Comments

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

1. GIBBS is such a douche bag, you can tell he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

   As for Cheney, why doesn't he just go away, better yet die already.

   Posted by: patrick nyc | Jun 3, 2009 6:02:52 PM

   
   

2. David Shuster calls hypocrite! on Obama...

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31091867#31091867

   Posted by: stephen k | Jun 3, 2009 6:32:32 PM

   
   

3. Gibbs is still very careful to say "change" rather than "repeal". Clearly there is no longer any intention to do away with the law. We will be seeing discrimination in another form. Obama's usual tight-rope walking means he will try to meet in the middle somewhere where no one will be satisfied with the outcome. We MUST NOT SETTLE for anything less than full equality.

   Posted by: Gary | Jun 3, 2009 7:02:48 PM

   
   

4. "So, my pretty, you won't pardon Scooter Libby? I'll get you and your little dog, too!" Na Na-nah na na na. Exit riding bicycle.

   Posted by: woodroad34 | Jun 3, 2009 7:06:57 PM

   
   

5. i think they should retire certain generals and stop firing gays instead..it costs about 800,000 to train these heros...

   Posted by: alan brickmi think they should retire | Jun 3, 2009 7:26:43 PM

   
   

6. THANK YOU, Stephen K! I never thought I'd live to see the day when mainstream media was doing a better job of fighting for our full equality than most of our PAID gay "leaders." [Note, I said "most" not "all."]

   And, yes, Gary, as Shuster himself hit the bullseye, what's up with the musical chairs with verbs?

   "Repeal" isn't a synonym for "change" in any published dictionary. But perhaps our next weekly request for more donations to Obama Nation will include an opportunity to buy the new OED—"Obama's English Dictionary" where "full equality for LGBT Americans" is already a synonym for "separate but equal."

   But what do Obama's and Gibbs' verb changes really mean? What's bubbling in the mostly male witches' cauldron deep in the impacted bowels of the Pentagon?

   Despite contradictions of other official statements to the contrary it's hard to imagine any real discussion is going on given the record of Secretary of Defense Gates who will be McHugh's new boss and demands policy agreement from his subordinates.

   In 2007, after he denied that the military bans gay who aren't sexually active, someone writing on Gates' behalf, claimed there would be "divisiveness and turbulence across our country" if there was even a serious debate about getting rid of DADT which would "compound the burden of war." Sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger telling Jay Leno in 2004 that there would be "violence and riots" as a result of SF Mayor Gavin Newsom saying, "Let them marry!"

   But the recurring smell of "change" the policy and "end the EXISTING policy" can no longer be ignored. Someone is trying to imagine a way the sow's ear of DADT can be turned into a silk purse, a new "version" of the policy that civil libertarians, gay and straight, will swallow. DADT Lite anyone?

   Some may recall that before the existing half-century plus-old policy was tweaked a bit and reborn as a law called DADTDP in 1993, the government suggested they might try a "separate but equal" version of the ban...gays could serve but they'd be housed separately, etc., etc., much like blacks served but were segregated before Truman's courageous Executive Order.

   That balloon was immediately shot at by outraged gays and straights but probably fell to earth primarily from the weight of its own financial and logistical absurdity.

   Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jun 3, 2009 8:09:00 PM

   
   

7. Dear Dick Cheney,

   Except for your tepid support of marriage equality, which only came when you were safely out of office, you are a psychotic windbag and everyone hates you. Please return to your grotto under the bridge and set yourself on fire.

   Love,

   Earth

   Posted by: JOE 2 | Jun 4, 2009 12:41:02 AM

   
   

8. Knowing the Democrats, it'll probably end up being some BS compromise that makes absolutely no sense like:

   "OK, you can now say that you're gay and still serve. But you have to promise to remain celibate. You know, like what the Catholic Church does with the priests."
   

   Posted by: John | Jun 4, 2009 12:43:20 AM

   
   

9. Cheney is such a douche bag, along with Bush. They pass the GM problem to the next administration, knowing that bankruptcy was the only solution. However now they are whining and b$%&*ing about the steps taken by Obama now.

   And WTF about Cheney being pro gay marriage? He had no balls to support this issue when he was in power?! Such a coward!

   Posted by: Christian | Jun 4, 2009 1:54:46 AM

   
   

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: