart policy," but rather "smart politics," and there is a major difference.

Here's the part where you call me another name. Knock yourself out.

[roughsatori]

63. I never called you a name. But you get all in a huff

over policy and "politics" but not equal rights. No one need call you a name, your words speak volumes. But it is clear you are against equal rights for all Americans. So yes I am angry as you should be tomb-stoned as per skinner's words, but you won't be.

[dem629]

68. LOL, I'm not in a "huff."

I was just pointing out that rather than offer something to the discussion, you offered the word "Repigish."

Maybe that's a really high level of intellectual insight that I'm unable to grasp. If so, my apologies.

If it's clear that I am "against equal rights for all Americans" perhaps you can link to a post where I said that.

Of course, you can't because I didn't.

Once again, my view, as stated about ten times here, is that the admin made a political calculation considering what issues they have to tackle, and I think they're probably right. If it's against the rules of this site to merely support a Democratic administration that does not take specific action on one issue (that no one here has said they'd be against in all circumstances) then so be it.

[Zhade]

118. Your dismissal of our equal rights shows you do not support us.

You are not welcome here.

[Bluebear]

123. You said it.

[dem629]

128. I don't think you get to decide that.

At any rate, the last time the equality of marriage issue was on the ballot in my state (2006), I voted against adding an amendment to our state constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And, frankly, I don't care if you believe whether I support you or not. I do.

Your angry and bitter posts directed at me won't change that.

[Toasterlad]

171. Stop Acting Like Your Vote Excuses Your Attitude. Your Vote is the LEAST You Owe Us.

A decent human being is APPALLED at the way gays are treated in this country. A decent human being doesn't think that just because he/she voted for gay marriage that their work is done. A decent human being isn't content to wait for equal rights for all until the president "gets around to it".

Thanks for your "support". Your cookie is in the mail. It might take you a while to get it, though...we've actually got higher priorities than rewarding those who talk little and do less. We're busy trying to force our elected officials to do the right thing.

[dem629]

72. Actually, I'll go even further....

If you can find where I said I am against equal rights for all Americans (on any issue) I will donate $1,000 to the charity or political group of your choosing.

[bluedawg12]

58. This was campaign platform, he knew the political cost then.

[dem629]

59. That's true. I'm not saying he's not breaking a promise.

I'm just offering my view on why they're adopting this position.

[bluedawg12]

73. It's always smart politics to jettison political causes that effect the least empowered the most.

It is very expedient. That does not make it right.

[dem629]

74. I didn't say it makes it right (in terms of the issue itself)

but they have obviously determined that it's right in terms of how they're going to spend their political capital.

Two different things.

And I agree with your overall point.

[bluedawg12]

79. It's not THEIR "political capital" they work for us, the voters.

[dem629]

81. They do work for the voters.

But that doesn't mean they don't calculate political capital and pick and choose their battles based on what they believe can get done at any given time.

That's just a political reality.

To give another example, I REALLY wish they would implement means-testing for Medicare so rich people don't overload the system when they could get their own insurance. It would help the system stay solvent but more importantly it would open up care for more people who truly need it. But I know Obama isn't going to do that b/c it would cause an uproar and we have bigger things to tackle.

(And, by the way, the above paragraph would be said by some here to mean I'm against means-testing. Sigh.)

[bluedawg12]

87. You better believe if he ran on means testing in order to insure access to health care

and then backed out on it in this manner, that there would be outrage.

People are so sanguine when it's not their pot that needs the chicken.

[dem629]

89. No argument there. I'm sure there would be.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. About 80% of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly

The other 20% would never vote for a Dem anyway.

This would be a quick, small step for civil rights.

[Skittles]

54. enough with this FUCKING BULLSHIT

why is it that doing the right thing always takes a back seat to what might rile up the fucking racist/sexist/homophobic rightwing whackos?

[dem629]

62. I explained my answer to that in the post.

Obviously you are going to disagree with that analysis. I'm just stating my view on why they're doing it and I happen to trust them on their calculation.

[Skittles]

65. trust them all you like

I find it absolutely DISGUSTING

[dem629]

70. I respect your view on the larger issue and have even voted that way in my state.

We just disagree on the tactics here. I understand that.

[bluedawg12]

75. This talk about political capital sounds like Bush-shit. Nice change.

:sarcasm:

[dem629]

76. Believe it or not, politicians in both parties calculate political capital.

[bluedawg12]

80. Believe it or not we don't want another imperial presidency.

[dem629]

82. I completely agree with that.

And I'm glad we don't have one.

[bluedawg12]

95. One of the hallmarks of the Bush Imperial Presidency was one way flow of information

a lack of transparency in decision making and an unwillingness to engage the polity in sacrifices.

This Gates interview on Fox does not appear transparent, nor does it explain except in the vaguest of terms why there is a delay in implementing a change in the law when all sign up to this point seemed so favorable to making this change and in the best interest of this country. Nor does it engage the gay community, who were courted prior to the GE, as to why this sacrifice should be made.

>>Said Gates: "DADT continues to be the law, and any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law whatever it is. That dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now and let's push that one down the road a little bit."<<

edit: typos.

[dem629]

97. I'm not sure what the transparency issue is here.

Are you talking about them releasing the actual deliberations, memos, emails, etc.?

As for the point about him being vague, I can kind of see that. I guess I just think he's talking about not only the issues he and Obama are dealing with in the DoD, but ones Obama is dealing with on many other fronts. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just my assumption.

[bluedawg12]

100. That's the transparency in question. Lot's of guessing why.

"Are you talking about them releasing the actual deliberations, memos, emails, etc.?"

I'm talking about what facts have changed from prior to the GE, when then candidate Obama saw this as a priority, to today. I can speculate too, and would have to, as there is no explanation about the rationale.

Especially since experts have come out in favor of changing this law for the good of the military.

Especially since even the authors of this law have come to see it as a bad law.

[dem629]

102. Okay, I see what you're saying. Thanks.

And I agree. I think it would be a good thing if they explained it.

[bluedawg12]

105. DADT, affects military readiness adversely.

It is bad for unit cohesion.

It has cost the loss of trained military experts in their field and also hard to find Arabic speakers.

This is something I posted a little while ago:

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-10-09 03:51 AM
Original message
Things that make me go...WTF in F?
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 04:41 AM by bluedawg12
Did anyone just catch Jon Stewart?

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show just interviewed Nathaniel Frank, the author of Unfriendly Fire - How the gay ban undermines the military and weakens America a book about the consequences of DADT to our military and the discharge of over 12,000 military members, many of whom were considered “mission critical” personnel,
since this ill conceived law went into effect.

This is the most appalling thing I have heard in a while. After discharging hundreds of Arab speakers and translators who were outed as gay as a result of DADT, the US intelligence intercepted a message from Al Queda on September 10, 2001 and it read, “tomorrow is zero hour.”

Due to the shortage of Arabic speakers, even as gay Arabic speakers were being discharged to create that shortage, the message was not translated until September 12, 2001.

Frank also said, that many of top brass who were involved in that policy making admitted that the data wasn't there and they were acting on their own beliefs ( insert: prejudices) and now regret it.

The policy also destroyed unit cohesion by forcing members to live a lie and then further damaging cohesion when they were yanked out of their unit for discharge.

..........

http://www.unfriendlyfire.org /

Unfriendly Fire, by Nathaniel Frank, is the definitive story of “don’t ask, don’t tell” written by the nation’s most widely-recognized expert on the policy.

Drawing on decades of research on gay service and hundreds of exclusive interviews with policymakers, government officials, academics and service members, the book shows the cruel and unaffordable costs of the current gay ban.

