A pity the Republicans are deadset in favor of the policy, but a bit unsurprising.
QuoteConnecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman will be the chief sponsor of Senate legislation to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military.
"I will be proud to be a sponsor of the important effort to enable patriotic gay Americans to defend our national security and our founding values of freedom and opportunity," he said in a statement Monday in which he noted his longtime opposition to the policy.
"To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause," said Lieberman, who has angered liberals with his resistance to Democratic orthodoxy on issues like health care reform.
The New York Daily News, which first broke the news, interviewed the Connecticut senator about his opposition to the policy, which was crafted under President Bill Clinton in 1993 following a divisive battle over gays in the military.
"My own experience as a member of the Armed Services Committee, visiting our troops on bases here in this country and abroad, particularly in war zones, the most remarkable quality you'll find is unit cohesion," the former Democrat said. "What matters is not the gender of the other person in your unit or the color or the religion or in this case the sexual orientation. It's whether that person is a good soldier you can depend on."
(CBS/iStockphoto)Lieberman's argument is backed by a new study from the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which has been pressing for repeal. The study, "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer," finds that fast-track integration of openly gay service members was not disruptive in countries like Britain and Canada, where it has already taken place, the New York Times reports. The study will be released Tuesday.
President Obama has repeatedly vowed to end the policy, which has meant the discharge of thousands of members of the military since implementation. He has been criticized by gay rights group for not moving more quickly on gay rights issues, including the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal.
Momentum seems to be building for repeal, thanks in large part to comments earlier this month before Congress by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he personally believes the policy is wrong.
But the military's timeline has been a source of concern for advocates of repeal. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have announced a working group to study integration of openly gay service members, which has a deadline of the end of 2010. The working group, which will poll service members for their attitudes about serving with openly gay peers, makes repeal this year unlikely.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Gen. David H. Petraeus defended the timeline, saying the process is necessary to determine the best "policies that could be used to implement a change if it does come to that."
Lieberman, who calls repeal "an extension, the next step of the civil rights movement," says limiting the pool of possible service members by banning those who are openly gay amounts to "diminishing military effectiveness."
Republicans have resisted a repeal of the policy, which they say has been effective, and argue that this is not the time to make a change. With polls showing that a majority of Americans support repeal, it is not clear whether Senate Republicans would use the threat of filibuster to force Democrats to garner 60 votes to overturn the legislation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6231571.shtml
I really doubt the GOP could muster anything close to enough votes to block cloture. Too many GOP Senators are probably in favor of repeal.
Seriously, why is this man not President yet?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 01:13:50 PM
I really doubt the GOP could muster anything close to enough votes to block cloture. Too many GOP Senators are probably in favor of repeal.
I dunno, other than Snowe, I'm trying to think who. Even Brown's in favor of keeping the policy, and Pawlenty's now yakking about how DADT's fine.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 01:13:50 PM
I really doubt the GOP could muster anything close to enough votes to block cloture. Too many GOP Senators are probably in favor of repeal.
I dunno, other than Snowe, I'm trying to think who. Even Brown's in favor of keeping the policy, and Pawlenty's now yakking about how DADT's fine.
Orrin Hatch is on record, IIRC.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 01:02:45 PM
A pity the Republicans are deadset in favor of the policy, but a bit unsurprising.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 01:02:45 PM
A pity the Republicans are deadset in favor of the policy, but a bit unsurprising.
:yeahright:
I mean, I can only judge people by what they say.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 01:58:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 01:02:45 PM
A pity the Republicans are deadset in favor of the policy, but a bit unsurprising.
:yeahright:
I mean, I can only judge people by what they say.
I only meant it wasn't surprising in the least.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 01:49:11 PM
Orrin Hatch is on record, IIRC.
QuoteWASHINGTON — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, seemed to say on national TV Wednesday that he is open to considering repeal of the ban on gays in the military — creating an uproar on many political and gay-activist Web sites.
Then on Thursday, he issued a statement saying he does not support repeal — and blasted liberal groups for what he said was twisting his position.
"It's deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on 'don't ask, don't tell' for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy," Hatch's statement on Thursday said.
But a day earlier, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell asked Hatch in a live interview about repealing the policy — as proposed by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union speech, and supported by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen.
"I believe there are very outstanding, patriotic gay people who serve in the military and they ought to be given credit for it. And they shouldn't have to lie about being gay," Hatch said.
But, he added, "On the other hand, I think a lot of people are concerned that if you do away with the 'don't ask, don't tell,' that literally then they'll come back and ask for special rights and preferences and privileges that others don't have. I don't see that either. So, like I say, I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700007087/Hatch-creates-uproar.html :ike:
Huh. I must have heard it at the time from the Martinus News Wire.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 03:26:57 PM
Huh. I must have heard it at the time from the Martinus News Wire.
To be fair, he first said he was for it before he said he was against it a couple days later. (That's what the article I quoted is about).
The backflips are amusing, at least. "I want to hear from the military." "I meant someone other than Gates and Mullen. And Powell. And Petraeus."
Quote from: Solmyr on February 22, 2010, 01:28:51 PM
Seriously, why is this man not President yet?
Joe Lieberman is never going to become President. :lmfao:
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 03:26:57 PM
Huh. I must have heard it at the time from the Martinus News Wire.
To be fair, he first said he was for it before he said he was against it a couple days later. (That's what the article I quoted is about).
The backflips are amusing, at least. "I want to hear from the military." "I meant someone other than Gates and Mullen. And Powell. And Petraeus."
Seems like there is a lot of pressure on these guys to be against gays in the military where they might otherwise not care. Sad.
Quote from: Solmyr on February 22, 2010, 01:28:51 PM
Seriously, why is this man not President yet?
Too conservative on foreign policy issues(for the Democratic primary), lacks oratorical skills.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 22, 2010, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 22, 2010, 01:28:51 PM
Seriously, why is this man not President yet?
Too conservative on foreign policy issues(for the Democratic primary), lacks oratorical skills.
Also tends to shill for the GOP candidate over the Democrat one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 03:26:57 PM
Huh. I must have heard it at the time from the Martinus News Wire.
To be fair, he first said he was for it before he said he was against it a couple days later. (That's what the article I quoted is about).
The backflips are amusing, at least. "I want to hear from the military." "I meant someone other than Gates and Mullen. And Powell. And Petraeus."
Seems like there is a lot of pressure on these guys to be against gays in the military where they might otherwise not care. Sad.
From who? Most recent polls show that even a majority of Republican voters support letting gays serve openly.
QuoteSupport for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.
This isn't an outlier poll; most show this.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/cnn-poll-69-ok-with-gays-in-the-military/?fbid=cX_o4tX35h3
Allow gays in the military and next people will be clamoring to let children in.
DADT really can't be supported by any rational analysis. Either it's harmful to have gays serve in the military, or it is not. DADT was useful as a safe middle step at a time when it was difficult to push for open gay military members, but that time has long-since passed.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
From who? Most recent polls show that even a majority of Republican voters support letting gays serve openly.
The vocal minority. The troublemakers that stand outside abortion clinics with signs and are very diligent about writing letters to their congressmen. And donate money to them. Especially the latter.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:18:39 PM
DADT really can't be supported by any rational analysis. Either it's harmful to have gays serve in the military, or it is not. DADT was useful as a safe middle step at a time when it was difficult to push for open gay military members, but that time has long-since passed.
I suppose I'm leery of the fact that the argument is very slippery slope, but not in the other direction. If the issue is that it makes some people uncomfortable, was desegregation also wrong? What about serving with Muslims?
Edit: WASHINGTON -- The top commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone - gay and straight - should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we are still able to fight our wars."
