Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. President Obama is absolutely right. Congress should move on this legislation.

   That being said...lt certainly would have gone a long way to smoothing things over to order the stop loss measure with regards to DADT, something that is most likely in his arena to do.

   It's like they are playing hot potato with LGBT issues, neither branch wants to do diddly or squat, but they'll ask us to donate to their cause all day long.

   I totally agree with that sign in the Boston protest post.

   No Gay Rights? No Gay $$$$$!

   Posted by: Darren | Jun 24, 2009 8:41:04 AM

   
   

2. Don't ask, don't tell did not come from the legislature. Therefore it is improper to expect the legislature to change it.
   You'd think a "constitutional scholar" like Obama would understand that?

   Posted by: Robert | Jun 24, 2009 8:46:00 AM

   
   

3. Equivocating weasel.

   Posted by: MikeMick | Jun 24, 2009 8:53:06 AM

   
   

4. GAH! why cant he sign the fucking executive order and halt them?

   someone on his staff needs to tell him he looks like a hypocrite

   Posted by: peter | Jun 24, 2009 9:15:45 AM

   
   

5. If Obama halts the discharges, then Congress has no real, immediate need to repeal the policy. If Congress wants the discharges to stop, they have a way to make the change happen.

   Posted by: Jeffrey | Jun 24, 2009 9:28:39 AM

   
   

6. Robert:

   DADT did come from Congress. What world are you living in?

   Bill Clinton was prepared to lift the ban. A Democratic controlled Congress opposed him (with nearly unanimous Republican support). Congress reached a "compromise" and passed DADT. Barney Frank told Clinton not to veto the bill because there were enough votes to override the veto.

   Posted by: Gabriel | Jun 24, 2009 9:41:57 AM

   
   

7. Truman ended segregation in the armed forces by Executive Order 9981. An interesting question for Obama would be: Does he think Truman was wrong? Should Truman have waited for legislative action to "build consensus", rather than end an injustice?

   Posted by: MDC | Jun 24, 2009 9:49:28 AM

   
   

8. MDC: Truman did not have a law that prevented him from desegregating the military.

   I'm not here to defend Obama. I don't like him and I don't trust him. I voted for Hillary in the primary. But I won't stay silent when he's blamed for things for which he's not responsible.

   Posted by: Gabriel | Jun 24, 2009 9:58:52 AM

   
   

9. I completely agree with Darren. I am completely disgusted with this administration right now. Absolutely no $ for the Dems. Possibly forever. The LGBT community has been taken advantage of by the Dems far too long.

   Posted by: Island Girly | Jun 24, 2009 10:06:09 AM

   
   

10. It's true that a legislative repeal is the only way to make DADT officially permanently go away. But I mean, god damn it, Barack.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Jun 24, 2009 10:23:37 AM

    
    

11. So, the President of the United States basically tells several leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus (Clyburn, Conyers, Johnson, Lee, Hastings), an Admiral (Sestak), and the only Muslim in Congress (Ellison) to - as Dick Cheney once put it - "go ---- yourself."

    Nice.

    Change we can believe in indeed.

    Posted by: John | Jun 24, 2009 10:38:42 AM

    
    

12. Truman issued his order ending segregation in the military in his THIRD year in office. We've all seen what happens when a well-intentioned freshman president takes on the military over something like this during his first year in office. DADT was the result.

    I fully expect Obama and Congress to act to repeal DADT before Obama's third year in office.

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 24, 2009 10:39:00 AM

    
    

13. A legislative repeal wouldn't be any more permanant or long-lasting than an executive repeal. Why would anyone even buy that?

    So the congress votes to repeal it next week...it could be brought back by another congress in ten years. It's never "permanant". Obama repealing it would have the EXACT same effect. He just doesn't want responsibility for it because he knows that many of his voters are gay-haters.

    If Congress puts it through, he can HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and brag about his civil rights records to one group (us) and then excuse it away as he had no real choice but to go along with it to his gay-hating supporters.

    He's a smarmy two-faced fucker. Surprise!

    Posted by: paul c | Jun 24, 2009 10:44:19 AM

    
    

14. The stop loss order would be a catalyst for permanent legislation. Sometimes there has to be a little boost to get over the fence. And Truman didn't make a campaign promise that he'd stop segregation in the military. Obama, however, did. Congress is having kittens because of the old "can't take a shower in the barracks" canard. The stop loss order would be allow actual proof that it's, to use a really technical sociological phrase, no big whoop to have openly gay serviepeople.

