Gates: Postpone changes to 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy
By David Monday Mar 30, 2009 4:30am
DOWNLOAD (72)
PLAY (89)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Fox's Chris Wallace that this is the wrong time to make changes to the military controversial 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. "I think the president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now, and let's push that one down the road a little bit," he said.
In January, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn't give a time frame when he told reporters that President Obama planned to end the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. Gates indicated that he would follow the law when it is changed. "We will follow the law whatever it is," said Gates.
Login or Register to post comments.
but when does cheney go to jail?
When America becomes a truly just nation of laws that no one is above.
...in other words, don't expect it in this life time...or probably the next either.
I guess that's only if you're straight...
If you sexual orientation is "gay" then you don't get the same rights. There are so many things gay Americans can't do that you can do over in Europe, as far as rights go, it truly is laughable to repeat the "dogma" we are the "home of the free."
In this country you are free if you are straight, white, christian and male. Every other so called "free American" has had to fight to be on par with them.
"A lot on our plates" hasn't stopped Obama from multi-tasking and doing the RIGHT THING in other areas. Keeping this policy is NOT good for our country. Dissolving this policy is GOOD and makes ECONOMIC SENSE and also reinforces the belief America stands for Freedom and Equality for EVERYONE. There doesn't need to be any kind of work except to say, "The policy is lifted, and the rules remain in effect you CAN NOT have sex while on active duty no matter what your gender." How tough is that?
I served on submarines, and I'm gay. I ended up having to be the PREACHER onboard the submarine because I was ordered to be "Protestant Lay Reader." I balked, because I feared the "preaching while gay" controversy if my sexual orientation was ever discovered, but when I asked EVERY OTHER serviceman to do it THEY WOULD NOT. I did a lot of praying about it and then felt like
G-d wanted me to go ahead and preach, so I did.
I also DID NOT EVER have sex on the submarine. I was propositioned ONCE but I was shocked the guy wanted to actually have sex on the submarine while we were AT SEA on the submarine. I'm not saying it never happens, but it didn't happen with me and I think the majority of gays and lesbians understand we are there TO DO A JOB when we are working. Gays and lesbians are not sexual monsters, and I believe we are more capable than most in determining when its "okay" to act on our sexual orientation. Believe me, when you are in high school and have to fear "popping a boner" in public showers, you learn really quickly how to turn your sexuality on and off. Flirting? Oh, hell, it happens all the time with the breeders in the services. Big deal. In fact, there are more heterosexuals who flirt in a "gay manner" than gay people would even dream of doing. It all goes back to our conditioning and how gays and lesbians are conditioned from an early age to turn off our sexuality better than the heterosexuals.
This was a PROMISE by the Obama Administration they need to keep, and KEEP in a timely manner. Kicking it down the road is just throwing all the gays and lesbians who worked so hard for this administration UNDER THE BUS. We, in the GLBT community, know the REAL REASON conservatives, and maybe Democrats(?), want this policy to remain in effect. Its one of their last arguments to keep us from getting equal rights in all other areas of American society. The whole, "Well, you know they can't even serve in the military" crap is getting old and stale.
http://64.23.65.203/2009/03/dailykos-has-thre...
Link above is "more" and a photo of me when I served.
never , nemas, forget it, obamas now doing the same as bush, thugs never rat on thugs!
You can rest assured of that, nobody in the US government seems to have the guts to do it. (except for a few but they are to few)
Now is not a good time? Kicking out teh gays now that Bush has stretched the military thin is the worst possible time to allow people to to stay in?
Only on Planet Wingnut.
Don't worry Mr. Gates. I don't think the Chelsea Home Depot is going to empty out all of a sudden and there is going to be a rush on cashing in Broadway show tickets if gays are allowed in the military.
That makes no sense at all. Why don't they do the easy ones first? Just do them, make a lot of citizens happy, and get these "smaller problems" out of the way?
It sounds to me as if they don't INTEND to do them, hoping they'll get lost in the larger problems.