Praise for the bookThis book lays out clearly, fairly, dispassionately and accurately the terrible cost to our national security of this insane policy. It brings light not heat to the debate - and the light makes change seem not just necessary but urgent.Andrew Sullivan, blogger at - The Daily Dish and author, The Conservative Soul

Frank makes a compelling case not only that there has been a shift within our society, but that the time has come to look beyond our preconceptions and focus on capabilities. This book should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military. - General John Shalikashvili, former Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Armed Forces

[sui generis]

127. good for you!

Now if only you were babbling on about your own life, instead of everyone else's.

As it happens my partner served as a Lt.Cdr on the Enterprise CVN-1965, and until recently was still subject to the backdoor draft that had nothing to do with farting, unlike your gravid opinion.

I grew up in a military family myself - and most of all I can tell you I don't think I've met a soldier or sailor or marine that I wouldn't think twice about beating the crap out of if warranted, and moreover probably wouldn't break a sweat doing. I'd like to quote Eddy Murphy here: "it's some 'barrassin' shit get yo ass beat by a fag." Maybe that's the reason ya'll are so skeert of us?

Civilian blowhards, including Obama, just shut the fuck up and let us serve with honor. To hide behind some amateurish idea of political expediency and strategy is just fucking stupid and cowardly, and DISHONEST.

Virtually every other developed country lets us serve openly. We are number one in being last - and dear democrat, you don't even own that title alone.

We're red blooded Americans, AND mainstream democrats, and the rest of you asswipes are just day late shit for brains un American bigots, no matter what shade of lipstick you put on the pig.

Ridiculous - that you should even be on DU.

[cboy4]

90. Wrong. If you're worried about making the ".cons" angry,

then it seems to me you do it now quickly, so people will have had four years to realize that teh gays didn't cause the earth to stop rotating.

[dem629]

91. That's another calculus. I guess they saw it differently.

In terms of their strategy, I'm not sure there's an objectively right or wrong one.

[WhollyHeretic]

96. We can't do it now because we need to make sure we don't lose seats in the midterm elections

Maybe after that...

but it will have to wait until after Obama runs in 2012 so his chances aren't hurt

maybe after that...

but then we'll need to make sure dems get elected in the 2014 midterm elections so we can get some things done

maybe after that...

but then we can't hamstring the next presidential candidate for 2016

maybe after that...

[cboy4]

BINGO

You played my song!

[bluedawg12]

112. The coalition of the indifferent. After all where will Teh Gays go, to the repugs?

We can always vote with our contribution dollars and of course with our individual votes.

No money or votes for liars or bigots.

[Toasterlad]

126. Gates Is Wrong. Obama is Wrong. You are Wrong.

Others have already pointed out the overwhelming support in America for allowing gays to serve openly. You have failed to provide a logical explanation for why changing this rule would cost Obama any "capital" (as if that itself was an acceptable reason for denying people civil rights). Your dismissal of this issue as not important is typical of the bigoted viewpoint that ignores fact (discharging people for being gay - especially from critical jobs such as translators - HURTS the military, it does not help) in order to legitimize your own, at best, indifference, and, at worst, hatred for gay people.

[dem629]

131. So basically your argument is....

"You're a bigot!"

Got it.

Please read more of this thread (IF you care to get the truth) and point out to me where I have said I'm against equal rights for anyone.

[Toasterlad]

155. You Are Clearly For Equal Rights On YOUR Time Table, As Is the President (Supposedly)

If you don't believe that gay people should have the same rights as straight people NOW, and that it should be done NOW, without any nonsense about "political capital" and "riling up the right", because it is the fucking RIGHT THING TO DO, than yes, I believe you are a bigot.

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was that your stated position makes no sense given the political reality of the country, that when this was brought to your attention you had no legitimate rebuttal, and that you offered no logical reason why DADT should not be removed in favor of an open door policy for gays. In truth, you HAVE no argument to make, because the issue isn't important to you. See the first paragraph for why.

"A dream deferred is a dream denied". Still true.

[Solon]

133. What political capital would be spent? With the 25% who would never vote for Obama in the first...

place, or would never agree with him on ANYTHING, because that's all he would be spending his political capital, OF HIS SUPPORTERS, on, people who will never cooperate with him.

[dem629]

141. It's answered in this subthread.

[Solon]

142. Yeah, the "I trust Obama" line doesn't fly sparky, especially about the polling...

latest polls show that about 75-80% of Americans support GLBT people serving OPENLY in the Military.

[dem629]

145. How is Obama's political calculation wrong?

So trusting our Democratic president "doesn't fly" on DU?

Sorry. I see it the other way.

[Solon]

147. Obama has been consistently tone deaf and wrong when it comes to the GLBT community...

Your blind trust is neither helpful nor needed.

[dem629]

149. That's your opinion. I can respect that.

We just see the matter of political calculation and prioritizing differently, I guess.

[Toasterlad]

156. It's Not Opinion. It's Fact.

Please provide one* instance of Obama actually DOING something positive for GLBT people. If you can't (and you can't) than stop pretending - at least to yourself - that Obama is interested in helping the gay community. The best that could be said for him is that he's as interested as you are.

*and please don't waste my time with that non-binding UN crap which has ZERO impact here or anywhere else. It is not progress to think that gay people shouldn't be killed for being gay, and if you think it is, you're more of a 'phobe than I thought.

[Maven]

139. You should be banned from this site.

In the old days, you would have been.

[dem629]

140. Well, okay, thanks for checking in.

Why exactly am I supposed to be bothered by that prospect?

Oh, and by the way, feel free to take part in this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5351621&mesg_id=5354716

[Maven]

143. Basically your point is that you agree with Gates, that pursuing equality isn't a priority

and that it would "cost too much political capital," which has already been debunked as the bullshit it is by many others on this thread.

Which is tantamount to saying we shouldn't pursue equality period.

I'm sick of phonies like you who say they "support" equality in the abstract but in truth you want nothing to do with the effort to obtain it.

Fuck you, and hand over my $1000. Thank you.

[dem629]

144. Basically my point is that I agree with President Obama.

Frankly, I trust his political calculus more than I do yours.

Also, as stated here before, I really couldn't care less what personal judgments you make about me because you are willfully ignoring my statements in which I say that I am not only for equality but have voted that way in my state.

The reason you do not accept my statement is that it doesn't suit your needs in this discussion. You have to be angry with me, lash out, accuse me of being a phony blah blah blah -- all empty rhetoric. It doesn't bother me personally; it just shows that you're incapable of discussing this on its merits and have resorted to making up things to attack.

I could just as easily claim that you should be banned for not supporting our Democratic president, but I won't because calling for someone to be banned is nothing more than wishing they'd shut up b/c you can't handle the discussion.

[Maven]

146. There are no merits to the position. At all.

You may not be pushing back but you and all those like you are standing in the way.

It may assuage your conscience to think you're on the right side, but you aren't.

[dem629]

148. Nothing to assuage.

You can ascribe whatever motive to me you wish, and you can declare that the position has no merits -- whatever makes you feel better or superior on a message board -- but it's just further proof that you're coming from an emotional angle rather than an intellectually honest and rational one.

This is just devolving into a mud-throwing contest now. How about I just declare you the winner of a message board fight. Better?

[Maven]

150. Looking at the mess you created on this thread

I think that conclusion is warranted, don't you?

[Zuiderelle]

163. Jesus.

People suck.

[Bluebear]

174. In essence, my sister. nt

[bluedawg12]

25. That's no explanation, "a lot on our plates right now."

Like they need to keep dismissing able troops, firing Arabic speakers and don't need new personnel?

[tekisui]

31. If they have a lot on their plates, they should be retaining all the qualified

military people available. Repelling DADT would help with their plates. That is a stupid ass answer.