    Posted by: BobC562 | Jun 24, 2009 11:35:14 AM

    
    

15. So what now - we cannot vote for the Republicans for obvious reasons and have become play things for the Democrats and Obama. Who do we support - we need more that two political parties that matter.

    Posted by: Mikey | Jun 24, 2009 12:29:46 PM

    
    

16. phOny Obambot pOint #1:

    I can't fly this plane! I can't! Er, it's a law, it's a law!

    First, despite the desperate efforts ONCE AGAIN of the ‘bots to change the subject, that’s NOT the subject of THIS thread which IS his using HIS Congressionally MANDATED authority under the LAW known as 10 U.S.C. 12305 by which

    “THE PRESIDENT may 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" to do just that...as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and these 77 members of Congress have agreed he CAN and SHOULD do.

    In a NY Times op-ed last Friday retired Gen. John M. Shalikashvili who replaced Gen. Rectum Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first years DADT was in effect, and now supports dumping DADT, publicly spanked the remaining dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, er, the Pentagon, and referenced the “inevitability of change, whether via executive order or legislative repeal.”

    The Obamoonies learned their slimy “change the subject” tactics from Rev. Barack Myung Moon himself. Though, as noted above, no governmental act, including repeal, is irrevocably “permanent”, permanency is not the issue.. Stopping the bleeding until Dr. Congress arrives is.

    phOny Obambot pOint #1B:

    It’s a law! It’s a law! Gagging him and tying his feet and his hands behind his back and homohating witch Elaine Donnelly is threatening his "little dog, too!"

    THAT's your excuse for Obama breaking not just his own promise but HIS OWN TIMETABLE to fight for repeal????? “America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership. That work should have started long ago. It will start WHEN I TAKE OFFICE.” - BO, November 2007.

    Note: NOT “6 months after I take office! NOT a year after! NOT three years after! NOT “unless the generals don’t want to.”

    There’s no law against BALLS which is exactly what Truman had and Obama doesn’t.

    1. Truman integrated the military when he was facing an ELECTION and DESPITE the fact he was up fo that not just his PUBLICLY RACIST generals were against it, but Congress AND 68% of the public AND his own racist friends who complained in private letters about his helping “the niggers” but even his own beloved mother who refused to sleep in the LINCOLN Bedroom.

    Nota bene: NONE of those conditions apply today. It is now AFTER an election. Little O’s Pentagon posse clearly wants to keep kicking out the fags, but they don’t DARE say it publicly because the MAJORITY of the public INCLUDING REPUBLICANS support repeal while the majority were against racial integration in AND OUT of the military in 1948. In direct opposite to 1948, the majority of members of Congress addressing DADT are saying, FREEZE DISCHARGES then help us repeal the law in Congress as you promised to do.

    When did we become a military dictatorship?

    2. And Truman stood up to the racism that surrounded him publicly and privately, and STILL had one ball left to publicly FIRE one of the most popular generals in American history, Douglas MacArthur, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WAR MacARTHUR WAS LEADING because MacArthur kept disobeying Truman’s orders. What's our Commander-in-Chief's excuse again?

    phOny Obambot pOint #2:

    Look what happened when Clinton tried! We ended up with DADT.

    First, contrary to The Big Lie that Obama is doing nothing other than regurgitating now sour promises [except for continuing to discharge gays on HIS watch and DEFEND doing it in court using the same homo bashing language used to pass the law in the first place] because he doesn’t want to make the same mistakes Clinton did...he’s making them all: moving too slowly and letting the generals lead him around by the nose.

    Second, “ended up with DADT” implies that it was some unprecedented, disastrous effect of Clinton's cause as in he tried to build a dam but only caused a disastrous flood of Biblical proportions.

    DADT is nothing but old wine in new bottles with a catchy label. Gays were kicked out before simply for being gay. Gays are kicked out after simply for being gay. [Though by executive order Clinton did stop enlistees being asked; banned use of the discovery that one is gay in a security clearance investigation to discharge someone; and added a hate crimes enhancement to the UCMJ...yes, in the upside down world of DADT, at the moment gays in the military have more hate crimes protection than CIVILIAN gays do.]

    SUMMATION:

    Candidate Obama denounced DADT saying that it had to end immediately because it's an immoral law that damages national security.

    Candidate Obama repeatedly bragged about his courage and leadership to accomplish that.

    Candidate Obama repeatedly said that if his generals disagreed with him about Iraq he would remind them who their boss was.