The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno (Oh-dee-AIR-no) is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022202452.html
What happened to the year long Pentagon study?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2010, 04:50:28 PM
What happened to the year long Pentagon study?
A couple things: One, no legislation has yet to be finalized; two, people don't wanna leave a year and let the GOP decide "actually, we won't pass the bill."
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 04:54:51 PM
A couple things: One, no legislation has yet to be finalized; two, people don't wanna leave a year and let the GOP decide "actually, we won't pass the bill."
Just a little while ago they were perfectly willing to leave a year and let the GOP decide that. What has changed since then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2010, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 04:54:51 PM
A couple things: One, no legislation has yet to be finalized; two, people don't wanna leave a year and let the GOP decide "actually, we won't pass the bill."
Just a little while ago they were perfectly willing to leave a year and let the GOP decide that. What has changed since then?
Who is they?
I have no idea what the final plan is. Nobody seems to. But I wouldn't leave it up to the GOP, whose kneejerk reaction, in whatever the circumstance, is to vote against anything pro-gay.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 05:22:41 PM
Who is they?
They is Bill Gates, his uniformed minions, and his ebony overlord.
I'm thinking I got the name wrong. What's Gates' first name?
Robert
So close.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2010, 05:29:15 PM
I'm thinking I got the name wrong. What's Gates' first name?
Indeed - at first I wondered what filler had been mixed into your illegal drug, until I figured you didn't mean the geeky former head of MS, but rather the geeky current Secretary of Defence.
While I don't consider this to be high on the priority list for gay rights in the US, I think this is the ultimate litmus test for how shitty and petty the right can be in their anti-gay hatred and bigotry. As BB has said, this policy has no rational justification, and it has caused immense harm, both to the military and to the individuals involved (and not just career destruction, but suicides, false accusations of rape to avoid being discharged under DADT when found out etc.). Many Western countries allow openly gay and transgendered people to serve in the military, without a negative impact on the military readiness.
Every single "argument" against gays in the military I have heard so far is prejudice, pure and simple.
Btw, it's funny how that shithead McCain flip-flopped on the issue - a couple of years ago he was saying that if the military top brass come to him and say that this policy needs to be repealed, he will consider repealing it. Now, that they are doing that, the bastard is saying this is a political issue and the military can't dictate the congress what the law should be. What a piece of shit. I used to have a higher regard for him.
I don't think you're being fair to McCain. When he was making that promise, he had no way to know that the top brass would actually recommend repealing the DADT.
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
I don't think you're being fair to McCain. When he was making that promise, he had no way to know that the top brass would actually recommend repealing the DADT.
No offense, but have the 'top brass' really recommended it? I know a couple of individual commanders have, but has the President received that advice from, say, the Joint Chiefs, or anyone who can speak for the entirety of the military?
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
I don't think you're being fair to McCain. When he was making that promise, he had no way to know that the top brass would actually recommend repealing the DADT.
No offense, but have the 'top brass' really recommended it? I know a couple of individual commanders have, but has the President received that advice from, say, the Joint Chiefs, or anyone who can speak for the entirety of the military?
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did, and a number of current or former top brass (e.g. Powell) did as well. Mullen said so before the Senate commission, to which McCain's immediate response was (I paraphrase): "Well, this is America and laws here are not made by the whims of the military".
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
I don't think you're being fair to McCain. When he was making that promise, he had no way to know that the top brass would actually recommend repealing the DADT.
No offense, but have the 'top brass' really recommended it? I know a couple of individual commanders have, but has the President received that advice from, say, the Joint Chiefs, or anyone who can speak for the entirety of the military?
Would Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff qualify?
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 06:32:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
I don't think you're being fair to McCain. When he was making that promise, he had no way to know that the top brass would actually recommend repealing the DADT.
No offense, but have the 'top brass' really recommended it? I know a couple of individual commanders have, but has the President received that advice from, say, the Joint Chiefs, or anyone who can speak for the entirety of the military?
Would Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff qualify?
Yes it would (as long as he's speaking in that capacity).
Look - I'm not trying to score any points here, or lay out a trap. It's an honest question.
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
In the future we'll see the correlation between the repeal of DADT and America's downfall.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
So every time Obama (or any politician, for that matter) flip-flops on a position you call them a "piece of shit"?
The follow up to my question then would be has the SoD (or anyone else) ever formally asked the military for their opinion on DADT?
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
McCain is fighting for his political life right now in a Republican primary. That doesn't really excuse him, but what do you expect?
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
So every time Obama (or any politician, for that matter) flip-flops on a position you call them a "piece of shit"?
The follow up to my question then would be has the SoD (or anyone else) ever formally asked the military for their opinion on DADT?
If he flip flops on an issue which is so blatantly prejudiced, then yes.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2010, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
McCain is fighting for his political life right now in a Republican primary. That doesn't really excuse him, but what do you expect?
I don't know. Many people here (myself included) had a certain high degree of respect for him, because he was not afraid to go against the partisan politics and was perceived as a decent man among douchebags.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2010, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Well, he said it was his personal opinion. The point is however McCain's rather disgusting and bare-faced flip-flop on this, from "Well I would be willing to consider this if military was for it" to "No way even if the entire military supports it." At least his daughter and wife are decent, but the senile old fool is a piece of shit.
McCain is fighting for his political life right now in a Republican primary. That doesn't really excuse him, but what do you expect?
I don't know. Many people here (myself included) had a certain high degree of respect for him, because he was not afraid to go against the partisan politics and was perceived as a decent man among douchebags.
I still think of him that way - in comparison to his political peers.
Still the man is a politician, not an angel.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:46:37 PM
I don't know. Many people here (myself included) had a certain high degree of respect for him, because he was not afraid to go against the partisan politics and was perceived as a decent man among douchebags.
In 2000. A lot has happened since then. I'd be stunned if he put his future on the line over DADT.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 06:18:58 PM
Btw, it's funny how that shithead McCain flip-flopped on the issue - a couple of years ago he was saying that if the military top brass come to him and say that this policy needs to be repealed, he will consider repealing it. Now, that they are doing that, the bastard is saying this is a political issue and the military can't dictate the congress what the law should be. What a piece of shit. I used to have a higher regard for him.
Horrible, horrible man.
I caught a snip of Keith Olberman going on in the same vein, but I have yet to see an unvarnished source report what he actually said.
I'd be willing to accept repeal so long as the gays are all drafted and then either used to clear minefields or gassed. That's my opening position, but I'd be willing to go as far as only having flamboyant homos and Martinus killed, and treating those gays who attempt to integrate and hide their sickness as if they were productive citizens.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2010, 07:32:04 PM
I'd be willing to accept repeal so long as the gays are all drafted and then either used to clear minefields or gassed. That's my opening position, but I'd be willing to go as far as only having flamboyant homos and Martinus killed, and treating those gays who attempt to integrate and hide their sickness as if they were productive citizens.
:o That's a terrible thing to say.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:42:06 PM
The follow up to my question then would be has the SoD (or anyone else) ever formally asked the military for their opinion on DADT?
I'm confused. In what other capacity would the Joint Chief have testified before the Senate?
And Alfred, is McCain really that close to losing?
Quote from: DGuller on February 22, 2010, 08:17:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2010, 07:32:04 PM
I'd be willing to accept repeal so long as the gays are all drafted and then either used to clear minefields or gassed. That's my opening position, but I'd be willing to go as far as only having flamboyant homos and Martinus killed, and treating those gays who attempt to integrate and hide their sickness as if they were productive citizens.
:o That's a terrible thing to say.
:lol:Being shocked by Neil saying something terrible is as silly as being pissed off that a Republican doesn't support gay equality just before a primary in Arizona.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:42:06 PM
The follow up to my question then would be has the SoD (or anyone else) ever formally asked the military for their opinion on DADT?
I'm confused. In what other capacity would the Joint Chief have testified before the Senate?
And Alfred, is McCain really that close to losing?
Probably not. This is what Rasmussen says in the first google link I could find:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_republican_primary_for_senate
QuoteFollowing news that Sarah Palin will campaign for him in Arizona, Senator John McCain has opened a significant lead in the Republican Primary campaign.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent leading former Congressman J.D. Hayworth by a 53% to 31% margin. In November, the two candidates were virtually even.
Former Minuteman leader Chris Simcox gets four percent (4%) support, while three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
Bringing in Palin is significant for a candidate who has always had a troubled relationship with the Republican base. Polling last fall found that 61% of Arizona Republicans said McCain was out of touch with the party base.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Nationally, 75% of Republican voters say their congressional leaders are out of touch.
At the other extreme, 59% of Republican voters say Palin, McCain's 2008 vice presidential running mate, shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation. Palin is critical of the internal workings of last year's campaign effort in her new book but continues to praise McCain. While campaign staffers have fired back at Palin, McCain, too, has been complimentary about her.
To further shore up his position, McCain is also bringing in Scott Brown, the senator-elect from Massachusetts.
Hayworth, a conservative former congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it. For McCain, the GOP Primary appears to be his biggest challenge since no major Democrats in the state have stepped forward yet to run against him.
Still, 74% of likely GOP Primary voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of McCain, a figure that has not changed since November. Hayworth's favorable ratings are down nine points to 58%.
Perhaps more significantly, the number with a Very Favorable opinion of McCain has jumped 10 points since last fall to 45%.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:42:06 PM
The follow up to my question then would be has the SoD (or anyone else) ever formally asked the military for their opinion on DADT?
I'm confused. In what other capacity would the Joint Chief have testified before the Senate?
And Alfred, is McCain really that close to losing?
I dunno - you tell me.
QuoteFollowing news that Sarah Palin will campaign for him in Arizona, Senator John McCain has opened a significant lead in the Republican Primary campaign.
There's something just...backwards about that.
Arizona is not a microcosm of America?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 11:22:16 PM
QuoteFollowing news that Sarah Palin will campaign for him in Arizona, Senator John McCain has opened a significant lead in the Republican Primary campaign.
There's something just...backwards about that.
There's something deeply wrong about that. Also J. D. Hayward is a dick.
Poor McCain. Hes gone from being top dog to lap dog.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2010, 07:32:04 PM
flamboyant homos and Martinus
And? That should be such as, or especially.
Marti isn't particularly flamboyant although it is obvious when you meet him.
Maybe she's teaching him how to twitter.
tweet tweet
What about homos who are simply buoyant, like katmai?
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2010, 12:35:17 AM
Marti isn't particularly flamboyant although it is obvious when you meet him.
What is obvious? That he's a Compleat Wanker?
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 09:39:33 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 22, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
I'm confused. In what other capacity would the Joint Chief have testified before the Senate?
I dunno - you tell me.
Quote- WASHINGTON — The nation's top two defense officials called Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time.
"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
As a murmur swept through a hearing room packed with gay rights leaders, Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
He is the first sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to support a repeal of the policy, and his forceful expression of his views seemed to catch not only gay rights leaders but also Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee's chairman, by surprise.
Mr. Levin, who has long supported ending the law, told Admiral Mullen that his testimony was "eloquent" and praised him for leading on the issue.
In 1993, Gen. Colin L. Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly but supported a compromise, which was the "don't ask, don't tell" bill passed by Congress. Under the policy, gay men and lesbians may serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.
In contrast to Admiral Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was more cautious, even as he acknowledged that the question was not whether the law would be repealed but how the Pentagon might best prepare for the change.