Obama, I remember when you scolded John McCain for not being able to multitask. Whassa' matter? You can't do it either?
... dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, the Economy, the Auto-Bailout, Torture, Guantanamo, and expressing the intent to reform DADT but not being able to take care of it Right Now a failure to multitask?
DADT is the ONLY thing Obama has to do? Really?
Ever hear of multitasking?
It's sort of like chewing while you lift your fork to your mouth for the next bite.
But you see, Obama's way too busy continuing the illegal military adventures started by Bush to be bothered with human rights at home.
I listed a number of things Obama is currently dealing with, but because there's not enough room for DADT, it's your determination that he can't multitask?
Jesus Christ!
You are assuming that all those illegal wars are just the right thing, that Obama should carry on with them. They're the primary reason we are so profoundly in debt and are hated world-wide.
The government is huge, with many departments and lines of authority. I know. I've worked for DoD.
It would be easy enough for Obama to do with an Executive Order after the DoD develops Rules and Regs to standardize the policy throughout the military.
... presuming it all happens because Obama Says So.
The fact that you may view America's military adventurism as a problem does not reduce those engagements to a 'make it so' solution. They remain real issues with diplomatic and political dimensions as well as one of troop deployment.
So Obama has to deal with them regardless.
But because he's not taking care of DADT *RIGHT NOW*, he's ineffective and unable to multitask?
Let me repeat... Changing a government policy is not a big deal.
I'll believe him when he does it.
... had the right attitude, then, sure - no big deal.
Take a look at the Republicans, and take a close look at the Democrats. Moving fast doesn't happen with these people.
It's no big deal when everyone signs off.
Obama does represent a change. You may not believe it, but he does.
Why do you think he's getting push back from his own party. He is a threat to the status quo.
There are Dems in the Democratic Pary that sucked Bush's dick, and gave him everything he wanted, because they gained from those policies.
Annie, thats true.
He is also stopping any investigations in to Bush or Cheney.
Even Truman waited until after WWII before he intergrated the armed forces. This ridiculous policy should be changed ASAP, but considering of all of the shit soldiers are putting up with, they don't need to have their morale fucked with in the middle of two shitty wars more than needed.
Pull the troops out as promised and there's no problem.
During the campaign, Obama promised to be as responsible leaving as Bush was careless going to war. He also pledged to go after the people who attacked us. You're criticizing the guy for keeping a campaign promise.
Who attacked us on 911?
The situation in Afghanistan is complex, but if Obama just walked away he'd be crucified...you're being condescending.
... we mismanaged Iraq by deposing a Sunni minority dictator and creating a Shiite majority government (even a 'democratic' one) that has more reasons to bond with its closest Shiite neighbor, Iran, so have we done in Afghanistan - depose a tyrannical regime and driven them into Pakistan to regroup, establish political ties in a country that has tested/deployable nuclear weapons, and now move back into a weakened Afghanistan.
Simple, this isn't.
Who attacked us on 911?
Because we STILL went into Afghanistan, and we STILL went into Iraq.
We STILL have left two countries in prime condition to fall to theocratic rule.
So, let's say we knew it was the Saudis who funded and belonged to al-Qaeda. What would you do? Attack Saudi Arabia?
But that risk will always be there as long as it's a midEastern Muslim country, no matter when the US withdraws. Better to withdraw now, support any rebuilding in those countries, and let those countries be attracted to secular government and institute it themselves because they like its benefits and believe that the drawbacks are negligible.
You simply cannot take away a sovereign country's right to govern itself as it wishes. It's illegal.
I maintain that the Republicans (and, sadly, more than a few Democrats) seem to think all we need to do is sprinkle some magic democracy dust on the place, hold elections, and presto! Instant Land of the Free, Home of the Brave!
I don't think I would have wanted the government to attack Saudi Arabia for 911 even if there were proof that the Saudis sponsored them. Of course, that may be a hindsight judgment since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be nightmares. To be honest, in that case, I probably would have supported a retaliatory attack on Saudi Arabia, though I may have regretted it later.
