Don't Ask, Don't Tell | John McCain | Military | News | Republican Party

McCain Restates Support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

John McCain has restated his support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in a letter to Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn of the Servicemen's Legal Defense Network, calling "misguided" any policy that requires the military to "accomodate a particular lifestyle."

MccainRepeating words spoken by Colin Powell during a 1993 debate on the policy, McCain warns that "...the legislation unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion, and discipline."

McCain concludes: "I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units. Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in unifrom, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America's Armed Services. For these reasons, which have nothing to do with my personal judgments about homosexual behavior, I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the U.S. military."

McCain also said in mid-March that he felt it was "logical to leave this issue alone."

Copy of McCain letter [pdf]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Um...how is this accomidating a paticular lifestyle?

    Posted by: Matt | May 4, 2007 11:20:23 AM


  2. Sorry, isn't McCain reiterating his SUPPORT of DADT?

    Posted by: Brian | May 4, 2007 11:25:23 AM


  3. Yes Brian, My mistake. My brain was going one way and my fingers another.

    Posted by: andy | May 4, 2007 11:31:36 AM


  4. I guess McCain doesnot realize his forces are alongside forces from other contries that accept being gay, encourage it, pay for weddings etc. The only saving for those americans caught in this trap is the availability of the good stuff from their buddies serving for the other countries.

    Posted by: KT | May 4, 2007 11:32:48 AM


  5. John McCain: DOUBLEPLUS UNGOOD!

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | May 4, 2007 11:34:19 AM


  6. McCain has become a caricature of himself... he is absolutely and unequivocally a tool and a douchebag.

    He's in the right party, though. Plenty of company.

    Posted by: Brian | May 4, 2007 11:57:40 AM


  7. Uh, waiting for some Gay Repugnant to post about how none of their candidates are worse than the Dems. To repeat the Big Lie that DADT was all Clinton's fault. To defend how one so-called "moderate-gay-friendly" Repug politico after another is contradicting their own history of positions to now out gay bash the others. To defend them stripping off every stitch of their dignity and humanity to prostitute themselves for votes. To defend their auditioning for lead soloist in the Homohaters Tabernacle Choir. To defend what neo-Nazis in rhetoric their leaders have become, drum beating the demonization of gays as a class.

    As I've mentioned before, McCain generate a river of tears and admiration for speaking at the memorial service for out gay Mark Bingham because he was not just one of the heroes of Flight 93 that kept it from crashing into Washington DC but because Bingham was a Republican. By revealing his true colors [black and shirt brown] simply for votes McCain has smeared the honor and memory of Mark Bingham and should crawl into a hole of shame. But don't expect it. Don't even expect an apology. In his defense of Iraq McCain is still trying to get even for Vietnam. In his defense of homobigotry, among other ignominies, he is showing that his allegiance is not to the Constitution or Liberty or any of the other platitudes that drool from his twisted mouth but to his own ego and beccoming President as porn. If the GOP "Big Tent" ever existed, it's collapsed upon its own hypocrisy. If any of these reptiles win we might as well rename 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue "the Whore House."

    Posted by: Leland | May 4, 2007 11:58:19 AM


  8. More McCain pandering to the vulgar Right. He should look at the model in Great Britain, Australia and Israel. Gays are allowed to serve openly (as in being openly honest about their identity) and there has been no threat to unit cohesion at all.

    Posted by: adam | May 4, 2007 12:17:48 PM


  9. He is too old, sick and worn out to win or serve. He's tempermental, has cancer that won't go away, is socially conservative and fiscally liberal (anti-libertarian you could say) and not exactly winning the hearts and minds of Republican voters this year. This is an election for the Dems to win easily unless they do something very stupid.

    Posted by: anon | May 4, 2007 12:18:25 PM


  10. It's kind of sad, I've never agreed with McCain, he's always been a Conservative and pretty ant-gay but he seems muddled and confused now--like a senile grandpa.

    Posted by: Daniel | May 4, 2007 12:38:20 PM


  11. Religion is a lifestyle choice and I know for a fact the military makes special accomodations for Mormon soldiers so that they can wear their magic underpants.

    Posted by: B | May 4, 2007 12:50:42 PM


  12. McCain continues to suck up to the most rabid elements within the party membership. His position on DADT is nonsensical, especially given that many of our allies (i.e., the UK) have changed policies to allow openly gay servicemembers to serve alongside everyone else.

    Posted by: Jonathon | May 4, 2007 12:55:59 PM


  13. Guys, guys. Snap out of it. The most insulting, disgusting aspect of this is that there is no reason to imagine that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES what he's saying anymore than there is to believe that Guiliani—a long and unequivocal supporter of "civil unions"—has suddenly realized how, to hear him tell it, they are just as bad as gay "marriage."

    Colon [sic] Powell, the real father of bastard child DADT, has consistently been homohating in the willfully stupidest way which overrode his knowledge of the successful integation of out gays in other countries' military forces. But McCain's motive is naked political ambition and I guarantee you he would also be bashing Blacks [even tho he has an adopted Black daughter] and Jews and the Boy Scouts if he thought there were more votes in it. He, Guiliani, Romney [why the FUCK did Jay Leno kiss his Temple-garmented ass the other night, let alone have him on his show?] are all competing not just for the Presidency but King of the Pig People. And if any of you think the majority of American voters can see through their deceit and dishonesty I have just two words for you: George Bush.