Early in his testimony, Mr. Gates made clear that he was acting at the behest of President Obama, who reaffirmed his opposition to the existing law in his State of the Union address last week. Mr. Gates then threw the final decision back to the legislative branch.
"We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly," Mr. Gates told the committee. "However, we can also take this process only so far, as the ultimate decision rests with you, the Congress."
Any change in the policy would not come any time soon, the two officials made clear. Both Admiral Mullen and Mr. Gates told the committee that there would be a Pentagon review, taking up to a year, to study how to implement any change before they expected Congress to act on a repeal.
Passage of repeal is far from assured, judging from the negative reaction from some Republicans on the committee, most notably Senator John McCain of Arizona, who pronounced himself "deeply disappointed" in Mr. Gates.
Mr. McCain said Mr. Gates's testimony was "clearly biased" because of his not-if-but-when comments. He added that while the law was not perfect, its repeal was too much to ask of a military that is already under stress fighting two wars.
Gay rights leaders pointed soon afterward to comments Mr. McCain made in 2006 on "Hardball" on MSNBC about his willingness to change the policy if Pentagon leaders called for repeal. "The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it,' " he said then.
To explain the apparent discrepancy, Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said that the senator thought Admiral Mullen was speaking personally, not on behalf of the Joint Chiefs, and that once a Pentagon review was complete, Mr. McCain would listen to military leaders as a whole.
To lead the review, Mr. Gates appointed a civilian and a military officer: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon's top legal counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe.
In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy "in a fairer manner" — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law.
Mr. Gates said that he had asked the Pentagon to make a recommendation on the matter within 45 days, but that "we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform."
Mr. Levin said he was considering introducing an amendment to this year's defense authorization bill that would call for a moratorium on discharges under the existing law.
Mr. Gates said the review would examine changes that might have to be made to Pentagon policies on benefits, base housing, fraternization and misconduct, and would also study the potential effect on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.
For further information, Mr. Gates said he would ask the RAND Corporation to update a 1993 study on the effects of allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve. That study concluded they could do so if the policy was given strong support from the military's senior leaders.
On one thing, Mr. Gates, Admiral Mullen and Republicans on the committee agreed: many gay men and lesbians are serving honorably and effectively in the military today, despite a policy that has led to more than 13,000 discharges, including those of much-needed Arabic translators.
"I have served with homosexuals since 1968," Admiral Mullen told the committee. He added, "Everybody in the military has, and we understand that."
Gay rights groups embraced the comments from Admiral Mullen and Mr. Gates, even as they criticized the Pentagon review as moving too slowly.
Polls now show that a majority of Americans support openly gay service — a majority did not in 1993 — but there have been no recent, broad surveys of the 1.4 million active-duty personnel.
General Ham, an Iraq veteran, is unusual among top military officers for speaking out about his struggles with post-traumatic stress after witnessing the devastation when a suicide bomber blew up a mess tent on an American base near Mosul, killing 22 people, including 14 United States service members. Mr. Johnson, a former assistant United States attorney, previously worked for the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
So in essence he was called to testify as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and McCain is saying that it's not him testifying as the chairman, but in his personal capacity.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2010, 12:35:17 AM
Marti isn't particularly flamboyant although it is obvious when you meet him.
Is it obvious I am not flamboyant or is it obvious I'm a homo despite not being flamboyant? :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2010, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2010, 12:35:17 AM
Marti isn't particularly flamboyant although it is obvious when you meet him.
Is it obvious I am not flamboyant or is it obvious I'm a homo despite not being flamboyant? :P
Yes.
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2010, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2010, 12:35:17 AM
Marti isn't particularly flamboyant although it is obvious when you meet him.
Is it obvious I am not flamboyant or is it obvious I'm a homo despite not being flamboyant? :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg194.imageshack.us%2Fimg194%2F2245%2Fbobbytrendy12.jpg&hash=284c362e4e831defd68809867afcec2891176184)
Right.
QuoteWASHINGTON – The Army's top leaders say they would oppose any legislation to force the Army to temporarily cease dismissals under its "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays in the military while a broader Pentagon assessment is being done.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told a Senate panel Tuesday that an immediate moratorium on firings, as some lawmakers and gay rights' groups want, would "complicate the whole process." He said he has "serious concerns" about the impact of overturning the law and wants to ensure a repeal won't affect the force's ability to fight.
Army Secretary John McHugh, a former congressional Republican, agreed. He said his preference would be to wait until the Pentagon has a chance to finish its review.
QuoteGay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi has been called back into drill duty, he told The Advocate in a phone interview Tuesday. Photographer Jeff Sheng, who recently turned his lens on active gay and lesbian service members for a book about "don't ask, don't tell," originally reported the news on Bilerico.com.
Choi was scheduled to appear at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change conference over the weekend but instead rejoined his unit. Choi said his commander called him personally, asking him to return.
Choi told The Advocate that he felt welcomed back by his fellow guardsmen in his infantry unit.
"Initially, I sensed a feeling of territorialism," he said. "They were like, 'That's right, he came back to us!'"
Even though Choi faced an Army National Guard committee in June — the board recommended he be discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" — his commanding officer was highly supportive of the Arabic translator and West Point graduate.
"The paperwork has been floating around in the Pentagon very slowly," Choi said. "Usually people wait six or seven days for their discharge. Meanwhile I'm waiting for months to hear back."
Since his hearing in June, Choi hasn't been able to perform drills with his unit — he said he's been substituting by doing those routines on the side. He has not been discharged, however. Now that he is back, he has been spending time "shooting rifles and doing all of the regular drill exercises."
"It felt good to just put away a lot of the past year," he said, also comparing his return to that of a Thanksgiving gathering. "Obviously there were soldiers following everything I was doing, or there were others who didn't have a clue."
His guard unit needed decorating tips for the barracks.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2010, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2010, 11:22:16 PM
QuoteFollowing news that Sarah Palin will campaign for him in Arizona, Senator John McCain has opened a significant lead in the Republican Primary campaign.
There's something just...backwards about that.
There's something deeply wrong about that. Also J. D. Hayward is a dick.
He was a local TV sports guy when I lived in Arizona in the late 80's early 90's. I laughed out loud when I heard he was elected to Congress.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 23, 2010, 09:47:10 AM
So in essence he was called to testify as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and McCain is saying that it's not him testifying as the chairman, but in his personal capacity.
Though he did make it clear in the third sentence that he was giving his own personal opinion, maybe that is where the confusion comes in.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 23, 2010, 09:47:10 AM
So in essence he was called to testify as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and McCain is saying that it's not him testifying as the chairman, but in his personal capacity.
Well except that the article says that it was Mullen who specified that he was only speaking personally.
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2010, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 23, 2010, 09:47:10 AM
So in essence he was called to testify as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and McCain is saying that it's not him testifying as the chairman, but in his personal capacity.
Though he did make it clear in the third sentence that he was giving his own personal opinion, maybe that is where the confusion comes in.
No, I think the confusion comes in when people like McCain's staffer turn his statement of
QuoteAdmiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do"
into an equivocation that it was his professional opinion that the policy should be overturned. He has a professional opinion, which is informed (at least in part) by his personal beliefs. They are not the same thing, though.
One can have a personal belief that all abortions are tragic, for instance, without having the opinion that all abortions should be outlawed.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2010, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 23, 2010, 09:47:10 AM
So in essence he was called to testify as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and McCain is saying that it's not him testifying as the chairman, but in his personal capacity.
Well except that the article says that it was Mullen who specified that he was only speaking personally.
I disagree. He may have spoken personally but I don't see anywhere that he said he was
only speaking personally. That's actually an important distinction. Your conclusion is not excluded, but it would seem counter-intuitive that the CJCS would testify only personally.