05/21/2009
White House Lies, Says Obama Working to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Following yesterday's news of yet another dismissal of a gay soldier (decorated Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 fighter pilot and 18-year veteran of the Air Force) under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about the policy again, this time by Air America's Ana MArie Cox.
Asked Cox: "Is their dismissal a part of his national security strategy, or is their dismissal itself a threat to national security?"
Gibbs then went on to say that Obama is working with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to "make [the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell] happen", when in fact a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that there were no plans to repeal the policy.
Said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell to CBS News: "The secretary has not asked his service chiefs, his service secretaries, his combatant commanders, anything of that sort to, sort of, start to -- to do, you know, polling on that matter."
Rachel Maddow continues her excellent reporting on the topic, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 9:15 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Military, News, Robert Gibbs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Very sad news. I am impressed with Hillary's State Department and their proactive approach to gay issues within their agency. So, is it too early for Hillary to start her campaign?
Posted by: B | May 21, 2009 9:35:55 AM
Is anyone really surprised anymore that our government lies? It is time to stop being so civil until our civil rights are recognized! 40+ years of being nice has gotten us nothing. action now!
Posted by: NObamaNObetter | May 21, 2009 9:41:02 AM
Kudos to Rachel as always; this is hardly
news --Obama will not step forward and lead
on any gay issue this year or any year.
He is not for full equality.
Posted by: Nick | May 21, 2009 9:41:42 AM
Why is anyone even giving Gibbs face time? It's obvious that he's a lighter and a glorified snake-oil salesman along with his boss.
Anyone BUT Obiden 2012!
Posted by: Marc | May 21, 2009 9:46:34 AM
Well it's not really a tough question, Rachel. It's the sort of question journalists should be asking all the time on a variety of subjects. And when they get the answer that Gibbs gave said reporters should immediately state -- loudly -- "That's a lie!"
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 21, 2009 9:47:22 AM
It's remarkable that no one who has access to Obama is willing or able to pressure him into keeping promises. There's just no excuse on this one, in spite of what apologists say. It's too important - in regards to national safety and lives of these service men and women being destroyed, too basic and obvious - in regards to equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, and could have been and still could be accomplished very quickly by Obama - if only he weren't focused on what will benefit himself politically for a change.
Posted by: paul c | May 21, 2009 9:58:58 AM
It's unfortunate that so many here seem to be so clueless as to what the work is that actually need to be done to get DADT repealed.
The primary obstacle to the repeal is resistance among the military brass. The only way around that obstacle is for Obama to develop a good working relationship with them, to gain their trust and respect.
That work is being done. It's a byproduct of the administration's work on Iraq, Afghanistan, and national security.
Posted by: 24play | May 21, 2009 10:39:13 AM
@24PLAY: It's not just military leaders. There's an interesting op-ed in today's WSJ suggesting that a major factor is Democratic strategists who are terrified of the issue b/c of what happened to Clinton. They need to be shamed into action.
See here.
Posted by: FCCG | May 21, 2009 11:10:22 AM
"...The primary obstacle to the repeal is resistance among the military brass..."
Exactly
Anyone who doesn't think there is a turf war going on between Obama and Gates is naive
Posted by: jimmyboyo | May 21, 2009 11:23:19 AM
I have no idea whether this would or could work--but have any of those dismissed over DODT ever considered a class-action lawsuit against the military and/or government?
Posted by: David D. | May 21, 2009 11:39:58 AM
what excatly did you all think would happen? He got elected-we gave him money (not me!!) we voted for him (not me!!!) and now it is time to throw someone-somegroup if not under the bus then off the bus.
silence on doma, silence on marriage and lies for DADT. As always fags (me) don't count.
Posted by: david in iowa | May 21, 2009 11:46:21 AM
24play wrote:
"The primary obstacle to the repeal is resistance among the military brass. The only way around that obstacle is for Obama to develop a good working relationship with them, to gain their trust and respect."
That's BULLSHIT! Obama is commander in chief. He is their boss; they work for him who in turn works for me. Just because I didn't vote for him doesn't make him "not my president."
Posted by: jimwatsondc | May 21, 2009 11:48:16 AM
Military personnel and their family/heirs cannot sue the military for any reason. If you were a civilian, you can sue for limited purposes, such as breach of contract.
Posted by: anon | May 21, 2009 11:57:03 AM
While I believe that gays will always be thrown under the bus for political expediency, I must agree with the posts that express the fact that this is indeed a process that must be handled delicately if the strategy of repealing DADT is to get military brass on your side first. Another strategy though would be to retire the brass who aren't willing to command a 21st century military in a 21st century manner. Some of the old ideas being implemented today are the cause of many problems. We're at war with Arabic speaking people but fire Arabic linguists (we only have 54) because whom he or she has sex with makes some people uncomfortable? We're fighting two wars. Anyone who is physically and mentally capable of going into battle should be allowed to if that is their desire. All hands on deck. Period.
Posted by: kevMusic | May 21, 2009 11:59:48 AM
jimwatsondc
yeah in theory
reality = magic bullets and congressional review cover ups for those who don't play the game / turn over too many apple carts too quickly
Posted by: jimmyboyo | May 21, 2009 12:21:57 PM
Come out come out where ever you are. It's well past time for the Service members to come out of the closet en mass. No more being afraid, no more being cowards, no more hiding in the closet.
Brave people come out of the closet.
Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | May 21, 2009 12:40:26 PM
Some of you guys think that "keeping campaign promises" mean doing everything promised within 3 months, lol. He has 4-8 years to be President, but he also needs cooperation from other branches of our government. He is not a King.
Posted by: Brian in Texas | May 21, 2009 12:59:43 PM
So some top military people have a problem with repealing DADT? are these the same military geniuses responsible for starting/continuing the war in Iraq? The ones that don't think we need to be able to communicate with a country we're occupying?
I thought a big part of the armed services was subordination to superiors and that Obama is currently the superior superior. He should work to get DADT repealed and anyone that opposes it can be the ones with the dishonorable discharge.
Posted by: matt | May 21, 2009 1:08:10 PM
"The primary obstacle to the repeal is resistance among the military brass. "
We need to stop accepting these stupid excuses and demand the change that was promised.
The prime obstacle to INTEGRATING the military was resistance among the military brass. But Eisenhower did the right thing and the military brass were forced to adjust and they did. Same thing here. Obama needs to tell them to man up and quit whining and get with the program. The American people want an end to DADT. Many from the military establishment want it to end as well.
If you have to wait until everybody in the military is ok with it, you will be waiting forever.
It is the right thing to do for equality, and for national security. It just takes a leader to freaking do it!
Posted by: Jeffrey | May 21, 2009 4:16:57 PM
It's unfortunate that some here, as transparently as they did during the primaries, are so desperate to defend the man over the moral that they, without any shame, sacrifice their gay brothers & sisters, historical fact, legal truth, common sense, national security, and even the strategic analyses and explicit promises on record of that man himself.
When, time and again, their claims and falsehoods are demolished with facts, they change the subject with the quickness of a greased pig; they try to beat down those who disagree by tirelessly repeating the same distortions of both the past and the present; they push forward fantasies as disingenuously as the guy in the commercial offering a meal made out of cardboard cut into the shape of steak, salad, and a free sundae. And, ultimately and predictably, they reveal their false selves by substituting ad hominems for arguments, resorting to the most ancient weapon of the weak…shooting the messenger because they don’t like the message.
Like Steve Martin’s character in “Roxanne,” they have an endless litany of nose jokes, er, excuses. For instance, “Obama is brilliantly avoiding Clinton’s mistake of moving too fast.” The historical truth is that examining the timeline of events and actions across 1992 and 1993 prove that Clinton did not move too fast but too slowly, during which time the alliance of evil forces grew strong enough to defeat him.
The primary obstacle to repeal in 2009 is NOT resistance among the military brass, which certainly exists. It is the absence of moral courage in Obama. When Gen. MacArthur, the best known, most popular general of his time, and commander of our forces in Korea, refused to obey President Truman, Truman fired him…in the middle of the Korean War!
What is moral courage? It’s found in Obama’s own description of what happened in 1993: “[when they] faced A TEST OF LEADERSHIP, our party FAILED THAT TEST. We had AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE LEADERS on the World stage in eliminating discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, to recognize the patriotism and heroism of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian citizens who have served our country. Instead, WE BOWED TO FEAR AND PREJUDICE. … rather than embracing LEADERSHIP AND PRINCIPLE, we embraced Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — a policy that is ANTITHETICAL to the values of HONOR AND INTEGRITY.”
If we are to believe that he was wrong in November of 2007, how can we believe he is right now? By HIS OWN definition, now HE has failed the test of leadership, HE has abandoned principle, honor, and integrity, and “bowed to fear and prejudice.”
Contrary to the wind-up Stepford Apologists, the only way around resistance from military brass is NOT for Obama to develop a good working relationship with them, not to repeat Clinton’s mistake of letting the tail wag the dog, but, again, found in OBAMA’S OWN words from the April 2008 Philadelphia debate:
“CHARLIE GIBSON: [Regarding withdrawal from Iraq] no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF SETS THE MISSION, Charlie. THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE GENERALS. The PRESIDENT SETS THE MISSION. The general and our troops CARRY OUT THAT MISSION. Ultimately, the buck stops WITH ME as the commander-in-chief.”
HOW is that no longer true? During what night while we were sleeping was there a military coup which overthrew democracy and deposed Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, reducing him to a younger, thinner, darker male version of Queen Elizabeth with only a ceremonial role, armed only with white gloves and a handbag?
While, of course, he IS he still Commander-in-Chief who is supposed to set the mission, the circumstances that contributed to that cowardice in 1993 are not only radically different today, but they are even more conducive to executive order and repeal than they were when he described that cowardice two years ago.
The 1993 public opposition to gay integration has been replaced by majority support. The huge and powerful religious Antigay Industry, in and outside of Congress and the military, has been reduced by deaths and age and resignations and election defeats to a shadow of its former self. Post 9/11, national security is not just an excuse for xenophobes but a justification for jettisoning the opposition to even “mission critical” gay and lesbian servicemembers. IF he had the will.
Yes, actual repeal of DADT, is the prerogative of Congress, but pretending reality and real politik end there is but another shameless tactic by those whose true goal is not gay equality but constructing excuses for the center of their ever more chilling and creepy personality cult.
While DADT is a law, it is trumped by another law that the apologists ignore or even try to pretend doesn’t exist when cherry picking their excuses. That same Congress empowers ANY President under 10 United States Code §12305 to “suspend ANY provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, OR SEPARATION applicable to ANY member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.”
Note, it does NOT say he may suspend any law EXCEPT DADT. It does not say he may stop the separation of any member of the armed forces EXCEPT gay ones. He, like his zombie-like followers, picks and chooses the laws he wishes to employ.
Hearing other gays parroting like trained talking birds the Orwellian Speak of the White House excusing refusing a temporary solution because it is not permanent is not only nonsensical it is insufferable. Would we defend them saying to someone dying of thirst, “I won’t give you water because it’s not milk”?
Obama explicitly promised in 2007 that the detailed, proactive leadership role he would play in repeal “will start when I take office.” Not three months after; not six months; not a year after; not in his second term. He did not say, “unless the military don’t want to.” He did not say, “unless too many in Congress are sitting on their hands.”
But in the ultimate betrayal that stuns the imagination, he has not just NOT done anything in any way to keep that promise, to even begin that process in the most rudimentary way, but has declared that HIS administration will take up where Bush left off and will DEFEND DADT in court. That gay men and women will NOW be discharged in the name of, by direct action of President Barack Obama.
Whatever great things he has done or attempted; whatever great things he will do or attempt; he has smeared his own honor and integrity on the canvas of History, and convicted himself of the moral crime he defined himself in 2007:” rather than embracing leadership and principle, we bowed to fear and prejudice.”
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | May 21, 2009 4:50:21 PM
Thank you, Michael@LeonardMatlovitch.com
Posted by: paul c | May 21, 2009 6:21:37 PM
what if DADT is finally repealed during Obama's first term as he promised during the campaign?
Posted by: doro | May 21, 2009 9:25:46 PM
Wow, Michael!
You said it all. I applaud you.
Posted by: David C | May 21, 2009 9:58:57 PM
Michael is absolutely right.
Posted by: Paul | May 21, 2009 11:59:56 PM
Politicians represent people who vote. Voters put Bush in for a second term so there is plenty of reason to be cautious. You never know what they'll do.
I think the Obama crew is waiting for public opinion, that is, the people who vote, to come around to acceptance of gays in the military in larger numbers before they make their move.
Besides there is the economy, Iraq and Afganistan to take up their time.
Posted by: jessejames | May 22, 2009 7:32:45 AM