    Posted by: Leland | May 4, 2007 1:51:11 PM


  14. Who cares? Just look at the picture of the buffoon. It's hilarious! I wouldn't vote for him based on just this picture. LOL

    Posted by: Kamasutra Jones | May 4, 2007 1:56:38 PM


  15. Does Hillary support DADT?

    Posted by: anon | May 4, 2007 2:17:54 PM


  16. I know that Hillary does NOT support summary firing of gay employees for being gay, which was advocated by Tommy Thompson at last night's Republikkkan debate.

    NOT EVEN ONE other candidate, not Guiliani or McCain or anyone, objected to the idea. Not one word was said against it by them.

    Wonder what happens when you poll all the gay-hating Republican president wannabees about this. They said nothing against it last night.

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/05/tommy-thompson-sure-go-ahead-fire-gays.html

    Here's the video of Thompson saying any empolyer should be free to fire gays for being gay. He's asked twice about it and says yes twice, no other Republican interrupts to object.

    Posted by: bambambam | May 4, 2007 2:31:20 PM


  17. Leland wrote: "Uh, waiting for some Gay Repugnant to post about how none of their candidates are worse than the Dems."

    I'm not exactly a Republican, but I'll bite. You are misrepresenting the position of the gay Clinton-bashers. The claim isn't that DADT was "all [Bill] Clinton's fault" -- only that he sold us out. Unlike the Republicans, he campaigned on a platform supportive of gay rights. Gay groups endorsed him (and continue to endorse and fund Democrats in general).

    Hypocrites like Bill Clinton (D), McCain (R) and Giuliani (R) make me angrier than upfront homophobes. And Hillary (D) and Obama (D) haven't exactly been willing to burn any political capital on our behalf. Why not? Because we'll vote for them anyway. The Democrats will get serious about LGBT rights only when they fear losing our votes.

    Posted by: Gay Moderate | May 4, 2007 3:02:50 PM


  18. Sorry, I forgot hypocrite Romney (R).

    Posted by: Gay Moderate | May 4, 2007 3:05:33 PM


  19. "Gay Moderate": it's risky generalizing. Even a passionate polemicist such as myself tries to avoid it. Many "gay Clinton-bashers" do, in fact, simplistically insist that DADT was all Clinton's fault, e.g., the terminally arrogant and cerebrally constipated Chris Crain.

    Indeed, many say "he sold us out" [and aren't just rewording "fault"] but the sincerity of their perception is not to be confused with its accuracy. Such a phrase implies that he had a realistic choice, i.e., that he could have issued the originally conceived Executive Order and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congressional homohaters would have meekly fallen in line but that he chose INSTEAD to agree with them but for some strange reason pulled an entirely new policy out of his ass rather than simply keeping the existing antigay military regulations. Poppypenis. May I remind you that gay Congressman Barney Frank endorsed DADT?

    The fact was that Congress would have acted to overturn his order and he would have increased their animosity even further to the point of White House gridlock in the very first year of his administration.

    Stop being so goddamned naive. "Platforms" are not guarantees, nor even promises because of the nature of our three branch government. At most they are Intentions, as in "I intend to try to make this happen if elected." Clinton tried and failed. In part because groups like HRC were naive themselves and failed to prepare him or the country for the solar-hot fire fight. Read Signorile's "Queer in America" about how naive they were themselves and effectively told the gay press at the time that it was a fait accompli; Clinton could just wave his magic willy and, snap, nearly a century’s Pentagon pansyhating would evaporate.

    He IS culpable on the subsequent administration and legal defense of DADT, but that’s an entirely different topic. He is culpable on a weaker-than-necessary AIDS policy. But without question even those who simplistically, irrationally hate him over DADT agree that his administration was the most gay-supportive of any to date.

    Too many humans still believe in a White Knight, a Messiah who is going to be perfect, without sin, and shall build a paradise blah blah blah. Scratch the average Obama obsessive and I bet that’s what you’d reveal. Real politic like real life is messier and more unpredictable than that. And who knows what candidates will actually try to do, what they will actually succeed at doing, once elected. But one can be pretty certain that if one is campaigning AGAINST certain gay rights he is not likely to become FOR gay rights after his oath.

    Finally, if you think McCain and Guiliani are NOT currently “upfront homophobes” then I must ask you what planet you live on?

    Posted by: Leland | May 4, 2007 4:00:29 PM


  20. Leland-
    The reason Jay Leno would "kiss his [Romney's or any RepubliCON's] Temple-garmented ass the other night, let alone have him on his show" is that Leno was, is and, probably always will be a staunch RepubliCON, himself.

    It's one of the reasons I will no longer watch "The Tonight Show".

    Posted by: Dean | May 4, 2007 10:49:32 PM


  21. Does Obama want to repeal DADT? I'd like to vote for someone in this election. Anyone know? Do any of the candidates running want it repealed? (I suspect Ron Paul might, though he's from TX.) If they are all for gay marriage why not the repeal of DADT? Answers?

    Posted by: anon | May 5, 2007 12:37:31 AM


  22. Of the Democrats, only Edwards has outright said he would make repealing DADT an administration priority.

    Clinton and Obama has basically given the same BS non-answer they always give. You know...the one that sounds supportive at first, but upon further analysis rarely amounts to much. Something along the lines of: "We don't like DADT because its wasteful and inefficient, but we'll only look into changing it when the time is right"

    And since Clinbama seems to have zero interest in co-sponsoring legislation to repeal DADT at the moment, I guess the time isn't right.

    Posted by: John | May 5, 2007 2:14:33 AM


  23. Just replace the word "homosexual" with the word "negro" and you would have the exact same arguments made about allowing blacks to serve as officers and/or in certain elite units.

    Posted by: John M in Chicago | Jul 11, 2007 6:04:42 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Michelle Rodriguez Rants Against Curve for Outing Her« «