[roughsatori]

42. Why don't gays SHUT the FUCK UP until BOTH wars are over!!

:sarcasm:

Oh Wait, we were supposed to shut the fuck up until Obama became President. And before that we were supposed to shut the fuck up until we had a Dem in office again. And before that......

[sakabatou]

45. The "DADT" rule is a small, fucking thing!

How hard is it to change the damned rules?!

[mvd]

49. There's no reason this can't be changed right now

If we were afraid of the fundies, little will be done. I can't imagine this upsetting those who support Obama or many who are on the fence. I agree with the posters here who say gay rights should be up there with all the other issues.

[FLDCVADem]

66. I'm 100% behind repealing DADT

But not until the necessary changes are made to the UCMJ. Repealing it now, without amending the UCMJ, would NOT take us to gays serving openly in the military. Unless the gay soldiers/sailors/airmen in question wanted to be court-martialed, that is.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Nothing to see here ...... move along ...... move along .......

[bluedawg12]

78. Plenty to see here, plenty to remember.

[WhollyHeretic]

77. Fucking cowards

[Starry Messenger]

92. Totally fucking ridiculous.

They need every qualified person to assist in the mess that Bush started over there. The political will is there! There is no downside allowing gay service members. I am so sick of kowtowing to the right wing. They are NEVER going to trade us anything for caving on these wedge issues.

[BlooInBloo]

99. Makes me wonder if they were pushed off of it by threats of not getting legislation passed.

[bluedawg12]

107. Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

From a recent DU GLBT thread, but worth recalling he facts again.
.............

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-10-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
38. Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Creators+...

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"
Definitive Book on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Out Tuesday; Speaking Tour Begins Today

SANTA BARBARA, CA, March 2, 2009 – Military officials exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion and ignored research and data when formulating the current policy on gay troops, according to the much-anticipated new book, “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” out tomorrow.

The book, based on a a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, was written by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, and one of the nation’s most widely recognized authorities on gays in the military. Dr. Frank is appearing with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher today at the Center for American Progress to discuss her proposed legislation to repeal the ban.

Publication of the book by St. Martin’s Press falls on the 15th anniversary of "don't ask, don't tell." Frank spoke to key military and political architects of the policy, many of whom acknowledge in the book that it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tops the list of prominent leaders who have endorsed the "Unfriendly Fire," saying it “should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military.” Congressman Patrick J. Murphy, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the only Iraq War veteran in Congress, said Frank’s “timely book should put to rest any lingering doubt about whether ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is working—it's been a failure from day one and should finally be put behind us.”

The Palm Center has launched "Send UNFRIENDLY FIRE to Congress!" which is an online campaign to put a book into the hands of every member of Congress by this spring.

.........

More from the Palm Center
Fantastic work on DADT abd gay military history here:

http://www.palmcenter.org/programs

There is a link to the a video with Dr. Frank

"Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America."

http://www.palmcenter.org/events/dadt/evening_honor_all...

>>An evening to honor ALLAN BÉRUBÉ
Start: 05/01/2008 - 6:00pm
End: 05/01/2008 - 8:00pm
Timezone: Etc/GMT-7
The Palm Center will co-sponsor a panel discussion and evening program to celebrate and reflect on the life of the scholar and community activist, Allan Bérubé. The event will be hosted by its other co-sponsor, City University of New York’s Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), and will be held at CUNY’s Graduate Center in New York City on May 1. It will feature invited speakers and an open forum.

Bérubé, who died in December at age 61, was an independent historian and community activist, and author of the Lambda Literary Award-winning Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II, which recounted the experiences of gay GIs from that war. His work brought to light the formative influence of wartime mobilization and military life on both gay culture and American society. Bérubé’s activism in the gay liberation movement started in the late 1960s, and in 1978 he co-founded the San Francisco Lesbian and Gay History Project. In 1996, he received the prestigious genius grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which allowed him to begin work on a history of gay men in the Marine Cook and Stewards Union. He is remembered not only for his pioneering work in casting light on the gay and lesbian past, but for his incisive contributions to working-class studies, and his passionate leadership of every community he inhabited...read more"

[specimenfred1984]

111. Oh well didn't you hear, everything is beautiful now

Just ignore reality, it's time for the hope bubble.

[Solly Mack]

125. NOW is ALWAYS the time for human rights

[fuggbush21]

151. So I take it that everyone here is FOR a military budget increase then?

Because it's going to take a hefty sum of money to implement this. You can't just snap your fingers and make the military change.

[spoony]

153. What needs to change that will cost so much?

And can't they take a few dollars from their half a trillion dollars to do it?

[WhollyHeretic]

154. I really appreciate all you guys putting numbers at the end of your names

It makes you much easier to spot. Of course it's not really difficult in the first place.

[Bluebear]

159. You said it.

[Bluebear]

189. .

[Name removed]

160. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Zuiderelle]

164. Budget increase for what? To stop discriminating? That costs MONEY?

:wtf:

[Bluebear]

166. Before the subthread disappeared...

the poster was explaining that 'seperate' dormitories have to be built for teh gays.

[bluedawg12]

170. There are an estimated 65,000 G&L's on acitve duty now

can't we just keep the same dorm arrangements?

I read there are 1,000,000 gay and lesbian veterans, can't we just use the same dorm arrangments as they all did?

[Bluebear]

173. No. No, we can't.

Because evidently some are still in the midset that every gay is ready to sexually pounce on any unsuspecting heterosexual out there. So we need 'seperate' dorms. Which we don't have the money for right now.

See how simple it is?

[bluedawg12]

176. "enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality"

Congress doesn't see a problem with needing dorm rooms and chaperones for each unsuspecting heterosexual out there.

:rofl:

They are ready to roll on this bill! Gee, I wonder if some here fear Teh Gay? :evilgrin:

Here's a partial text of the bill (full text w/sponsors at link)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283 :

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1283
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2009


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009'.

[Zuiderelle]

172. Oh for god's sake.

Yeah... We're such a threat. :eyes:

It's the same fucking argument they used to keep women out of the military. Only worse.

[bluedawg12]

177. "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don\'t_ask,_don\'t_tell

"In 2000, Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, the principal author of DADT (which, as originally coined by Moskos, was "Don't Ask Don't Tell; Don't Seek Don't Flaunt"), told "Lingua Franca" that he felt that policy will be gone within five to ten years. Moskos also dismissed the unit cohesion argument, instead arguing that gay people should be banned due to "modesty rights", saying "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay ." Moskos did not offer any alternative to his DADT policy."

Later Moskos admitted he didn't want to upset a right wing donor by going against the prevailing antigay tide, run by phobe, Sam Nunn, who at the time cherry picked the Congressional testimony to include only anti-gay speakers for testimony. Nice. :grr:

[bluedawg12]

165. Have you any estimate at what it has cost to discharge trained G/L personnel?

Have you any numbers for what you suggest it would cost to stop discriminating against gay people?

[Toasterlad]

168. You Beat Me To It

All the money spent on training personnel, not to mention housing and feeding them, only to throw them out because you're skeeved about who they're attracted to...it's fucking insane.

[bluedawg12]

175. Dem sponsored HR 1283, to repeal DADT, due this April and they back off?

Anyone wonder what a strange time this is to pull back on DADT?

President Obama wants to wait to talk to the joint Chiefs before he presents a bill, when Congress has a bill ready to go? They can eliminate the DADT policy with the 2010 defense authorization bill in April 2009.

There is a bill to replace DADT, it was introduced in March of 2009 and is ready for vote in April 2009 and this is the exact time that SecDef Gates wants to pull back and defer the issue?

Now, when an alternate fair and nondiscriminatory bill is on the agenda?
............
"Supporters of the repeal want Congress to eliminate the policy with the 2010 defense authorization bill in April 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhance ...

........

Here's some info on H.R.1283 , if you go to the link, you can find further active links to sponsors and additonal info.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1283 :

H.R.1283
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Sponsor: Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (136)
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Information (except text) Text of Legislation CRS Summary Major Congressional Actions

All Congressional Actions

All Congressional Actions with Amendments
With links to Congressional Record pages, votes,reports
Titles Cosponsors (136) Committees
Related Bills Amendments Related Committee Documents
CBO Cost Estimates Subjects
.........

Here's a partial text of the bill (full text w/sponsors at link)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283 :

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1283
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2009

[Starry Messenger]

169. Please explain further.

Sounds fascinating, do tell.

[bluedawg12]

178. Did you know that DADT was based on rw lies and homphobia?

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/military-suppressed-ev...

General Robert Alexander, the first head of the Military Working Group, a panel of generals and admirals that essentially wrote “don’t ask, don’t tell,” acknowledged that its members did not understand what “sexual orientation” meant, and “had to define in the first few sessions what we figured they were talking about.” Alexander admits that the MWG “thought they knew the results of what was going to happen” before they met, and that it was “going to be very difficult to get an objective, rational review” of the policy. “Passion leads and rationale follows,” he says, adding that his group “didn’t have any empirical data” about gay service and the MWG position was based on fear, politics and prejudice.


Sen. Sam Nunn, chief Congressional architect of the ban, reveals that he believes his own policy is now “getting in the way” of military readiness. Although Nunn said last year that he would support taking “another look” at the policy, his remarks in the book go much further by criticizing the policy as harmful to the military.

According to witnesses and activists, Sam Nunn’s hearings about gay service were “rigged” from the start. Judith Stiehm, a professor at Florida International University, found that Professor Charles Moskos, a personal friend of Nunn’s who is credited as the academic architect of the policy, “had already found an agreement” with Nunn before the hearings began. Nunn removed two witnesses when he learned they would oppose the gay ban, retired colonel Lucian Truscott III and former senator Barry Goldwater, and placed a virulently homophobic general on an “academic panel” (he was not an academic).

Professor Charles Moskos, chief architect of the policy, admits he defended his policy in part because he worried he would disappoint his friends if he “turncoated.” Moskos also admits in the book that “unit cohesion” is not the real reason he opposed openly gay service; he says “Fuck unit cohesion; I don’t care about that.” Despite rooting his public opposition to openly gay service in unit cohesion, he says the real reason is the “moral right” of straights not to serve with known gays. In fact, Moskos told lawmakers that the principal reason for the gay ban is to repress the homoerotic desire that is an inherent part of military culture. This “homoerotic thesis” explains why “don’t ask, don’t tell” does not bar the presence of homosexuality but the mention of it, and gives the lie to the “unit cohesion” ruse.<<

[Starry Messenger]

179. I believe it.

That is scary that they made such a far reaching decision with no clear idea of what "sexual orientation" actually means. Of course, there are several people here who also seem unclear on the concept.

I just looked up Moskos. I still can't see how he figures into it. What is his connection to all this?

[bluedawg12]

180. Moskos and Nunn were buddies, both phobes, both architects of DADT

Nunn hired Moskos and Moscos went along with DADT and was a chief author but not for the claimed unit cohesion lie that he publicly proposed, but because of cultural superiority, as a privilged heterosexual male, he was offended by the idea, it seems, of gays actually having full rights as citizens.

"Despite rooting his public opposition to openly gay service in unit cohesion, he (Moskos) says the real reason is the “moral right” of straights not to serve with known gays."

[Bluebear]

187. Terrific.

:eyes:

[Jamastiene]

181. WTF are you talking about?

:wtf: We cost the same as any other soldier. The silliness you are suggesting is pure bullshit.

[Jamastiene]

182. Where have I heard this before?

Oooo-oooh, it was all those warnings that came during the primaries that he wouldn't do jack shit for GLBT people. "I told you so" is a regrettable reality here, unfortunately. I wish we could have been proven wrong.