But whoever was responsible needed to be identified, tracked, traced, proven, and then dealt with. If not a retaliatory attack, maybe a criminal trial at the Hague for an illegal attack sponsored by one sovereign country against another. Prosecution for those planning and enabling the attack, that kind of thing. Treat the country involved as the Nazis were treated at the Nuremberg trials.
Anyway, we're getting far afield of the topic, so I'm willing to call an end to it.
Annie, not Osama thats for sure. Take a look at his wanted poster on the FBI website. The FBI aslo admits that they have no evidence Osama was even involved in 9/11. Benezir Bhutto (before she was killed) said Binladen was already dead. You can find it on youtube.
... who is bitching about Obama's failure to multitask, you seem to have a very one-dimensional view of the problems facing him.
While Obama is, in fact, the Commander-in-Chief, he is no more the 'Commander Guy' than Bush was. It isn't as simple as waving a magic wand and saying, "Bring them home."
The same is true of DADT. I mean, we're over 40 years down the road from the Civil Rights Era, but racism reared its ugly head during the presidential campaign. Gosh darnit, how come nobody else just fixed it? It's SO SIMPLE.
No, I just know Obama's position on gay rights, not exactly for them, not exactly against them. Marriage only between a man and woman. Civil unions with fewer rights than marriage, yes. Civil rights? Some yes and some no.
DADT is a government policy that can be fixed pretty quickly, not a movement in the population like the civil rights movement that takes years and years to come to fruition.
... a 'government program.' It's a policy backed by specific beliefs.
You're still throwing a temper tantrum because your pet cause isn't happening RIGHT NOW! Waaaaah! *stamps foot*
I edited my post to read "policy" and you apparently didn't see it before you corrected me.
I'm not throwing a temper tantrum about my "pet cause". My pet cause is undoing the violence Bush did to the Constitution and end the illegal wars. I don't see Obama doing much about my pet cause, but DADT is an easy policy to rescind.
I am more disappointed in Obama than I've ever been about any president in my 70 years of life. I EXPECT Republicans to be racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and corporatist whores, but when a Democrat treads that path, it makes me furious.
Being a bit of a 'fair-weathered friend'?
Hell, *I* don't like some of the things Obama is doing. I don't trust Geithner. I wasn't thrilled that Obama signed on to the FISA compromises during the campaign.
But what would you do? Throw up your hands and quit? The Republicans would love that.
and getting blasted for it.
... that your criticism is valid. Clearly, Obama IS multitasking, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of how he's budgeting his time/effort.
Let's say Obama signs an Executive Order, as you suggest. Gates mouths the same platitudes, and nothing changes.
What comes next?
Sorry, my criticism is "valid" if Obama has not rescinded DADT. It becomes invalid when he does.
And how the hell do you know what Obama is doing? Does he fill you in personally on his daily tasks? I read the news reports just as anybody else does, and we all know about the same things.
Pretty wimpy president, I'd say.
... was that Obama didn't understand multitasking, because he wasn't fixing DADT according to your schedule.
And a president who issues an executive order and then whips out the hammer to enforce it ... is a dictator.
This is the 'democracy' problem we're facing in the ME. You can redecorate all you want, but unless there's a change in attitude and the way things work - nothing happens. In fact, shit we DON'T want ends up being the case.
Gates gets fired and Obama finds someone who WILL follow his orders. He is the Commander in Chief of the military after all.
This is a VERY simple policy to change. What's not so simple is dealing with the conservative noise machine that will erupt after the policy is changed.
Of course the Obama administration will be blamed yet again for not immediately eliminating a horrible law instituted by right wing homophobia and that sellout Bill Clinton. Gates is correct...this matter should and will be taken care of later.
The Bush-era military adventurism has left us with serious and significant problems in the Middle East. Bullets and IED's don't care about DADT.
Very soon Obama will have created his mandatory Civilian National Security Force. Gays will also be obligated to serve just like heterosexuals will be. Obama works for Wall Street. We thought Bush was a nightmare. Just watch. Obama is a superior actor.Watch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&tr...
Is that you?
Very funny! Have any more propaganda to share?
Please challenge one fact. And show evidence.
Good film, more people should watch, its NON partisan because well..we hate both parties.
That word "hate" is very telling.
Why do I think they think they are dung beetles...?
http://www.kheperasociety.org/images/khepera_...
How about if the gay soldier's torture each other?
Then everybody would be happy.
"We will follow the law whatever it is," said Gates.
Yeah right! Like people are really going to take the word of someone who got his job based on his willingness to break the laws of this country!
Is political speak. It's to underscore that Gates does not necessarily believe the law, but he is required to follow it, and will.
But.
As.
Slow.
As.
Possible.
I think that the Faux noise guests sit in a electric chair and if they don't answer the Reslugs question correctly they zap them.
Gays and other people who support equal rights are always being told "now is the wrong time," just like African Americans were. After the first thirty times, it's understandable that we'd be a bit cynical by now.
And face it, if we leave it up to government officials, change will never happen. If civil rights advocates had just left it up to the government in the 60's, black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus and we'd be hearing "now is not the time" to change that either. You have to agitate for your rights and demand them; we really need an organized movement. This is the USA, supposedly the beacon of freedom for the entire world--now is always the time for freedom here!
... a division between the people who want to work calmly and slowly, and the people who think being disruptive and angry is better. I mean, we've got wackaloons like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann talking about armed revolution and 'fighting tyrrany' in the latter.
You *do* understand that the reason the Civil Rights Act went through is because LBJ was a canny old bastard who knew how to play Congress, yes?
And, hopefully, you *do* realize America has been here before? This isn't the first time (nor, sad to say, will it be the last) that minorities have been blamed for the nation's woes?
with government officials working slowly, as long as there were some working being done. But there isn't anything happening, and this video confirms that nothing will happen anytime soon. The entire issue is being put off, no doubt for a variety of reasons, but one of them at least is the president and the administration's discomfort with the very idea of gays having equal rights.
Obama *could* choose to take advantage of this time of crisis for the military, just as he is taking advantage of the economic crisis, to try to institute some real change. He has claimed that that's what he wants to do--change the system, with an emphasis on what works rather than ideology, superstition or prejudice. The fact that our military is in desperate need of qualified personnel (indeed, any personnel at all) and he is sending them into danger while compromising their ability to recruit and retain dedicated soldiers is a clear demonstration that he has a blind spot in this area.
And none of this negates the fact that the "wily LBJ" would never have done what he did if there hadn't been a large, organized and passionate civil rights movement. The less pressure there is on an administration to address an issue, the less likely they are to address it. I will repeat my statement to the effect that there needs to be an organized movement for gay civil rights and we need to apply that pressure.
... clearly, Obama needs the military on his side in order to pursue his strategies (right or wrong) for Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, pushing DADT to the forefront advances an inherently divisive and controversial policy to the forefront, with the end result something akin to what we're seeing here: nobody agrees, everyone hates Obama, and nothing gets done.
Apparently Obama is doing what he intended all along:
So Obama is going to leave it up to those old crusty homophobic bemedalled geezers at the DoD.
... from a parent teaching a child responsible behavior?
If your father MAKES you clean your room, it's always more of a chore and trial than if you'd taken pains to keep it clean on your own, right?
I'm not thrilled about the buzzwords (consensus, clarity, process) in there, but the brass has to be a part of this, or nothing will really change.
It's probably too early to hope that Obama would follow a similar path as with the automakers - give the military a chance to clean things up, then, a couple of months down the road, make the determination that their plans are inadequate to the task, and roll out the new policy.
So now you want the military brass to tell the president if and when he can set policies?
Sorry, but the president sets policies and the brass carry them out.
If Bush could authorize torture down the military chain of command, Obama can CERTAINLY rescind DADT, a benign action, not an illegal one. You think the brass would object to rescinding DADT more than they objected to Bush's authorizing torture?
Now, you may be right, but if that's true, that's exactly why they should not be included in the decision-making. Their input can be sought when it's time to set up Rules & Regs that set forth and standardize the policy.
You're still advocating the 'wave the magic wand' approach, and, in fact, point out that this is EXACTLY what Bush would have done.
I'm trying to get across that if Obama were to resolve things by dictate, then he ends up with a military resentful of his approach, and which will then work against him.
It would seem to me that you are quite happy with mandating equality, but nonetheless think so little of the troops that you can't see that forcing a policy upon them is ultimately doomed to fail.
He could sign it while smokin a big'ol Blunt... The me society. :-/
It could all take place in the famous Presidential "organic" Rose Garden?
PS. Words tell the true story... if their honestly inscribed.
In your statement on words, you misspelled the word "they're".
thank you for highlighting that point and your time. ♥
The right time to have Arabian translators is AFTER you are finished in the middle east.
DADT is a Federal statute, passed by Congress in response to Clinton's efforts to allow gays to serve. To rescind DADT requires Congressional action, i. e. passage of a bill by both houses. Although such a bill would probably easily pass the House, the Senate could be another story. Repubs would be sure to filibuster. There is no valid reason for gays not being allowed to serve and, truth be told, there are undoubtedly thousands serving at this very minute. But changing the law is going to be one helluva fight, unfortunately.
Retired military, 28 years active duty
Bush rescinded lots of laws and initiated many policies through Executive Orders and signing statements, so it's doable as long as Obama does not wholly reject the "unitary executive principle" initiated by Bush, and so far Obama hasn't done that.
Bush is bad because of his unitary executive theories, and Obama is a wuss because he hasn't rejected them out of hand, but won't use them to fix the problems you think need fixing right away.
Or, rather, the unitary executive theory is okay if it's a good guy holding the job?
Gays who defend their country are villified in the military just because they are gay- this is a civil rights issues, and they are being denied their rights- There is ***NO********* excuse to delay this for another second. Imagine if Pres Kennedy and Johnson decided not to take up civil rights legislation, saying it was an inconvenient time...
Kennedy and Johnson did delay passing legislation for civil rights, reluctantly doing anything until it was politically convenient. And that redneck Johnson for years acted as if us black folk owed his ass for signing the amendment.
Trust me on this...every time some misinformed person like you lies and tries to equate this issue with the civil rights movement, you lose support from black people.
not Coretta Scott King.
Those Who Lived the Struggle to End Segregation Now Speak Out for Same-Gender Marriage Equality
She goes on to talk about how homophobia in the Black community needs to be addressed.
Under her statement are statements of other AA civil rights leaders who support gay and lesbian rights.
So does this mean that only homophobes object to gay rights being part of the same fabric as racial discrimination?
...the black community. My point is that it is a hyperbolic lie to equate these two civil rights issues and that it offends historically aware(and politically active) black people like me.
Well, some Black civil rights leaders don't agree with you.
It has been my experience, admittedly anecdoctal, that if a person is deeply prejudiced against women or one minority, they are prejudiced against all on the prevailing list.
Discrimination is the evil pivot, not the group that has been discriminated against. Of course they don't have the same history, but what groups have the same history? Nobody rational would say that. The discrimination is as evil against one group as against another, and I see no problem in grouping them all together as one symptom of sickness among us with many facets. That is what Ms. King was saying.
You are right...so am I.
Graceful answer, and I agree.
James Baldwin, facing both challenges, said something that remains my favorite quote to this day after many years:
"Discrimination" against others is not just a "social action". It is a terrible betrayal of need, hope, and humanity.
Fear.
Not just fear of the stranger, but fear that recognizing another's rights to justice, security, etc. somehow diminishes your own, instead of broadening and strengthening them.
My favorite quote about civil rights is from Clarence Darrow:
"We can only be free by protecting the other man's freedom. You can be free only if I am free."
Could your homophobia be any more blatent?????
"What'd He Do?"
#3.Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Snip - "We're not saying that King wasn't an incredible person who did more to advance the human race than most of us can ever hope to do. We're just saying that he was also a plagiarizing butthole."
→ → →[ http://www.cracked.com/article_17198_5-great-... ]
Unless of course you think civil rights should apply **ONLY** to black people...If you think that is the case, you're as bigoted as the the right wing
And based on your postes, you clearly couldn't give a crap about gay people who are being denied their civil rights.
You're the one that needs to STFU...
The military openly discriminates against gays, and for this recruiters should be banned from all schools
When homosexuals become a protected class under US antidiscrimination law, you'll have a point. But as of now, that is not the case. In fact, you may notice that laws like DOMA and DADT are federal discrimination against gays.
Look for Gates to resign soon.
He'll then be a featured guest on Faux, complaining that Obama is trying to "do too much too soon."
On and on it goes.
... what does DADT mean? The upper echelon can't ask? Gays can't admit being gay to the upper echelon? What do you think they talk among equals? Sex, sex, and more sex. Straights talk about their wives and girlfriend and how many prostitutes and whores they laid. Gays either say nothing or they lie, unless they are brave enough to admit to their equals that they are gay, and many do, without negative consequences. I know - I served in both the Air Force and the Army.
Number two: When recruits enlist, they are asked about their marital status - for dependent benefits - but isn't that a part of don't ask don't tell? Or could be construed as such?
... but my impression is that DADT is supposed to make sexual orientation a 'non-issue,' and presumes that equality can be afforded simply by respecting privacy.
Unfortunately, how do you establish cameraderie and trust when you have to clam up about a keystone of your identity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYxRWjHzwQ
Cartwheel-ing ;)
DADT is a Federal law, ergo Obama cannot rescind nor abrogate it simply by signing an Executive Order. Changing/rescinding DADT requires legislative action by the Congress. While such a bill would likely pass easily in the House, the Senate would be another story. Obama is wise to get his ducks in a row, i. e. get the backing of the brass, before attempting to change the law.
http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336
on your plates.
And that makes it ok to continue a policy that is unjust, illogical and that does not serve the best interests of the military or the country?
It's a policy. It would be easy to change it. All that would need to be done would be to disallow the officially mandated actions by the government that perpetuate legally sanctioned discrimination against people for personal reason. The government should not be involved in making judgments about personal identity.
Yes, you have a lot on your plates. But it would take less than a minute to sign a policy change. And that's all it would be, a policy change. How much of your precious time and energy would it take to right a very wrong policy? Less than a minute? Think about it. It would not cause you any physical pain, and in the long run, you might even feel better about the US military if it no longer officially sanctioned outright discrimination.
... by the same wonderful magic of the Executive Order, he can resolve the same issue in the general populace.
It's easy. It'd take a minute or two to right a very wrong policy. Won't cause him any physical pain, and gets rid of the officially sanctioned outright discrimination of DOMA.
But that's not going to happen either, because we're a democracy, and no executive order is going to change the fact that there are people willing to spend their time and money (eg. the CoLDS) to make sure gays DON'T get equal rights.
Postpone? This is the one thing Obama said he would do for gays and lesbians as soon as he took office. And what has he done? Thrown us under the bus. I am reminded of Bill Clinton's remark to his liason to the gay and lesbian community when he tried to establish a policy of allowing openly gay and lesbian persons to serve. When Bill got rebuked, he said, "I had no idea how much these people hate you." The stupidity of the policy as well as its counter-productivity were amply illustrated when, at the start of the Afghan-Iraqi wars, many bilingual gays and lesbians quit, leaving our forces woefully lacking in translation services. When will the bigots learn?
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"
- John Lennon
What a stupid law, no other army that I can think of other than in certain countries do they outlaw gays in the military. Canada has them.
Login or Register to post comments.