Barack Obama | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Duncan Hunter | Military | News

White House, Rep. Duncan Hunter Spar Over Intrusive GOP 'DADT' Repeal Amendment

The White House has responded to an amendment introduced last week by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (pictured) intended to delay repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy by interfering with the certification requirements already set forth in the bill Obama signed in December. Those requirements state that after 60 days pass from certification by the president, the defense secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, open service can begin.

Hunter Hunter's requirement would add requirements that the four service chiefs also certify repeal.

MetroWeekly reports:

White House spokesman Shin Inouye, responding to a request from Metro Weekly about President Barack Obama's position on Hunter's amendment, wrote, ''The President is working with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to certify, pursuant to the repeal bill, that implementation of the new policies and regulations written by the Department is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.''

He added, ''We have serious objections to any amendment that would unnecessarily delay this process.''

Hunter's office released a statement to Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade suggesting the White House is "uncertain" about repeal:

Joe Kasper, a Hunter spokesperson, said the White House statement is “not much of a surprise” and called on the Obama administration to drop its objection to expanding the certification requirement for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“If the White House is so sure that the military leadership is behind the repeal, then there’s nothing to worry about,” Kasper said. “The White House’s statement just shows how unsure the administration really is with all this. And there’s always lots of talk about transparency and efficiency. So perhaps the administration will rethink it’s position and support the Hunter amendment.”

Hunter's amendment was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee but is unlikely to be made law before certification takes effect.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. It's idiots like Duncan Hunter who turn gay people away from the Repubican Party.

    Posted by: brian | May 16, 2011 9:36:06 AM


  2. Hunter would also like a pound of flesh from every service member, endorsements from principals of every grade school in the country, and certifications from presidents Eisenhower and Nixon that the policy should be repealed.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 16, 2011 9:38:38 AM


  3. Duncan Hunter Sr made a nice lil' Bigot Duncan Hunter Jr

    Posted by: Disgusted Gay American | May 16, 2011 9:48:23 AM


  4. "It's" instead of "its?? Get some more zzzz Chris!

    Posted by: K | May 16, 2011 10:13:21 AM


  5. This apple didn't fall far from the tree. Like father, like son.

    Posted by: mytwocents | May 16, 2011 10:16:48 AM


  6. Let them pass this amendment. The service chiefs are military. They are ->required<- to go along with whatever the current president says. President Obama says "Sign the OK." Military chiefs say "Yes, sir!" like good soldiers should. How is this an issue?

    Posted by: lessthan | May 16, 2011 10:29:11 AM


  7. I'll gladly contribute to Hunter's opposition in the next election.. any opposition

    Posted by: Grego | May 16, 2011 10:42:40 AM


  8. He sorta looks like that porn guy Jason Adonis.

    Posted by: ANON IN SO CAL | May 16, 2011 10:45:24 AM


  9. @LessThan, that is only partially true. They are effectively required to give their personal advice and counsel to Congress should they be asked for it under oath. Congress can ask "Do you personally support this line of action."

    And, the truth is, we want it that way. It was that freedom that allowed MG Taguba to speak the truth of Abu Ghraib after his investigation (the White House would have preferred he say nothing and let the report speak for itself) and GEN Shalikashvilli to project the true cost in manpower and money of an Iraq invasion, which the Administration was saying would pay for itself.

    It doesn't always work well, however, for the general as we remember what happened to Shalikashvilli, he was severely punished by the White House and his career ended. Turned out, of course, years later, that he was totally right.

    Posted by: BreckRoy | May 16, 2011 11:44:39 AM


  10. @anon in so cal: Thank you. I knew he reminded me of somebody in porn.

    Posted by: tbeth | May 16, 2011 12:28:24 PM


  11. It's the Republican party who turns gay people away from the Republican party, Brian. Idiots like Duncan Hunter march in lockstep with the current Republican platform.

    So, the Obama administration's unwillingness to put DADT repeal through additional unnecessary, time-wasting, partisan hoops is a sign to Hunter that the administration is "unsure" about repeal. That statement doesn't even make logical sense. Following orders from this peon would be the only thing to make Obama seem "unsure" about repeal.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 16, 2011 12:58:25 PM


  12. Also, am I the only one who finds virulent, political game-playing homophobes in their late 20s, early 30s the most repugnant of the repugnant?

    I've watched my own parents and grandparents come along, at various speeds, in shedding the ingrained, societal assumptions of their youth, as well as life experiences that rarely exposed them to every-day, well-adjusted homosexuals and bisexuals--thus denying them the chance to see that gay people are just like them. I don't like it when older folks work against or speak against gay people--and I argue back--but I at least understand that it comes from an honest place FOR THEM.

    There is no way a 34-year old Californian comes by his hate naturally. Even if he grew up with conservative parents and in a conservative church, there was enough "real world" evidence out there, in pop culture, in the news, and in everyday life. For him to be so horrible to gays reeks of currying favor with those aforementioned older idealogues and Republican donors, which makes me hate him. Because he hates us for personal and political gain, not because he's a product of his time or environment.

    Posted by: BreckRoy | May 16, 2011 1:15:08 PM


  13. Although I disagree but understand with the White House's reticence to commit to supporting full equality, why aren't the leaders of the Democratic party calling out these outright bigots and racists on there unfounded and obvious sucking up to isolated yet deep pocketed donors with this constant barrage of ways to disenfranchise us of our basic rights?

    Posted by: vwdavy | May 16, 2011 2:08:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Space Shuttle Endeavour Lifts Off on Final Mission« «