    Candidate Obama repeatedly said all that was required to overturn DADT was "leadership."

    Candidate Obama said, "Join with me, and I will provide that leadership."

    Candidate Obama said, "I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans."

    Candidate Obama said, "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans."

    President Obama is apparently letting his generals boss him, won’t even directly answer the question of why he won’t use his executive powers to freeze discharges or why he has done nothing substantive to kick start what he claims to still "support"—repeal, and is publicly discharging gays himself and defending that shameful action that hurts not just them but our national security in court in the name of homophobia.

    The prosecution rests.

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jun 24, 2009 12:48:46 PM

    
    

17. Listen up, folks! President Obama cannot "halt" discharges under DADT even if he wanted to do so. DADT came about because Pres. Clinton attempted to issue an executive order ending military discharges for openly gay men and women, thinking he could do the same as Pres. Truman did after WWII when he integrated the Armed Forces. Not so! Truman could do it because there was no clause in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that officially sanctioned racial segregation, so he could issue an Executive Order as Commander-in-Chief. However, the UCMJ has a whole section of military law encoded in the UCMJ concerning "homosexuality" and other "moral offenses" that could initiate either court martial or discharge proceedings against any active duty member. So, Obama cannot as Clinton could not issue any "executive order" ending DADT. Why? Because in order to change anything in the UCMJ, it would take an Act of Congress to do so. Therefore, get off Obama's back! If you want DADT to stop (and DADT was a bullshit "compromise" to placate the execrable Sam Nunn and the rest of the Blue Dog Dems and Republicons) THEN WRITE YOUR GODDMAN CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR. Only they can change the UCMJ and that is the ONLY way you'll ever get these discharges to stop.

    Posted by: mike | Jun 24, 2009 2:39:08 PM

    
    

18. Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike. If I write Congress WILL YOU STOP? In the interim, please tell me someone as certifiably stupid as you isn't allowed near sharp scissors, matches, mechanical equipment, defenseless pets, or impressionable children.

    The Universal Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] had NOTHING to do in ANY way with Truman's order because not only is it now a set of CRIMINAL laws for the military that has nothing to do with who can serve BUT IT DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL TWO YEARS AFTER TRUMAN INTEGRATED THE MILITARY. Military conduct before then was regulated under the Articles of War but racial segregation was contained in mere POLICIES of the branches.

    There is NO section of the UCMJ about "homosexuality." There is only a section [925- Article 125] about "sodomy" which refers only to ACTS and applies technically to both opposite and same gender behaviour.

    DADT is ENTIRELY independent of the UCMJ. They could throw out the UCMJ sodomy statute tonight and knowledge of homosexual acts, in fact simply being gay and presumed to want to commit such acts, tags you for discharge.

    Clinton COULD have issued an executive order ending discharges but he CHOSE not to because he was afraid of the political repercussions and the threatened resignations by Gen. Rectum Powell, et al.

    He DID issue a "Don't Ask" RECRUITS order, and later ones re gay military security clearances and hate crimes in the military.

    Had you read what I wrote above rather than prematurely ejaculating you would have seen that Obama is FULLY EMPOWERED BY CONGRESS under the LAW known as 10 U.S.C. 12305 to stop discharges at will during times of "national emergency" which by Congress's definition we are in now:

    “THE PRESIDENT may 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."

    Further, stop-loss goes ALL THE WAY BACK TO WORLD WAR II when known gays were allowed to serve whenever they needed more bodies.

    In one instance, some soldiers WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF SODOMY were ordered back to duty AFTER prison!!!

    Stop-loss dishonest games have continued in every war we've been in since. Including this one. In 2005 a Pentagon spokesperson admitted they were sending some known gays to Iraq.

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jun 24, 2009 4:01:17 PM

    
    

19. Sorry Michael @ etc., but YOU are wrong. The UCMJ does specifically address homosexuality and you of all people should know that. The UCMJ addresses homosexuality and adultery and both can get you kicked out. Regardless, you misread and misunderstand the UCMJ. They are the set of laws that regulate military comportment and behavior and once you sign on that dotted line, they rule your life. Now, you CAN get charged for breaking civilian laws, but once that is over, you STILL have to face military justice. So, please, Michael@,etc., don't lecture me about what is and what isn't in the UCMJ. Having experienced some "homo witch hunts" when I was serving in the U.S.N., I know what I am talking about. Please!

    Posted by: mike | Jun 25, 2009 12:49:21 PM

    
    

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: