Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

Watch: Pentagon Spokesman Says DADT Study on Track for Dec. 1, Won't Urge Senate to Take Up Repeal


Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell says the agency wants the Defense Authorization bill passed but refuses to express support for legislative DADT repeal (an amendment within that bill), until the study is complete and has been analyzed.

"I'm not going to tell [the Senate] how to do their business."

Morrell also reiterates the Pentagon's desire that they be in charge:

"You know from his discussion of this dating back to last February that [the Secretary] believes that it’s better to do this smart than stupid and that this report is very important to us doing this smartly. So, our focus right now is getting this report finished, getting it to the Secretary, having him review it carefully consider it and take measures from there….Once the Secretary gets it, I’m sure it will be a priority item for him to review and consider and then provide leadership for this department on how to move out based on what the report tells us."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "it’s better to do this smart than stupid and that this report is very important to us doing this smartly"

    No, it isn't important and it isn't smart. The smart thing to do is to tell the court that you don't support DADT but want the higher court to verify the decision. Then it's done and you just need to have the commanders instruct the soldiers to accept the ruling.

    Posted by: ravewulf | Nov 5, 2010 11:17:02 AM

  2. By making a huge deal out of something really simple, they've just about guaranteed that the end result will be a clusterfuck.

    It's probably a moot point anyway. If the political will to get this repealed didn't exist before Tuesday, it sure isn't there now.

    Posted by: justiceontherocks | Nov 5, 2010 11:34:05 AM

  3. How come this homophobe (Geoff Morrell) from the Bush era is still acting as spokesman for the Defense Department? Since Day One of the Obama Administration he has made clear whenever questioned about DADT, via body language and facial smirks, his deep disdain for anything connected with homosexuality. Indeed, the first time the subject of DADT repeal ever came up in one of his "pressers" he positively enjoyed feigning the department's complete ignorance on the matter.

    Obama and/or Gates should fire him for insubordination - but of course they won't.

    Posted by: Michael L | Nov 5, 2010 12:00:15 PM

  4. You will never get anywhere as a community if you keep voting for Democrats. That's because the Democrats will take you for granted and assume they don't have to do anything in order to secure your vote. If you were a smart community, you would put conditions on your vote. You'd say "you have to earn my vote".

    Keep voting Democrat if you wish. I can guarantee you that you will get nowhere. The Democrats want to keep DADT alive so that they can have the DADT string to pull come election time. If they got rid of DADT, they wouldn't be able to pull this string anymore.

    You gays remind me of the Jews who were marched to Auschwitz under the direction of friendly German SS officers. Going to hell in the Democratic hand-basket is what you seem to enjoy. Good luck, enjoy the journey.

    Posted by: jason | Nov 5, 2010 12:15:59 PM

  5. Just another ass-face, smirking s.o.b., who thinks the whole DADT thing will soon blow over and we can get back to business as usual. The fact that such a person is allowed to speak for the administration at this late date speaks volumes as to how Obama feels about repealing DADT. A Black president is now officially on record in favor of discrimination- the man is a total disgrace.

    Posted by: Disgusted | Nov 5, 2010 12:18:51 PM

  6. Guys, the only way we are going to get progress now is to work to have Obama impeached or to have an opponent beat him in the primaries. Clearly, Obama has been a failure at every single level of gay rights.

    Obama is a patent fraud, an economic drunk, and a homophobe.

    Posted by: jason | Nov 5, 2010 12:29:51 PM

  7. Why is the military so scared of Gay people? It does not make sense.

    Posted by: Joe | Nov 5, 2010 12:32:46 PM

  8. Someone should tell Jason that it's November 5th and that his contract from GOP headquarters has lapsed.

    Posted by: BobN | Nov 5, 2010 2:23:22 PM

  9. Hillary Clinton would have had "DADT" so dead by now. Hillary Clinton for President 2012!

    Posted by: Jim | Nov 5, 2010 6:26:00 PM

  10. I'm really tired of hearing how horrible Obama has been on gay rights when he's moved as deliberately as he can. Remeber when Bill Clinton came in and just directed the DoD to draft a policy lifting the ban? (The kind of "decisive action" we want from Obama.) The Congress (with Democratic majorities, like Obama) went nuts, and threatened to write a full BAN into law. Clinton had to backpedel from his brashness, negotiate a compromise to keep us from being banned by law to serve AT ALL. That is how DADT became law, because an idealistic president didn't work the system and take the time needed to win the votes and do it right. He acted in the short term with unquestionable courage and decisiveness to end a policy banning us and ended up with a LAW discriminating against us as harsh payment for his jumping the gun, oh and it was one of two central issues that cost him the Congress in '94 and brought us years of hateful, anti-gay rhetoric and action from that branch. ALL BECAUSE HE MOVED TOO FAST AND TOO AGGRESSIVELY. Obama is moving as fast as he fucking can, and making more public statements of support and executive decisions in support (expanded benefits for gay federal workers, anyone?) than any other president in history. I supported Hilary and still wish she had won, BUT I don't blame Obama for not lifting DADT right away. It's a law that has to be repealed by congress or declared unconstitutional, and he is one Senator away from repeal. Let him do his job and stop penalizing him for not doing fast enough for you. Within the bounds of presidential power and good politics (better to win slowly than lose ultimately like we did under Clinton), he's doing more than we realize because he's trying to maximize his chances for success.

    @Jim, while I supported Hilary until she lost the nomination, I think you're wrong. She, as president, would have to defend DADT in court, as every president, as EXECUTIVE, is traditionally bound to do. It sets a bad precedent if they don't officially defend ALL laws on the books, and opens wiggle room for laws we do support (but are opposed by conservative future presidents) to be abandoned by those future presidents for ideological purposes. The Executive Branch must enforce all laws of the country when challenged, and the justice department can not use political opposition as a reason to allow a challenge to a law to go unanswered. While it would help us today, it would open the door for us to get SCREWED on a million other equal rights fronts in the future.

    @Jason, get a clue. Impeachment is for high crimes committed by a sitting president. If every president could be impeached for not serving the interests of a given segment of the population to their liking (or even for breaking a campaign promise, no matter the reason) we would spend all our time impeaching, and would have a completely non-functioning government.

    I am waiting for the DoD report. It could, after all, say that the miltiary has found that there is little reason to hold on to the policy and that it will have minimal disruption if it's lifted. That would at least be worth one or two votes in the Senate (by the non-ideologue Dems who are genuinely afraid it could hurt the military) and the filibuster could be broken in December before the new congress (with more repubs) takes over. Can we at least allow for the possibilty the military could surprise us here?

    Posted by: BreckRoy | Nov 6, 2010 9:36:44 PM

Post a comment


« «Pro-Equality Justice Set to Become Chief of MA Supreme Court« «